SquareState.net - Recommended Diaries

SAFE initiative critical in restoring fiscal sanity in Colorado

The Bell — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:56:04 GMT

By Wade Buchanan
President
The Bell Policy Center

The Bell Policy Center, which has focused a great deal of attention on understanding and explaining the effects of TABOR, is making SAFE, the Savings Account for Education, a top priority this year.

We believe SAFE (Initiative 126), the brainchild of outgoing House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, is the critical next step in restoring fiscal sanity to Colorado. The measure will help make permanent the gains the state made when it passed Referendum C in 2005, and it will help untangle some of the knots we have tied in our state constitution over the years.

After a late start, the SAFE campaign is rapidly gaining speed. Supporters are raising money and gathering petition signatures, and the campaign has retained RBI Strategy and Research to prepare for the general election.

We are convinced this is the right year for this measure. By all accounts, a record number of voters will turn out this November, including larger-than-usual numbers from groups we think stand to benefit most from improved investments in education and other important state services.
SAFE will dedicate surpluses above the TABOR revenue cap created by Ref C to the State Education Fund. It also creates a savings account within that fund as a hedge against future hard times. In effect, the measure would permanently relieve public education and other important services from future cuts that would otherwise be dictated by the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. TABOR, passed by voters in 1992, mandates the nation's strictest spending limitation on all levels of government in the state.

Other provisions of TABOR will remain in full effect, including the requirement that voters approve any tax increase. SAFE would simply ensure the state can retain the revenues it collects under existing taxes to support important public structures that underpin our economy.

The measure would also sunset the requirement that spending on P-12 education increase by at least the rate of inflation after 2011. That requirement was part of Amendment 23, passed by Colorado voters in 2000. The interaction between the TABOR spending limit and the Amendment 23 spending requirement has become one of the most prominent examples of conflicting provisions in the state Constitution.

Not long after we opened our doors seven years ago, the harmful effects of TABOR were becoming painfully apparent, and resulting research by the Bell and others shined a light on how TABOR's strict spending limits prevented state and local services from keeping pace with the needs of a growing state. Residents faced continual cuts in services from one year to the next.

The downsizing of services has been dramatic under TABOR, with the state general fund budget shrinking in comparison to the overall state economy by more than 25 percent between 1992 and 2002. That's why Colorado is now at or very near the bottom of all states when it comes to the investment it makes in critical public structures and services.

We believe there is a direct link between these historically low investments and negative outcomes we have seen from our public structures - dangerously low high-school graduation rates, double-digit tuition increases, low college attendance rates, deteriorating roads and bridges and growing waiting lists for important services, to cite only a few.

Earlier this year, our colleagues at the Colorado Children's Campaign released a report showing that, during the first half of this decade, the number of children living in poverty in Colorado increased by a staggering 73% - by far the highest rate of growth in the country. While this mirrors a troubling national trend, we believe it is most pronounced in Colorado in large part because our lowest-in-the-nation budget has forced us to shrink and even dismantle many of the programs that make up the safety net for these families and kids.

SAFE will not solve these problems. But it would be the next logical step in digging our state out of the hole that TABOR has created. We started the digging-out process in 2005 when we passed Referendum C, a measure that prevented nearly $1 billion in further cuts to the state budget and allowed state services to recover modestly from the post-9/11 recession. The first phase of Ref C gave the state a five-year time-out from the TABOR spending limits, but its second phase will return us to a strict spending limit, similar to the previous TABOR limit, that once again will force service cuts over time.

Perhaps the best way to understand the SAFE proposal, then, is as a measure that will make permanent the gains from Referendum C. Like Referendum C, it will not change tax rates or allow the state to collect one cent more than it will already collect from taxpayers. What it will do is allow the state to keep revenue above TABOR's limits and use it to support preschool through 12th grade education.

And while the most direct benefits will be for education, the fact that SAFE will allow the state to retain future surpluses means that many future cuts from other services are likely to be avoided. It's not a panacea, but it is a major step in the right direction.

CD-2: Whom do you love?

w0nderm0nkey — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:52:17 GMT

For someone who tries to stay informed, I know very little about who I'll be supporting in the primary.

I'm leaning toward Polis. From what I can tell he's made a sincere effort to address the netroots and has some solid ideas. I don't dislike Fitgerald at all though...she's been around a long time, seems to have done a good job for the Dems, and has the endorsements of everybody I canvassed for in '06 (Andy Kerr, Gwen Green, Perlmutter).

There's a part of me that realizes that all of the Polis mailers I've received are fueled by his personal wealth and I don't want my vote to be bought. So I'm throwing this out there...what's a voter to do? Arguments and opinions welcome.

And yes, I know Shafroth is in this too, but I don't see that lasting past the primary.
And a bonus tidbit for the day Music as torture may incur royalty fees (Thanks to Wait wait...don't tell me! for this item)

My breakfast with Diana

DavidThi808 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:09:53 GMT

We have a number of reasons for the Democratic resurgence here in Colorado. But I think there is one major reason that is never discussed, the large number of great politicos we have. Especially when compared to total embarrassments like Marilyn Musgrave & Doug Bruce. Quality is a very powerful argument in the political contest.

Remember those cartoons where there is an incredibly complicate machine and there is a person constantly working to keep it running, oiling it here, adjusting a dial there, taking a hammer to it elsewhere. The constant ongoing effort to keep it running. Well think of the machine as the federal government and that person working to keep it running is Congresswoman DeGette.

She talked about a number of things, but the underlying thread through all of this was making government work well for people. What should be improved, how can it be improved, making the change happen. It's a difficult under-appreciated job that is absolutely essential. (Maybe we should only elect moms as representatives as they already live that life raising their kids.)

She also sees that it takes a lot of time to accomplish anything in Congress. Some efforts she has been working for 9+ years. And she sees going forward that what she takes on can take 9 years from today. She's in there for the long haul, which is key if you are going to get legislation passed. Some reps are there as a stepping stone (anyone think Ed Perlmutter is not going to shoot for something higher in the next 8 years?) while others see what they can accomplish if they are in it for the long haul. Congresswoman DeGette is in it for the long haul. And because of that, she will continue to be effective in getting legislation passed.

She is presently working on major legislation for both consumer safety and food safety. Boring little things that will get no press, but will save many many lives from here forward. (Why is it Paris Hilton gets more press than all of this basic legislation put together?)

I asked here if she was worried about a veto and she was basically flip with her response that we have a new approach, they pass it, Bush vetos it, they override the veto. The way she said this was when she won me over - it was just that it's an extra step, but no big deal. She clearly sees that the emperor has limited power.

She also talked a lot about how not only did Bush take on a lot more power than is good for our government, but that Congress was actively complicit in this shift. It's rare to have a politician own up to what they should have done better - usually they point the finger elsewhere. She talked quite a bit about specifics where Congress should have done it's job, from the PATRIOT act to FISA to a number of other items.

She talked not only about these mistakes, but about how Congress in the next session needs to fix these problems. Clearly she sees this as one of the major jobs of Congress in 2008.

She talked about stems cell research some, but not a lot. It clearly will be a slam dunk come January and she realizes that. So she's just waiting till then (that knowledge again that these things take time) and is very assured it will then pass (it will).

She also made a comment almost in passing that she needs to figure out what will be her major effort once this passes. I think by January everything she has been working diligently on for the last couple of years will be in law. I took how she said this that she does not have anything that strikes her as her next big effort (yet). So if there is something that you think is really important and it will take a major effort over several years to accomplish, it might be a good time to talk to the Congresswoman.

I asked her about her opinion of inherent contempt and she said she did not know what it is. It's interesting that something that has been a major theme on the net for over a year, and is a constitutional prerogative of Congress, is apparently still news to many in Congress. Strange.

She then closed up talking about her book. The inspiration for it came when she dove in to what drove the Republican war on science and she found that it really came down to a Republican war on sex. (For a party that has David Vitter and Larry Craig to name a few, the Republicans sure are hung up on sex.) I asked her if she's ready for her Daily Show interview and she said yes, then asked if I thought she would get on. My reply was with a book about Republicans and sex, how could they not invite her.

I have a lot of respect for the legislators who just work day in and day out trying to improve the country knowing they will never be the rock star. Because they are the ones that do the vast majority of the work.

First published at Liberal and Loving It