TABOR
It looks like we will be voting in November to decide whether to exempt the state of Colorado from the limits of TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (pdf page 133). Here are some of the key provisions of TABOR.
HB05-1194 (pdf) by Rep. Romanoff and Sens.Johnson and Groff is the bill that takes the exemption to a vote of the people. As of this writing, it has not been signed by Gov. Owens, but he talks like he will sign the thing. UPDATE: It doesn't need to be signed by the governor, but he supports it. Political reality or something.
This bill does not address Amendment 23 (Article IX, section 17) (pdf p120) one of the other sections of the Colorado constitution that significantly impacts state spending.
Comments: Seems to me that the politicians always turn to the easy way out - Taking more of your money.
There are a number of things that politicians could do to cut spending. Priority Colorado (pdf) is a 26 page report about waste and inefficiencies in the Colorado budget published by the Independence Institute. It identifies numerous ways to save millions of dollars.
More than 20 percent of Colorado's 19,000+ prison population is drug offenders. The 2004 budget for the Department of Corrections was $469 million (pdf p7), so releasing the non-violent drug offenders (assume half of 20%) might save close to $47 million.
Some anti-TABOR people use specious arguments to convince you to vote in favor of letting the government keep more money. Let's look at a couple.
1) "State governments spend much of their money on education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater than the general rate of inflation." True, but these services are usually run or controlled by the government, which means they do not use effective means of holding down costs. Why should that give them a pass? Let's require them to use their existing funds more effectively, which is what TABOR does.
2) "The subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. For example, while total population grew by 15.4 percent from 1990 to 2002, total state prison population grew by 83 percent, disabled children in schools grew by 35 percent, and the number of elderly and disabled persons on Medicaid grew by 70 percent. Over the next 40 years, the elderly population will grow at twice the rate of general population growth." True, but why should these populations be served by the government? If we are a nation of free people, aren't these indicators that something else is terribly wrong? Instead of accomodating these increases, let's look for root causes and solve them.
3) "The rigidities of formula-based budgeting, such as a population-plus-inflation growth factor, do not allow funding of new priorities that may be embraced by the public, such as reduced class sizes or more stringent corrections policies." If there are new priorities, then let's cut the old ones. All of us have to live within our means and make choices about what we spend our money on. TABOR helps us make that decision.
Even if the exemption does NOT pass, Colorado's budget will grow at the rate of inflation plus population growth. Unlike businesses, government has no pressure to do things more efficiently and save money. Until Colorado's politicians are willing to do the really hard work of cutting spending, I'm not willing to give them a pass. Vote NO. There's a permanent link to this on the left side in red.
Section 20. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. (1) General provisions. This section takes effect December 31, 1992 or as stated. Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government. …
(2)(c) “Emergency” excludes economic conditions, revenue shortfalls, or district salary or fringe benefit increases.
(5) Emergency reserves. To use for declared emergencies only, each district shall reserve for 1993 1% or more, for 1994 2% or more, and for all later years 3% or more of its fiscal year spending excluding bonded debt service. Unused reserves apply to the next year’s reserve.
(7) Spending limits. (a) The maximum annual percentage change in state fiscal year spending equals inflation plus the percentage change in state population in the prior calendar year, adjusted for revenue changes approved by voters after 1991. Population shall be determined by annual federal census estimates and such number shall be adjusted every decade to match the federal census.
(7)(d) If revenue from sources not excluded from fiscal year spending exceeds these limits in dollars for that fiscal year, the excess shall be refunded in the next fiscal year unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset. …
HB05-1194 (pdf) by Rep. Romanoff and Sens.Johnson and Groff is the bill that takes the exemption to a vote of the people. As of this writing, it has not been signed by Gov. Owens, but he talks like he will sign the thing. UPDATE: It doesn't need to be signed by the governor, but he supports it. Political reality or something.
This bill does not address Amendment 23 (Article IX, section 17) (pdf p120) one of the other sections of the Colorado constitution that significantly impacts state spending.
Section 17. Education - Funding. (1) Purpose. In state fiscal yer 2001-2002 through state fiscal year 2010- 2011, the statewide base per pupil funding, as defined by the Public School Finance Act of 1994, article 54 of title 22, Colorado Revised Statutes on the effective date of this section, for public education from preschool through the twelfth grade and total state funding for all categorical programs shall grow annually at least by the rate of inflation plus an additional one percentage point. In state fiscal year 2011-2012, and each fiscal year thereafter, the statewide base per pupil funding for public education from preschool through the twelfth grade and total state funding for all categorical programs shall grow annually at a rate set by the general assembly that is at least equal to the rate of inflation.
(3) Implementation. ... Such appropriations and expenditures shall not be subject to the statutory limitation on general fund appropriations growth, the limitation on fiscal year spending set forth in article X, section 20 of the Colorado constitution, or any other spending limitation existing in law.
Comments: Seems to me that the politicians always turn to the easy way out - Taking more of your money.
There are a number of things that politicians could do to cut spending. Priority Colorado (pdf) is a 26 page report about waste and inefficiencies in the Colorado budget published by the Independence Institute. It identifies numerous ways to save millions of dollars.
More than 20 percent of Colorado's 19,000+ prison population is drug offenders. The 2004 budget for the Department of Corrections was $469 million (pdf p7), so releasing the non-violent drug offenders (assume half of 20%) might save close to $47 million.
Some anti-TABOR people use specious arguments to convince you to vote in favor of letting the government keep more money. Let's look at a couple.
1) "State governments spend much of their money on education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater than the general rate of inflation." True, but these services are usually run or controlled by the government, which means they do not use effective means of holding down costs. Why should that give them a pass? Let's require them to use their existing funds more effectively, which is what TABOR does.
2) "The subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. For example, while total population grew by 15.4 percent from 1990 to 2002, total state prison population grew by 83 percent, disabled children in schools grew by 35 percent, and the number of elderly and disabled persons on Medicaid grew by 70 percent. Over the next 40 years, the elderly population will grow at twice the rate of general population growth." True, but why should these populations be served by the government? If we are a nation of free people, aren't these indicators that something else is terribly wrong? Instead of accomodating these increases, let's look for root causes and solve them.
3) "The rigidities of formula-based budgeting, such as a population-plus-inflation growth factor, do not allow funding of new priorities that may be embraced by the public, such as reduced class sizes or more stringent corrections policies." If there are new priorities, then let's cut the old ones. All of us have to live within our means and make choices about what we spend our money on. TABOR helps us make that decision.
Even if the exemption does NOT pass, Colorado's budget will grow at the rate of inflation plus population growth. Unlike businesses, government has no pressure to do things more efficiently and save money. Until Colorado's politicians are willing to do the really hard work of cutting spending, I'm not willing to give them a pass. Vote NO. There's a permanent link to this on the left side in red.
posted by David Aitken | 11:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home