House speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, was the featured speaker on a conference call with liberal activists Wednesday evening to discuss the Democrat agenda for the 2008 General Assembly. The invite-only "conversation" was sponsored by ProgressNow Action, a Denver-based 501(c)(4) action tank (formerly the Rocky Mountain Progressive Network) and hosted by staffer Britney Wilburn.
The format for the call was for Romanoff to address a series of pre-screened questions submitted by e-mail relating to "the oil and gas industry, education, renewable energy, and many many more [issues]," according to Wilburn.
No concrete numbers for tax hikes; "Untangling" TABOR
Romanoff did not provide callers with any new information regarding any tax increase questions for the 2008 ballot, much as Gov. Bill Ritter likened that issue to a "Rubik's Cube." He did say, however, that voters may be asked to raise the state's oil and gas severance tax, a proposal which has already received considerable coverage in the media.
With respect to the mechanics of increasing state revenues, Romanoff said, "the legislature can only refer a tax increase." Independence Institute president Jon Caldara and the Mesa County Commission drive that point home in a recently-filed lawsuit that seeks to force a vote on a statewide property-tax increase. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed by voters in 1992, requires a vote of the people to ratify any act of government that has the net effect of raising government revenue.
Democrat leaders assert the property-tax measure only "freezes" rates at current levels, although they would have been slated for reductions this year after rises in assessed property values. The "freeze" language has been used in political mailings as early as July, 2007, as previously reported by Face The State.
One e-mailed question asked Romanoff how he planned to "Untangle the state...from TABOR" The Denver democrat reminded listeners that Referendum C, passed in 2005, "eliminated the ratchet effect forever," referring to a formula that had the effect of pegging limits on government spending to recent years' expenditures.
Romanoff used the discussion of Referendum C to stump for his proposed overhaul of the state constitution. His proposed plan is to ask voters first for a waiver from the constitution's "single-subject" rule for amendments, and then "use that permission to craft a multi-subject fix" for what he considers to be contradictory provisions in the foundational document. He has said previously he wishes to reconcile conflicts between spending mandates and TABOR, but the speaker's statements suggest he may not be committed to preserving the intent of the 1992 measure.
To pass such a reform, Romanoff says, would require a coalition "even broader than the one that put Ref. C over the top."
This and that
Other highlights from Romanoff's conference call:
Frequent changes in election equipment "effectively disenfranchised" some voters.
Same-day voter registration has shown "good effects in other states" and "there has been some discussion of restoring it" among democratic leaders. (In 2002, same-day registration was overwhelmingly rejected by voters, and was opposed by a broad coalition including even some typically left-leaning publications.)
The legislature should consider legislation to invalidate homeowners association covenants prohibiting solar panels and other renewable-energy home improvements.
Floors in some rural Colorado schools are "so rotten they can't even hold up a desk."
State-run single-payer healthcare would would "save money" over the current system. One roadblock to enacting such a proposal, Romanoff says, would be the "need to go to the ballot seeking potentially higher taxes."
Changes to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission were made to ensure a voice for environmentally-motivated citizens.


OK, how does this work?
On January 17th, 2008 Socrates says:
Romanoff says that the state-run single-payer healthcare system would "save money," but to do so, they're going to have to have "higher taxes?"
Uh huh. Yeah. Right. We get it. Sure.