Budget brainstorm
Plan to tackle two amendments at once worth serious look
The Rocky
Published April 20, 2008 at 10 p.m.
For 100 years, legend has it, the Gordian knot defied all attempts to untie it. Then up strode Alexander the Great, a fellow with big ambitions and an unorthodox but simple approach to unraveling knots: He hauled out his sword and sliced it in half.
Some 2,300 years later, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D-Denver, has devised an equally simple if somewhat less dramatic solution to Colorado's own Gordian knot. Until now, no one had been able to figure out how a single ballot measure limited to a single subject could deal at the same time with two constitutional provisions as different as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and Amendment 23 (which boosts education funding).
Romanoff has offered a solution, which we applaud for its ingenuity. And we hope two-thirds of his colleagues agree - once the plan is tweaked a bit, for reasons we'll explain.
Why is untying this state's Gordian knot so important? Because small-government types tend to like TABOR. And bigger-government types tend to like Amendment 23. But responsible residents of both camps recognize that the combination of the two measures - a state spending cap set below the natural growth of the economy coupled with a spending requirement that puts the largest part of the budget on automatic pilot - forces lawmakers into grotesque decisions during rocky times. They whack wildly at some programs while leaving others totally intact.
Politically, it only makes sense to tackle both TABOR and Amendment 23 at the same time in order to attract the largest coalition with a chance of success at the polls. But the Colorado Constitution requires any ballot measure be confined to a single subject.
Romanoff's one-word, knot-slicing answer: education. He and Sen. Steve Johnson, R-Fort Collins, are proposing a referendum that would lift TABOR's spending limit, funneling the additional revenue into the state education fund, while eliminating 23's mandate that K-12 funding grow at inflation plus 1 percent through the 2010-11 fiscal year and at the inflation rate or higher ever after. Voila! A single subject that eliminates the destructive budgetary tug-of-war between two conflicting amendments.
Partisans of TABOR and 23 can argue endlessly, we suppose, over who has the most to gain or lose from such a compromise. We can't settle that, except to quarrel with the premise. The fact is that under the plan, each side does gain something very valuable that they couldn't otherwise achieve.
We do have one serious reservation about the proposal: It doesn't include a sunset provision. And yet one could be essential given the potential growth of the education fund over a long period of time. Here's why: Historically, state income growth exceeds the TABOR formula of inflation plus population. If that pattern holds, as it should, the revenue earmarked for the education fund may someday - we have no idea when - equal the entire K-12 budget of the era, and then go on to exceed what lawmakers would otherwise want to spend.
In short, Romanoff's proposal to rationalize budgeting could contain its own long-term sucker punch. That's not a fatal flaw, but it does mean voters should have a chance to review the situation after a decent passage of time.
After Alexander cut the Gordian knot, he went on to conquer much of the known world. Romanoff has a more modest ambition: to conquer the Colorado ballot. Fortunately, it's one that might just be possible in these far-from-legendary times.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
A Dozen on Denver
Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Latest from Dove Valley
Click for more broncos videos.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little
-
Rocky Preps
Now showing: ThunderRidge-Highlands Ranch football.
April 20, 2008
11:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Sorry
No same voter who isn't in favor of forever expanding government would vote against TABOR. Ref C proved that politicians will lie about anything to get their hands on more money. We need to find a way to undo automatic taxing and spending for everything in this state. The lack of a sunset provision is proof that the only thing this batch is interested in is getting more money to spend before those greedy taxpayers can figure out the lies.
I am on restricted activity but I'll risk anything to keep the governmental spending machine out of the pockets of working people. Those who would favor this are either those who get to spend the new tax money on special projects or those who ARE the special projects. How about we let parents choose the schools? Keep half of the money collected/spent per student in the system and only allow the other half of it to be vouchered. That would leave more money for fewer students. Of course it could mean that we'd need fewer public schools or public school employees. We'd win again!
April 21, 2008
5:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
farsidefan writes:
Yea, we need fewer schools. Then my kid can attend school with 45-50 kids in her class instead of 25-30. Great solution. Kind of like putting 100 people into an airplane designed to hold 45.
Amendment 23 was passed because education got the short end of the budget stick for over 20 years. Whenever money was needed it was taken from K-12 ed by the JBC.
Be that as it may, this is probably a good solution as it will piss off people on both sides of the TABOR/23 amendments.
Whenever legislation does that it seems to be a decent piece of law.
I'll sit and drink my coffee and wait for the heart wrenching responses.
April 21, 2008
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Great idea, but I don't believe it. Any time the legislature proposes to "funnel" anything, a lot tends to spill over into areas that were never intended. Until they can provide some legalese to guarantee where the additional money would go, I'm not buying it. Once the camel's back is broken, these vultures will eat it all up before we look twice.
April 21, 2008
6:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
No, No, No, No! Repeal Amendment 23 FIRST and see what the money situation is before going afater TABOR. All the Dems want is to get their hands deeper into our pockets.
April 21, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
On first glance this seems like an excellent solution to our state's budgetary insanity. It will certainly piss off both the Tabor supporters and the Amendment 23 supporters, which probably means it's a great idea!
Constraining the state's budget while mandating increases to the largest single budget expenditure is simply insane. It must be resolved somehow, and Romanoff's plan seems to be quite feasible, with some minor modifications. I agree with the Rocky that a sunset provision needs to be put in place so voters can reconsider the situation in the future.
April 21, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
An actual common sense ,practicle solution to two opposing constitutional amendments, What a concept !!
The main benfit of TABOR is kept in place in that voters still have to approve tax increases, while the absurb rachet effect is eleminated. And the equally absurb set-in-stone school spending increases are done away with.
Good idea, good solution and good for Colorado
April 21, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Luckily, the number of people with a visceral dislike of any government authority, overrepresented as they may be in forums such as this, is actually quite small (the "shrink government until it's small enough to drown in the bathtub" crowd). Most people, like Bill Owens and Andrew Romanoff (and AG John Suthers, currently top state-wide elected Republican), understand the tradeoffs involved involved in actually making government work.
TABOR had some positives. It forced better planning and budgeting than would have happened otherwise. It might have help prevent California-like over-budgeting during the surpluses of the late 90s. Trouble is, Doug Bruce couldn't help overreaching and wrote it in such a way as to cause a permanent and continuing revenue decline (not just halt in growth) that, over the long run, couldn't be sustained. Given TABOR's status a constitutional amendment, it couldn't be adjusted to account for real-world lessons-learned (and that's being charitable to Mr. Bruce, assuming he didn't simply intend it as anti-gummint vandalism all along).
I'm fairly optimistic about Romanoff's proposal. It addresses the shortcomings of both TABOR and Amendment 23 (too bad he couldn't work the Gallagher Amendment in there) in a way that should meet the single-subject rule (probably why it doesn't address Gallagher). The beauty is it gets around the objections of people like MiH who says "let's all just pretend something impossible will happen first, like repealing only Amendment 23," before taking any action.
If the details work out, it stands a very good chance of passing. Most Independents will support it (we want government to work, not disappear) and it should pick off both Republican and Democratic moderates (the same coalition that elected Gov. Ritter, Sen. Salazar, and AG Suthers, and passed Ref C).
April 21, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
westsloper333 writes:
I say strip most everything out of the constitution placed there by initiaitves. From leg-traps to minimum wage to TABOR to amendment 23 and all the other junk placed in it over the years...and make it much harder for people to amend the constitution. Imagine if there was an initiative provision in our nation's constitution....it is just stupid. Amend state statutes - not our state's founding document.
April 21, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Even WITH Amendment 23 in place, the schools have not improved! So why in the world would we look for ways to keep the cash flowing? They haven't earned it! I agree with Mike -- REPEAL 23 first! Put the schools on notice they get NO "automatic" money.
Prediction: if Amendment 23 is kept in force, the next thing that happens will be for the new "non-union" state unions the Governor created to demand that THEY be covered with the same style provision.
April 21, 2008
12:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I wrote a comment in response to p_myers shortly after the editorial was posted, and it disappeared.
malis at 7:19, you're right on with observations on the Grover Nyquist quote. Unfortunately, Douglas Bruce is a beliver in that quote. Maybe it's because of profund philosophical reasoning on his part. Maybe it's because pesky and bothersome government agencies actually expect him to keep his apartment properties well maintained, to follow the rules, and to pay his share of property and transfer taxes. Oh, the horror! Bruce has a lot of followers in this state, and they almost succeeded in strangling government. When Bill Owens, as other have noted, support issues like Ref. C, you know the problem is real. Rep. Romanoff's proposed measure sounds like a winner.
westsloper is right: It's high time we stopped putting things like absurd inflexible education funding or ratchets into the state constitution. Those belong on the statute books, where they can be revisited.
If you don't like what the politicians are doing, vote them out. But I guess that's too logical.
April 21, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
farsidefan
I advocate using vouchers to reduce the cost to the schools for students. If we give each student a voucher equal to half the per student cost to the school, the schools will gain because there will be a portion left in the school for each student that leaves. The fifty kids per class (as a former private school teacher I agree that the large class size is not good for either side) could be twenty five kids but the funding for that class would be the full funding for the twenty five and the funding of twelve and a half students. This means that if half the kids leave the public schools, there will be a good chance that a third of the schools and a a third of the teachers can be eliminated and leave the kids better off.
I do agree that we have been spending extra money for years and are getting kids who can't read their own diploma. We also get teachers who can't teach or who refuse to do their job. The union is not interested in the teachers, they want the money from the dues and the power from the numbers.
As for TABOR, we are not going to fall for another bill of goods. Where is the Ref C money? It's more than double the projections now isn't it? What are they doing with it. Most of the time we can be sure that the reason for TABOR in the first place has not changed. Promise after promise has been broken. Tax increase after tax increase made the case for TABOR. Whine after whine from the politicians is the result of the taxpayer in Colorado being in charge. Only fools would change that.
Looks like I'm back in the initiative business.
April 21, 2008
4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
glowrock
Well. Looks like we have some agreement here. This change would need a very strong sunset provision. It also needs to be one subject. If a taxpayer group put forth this idea in this fashion,
it would be ruled illegal as it covers more than one subject.
The only thing needed is to pass a change in the law that ANY tax may be set aside or reduced if it creates a budget shortfall.
Amendment 23 was a stupid, and bad, idea. We can't improve education with money. The teachers need support from administration, parents and the students. This includes allowing teachers to remove disruptive students and improve on the teaching curriculum. Back to politics...
I don't let my husband spend as he pleases and he's the one earning the money. Politicians in Colorado have been groaning and moaning ever since TABOR passed. One part of their continued complaint can be defined as spend the money on what should be extras then complain that there isn't enough money for the basics. My husband used to do this with fast food lunches. I let him choose between McDonalds hamburgers for lunch or pot roast for supper. When he chose the fast food, the dinner table was lots of beans and little meat. He got the message. Time to send the same message to the legislature.
Ref C was a pack of lies based on artificially low projections of tax revenues and other revenues, as we found out too late. Now that they have much more money than they anticipated, with more coming in every year, we hear that they need to "fix" TABOR. In this context it's fix as in "fix" the dog.
Too bad we can't "fix" or at least sunset dishonest politicians.
April 21, 2008
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
The way to sunset any politician you consider dishonest is to field a good vandidate against him or her and persaude people to vote the rascal out of office.
Plus, all elected officials in this state are subject to term limits.