Colorado's Fiscal Crisis Barely Avoids "Top Ten" Ranking

Little known fact

The original TABOR tablets are inscribed on sapphire and carried through the state in a golden ark.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 17:17:56 PM UTC

Rep. King's assumption that government always grows to the limit of revenues is nonsense

In the late 70's and early 80's the Colorado General Assembly, without TABOR, gave rebates to Colorado taxpayers. In other words representative government works. The TABOR propornents do not support representative government for several reasons.

First and most important, people like Reps. King and Bradford don't trust the electorate. They're afraid we might elect individuals who might agree with a philosophy that government has legitimate functions, more than the right-wing wants. These people like TABOR because it restricts the voters options.

Second and as a corollary of the first point above, even though they serve in a legislative body, they don't trust or like representative government. For them, TABOR hamstrings legislative and executive branch action by strangling the revenue sources, regardless of the consequences. As David Brooks, a columnist and former movement conservative, has written, these kind of Republicans really don't know much about policy because they don't believe there should be any government policy. And they believe that regardless of the consequences to our society. Look at Rep. Lambert, the latest GOP appointment to the Joint Budget Committee. His first statmeent was the ridiculour position that public education is not something government should support. Can you imagine dismantling the public educaiton sytem we have spent the past 170 years building in Colorado and the United States? Then what? These people can't answer and don't care. They operate on a simplistic premise . . . government is evil and must be destroyed.

Third, TABOR allows these right wing members of the general assembly to be irresponsible. When revenue raising and program responsibility was the responsibility of the legislature and executive branch before TABOR, members of the general assembly had to carefully review and gage programs and balance them off against available revenues, which meant in certain circumstances raising taxes to fund legitimate programs. They had to gage the political response of their constituents to any suggested tax increase and explain why additional funding was necessary. In short, they had to actually talk to and then represent the voters in their districts. That required a measured and rational discussion with constitutents. That ended with TABOR.

We need to trust the system established by our Founding Fathers and return to representative government so the facts on the ground dictate what tax policy or program spending is required. TABOR remains a radical and extreme departure form the intent of the Founding Fathers. The Constitutional Convention in 1787 considered and rejected direct democracy and the authors of the Federalist Papers (Hamilton, Madison and Jay) did too.    

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 17:39:08 PM UTC

"Then what?"

That should be the question folks like King and Lambert get asked every single time they make statements like this. You want to get rid of something? Fine. Then what?

Start cutting jobs en masse? Fine. Then what do you do in order to fill the services provided by people who handle unemployment benefits or the DMV?

King, Lambert and the like also need to be called out to provide details on their proposed cuts. We should cut education! Okay -- which parts? Teachers? Textbooks? School maintenance? It's easy to provide vague solutions to specific problems.  

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:06:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Evolution

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:04:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

TAbOR must go.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric

---

by: Ray Springfield @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:55:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're Numbah Eleven!

Yippee.  My grandkids won't get the college education I did unless they move to Wyoming, but ain't it nice that we pay so little in taxes.  Too bad our roads suck, but low taxes is the only thing that matters!
By the way, when are we going to trash that RINO Jesus?  He actually hung out with tax collectors!

---

by: PoliceSquad @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 17:57:53 PM UTC

Higher Education is going off the cliff in one year

Once the Stimulus money ends in about one year that Governor Ritter used to backfill the higher educaiton budget, a financial disaster awaits our public colleges and universities. Without new money the University of Colorado will have to increase tuition by 20 to 25% in one year to maintian existing programs. Colorado State University and some of our other state colleges will require 50% tuition increases in one year to maintain existing programs.

Mr. McInnis, Rep. Lambert, Rep. King and Rep. Bradford need to answer two questions. Do they intend to fund higher education in one year or are they going to let it sink into an abyss? Do they think those kind of prohibitive tuition increases are a good idea? In short, the last thing we need is their platiutdes about tax cuts; or vague, undefined budget cuts, and TABOR. In one year the rubber meets the road and they will be required to answer these questions. Lets see if they can act responsibly.  

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:12:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

WIth all due respect R36

I agree with what you're saying in part. The Republicans bear no small part of the responsibility for why our entire education system (K-12 and colleges) is about to, as you correctly put it, fall of a cliff next year. Their policies when they were in power in the late 90s and early 2000s have led us to this point. Their insistence that their policies are what have saved us, rather than brought us to this crisis, has harmed the political dialog in this state, and has hamstrung Democrats to the extent that the minority party can do such a thing.

But, at the end of the day, the Republicans are in the minority. The Democrats are the majority, and they haven't been able to do what's necessary to avoid what's happening to our state financially. Blaming it all on the Republicans may sound good politically, but the buck stops at Governor Ritter's desk--not the House Minority offices.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They have built a mistrust of government

By telling the public that things can always be cut, without offering specifics. Sure, they are in the minority, but they've created such misplaced fear and mistrust that they make the job harder for anyone who is actually trying to solve the problem.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:08:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's an explanation

but it's not an excuse.

If the Republican scare machine was really that bad, then why have voters continued to send Democrats back to the GA?

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:16:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree

It's the responsibility of our Democratic leaders to sell the fact that government works and adequate funding is necessary to a good life. To wuss out and say they can't compete with Republicans on messaging is total bullshit.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:42:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Redstateblue I agree with you in part

I agre that the Democrats are in charge at the moment and therefore need to come up with a plan but there is an election next year and, if by chance, Mr. McInnis or some other Republcian becomes governor, we need to know how he/she is going to fund higher education.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:30:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: McInnis

Agreed. I just think that the same standard should be held for both sides, and whatever party is in power bears the burden of fixing the problems at hand.

We can't keep looking back and blaming the Republicans for bringing us to this point, we have to fix the problems they created whether or not they want to be a part of that conversation.

Whatever electoral risks that exist from finding permanent solutions to these problems cannot possibly outweigh the risk that we take if we don't overcome these budget obstacles. If we fall of a cliff, everyone--not just Republicans--will be to blame.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:23:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost control

I truly feel horrible for the plight of current and soon to be college students, but as a taxpayer I can not accept the burden of the extraordinary cost explosion that colleges want to push upon us.

College costs have grown at double the rate of inflation for years.  This needs to be fixed.  I simply can't afford the status quo.

---

by: telltale @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:35:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

costs or tuition?

In Colorado, the state funding for higher education has only increased 2.4% since the 2000-01 academic year (through the 07-08 academic year). In contrast, tuition rose 78.5% over this same period. (RMNews, Jan. 2008)

So, given population growth, each individual's share of taxes to higher education has dropped this decade. So, we are just pushing more and more of the costs onto students and their families.

This might be a good thing, if the only people gaining from a high quality college education were students and their families. But since all of us benefit greatly from having a better educated citizenry, we all ought to share in the costs.

So, telltale, you are right. We simply can't afford the status quo of declining state support for higher education. Something does need to be fixed.

But why do colleges require more funds? Might it be that their costs are rising faster than inflation, too?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:15:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

College costs have grown at double the rate of inflation

There's a reason for that. Most of the services provided by colleges and universities -- professors, libraries, housing, food service, groundskeeping -- can't be outsourced or easily benefit from increases in technological efficiency. It's a structural problem that bedevils some sectors of the economy (including local government), not a symptom of "colleges [wanting] to push upon us" their "extraordinary cost explosion."

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:21:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does not matter

We should be thankful that our tax burden has not kept up with college costs.  It would bankrupt my family.

When colleges undergo the radical structural changes needed to bring their cost curves back in line with the real world, then we can talk about the state funding its appropriate share.  Again, the taxpayers simply can not afford to have educational taxes greatly exceed inflation for decades.  It is simple math.

Until then, a painful burden will be felt by college students.  This is truly a shame.  

---

by: telltale @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:27:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What "structural changes" are you suggesting?

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:30:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Man if I knew...

I would found a private college and make millions on my competitive cost advantage.

Reducing the time it takes to get a degree jumps out at me.  why the arbitrary 4 years?

---

by: telltale @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:36:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree

Professors - why are they increasing faster than inflation?

Libraries - are you kidding me? Put everything online, have everyone hit it from their laptop, and the cost drops dramatically.

Food service - gee food costs have been dropping everywhere else.

Groundskeeping - yes it can be outsourced.

I've yet to see any good reason for the increased cost of higher ed.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:45:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And yet

The costs are increasing. CSU has been talking about going private. In that scenario, tuition would cost families about $13,000 a year for a liberal arts degree, and about $20,000 a year for an engineering degree.

---

by: redstateblues @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:54:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Competition for educated labor and services, maybe?

If you went to the Motley Fool interview that I posted above (and again here), you would find possible explanations such as:

To understand what's happening, you need to understand that college is a service. As opposed to manufacturing, where labor is just one input in pricing and improvements in productivity generally lead to lower costs, labor is the primary input in service industries like higher education.

and

You see, in a labor market, when one worker's wages rise, so do wages for other workers -- because employers compete to attract them. How does this work in higher education? Improvements in productivity can lead to higher wages at firms like Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ). But they also raise wages at colleges that must compete for a limited supply of labor.

and

And so costs rise faster than inflation in any service-intensive industry -- higher education, law, or medicine. This is exacerbated by the fact that ever since the 1980s, workers with college degrees and even higher levels of education have become much more expensive than workers without such degrees.

Is any of this accurate? Hell, I don't know. Economic explanations are so often merely "just so" stories without any real test as to the accuracy of the story. But, this is one possible partial explanation.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:34:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At least in the science fields I am famillar with

PhDs applying for professorships outnumber available jobs 25-1.  I have never heard of it being difficult to fill an open professor slot.

Is there really a dearth of English major PhDs that can not fill English professor slots at lower wages??

I would guess that something in the tenure or selection systems is artificially pushing up wages.  And good for professors -- I would do the same to my field if I could.

---

by: telltale @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 23:40:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope

The cost for professors is only increasing faster than inflation because of the benefits cost for health care, just like in other industries.

Libraries -- are you kidding me? The cost of "putting everything online" is immense, and is being borne by Google and a few other businesses, but the major cost to a university for a library isn't rent, it's staffing and acquisitions. Buying digital access to journals isn't substantially cheaper than physical copies, nor should it be, unless you think intellectual property is worth less just because it's been turned into electrons instead of atoms. The cost of textbooks will probably take a dive once Kindle and the like figure out how to deliver, but that's a cost shouldered by students anyway, not universities.

Food service - gee, the raw material for some food has dropped, but again, university dining halls are labor-intensive. Restaurants aren't getting any cheaper, unless you count the dollar menu at Wendy's.

Groundskeeping -- I'd like to see your version of groundskeeping handled from Bangalore. Perhaps you're encouraging universities ot hire more undocumented workers (a sort of ordering-in outsourcing) and paying them substandard wages?

The reason for increasing higher ed costs, as the article cited by ardy above lays out, is that it's primarily a service industry that doesn't benefit from shipping jobs overseas and doesn't see the same savings from technology that, say, manufacturing or retail industries do.

There are some solutions around the edges -- more distance learning, online courses, where colleges can achieve economies of scale and help subsidize on-campus learning, and these are growing. But the primary business of higher ed remains person-to-person contact and the cost of that always rises faster than consumer goods.

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:21:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We used to have 90% of the labor force on farms.

It's now 2%. That was not done by shipping jobs overseas (I think we still export more foodstuff than we import). It was done by bringing efficiencies to a very labor intensive operation.

Yes most of the work at a school is local labor. But that does not mean we can't find ways to become more efficient in the use of that labor. It definitely does not mean the cost of that labor should be increasing.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:32:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are efficiencies

in labor-intensive service industries that require high levels of education, and colleges and universities are finding them. The point is, you can't do a straight comparison between those kind of industries and the cost of consumer goods, which benefit far faster and simply more from outsourcing, factory techniques and technological advances. We're talking about why the cost of a college education increases faster than the cost of a DVD player and other consumer goods, and it should come as no surprise it does. The CPI measures one thing, and it's not the cost of highly skilled labor.

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:41:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're just arguing past each other now

But I do want to bring up one final point. You point out that colleges are labor-intensive industries that require high levels of education. Very true.

But the same is true of the computer industry. Yet we've managed to produce more at lower cost - both hardware & software, then ever before. And we've wrought great improvements in efficiencies in just 20 years.

I'm not saying that Universities should be able to improve as quickly as the computer industry. But I do think it's reasonable to expect them to move in the same direction.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:56:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely arguing past each other.

Higher ed isn't just a labor-intensive industry that requires high levels of education, it's a person-to-person service industry, and that's the difference. Last I looked, producing hardware and software is part of the manufacturing sector, and that's exactly what doesn't compare.

Of course there are possible efficiencies. I mentioned above the move to distance learning and online courses. But let me ask you -- since it's such a touchstone for your reactions -- when you send your daughters off to college, would you be just as pleased to instead install a really fast fiber-optic cable and exile them to their room with a laptop for the next four years, or do you want them going to a brick-and-mortor college, with teachers, classmates, seminars, all the rest?

Online learning allows us to educate and hand certificates to far more folks more cost-effectively than ever before, but it's not a substitute for in-person higher ed, at least not yet.

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 05:47:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking at my daughter's classes

I'd take a fiber optic cable and a top professor broadcasting to 20,000 students over a packed classroom of 300 students with a mediocre educator standing up front.

I think there's a lot of value in the college experience. But I don't think that requires continuing to operate it exactly as we did 50 years ago.

But the one point you keep avoiding. Lets say we leave it exactly as it was 50 years ago - why is the cost outracing inflation? What bothers me is colleges have become less efficient.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:04:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This assumes education is a one-way transaction

If you really think that a quality education can be obtained by plugging a cable into your brain and have an "education provider" fill it up, then maybe this is the way to "increased" "efficiency" in "higher" "education."

Quality human-to-human interactions are woefully "inefficient." There are various protocols that must be followed that "interfere" with the transfer of information. But understanding and implementing these protocols is, IMHO, critical for anyone who anticipates interacting with people during their career(s).

Today's students have many more types of "interactions" possible, and have many more avenues for learning about challenging and satisfying careers. It's important to provide them with as full a spectrum as possible. This means the "efficient" kinds as well as the "inefficient" kinds.

(Meanwhile, if you check out that link to the Motley Fool interview I provided above, it might address some of you questions about why the "cost" of higher education is outpacing inflation. In general, compensation for highly educated people overall has risen faster than inflation. People like you!

You can make farming more "efficient" by replacing human labor with fossil fuel powered machines. You don't make education more "efficient" in the same manner.  

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 16:06:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree going to college has lots of pluses

My point was that a college lecture to 300 students isn't much different from getting it over a wire. Especially if by having a few broadcast, you get the ones who are best at imparting knowledge.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:41:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Colleges are nothing like they were 50 years ago

There's so much wrong with this comment that I don't have time to delve deeper, but I cannot believe that a parent of a college student would say that.

---

by: redstateblues @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 16:09:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the one point you keep avoiding

David, that's the one point that's been asked and answered since the beginning and you simply fail to grasp it. The cost to administer on-site, person-to-person services always outpaces inflation, which measures the cost of consumer goods. Read the block quotes above from ardy or do some research -- but it's a key point to understand why some industries outpace inflation and are not subject to the same technological efficiencies enjoyed by others. This is a big deal for local governments too, because so much of their budgets are devoted to these kind of expenses -- police, firefighters, code inspectors, librarians, street and roads. The more educated the service providers, as opposed to trained on the job, the greater the discrepancy.  

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:32:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except...

While people like me are paid more, we're paid more because we have become much more efficient at what we do. Generally pay does not go up for people who do not become more efficient in their jobs.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:42:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Except...

While people like me are paid more, we're paid more because we have become much more efficient at what we do. Generally pay does not go up for people who do not become more efficient in their jobs.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:42:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

people like me are paid more

David, that's simply not true. Pay goes up when demand in a highly mobile workforce exceeds the supply of talented, educated workers. Take a look at pay levels for police officers -- metro area forces are forced to raise pay and incentives to attract police, especially minority recruits, because otherwise they can't attract enough. It has nothing to do with efficiency, it's the market.

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 20:11:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Demand has a lot to do with it too

But my industry could not afford to pay more if we weren't more efficient. Take Denver Police as an example, if there was suddenly a shortage of qualified applicants, there still isn't budget to pay more.

In the private sector this is even more true. A lot of what makes people in my job category so much more valuable is we are able to do more.

So it's both.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 01:17:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, people like you get paid more

because you are providing technology resources that allow other businesses to provide their services with fewer people.

People who design tractors get paid more than people who pick corn.

In industries in which "efficiencies" can be obtained by substituting human labor with mechanical or electronic devices that are powered by fossil fuels, you can see prices drop per unit of human labor. (But why burning coal is considered more efficient than employing people is one of those business axioms that I just can't grasp.)

If you want to equate higher education with picking corn or manipulating spreadsheets, then I'm not sure we have a common ground upon which to continue this conversation.

(BTW, one way to solve the problem of lectures with 300 students would be to raise the price until only 25 students could afford the class. In other words, education is more "efficient" when there are 300 students in a classroom. But then, if your daughters are business majors, this may be what's in store for them.)

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:20:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, and some "efficiencies" are gained by

moving the manufacturing part of the business to places like the Mariana Islands.

This is yet another sort of business practice that just escapes me why anyone would think this is a good thing. (I told you I suck at business.)

There are but a few examples of business practices that are completely inappropriate to apply to the practice of education.

Efficiency (in terms of units of output per units of labor) is not always all it's cracked up to be. It's just another verse in the catechism of Growth Go(o)d.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 05:27:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you, personally, become more efficient?

Or is it just that you have an established platform from which to continue your now-established business?

If you've been a programmer for 10 years, do you increase in productivity significantly over the next 5?  No.  Almost all of your productivity increases at that level come from equipment and software, not from your own increase in skill...

A senior programmer increases his pay not through efficiency, but because the market allows skilled labor to shop around for someone who is willing to pay more for their talents.  Skilled laborers who stay at their jobs get similar raises because otherwise companies would lose their labor force (which is trained to support their product).

Colleges suffer the same fate.  Professors could become private or government sector workers; one hopes that they have the skills to enter into the work force at a very high level (after all, they're training new workers...).  So they are competitive with other skilled labor, and must be paid competitive rates.

And, at that skill level, income has actually been rising faster than average - and faster than inflation - per ardy's quoted study.

"There's a Romney Rule. The Romney Rule says, let's double down on the tax cuts for the wealthy." -- VP Joe Biden

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 06:01:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The problem is pegging the value of skilled service labor

which can't be outsourced -- professors, police officers, nurses -- to the price of consumer goods. The former will increase in a modern economy while the latter drops in constant dollars because of technological and offshoring efficiencies. That's how things are supposed to happen, but the problem comes when we expect one to hew to the other, or legally tie personnel expenditures to CPI-based inflation.

A leader on the battlefield can be a leader in Congress. -- redstateblues

---

by: RedGreen @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:04:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But programming is easily outsourced

and yet we need more programmers every year and we continue to pay them very well.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 04:26:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's absolutely the improved tools

For the same reason a farmer makes much more now than 200 years ago. Software developers can program a lot more efficiently because we have amazing tools to help us do our job.

But at the end of the day, it means 1 programmer produces a lot more.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 04:28:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Low taxes?

You talking about Colorado? I don't know about you but we pay 7.4% in just sales tax in the Springs. Add on all the other taxes that the black holes in Denver, Colorado Springs, and Washington put on us and we are far from being under taxed.
As far as college goes, I'm 53 and my family never had enough money to afford to send me or my brother or two sisters to any kind of college. But alas, we are all doing just fine.
College isn't the end all answer for everything. It helps but you don't have to go to college to make 100K a year. Just apply yourself. We need to instill a little more of this in our kids and a little less of Playstation time. It is sad when there are commcercials on tv trying to persuade kids to get out and "play".
What the f%*k?

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either

---

by: Gecko @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:28:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not 1975 Anymore...

Times have changed. The rise of the global economy has significantly increased labor competition. A high school diploma get's you a job in a restaurant but not much more. You can't just go get a manufacturing job anymore. A 2-year Associates degree is a minimum to earn a living wage.

The jobs you were able to work when you graduated high school are now being outsourced to other countries. Capitalism at it's finest!

If you are so concerned about the "high" taxes then stop paying them. No one is forcing you to. You don't have to earn an income or buy products at the store. Grow your own food, stop driving on public roads, take your kids out of public schools and stop complaining.

Just remember that you are now the minority in a democratic society. That means you don't get your way anymore.

If you don't like it move somewhere else!  

---

by: cunninjo @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:57:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not true completely

You do not need a college degree to make good money now or back when I was younger.
My son is an example of a young man who applies himself and is making extremely good money. Not every good paying job requires a college education and since most people can't afford to send their kids to college, or themselves for that matter, they need to step up and apply themselves. No free lunch here no matter how much the liberals would like for it to be free. Free for them at someone else's expense that is.
I have made excellent money for a long time now too as has my wife. Neither of us had the luxury of going to college either.

Until colleges lower their cost by whatever means they can, their rolls will continue to dwindle until nobody goes. To that I say Aww Geez.

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either

---

by: Gecko @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:29:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The liberals are not suggesting that college be free.

What they are suggesting is college should be affordable through a combination of our own money, loans, grants and scholarships. No one is suggesting it should be free.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:31:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I actually agree w/ part of what you are saying

(Believe it or not.) :)

The part I agree with is that a lot of folks do not want or need to go to college. Our local school board has been grappling with this problem for awhile--mainly, that the school is designed to get kids ready for college but hasn't addressed the faction of kids that have no desire to go on to higher education and whose interests lie elsewhere. Trade schools, apprenticeships, shop classes--those things seem to be going by the wayside the same way art and music have gone. Not everyone is going to head to a university when they graduate and our K-12 need to find a way to address that and offer alternatives.

And I would add that I have a college degree (a Bachelor's in Liberal Arts--history major) and it has not done me one ounce of good as far as a career goes. In order for it to be meaningful at all in a career capacity, I would need to go to graduate school. Instead, I moved into an entirely new direction and decided to open my own small business. I make a very good living and love what I do.

On the other hand, I think going to college gave me some life experiences that I would never have had if I hadn't gone to college. Those experiences gave me the courage to do what I do now. I loved college, not so much for what I was studying but what I learned in the "school of life."

And one other thing, my dad and my mom both were unable to afford to go to college and they were unable to pay for me or my sister. We both put ourselves through school with grants, student loans, and working full time. If it were not for federal and state grants, I never would have made it through so I am eternally grateful for those.

I also know that my dad was very proud of me for graduating. He wanted his daughters to be more than he was (a farmer) and to have a better life than he and mom, who struggled hard when we were kids. And I think he would be proud of me and where my life has gone since he passed away.

I guess what I'm rambling on about here is that I do agree that not everyone wants a higher education. Not everyone needs one. But those that do want it deserve the right to an affordable higher education, in my opinion. Their parents deserve the right not to bankrupt themselves in order to send their children to college.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:53:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Personal experience is a data point, not a trend

More and more jobs now require a college degree. Not all, but more and more. And don't confuse the lack of specific degrees needed with wanting a college degree - companies view the degree as proof that a person is able to handle intellectually challenging work.

And this trend is accelerating. Our problem is not too many kids are headed to college, it's that too few are.

No trees were destroyed in the posting of this comment. But a large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:37:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't think I suggested that not enough kids are going to college.

I suggested that we have to stop pigeonholing every single child and deciding that they must go to college. More and more public schools are recognizing that there need to be alternatives offered since each child is an individual and has his own goals and interests and those may not include going to a four year university and receiving a degree. I'm not suggesting it is a trend. I'm suggesting it s a problem that exists that we who have gone to college like to ignore or pretend doesn't exist.

And I would definitely agree with your point in your first paragraph about a degree being proof to employers that you can handle challenging work--I think that's primarily what my degree proved in the various jobs I had once I graduated from college.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 16:15:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gee, Gecko

My parents couldn't afford to send me to college either.  So I sent myself. Worked my way through. Grad school too.

Isn't that what you righties call "personal responsibility?"

This is serious, you commie dolt  --davebarnes, 2012.

---

by: Ralphie @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:23:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have to agree with you there

My parents couldn't afford a dime...so I had to do well in school (I know that's hard to grasp) and get scholarships, grants etc. 4 years of college and I only had 3,000 in debt. It's called working hard, something I don't think students understand. It's not a free ride people!

---

by: crazypoliticians @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:37:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ralphie

That is good. Personal responsibility. We need much more of that and less depending on the guvment to coddle us.
So why are you argueing then?

NoBama .... NoBamaCare either

---

by: Gecko @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:31:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who's arguing?

You seem to be saying that if mommy and daddy can't afford to send you to college, you shouldn't go.

I'm saying that college is important and there are other ways to afford it.

This is serious, you commie dolt  --davebarnes, 2012.

---

by: Ralphie @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 22:01:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That explains things...

we are far from being under taxed

Relative to other states we are.  I imagine you think the correct amount of taxation = zero, and progressive taxation = marxism.

We need to instill a little more of this in our kids and a little less of Playstation time. It is sad when there are commcercials on tv trying to persuade kids to get out and "play".

I don't think it takes a college education to understand that these commercials are to get kids off the very PlayStations you bemoan and get some physical exercise.  Perhaps higher ed is necesary to understand the importance of play in childhood development.

A woman's health decisions are a private matter between her priest and her husband.

---

by: DaftPunk @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 21:24:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Will any local governments in Colorado go bankrupt?

Colorado Springs seems to be in dire trouble and voters there are more inclined to roll back its limited revenues than to increase them.

Aurora is making deep budget cuts that its voters also seem disclined to address with more revenues.

Centennial has been underfunded from day one.

Brighton is one of the foreclosure centers of the state.

---

by: ohwilleke @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:05:15 PM UTC

Aurora Going Worse

At the City Council Study Session yesterday afternoon the budget revenue forecast is for lower than planned.  The numbers are down a few million more than forecast.  However, the sales tax numbers were only to Sep. Several of us have been talking about a noticible increase of traffic on the streets and at the stores.  That does not say there were more purchases made though.

In a democracy, the majority of the citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority. Edmund Burke

10/26/11 Colorado Ex-Pat; S/V Sisu Catalina 30

---

by: Pam Bennett @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:00:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

King: the math maroon!

"If it is not contained, it will grow exponentially."

Ummm....inflation plus population growth is exponential growth.

bin Laden is dead
GM is alive

---

by: ajb @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:03:40 PM UTC

The King of Bluster

If King ever had an original idea, his head would surely explode.  He has cut his teeth on the Josh Penry Balloon Daddy way of sending up false flying saucers, without substance, then hiding behind the standard talking points garnered from the last Glenn Beck show.  Or maybe, Mr. Hollywood is just in a bad mood because Penry threw a wrench into his future cogs?  

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 20:42:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But what is our BCS ranking?

And do we still have a shot at earning a spot in the BCS Championship Budget Problem Bowl?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

---

by: ardy39 @ Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:19:02 PM UTC

Data doesn't support Rep. King's assertion

Rep. King's comment in the Grand Junction Sentinel that "government will grow to its size of containment. If it is not contained, it will grow exponentially" is not borne out by the data.  

State General Fund revenues and expenditures equaled, on average, 4.2 percent of Colorado's economy from 1981 to 1992, the year TABOR was passed. Spending reached a high of 4.4 percent in 1984, 1989 and 1992 and a low of 3.9 percent in 1983. In plain language: Without TABOR, state government did not grow relative to the overall state economy.

In the years after TABOR's adoption (1993-2008), General Fund spending averaged 4.2 percent of the economy, as measured by total state personal income. It reached a high of 4.7 percent in 1993, 1994 and 1995 and a low of 3.6 percent in 2002 and 2003.  It would have totaled 5 percent in 1998 and 4.9 percent in 1999 and 2000, except that TABOR required the state to rebate more than $2 billion in those years.

That means that, even after TABOR's adoption, the portion of the economy devoted to state government remained fairly constant, only growing with the boom of the late 1990s.  

Looking ahead, in fiscal years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, state General Fund revenues are projected to equal 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 percent of state's economy. These rates are more than 21 percent below the 4.2 percent average of the 1980s and 1990s.  

State government did not grow unchecked in the years before TABOR, and not only is it not growing exponentially now, it is actually shrinking as a portion of the state's economy.  

---

by: TheBell @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 00:18:30 AM UTC

Great analysis

Please send that note to King.  Not that it would probably do much good in his world.

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 00:27:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rep King doesn't care about "data"

He's the King of cliches.  And not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

You can't combat King's rhetoric with fact.  You have to find a better cliche.

Good luck.

If you want to get rid of King, pick up the phone and implore the Mesa County Democratic Party to find a credible candidate to run against him.

They haven't yet.

You can't replace somebody with nobody.

This is serious, you commie dolt  --davebarnes, 2012.

---

by: Ralphie @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:50:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've been trying to get people to run

for a long time now.  But it is not something you can keep pressuring a person about. And pressure is a quick way to lose friendships.

On the other hand, I don't live in King's district.  My CD came up with Bernie Buescher and Dan Prinster.  What Democrat successes have you had in your district?  

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 04:24:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

HD54 is just about unwinnable for Democrats

The registration is all wrong for the Democrats and it means that anybody with an R after his/her name will win, barring the dead girl or live boy. Stevie King is proof positive of that.

Until reapportionment can get the eastern half of Delta County out of HD54, nothing will change.

Sometimes, I guess, you have to let the inner bitch out.

---

by: gertie97 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:54:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It amazes me how stupid liberals are

Less revenue growth=less to cut in a downturn=less suffering because you are more self-sufficient. Get a job, pukes! You'll figure it out!!

---

by: GOPwarrior @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:05:25 AM UTC

OH my, Please GOPW

Need you be so unsophisticated?

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble and reclaim the commons. Stop the militarization of America.

---

by: Sir Robin @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:37:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So...

If we're all poor to start with, there's less distance to fall?  That's good to know, anyway.

You do realize that your "equation" applies equally to the private sector as to the government sector, and is equally stupid in both situations...  What passes for logic in what remains of the GOP is all the explanation we who are no longer in the GOP need when considering why our former party has fallen so far.

"There's a Romney Rule. The Romney Rule says, let's double down on the tax cuts for the wealthy." -- VP Joe Biden

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 06:32:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]