Bad News for Ellen Roberts

WHy doesn't she run as an Independent?

She's a very decent chance.  

This blog is your blog, this blog is my blog

---

by: sufimarie @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:57:25 PM UTC

She can't

She'd have to have been registered as an unaffiliated voter since sometime last year.

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:19:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that may change

didn't the bill to change that requirement get pulled during the session?  My memory is that it would still require a voter to have no party affiliation by January 1.  Even die-hard party members tend to think this would be acceptable.  I think it should be allowed up to a couple of weeks before the caucuses.

---

by: dmindgo @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 20:14:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The bill would have made those changes

but for this election, the old rules still apply.

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 20:53:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

or a democrat

heck, it's been talked about for years... She should join the Dems.  She has a similar attitude to Mark Larson, the previous representative, that she should stay in the party and work to make it more inclusive.
good luck to that.

---

by: dmindgo @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 20:16:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

this is why

more than anything, if not slightly unrelated, we need professionals in these districts running the mill levy campaigns.  if we had a coordinated, well-funded statewide effort to debruce as many districts as we could, then our schools and hospitals would be able to keep the much needed revenue and offer many badly needed services to our students and patients.

---

by: JR SMITH'S RADAR DISH @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:21:00 PM UTC

Is this a reaction to health insurance reform?

It hadn't occurred to me before, but it could be possible that some of this vote is because of the health insurance reform passed by Congress.

---

by: dmindgo @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 20:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

probably lose Doctors

My brother lived in Rifle years ago and they rejeced more funding. He moved to the front range. One Dr is a bad sample, but I know rural Dr's are in short supply.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric

---

by: Ray Springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 20:25:54 PM UTC

Already happening

They're not exactly strong on doctors to start with.  I know a dentist and an ophthalmologist who are based in Durango but go over there during the week, too.  You're right, though.  No doctor is going to have a family in Cortez (unless he's very ideological or grew up there) when they don't support public services.

---

by: dmindgo @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 22:04:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My understanding....

...is that Roberts is very pro-TABOR and has  a record that suggests as such

In addition, why the heck are they asking to De-Bruce, when they can simply ask for more money, while keeping TABOR intact? This isn't a huge revelation, as many counties have rejected debrucing, well before the Tea Party movement started making noise

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:09:49 PM UTC

TABOR explicitly allows government entities

to DeBruce. So asking voters to do that is quite within the spirit of TABOR. So what's your beef again?

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:11:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It seems like you don't understand well what TABOR allows.

...a "de-Brucing" does not mean that TABOR will not remain "intact," as the above poster notes.

---

by: Earnest @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:14:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ali Hasan's TABOR

is a TABOR of the Mind, not the actual TABOR.

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:17:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh dear.

According to the "The Big Line," he's running for treasurer!  It's apparently too much to ask that candidates for state-wide office actually understand the basic elements of the actual (rather than imagined) state constitution.

---

by: Earnest @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:24:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

RedGreen

Absolutely - voters can be asked to DeBruce, as it is fair game to vote on it

My point is that there is no need to ask to DeBruce for the sake of one municipal project - a specified tax increase will collect sufficient monies over time to fund any project - but a complete DeBrucing? A complete DeBrucing guarantees permanent revenues for the asking municipality, a collection that will go far beyond the price tag for one municipal project

The voting public is very intelligent - the defeated initiative noted in the article above would have had a much better chance of passing, had it not had a DeBrucing request built in

Face it guys - Colorado HEARTS TABOR

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 04:17:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would not have put them on the same ballot

.761 to 3.5 is a rather significant hike. And then to ask for de-Brucing which would allow further raising without a vote.

That was asking a lot and gave the appearance of beingf grabby, whether that was the intention or not.

They should have just gone for the de-Brucing.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

---

by: Dan Willis @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:29:00 PM UTC

tough position all around

my understanding is that deBrucing would allow the district to keep all moneys raised by the property tax levy, not to raise the actual rate.  So, I don't see how this would allow further raising without a vote.

I agree, though, that they should have only gone for the deBrucing.  The problem, I think, is that too many of these entities don't have the resources to thoroughly examine the tax issues.  When they decide they really must go to the voters they shoot for the whole thing because they are behind the curve.  Just a guess.

---

by: dmindgo @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 21:04:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

DeBrucing 101

DeBrucing would allow for tax increases without public approval

Second, any additional monies collected under TABOR must be refunded - under DeBrucing, additional monies would be kept by the government

It's a huge step that changes taxes greatly

TABOR4LIFE

---

by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 02:47:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

see, here's the problem

It's a tax increase when the sales tax goes up by 1%.  That's a 1% tax increase.  If we pass a law that says the government only keeps a part of it unless certain conditions are met and we get a rebate, that's not a tax reduction, it's a tax rebate.  If the conditions change and more of the taxes are kept by the government, that is not a tax increase.  If anything, it results in a reduction in the tax rebate.  Owens understood this.

And take your patronizing attitude and shove it up your assembly.

---

by: dmindgo @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 04:29:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]