Amendment 51 - Increased Funding for the Disabled

Its for Trig

---

by: Libertad @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM CDT

This isn't the only group who needs funding

There are between 250-350 individuals who might be forced out of assisted living facilities that have a major mental illness diagnosis on January 1, because CMS is withdrawing their 50% contribution (approximately $10M) from the HCBS waiver. Where will these individuals go? No one knows at this point, and there's precious little time left.

In addition, this holds the potential to close down small businesses who are in business to serve a disabled class of people.

Wrap these folks into the bill.

"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

---

by: Sir Robin @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM CDT

I agree completely

Any increase in taxes should go to the largest group possible. If you can fund programs for mental health and the disabled, two groups woefully underfunded throughout the country, I would support the amendment more.
As it stands, I would need more information about exactly who's being funded. As my nephew has severe physical and learning disablilities, I would like to see the programs that help him better funded.  

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: Cartesian Doubt @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Proactive Destruction

Part of me thinks there is a benefit to completely destroying our Constitution/state government through the initiative process because only that will convince them to launch a constitutional convention to clean the mess up and largely do away with the initiative process. Thus, things that seem "decent enough" but probably shouldn't be voted on in this manner get the benefit of the doubt.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

---

by: Bondo @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM CDT

Amendment 51 is a statutory amendment,

not an amendment to the state constitution.  

---

by: spaceman65 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 21:15:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes

I understand that, which is why I did the tandem of Constitution/state government. These statutory aspects certainly aren't as serious in the disruption they can cause, but they can still highlight problems with the process, which would require Constitutional change.

"One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up." - C.S. Lewis

---

by: Bondo @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 22:28:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Finally

A ballot initiative whose title is not the opposite of what its effects would actually be.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

---

by: redstateblues @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM CDT

Tough choice

While I recognize that no family, no matter how self-reliant or responsible, can bear the crushing burden of caring for the seriously disabled I am against using the constitution to address issues that ought to be addressed via legislation and that set in stone more and more constrictions and mandates that handcuff our elected representatives in the legislature.  

In general, I vote no unless I think an amendment deals with something that ought to be removed from the majority rule legislative process, such as basic rights, or with broad procedural issues such as what the structure of the state government ought to be.

Sometimes I vote yes on an amendment that defends against a competing bad amendment but wish the rules would be changed to make that necessary less often.

Will be interested in what people here, especially those with more knowledge about the issues surrounding this amendment, have to say to say about this one.  

---

by: BlueCat @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM CDT

This is NOT constituional.

It is a statutory change which can be simply altered by the legislature at some future time when the tax is not as needed.

Want my vote? Put in some time with your party first!

---

by: Dan Willis @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If that's the case I'll vote for it

but I don't quite understand.  Could you explain to me how it can be an amendment but not constitutional? Thanks.

---

by: BlueCat @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:08:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's amending existing statute

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009, BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS;

... etc.

There might also be a TABOR requirement that it be presented as an amendment because it proposes new tax and spending, not sure.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:20:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, that's true

TABOR restrictions can be addressed either by statute or by Constitutional revision. In this case it's statutory (just like A 58, Ritter's severance tax proposal).

---

by: adam.kretz @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 16:33:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks RedGreen and adam. kretz

---

by: BlueCat @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 18:05:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will speak up for the affirmative

While I understand the concern about being hit with funding requests for every "special interest" group out there, I am resigned to that being the case. I prefer to get these requests one at a time and to determine their value based on their own merits.

The waitlist for people with developmental disabilities (PDD's) to receive much needed services is now longer than many of them will live. Without a secure line of additional income, the state has no hope of catching up the back log, even if the economy were booming, and even if Amend. 59 passes.

This additional "earmarked" revenue is needed if there is to be any hope of providing basic living needs for PDD's such as food and food preparation, places to live, etc. Many of these folks are so severly disable they are not able to even dress themselves or go to the bathroom on their own.

And one more point to keep in mind: this is NOT a constitutional amendment. If this state gets to the point we can adequately fund services for these folks without the additional revenue, the legislature will be able to reduce or elimiae it at that time without requiring another vote by us.

One way or the other the funding for this need has to be filled and, under our present financial situtation, the only option is an additional tax source of some kind which the people will have to vote on.

So I say vote YES and know everytime you spend $10, you've given your two cents for those who can not care for themselves.


Want my vote? Put in some time with your party first!

---

by: Dan Willis @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM CDT

Good argument.

Works for me.  

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And in 2010...

...you're going to face 20 more proposals like this that are equally worthy and equally heartbreaking. The legislature has to work through the trade-offs of crying need vs limited funds every year.

Why does this one case get a pass?

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:17:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a perfect world

without TABOR, your question would be more meaningful. As it is, taxpayers are empowered with deciding whether to increase taxes to fund programs that aren't adequately funded when the legislature divides the strictly limited pie. TABOR rests the decision to expand the pie with voters, not legislators. If you want to fix the system entirely, and return to the purely legislative pie-slicing you describe, repeal TABOR. Until then, we do what we can.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:30:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why does this one case get a pass?

Because they got it on the ballot.

When the legislature doesn't take care of something and groups like this get an issue on the ballot, you can't turn around and say this is an issue for the legislature to deal with.  They had a chance, and, in the opinion of those of us who support this, they failed.  If you disagree vote No; but don't act like we should wait on the legislature...again...

When 2010 rolls around, you decide what you think deserves a YES and what deserves a NO.  It doesn't matter if there is 1 ballot item or 20, you still decided how "worthy" they are on a case by case basis.

Michael Bennet is the new Abraham Lincoln.
- Sharon Hanson

---

by: Dabee47 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:37:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Very well said, thank you

Explaining that this isn't constitutional should go a long way to getting this more support. Paying a few cents more to help others won't break anyone's wallets.
My nephew, who I wrote about above, has severe learning disabilities and was diagnosed with mental retardation, among other health issues he lives with.
It breaks my heart and infuriates me that he can't get the help he'll need down the road.
There are far too many who don't have the assistance they need, and they can't speak loud enough for the ones who hold the purse strings to hear. Education and care of those who can't care for themselves is indefensibly low.

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: Cartesian Doubt @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:26:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the explanation

I havent had a chance to peruse all the amendments yet, but your analysis works for me. Yes on 51 for me.

---

by: Mr. Toodles @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:26:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Vote No

We need to give our tax money to billionaires on Wall Street.  Have you no compassion?  

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:19:06 PM CDT

Oh, and save the Iraqi people

AFTER killing a few hundred thousand, and THEN rebuilding the country we just destroyed with bombs. Fucking insanity, as everyone here has heard from me for years now.


"I can tolerate chaos, I'm just not sure chaos can tolerate me" Dylan

---

by: Sir Robin @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:23:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The above summary doesn't mention

the size of the proposed sales and use tax increase. It's a 1/10th of 1 percent bump for the first year -- the same as metro Denver residents pay for the voter-approved Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (the polar bear) -- and the same amount the second year.

From the Legislature's proposed Blue Book summary:

Impact on taxpayers.
Both individuals and businesses pay sales and use taxes. Businesses pay about 40 percent of the state's sales taxes;  Colorado residents pay about half; and the remaining amount is paid by visitors to the state.  The additional amount of taxes paid by each Colorado household will depend on a household's income and number of people.  A three-person household with around $55,000 in annual income is estimated to pay an additional $20 in state sales taxes in the first year of the tax increase and an additional $40 in the second year when the tax increase is fully in place.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 13:45:27 PM CDT

Thank you.

..the Bluebook summary, unlike the one posted here, also makes it clear that the proposed amendment would affect Colorado statutes, not the constitution.  The summary posted here is significantly deficient and confusing.

---

by: Jambalaya @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:38:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

$20!

Outrageous!

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

---

by: redstateblues @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 14:42:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Legislative Council

Estimates that this would increase revenue by $89 million the first year and $186 million year two. So, it would be significant.

What's also important to note is that the initiative has a maintenance of effort requirement, so this funding would be new funding, and not just supplant existing monies without really giving Coloradans new services.

---

by: adam.kretz @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 16:37:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The revenue increase

is also written into the ballot measure's language.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 16:44:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Under TABOR

the amount of projected revenue increase has to be included in the ballot title and the submission clause

---

by: spaceman65 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 21:51:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm voting Yes...

The fact that, as David accurately points out, there are a number of groups who are in need of assistance does not negate the fact that those with developmental disabilities (and their families) are in need also.

If we can bail out Wall Street, who got themselves into this mess, then we can bail out those who are in a mess through no fault of their own.

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:03:30 PM CDT

Even more so

We can decide to ante up another penny on five dollar purchases to pay for it and do it up front, rather than borrowing the money from China and expecting our grandchildren to pay for it.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:12:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Given the lead...

based paint that has been found in toys imported from China and the fact that lead based paint has been proven to cause developmental disabilities and delays in children, perhaps we should send a bill to China for some of these services....

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:38:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That might be a stretch

but there's no doubt the Chinese economy has benefitted from the dumbing-down of the American economy.  

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:44:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All 20 requests in 2010 will bein as severe a need

Where do you draw the line? We'll have requests to provide medical care for those that will otherwise die, to provide counseling for those that will otherwise kill themselves, to provide better protection for women that will otherwise be raped.

All of these very worthwhile needs, all will tug at the heartstrings, and all just as worthy. Where does it end.

Let's look at how the system works. There has been a number of families who for years wanted cold case murders funded. The odds of success are low and it's not the best way to fight crime. But it's important because it lets the family members know that the person they lost does matter.

And so for years funding this has been pushed and lobbied and proposed. And this past year it was funded. By the legislature. Through the normal process where all requests were balanced out and this was given some money.

No system is perfect. No one is going to agree with how everything is balanced out. But if we remove this from the legislature and instead move it to everyone going the initiative route, we're going to end up with a boatload of specific items each with their own funding.

And I can promise you one thing when that happens - by definition the money will be inefficiently allocated. And everything else, which includes things like education and general health care - will be hurt more.

For all of you that are parents, many times you have to do what is responsible with your children even if it's not popular, even if you feel bad about it. Same with voting. Taking the Dr. Feelgood route may feel better when casting the ballot, but it's bad for the health of our state.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 20:28:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree on this

It's an easy way to fund only popular programs. Lots of essential stuff that government funds wouldn't actually win a direct ballot vote.

It's most notable to me in higher education funding, where everyone always wants to fund scholarships but nobody ever wants to fund daily expenses and other such drudgery. So tuition has to go up to fund that stuff, and the extra money for scholarships can easily end up being canceled out by higher bills for students.

"I am B.J. Wilson, and I am a troll."

---

by: sxp151 @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 09:20:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll draw the line...

based on my values...sort of like budgeting.

Look, I don't particularly care for budget stuff being on the ballot in the first place.  I've said before, I don't particularly care for the whole "initiative process".  That is what the State Legislature is supposed to be for--and if the legislature is going to leave tough choices to the voting public, why do we need them?  

But if they ask my opinion, I'm going to give it.  This is a worthy cause...these programs are woefully underfunded in Colorado when compared to other states (I know from people who work in the field of MR/DD and having worked in the field myself).

"But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining."  Glenn Beck  

---

by: Arvadonian @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:01:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"When We All Do Better, We All Do Better!"

David... Your closing quote, 'remember- friends don't let friends vote Republican.' says to me you are a Democrat.

The above quote, from the late Democratic Senator, Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, sums up my perspective of what being a Democrat is all about.

That we have a responsible opportunity to help others do better when our legislature will not, is what democracy is all about.

All in favor of 51, say 'Aye!'

---

by: WorkerB @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:34:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm inclined to support

I wish we were in a public finance arrangement where revenues and expenditures could be prioritized, but that world went away about 20 years ago.  In many ways this measure is the natural evolution of TABOR, and I suspect that we will see many more similar efforts for water, highways, social needs and so on.  

Perhaps this measure can be justified on two grounds.  First, the care for this population transcends both fiscal years and the political composition of the Capitol.  Long term needs warrant long term and stable revenue streams.

Secondly, the families facing these hard circumstances can become quite fragile and can disintegrate.  Perhaps it is in the best interests of society to help keep the family intact.

---

by: abraham @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:32:12 PM CDT

Fuck no!

That is why we have a REPRESENTATIVE legislature. To set spending priorities.
I hate putting spending rules into the Constitution of the State of Colorado.
Besides, does the word "fungible" mean anything to these retards?

---

by: davebarnes @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 19:54:51 PM CDT

It's not in the Constitution of the State of Colorado

or did you miss that part of the discussion above?

And which retards are you referring to?

Thanks for reminding us why the needs of the developmentally disabled often take a back seat to the needs of groups with public profiles that aren't short-hand playground insults.

---

by: RedGreen @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 20:00:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great argument against the initiative

And then you blow the whole thing with your final word. Being right and being persuasive can be two very different things...

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Sun Sep 21, 2008 at 20:29:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen to that, brother.

That was shameful, Mr. Barnes, or do you have any shame?  Can we expoect your attack on n**gers and b*tches next?

---

by: bob ewegen @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 12:55:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a sales tax

It gets an automatic NO from me.

---

by: Ralphie @ Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 10:41:34 AM CDT