August 20, 2009 03:44 AM UTC

You Really Expected Different?

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Yesterday, Governor Bill Ritter announced some $320 million in recommended cuts to the current fiscal year’s budget. As we noted, the cuts were smaller by tens of millions of dollars than what had been expected, reflecting a revenue situation that wasn’t as severe as originally projected–thanks in part to legislation passed this session that boosted revenue. The message from the Governor’s office is “it’s bad but we’re trying to minimize the pain until things recover.”

We also told you that Republicans would find ways to attack Ritter regardless of the extent and nature of his recommended budget cuts: at first glance a curious position for them, since they’re usually of a mind to cut the budget even when they’re not being forced to. But with an election on the horizon, it’s really not that curious.

Today there is much Republican criticism to be found of Ritter’s recommended cuts. Not what you’d call a consistent message, though, it seems to be packaged for delivery to constituencies that won’t all view these cuts the same way.

For example, the Denver Post reports:

“You cannot reduce spending this much without impacting services,” said Ritter, a Democrat. “There’s a lot of sacrifices who Colorado residents will be making.”

Critics charged that the plan relies too much – perhaps as much of half the total – on one-time sources, such as stimulus money and cash sources.

Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, said Ritter should have enacted deeper cuts instead. [Pols emphasis]

“What I anticipate is that we’re going to be in a worse situation in 2010 because we’re not making the tough decisions,” he said…

Meanwhile in the Grand Junction Sentinel, gubernatorial candidate Josh Penry has a somewhat different take–bemoaning cuts that affect his Senate district.

Ritter’s budget plan includes diverting $14.3 million in Roan Plateau lease revenue from what was to be a permanent fund set up to benefit local governments. The plan will take another $5 million from severance grant funding for energy-impacted areas. The money instead will go to the state’s general fund.

Ritter also plans to suspend distribution of another $25 million in severance grant funding and decide what to do with that money early next year. The funding comes from severance taxes on energy development. Ritter’s severance-tax revenue proposals will be subject to legislative review.

The Democratic governor’s moves drew criticism from state Sen. Josh Penry, a Grand Junction Republican who is running for governor. He said money that is supposed to help energy-impacted areas such as the Western Slope instead “will be used to keep the lights of state government on in Denver.” Penry also said energy-impacted areas are being asked to make disproportionate sacrifices to help balance the budget…

Got it? Governor Ritter didn’t cut enough, except when he cut too much. Kind of makes sense that you didn’t see both quotes in the same newspaper, doesn’t it? On their own each complaint sounds alright, if one is rightie boilerplate and the other provincial hypocrisy–but together they look an awful lot like cheap pandering to siloed audiences. Though to be fair, there is one common thread between the two criticisms, as the Sentinel continues:

Part of the lease revenue also went into what was intended as a permanent fund for higher education. Penry said the state already had raided that money, a little more than $20 million, in a previous effort to address its budget shortfall.

Penry objects to dipping into permanent funds for what he said are “one-time fixes.” Ritter said the earlier action helped prevent deeper cuts to higher education.

It’s the “one-time fixes” that trouble both Penry and Harvey–meaning they’re upset that Ritter found temporary stopgaps to hold vital services together instead of making bigger budget cuts in a time of severe economic crisis. And you can see why: if your goal is to “starve the beast,” now would be a very good time to do it. Why apply these “Band-Aid” fixes to keep senior centers open and college affordale until the economy recovers–drown it in the bathtub now!

The question–we think it’s a question Colorado voters have answered repeatedly from Referendum C to the present day but there are all these Tea Partiers and opportunist blowhards (see above) who perennially insist otherwise–is whether or not the people really want to starve the beast. And just like Sen. Al White (R), who defended his vote for those much-vilified registration fee increases saying he “didn’t think we could afford to stop snowplowing,” we don’t think they do.

And hey, we just thought of a great way for Penry to get his district’s money back.