U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 09, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
69 Comments
‘Bout time there was a Republican willing to do what the party platform says! Now if only we can get the R’s in the house and Senate to act like R’s too……..
“From Grand Junction TV Station KJCT, which apparently doesn’t believe in grammar and silly stuff like that:”
Haha, no kidding.
From the Grand Junction Sentinal:
“Can you say, вЂMe, too?’ ” Beauprez campaign manager John Marshall said of Holtzman’s proposal.
Now that’s what the hell I’m talkin’ ’bout! Finally, a real “Big C” conservative, this guy get’s it. Beauprez is another of the Owens, Benson, Coors moderate Republicanism ilk. Under their able leadership this purple state will turn Blue. MH is a real fiscal conservative, who will provide a permanent solution for what ails CO.
This is Holtzman at his best, as pragmatic as ever. The second part of his proposal: After his refund he will make up for the budget shortfall by selling the Moon.
This is typical republican hogwash. For the past 20 years what do the R’s offer their constituents? Tax cuts. Don’t give away your radical agenda, or some dems might be elected! Oh, the humanity!
For shame anybody dare to say they should give taxpayers any money back. What the hell is he thinking?
The stupid citizens of this state have no idea what to do with excess tax funds. Surely they would simply throw it away on dumb things like……food….fuel….electricity….water….quarterly taxes bills….
Dumbass taxpayers
The truth of this proposal is it is just fiscally irresponsible. Holtzman wants to cut income taxes in order to pay back the surplus from Ref C. However, if, heaven forbid, we have another terrorist attack on our soil or something else causes the economy to take a downward turn from where it is now, this tax cut is not only useless in Ref C surpluses (as there wouldn’t be any when tax revenues fell due to a economic downtrend) but it also causes Colorado to enter another deficit. Only this time, as income tax receipts would be lower, it would be a greater deficit. All because of an ill-advised, short-sighted plan to return Ref C surpluses in the wrong way, through a pre-collection tax cut. Unless Holtzman is paying an oracle who can see into the 10-year future of our economy with 100% accuracy, I do not see how he could call this fiscally prudent.
Conservativism means responsibility; his proposal is anything but.
Two points…remember, for all the Holtzman people rag on Coors, he backed Coors, raised money for him and donated $1000 to Coors. And second, while Marc wants to cut taxes, where are his tax returns and when will he file them?
Gosh VOR, you are so right…let’s just stop the madness and sign over all of our assets to the government. That way, whether a terrorist attack, Hurricane, or forest fire, we know our wise leaders in the legislature will have enough to take care of us…now that is responsible. I’d like to tap into your obviously sound logic behind the legitimacy of the “income” tax…my copy of the constitution does not cover this one. I’m serious…this isn’t a “Laffer” at all!
Whoa
Sir Robin is going to get a woody reading this. Sounds just like the Socialist utophia world he wishes for.
Bottom Line,
Thank you for saying something for me that I didn’t say at all. It seems that is all the Holtzmanites can do; take someone’s words, twist them into something completely diferent, and then attack the person personally. Your post makes no sense, just like cutting the income tax (an unstable revenue producer) makes no sense to repay projected surpluses that are tied to a voter-approved measure, not solely income taxes. It is not a fix to Ref C surpluses that effects only Ref C surpluses, but much more in a fiscally irresposible manner.
VOR, thank you for the kind compliment, “Holtzmanite.” It sounds like “Granite,” a representation of a scrupulous persona.
You are obviously a person of intelligence, though a bit misguided. Your “sandstone” (i.e., crumbly, leaky, crusty) persona and logic are at least consistent. Please don’t get upset and whine…I don’t mean this as another “personal attack” that you constantly complain about incessantly. You are, at least, still a “rock.”
I applaud anyone who wishes to represent the “taxpayer” in whatever way possible. It is far too easy to pander the recipients of the looted funds.
Dear Mr. Marshall,
What planet did you just hatch from? The real difference between Bob Beauprez and Marc Holtzman is that Holtzman believes that government should learn to cut waste and inefficiency first, not conpromise for the Bill Owens backed (CYA) program. Who was it that said C & D are bitter pills (we as taxpayers) will have to swallow?
to think that Holtzman just came up with this proposal is absurd. Holtzman has been speaking about this for weeks. Just as Bb was late on Illegal Immigration, BB is really late on the tax cuts. What BB proposes is giving a utilities credit. That is much different than an out right tax cut.
Besides if the money is an excess, what do those political hacks plan on doing with it? My guess is that they will spend it. If government uses the $1.1 billion (escess) to expand more of government, whtat will happen when the next recession comes along (approximatrely every 11 years)?
Its time someone stood up for the hardworking citizens of Colorado. The Republicans and Democrats are both responisble for this. More so for the Republicans, they were in charge. It was under their watch that they raided the Workers Compensation Fund, Unclaimed Property Fund, etc. and borrowed off-budget to fund new programs.
Maybe that is why the Establishment Boys are so behind Beauprez, because they know how loose he was in spending in Washington.
Bottom line is this, Beauprez, once again, reluctantly signed on to the II proposal. It was a publicity stunt pure and simple. BB was always behind the creation of a rainyday (we expand government more by taking from it and spending it later) fund. That doesn’t sell in most big “C” conservative bastions of Colorado. Once again, BB was on the wrong side of the issue. Once again, he walks in late with his own (I copied it from Holtzman and Ritter) platform.
Haven’t you folks found one single issue that you propose a solution to that is your own? I don’t think so.
Sincerely,
Those who who BB better than people think – the taxpayers of Colorado.
P.S.: For your information, the tax cut strategy works under Keynesian Economics because Americans are a consumption oriented society. If people spend 80% of each new dollar they earn, that leave 20% for savings. With a money multiplier of 5 (or even 4 as a worst case scenario), the government would collect more in sales tax revenues.
For example, a $1.1 billion dollar tax cut followed by a money multipliedr of 5 results in $5.5. billion dollars in tax revenues.
hey Republicans, maybe that’s why those in Washington want the Bush Tax Cuts permanent? Do ya think??
So then, why would BB support a Rainyday Program over tax cuts in Colorado, while simultaneously supporting the Bush Tax Cuts.
NOTE TO HOLTZMAN: If tax cuts were good enough for Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, shouldn’t they be good enough for Colorado?
Funny how it was Meynard Keynes (a liberal economist) that proposed tax cuts at the income level. Seems it worked for John F Kennedy (1962), Ronald REagan (1986), and George W Bush (2001). I guess I am missing something here.
That isn’t whining, it is pointing out that if you can’t even stick to the issue, and instead can only make ad hominem attacks, what are you hiding from? Where is the truth and facts in your argument? If I am misguided, then tell me how, don’t just make a sweeping statement that I am. I told you why the tax cut is dangerous as a fix to Ref C surpluses, now tell me why it isn’t. You talk about pandering, that is what Holtzman’s proposal is: dangerous and irresponsible pandering. We need to realize that (to my dismay) Ref C has already passed voter approval, there is nothing that can be done about it now. If there are surpluses above the $3.7 Bil voters passed, then of course it should go back to the taxpayers. But let’s not be hasty and fix it in an irresponsible manner. This is why Caldera formed the HEAT measure–it fixes the problem of Ref C surpluses in a logical, concise manner that doesn’t harm our state.
yee-haw! Tax cuts & War! $100 for every voter! Runaway discretionary spending… Yee-haw! Reporikans in control, larding out the goodies to the corporate bosses. Yus suh. Here’s your billions (thanks for hte yacht and commodes!). (Let’s borrow MORE from the ChiComs).
I liked this line: “If Colorado were the State of Born Yesterday, Marc Holtzman would be a shoo-in for governor.”
I liked this line: “If Colorado were the State of Born Yesterday, Marc Holtzman would be a shoo-in for governor.”
MrHandy lives in “GOP Fantasy” world. “If people spend 80% of each new dollar they earn, that leave 20% for savings.”
Americans SAVE money? Ha! We have a negative savings rate in this country.
Let’s just make it so Republicans aren’t allowed to use hospitals, drive on roads, use public education, libraries, or universities.
Or, I know! Let’s have private built prisons that run over budget, then demand public bailouts! That’s the old GOP favorite.
Mrhandy,
Your representation of Keynesian economics and the multiplier effect is a poor misrepresentation. First, I suggest you read the Lucas and Friedman critiques of Keynesian economics and see how that ties into this issue perfectly. The money multiplier you speak of has absolutely nothing to do with tax cuts, but unemployment and supply of money. Money multipliers do not work in taxes; now if you want to talk the laffer curve, that is a different story. However, attempting to prove that a tax cut on a relatively small, state-level tax will be beneficial on the laffer curve is not only a hard task, but probably impossible.
However, if, heaven forbid, we have another terrorist attack on our soil or something else causes the economy to take a downward turn from where it is now, this tax cut is not only useless in Ref C surpluses (as there wouldn’t be any when tax revenues fell due to a economic downtrend) but it also causes Colorado to enter another deficit. Only this time, as income tax receipts would be lower, it would be a greater deficit.
-Voice of Reason
—————————————–
When you say this, you are assuming that the extra money is sitting in a bank collecting dust and interest. But the money is already spent, and if it isn’t, it is the gleam in lawmaker’s eyes whilst they dream about how to spend it. No one is going to put it in a rainy day fund to save for a possible recession (which would also be fiscally conservative). So if the money is going to be spent now, and not saved for later; why not give it back to the tax payers? They are only ones that will be able to spend or save the money “reasonably”.
ProPolOp,
No, what I am saying is that the money does need to be returned to the taxpayers, not spent, but going about it in this way is irresponsible. It risks much more than the surpluses, which is the issue behind it.
Hooray for Holtzman. Ref C was passed, that’s over and can’t be changed, but the projection was 3.1 billion. Anything over that should be returned.
If they keep it they will find a way to add new programs just to spend it.
I seen one of his t-shirts which had “Holtzman’s Heros” on it. I think Holtzman is the taxpayer’s HERO.
VOR,
It seems you have to continually re-explain yourself, or “untwist” the supposed “twisting.” I did not directly provide “proof” as you requested in reference to your mis-guided logic, as that is self-evident. You are in favor of government taking and keeping more. You asked for proof…my proof is in the fact that you cannot provide one program, project, or endeavor run and funded by government that does not have fraud, waste and abuse. FWA is inherent in bureaucracy/government. That is why I support any measure to reduce the size of government in any form.
I suggest “Free to Choose” by Friedman as a nice start to refuting any arguments using Keynesian theory as a basis for sound economics. The “Austrian School”, Von Mises and Hoppe, provide the final resting place for our economic evolution.
“It seems you have to continually re-explain yourself, or “untwist” the supposed “twisting.””
–Yes, you twisted my words. Goodness, look at what you said and compare it to what I said. They are nothing alike!
“I did not directly provide “proof” as you requested in reference to your mis-guided logic, as that is self-evident.”
–Seriously, that is the worst argument I have ever heard. That’s almost as good as “I know you are but what am I?” Grow up and don’t makes statements you can’t support.
“You are in favor of government taking and keeping more.”
–What?? Where do you get that from? From my saying that the surpluses should be given back, just not through a tax cut that relies on the unfounded idea that we will have surpluses in Ref C for 5 years that will cover the tax cut. This is not the way to return the surpluses to the taxpayers! I am with you, smaller government is better, but trying to fix Ref C surpluses with a tax cut is irresponsible and fiscally unwise.
And were you telling me about Friedman or Mrhandy? I was the one who was suggesting Friedman and Lucas…
MrHandy was the intended recipient of the Friedman and Von Mises reference.
Ok, if you are truly for the taxpayer, and you believe in “return the surpluses to the taxpayers!” How do you propose to do this?
At the risk of another, “I know you are, but here is the twist….” You claim to be with me in reducing the size/scope of government, but I have not seen that in your postings. I have only seen you bash “HOLTZMAN THE HERO OF THE TAXPAYER.”
“How do you propose to do this?”
HEAT initiative. From the Rocky: “Here’s how HEAT would work if Caldara were to get enough signatures to put it on the ballot, and if it won voter approval:
The amount of Ref C money above the $3.7 billion mark would be divided by the total number of exemptions claimed on state income tax returns. The head of the household would receive a check each October based on how many people live in the household.”
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/elections/article/0,2808,DRMN_24736_4681730,00.html For the rest of the story..
As far as me “bashing” Holtzman the “hero of the taxpayer” (which is funny considering Beauprez was given that award by Americans for Tax Reform [http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/108th-1/awards/awards.htm]), my posts in this thread are all concerning the return of Ref C surpluses. Again, I wish Ref C hadn’t passed, but I am not going to bury my head in the sand and act like it didn’t. That made Govt. bigger, but there is no reason it should mean that the surpluses should be kept to make Govt even bigger. But this tax cut is dangerous as a solution to returning the surpluses as it doesn’t actually adress the surpluses.
Interesting, I will review the article. Down here south of the border (El Paso County Line), we don’t hear much about BB. I understand he only had one vote of record in reference to his 100% rating. I have heard his stump five times live (that is a stretch by the way), and I nearly know it by heart (cold mornings…squeezing the teats…yada yada…sold the farm…golf course…made millions…Claudia runs the bank and I am a lucky man…yada yada.) There is nothing there about his leadership plan, the future of Colorado, etc…although I learned enough to produce a “made for TV” story on his life.
I look for ideas, innovations, issues…etc…HOLTZMAN is a leader. He has shown the ability to take a stand on issues, and provide innovative solutions to vexing problems. I’m sure BEAUPREZ could do the same, if he were let off the leash from the “ESTABLISHMENT.”
“I understand he only had one vote of record in reference to his 100% rating.”
–You understand wrong. That is just more of the Holtzmanure propoganda that Dick “I Lied” Leggitt made up. Here are the links to the ratings: Session 1– http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/108th-1/108-1-house-final.htm
Session 2– http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/108th-2/108-2-house-final.htm
While I have heard the stumps that sound the same, I have also heard his positive message and plan for the future of Colorado. I attended a question and answer session on any issue that was brought up and was very impressed with Beauprez’s answers–he understands how things work and how to get it done. He doesn’t just pander like Holtzman does and create solutions to problems such as immigration that Mike Rosen (not directly to Holtzman, but concerning a solution that mirrors his) calls impractical and laughable.
His latest pandering puts Colorado at risk for a great deficit and opens the door for even more measures like Ref C.
Vote for me, I’ll kick out all the illegals and give you a huge tax cut! I promise! This guy is the biggest pathetic pandering loser I have ever seen.
Holtzman a “hero of the taxpayer?”
A guy who made his fortune off government programs in Eastern Europe, and lined his pockets in excess of accounting/legal standards?
The guy who created the now closed boondoggle, Colorado Institute of Technology? How many millions of taxpayer money was wasted on that?
And now this guy is suddenly the champion of fiscal restraint. This guy is desperately selling dreams on his way down.
“Marc has shown the ability to take a stand on the issues”
–Bottom Line Up Front in Pueblo
Don’t you mean Marc has shown the ability to have issues on the stand?!?!
Issues and ZOT…let’s see if we can help you get back to the issues…since you are obviously BB supporters…who is he and what does he stand for? I am no apologist for anyone in particular, although I am sure there is more than plenty of dirt on your dairy farmer/golf course developer…as I’ve been told.
If you are so strongly in support of BB, then why not provide solid, substantive postions. At least VOR has taken that approach. VOR, thanks for the links…I will review them.
CIT was all privately funded. Boy – the LACK OF TRUTH here is almost nauseating.
That’s what I thought…thanks Truth Squad. This is why the real conservatives in the state are quietly moving to Marc. The guy is positive and has a clear vision for what the state needs.
So, I noticed Issues and ZeroOT have no substantive issues to bring forth. I think that answers my question.
“Boy – the LACK OF TRUTH here is almost nauseating.”
Yeah, it’s almost as bad as being at the Holtzman campaign headquarters.
Bottom Line,
You have to admit, Issues’ comment was kinda funny. And it raised an issue in itself (Marc perjured himself on the stand).
And ZOT’s post has an issue too; the question he/she raises is a good question–if Marc is such a hero of the taxpayer, why did he accept a $300,000 per anum salary that was funded by taxpayer dollars. From the Rocky: “EurAmerica received its startup funds from the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund, which was funded by U.S. taxpayers. Holtzman served as president of EurAmerica and was paid a salary of $300,000 per year.” …”Members of Congress denounced Holtzman for getting rich off public funds.” …”A 1993 audit of EurAmerica found the organization’s books in disarray, with no quarterly financial statements and missing minutes from board of directors meetings.”
Excuse me Voice of Reason. If I remember my macroeconomics correctly, doesn’t the Laffer Curve deal with the distribution of income and wealth? Just as you may not agree with Keynes, as many folks don’t.
For example, drop Laffer and head to the Austrian Schoo,of Economics if you want a real explanation of tax cuts. It is true that the savings rate is actually less than 5%. I think Mr handy was merely using the 20% as the number for illustration. According to my research, if the consumption level is greater, the money multiplier would increase and therefore levave more funds being collected by the government.
Voice of Reason – Go back to school, do not pass go and do not collect $200.00. The money multiplier appears when you calculate the differential of velocity of money as it transacts throughout the economy. Has little to do with production and supply. Most often the money multiplier is discussed in most economic texts under fiscal and monetary policy.
Keyens was a fiscal policy (government spending) person. According to Keynes, if goverment spent money directly it would not leave a savings factor differential that would have to be calculated. To most Keynesian economists, the savings rate and imports are drains on the economy.
Ever wonder why the government taxes interest earned as ordinary income? Simple, it reduces the savings rate (if any) from the equation and the government receives more in return.
I.E. the federal government decides it need to raise $250 billion in new revenue. Instead of spending the funds, the government may opt to use tax cuts. Therefore, the government would only need to reduces taxes by $50 billion. With a money multiplier of 5, it would easily raise the $250 billion. However, there comes the savings rate, and imports. As such, the government would not receive all that it hoped for.
In the United States, one need only look at the weakening of the dollar, and the trade imbalance with China to gain an understaning of where the money is going. American’s are buying Chinese goods.
As for the surplus. If the government uses these funds to expand Colorado’s bureaucracy even further, then when a recession occurs – as it will, things will be worse. TABOR was credited for limiting the growth of government to approximately 6% per annum. Interestly enough, if you looked at the purchasing power of $1.00 in 1900, and compared it to the same amount of goods and services that one could purchase, you would find that the decrease in purchasing power is approximately 6% per annum.
Your dollar today, will be worth 6% less a year from now (approximately). If you use the depression and 1929, you will find it is approximately 3% per annum. I prefer to use the more conservative figure.
The only way that the surplus being used by government is if the bureaucracy purchases goods and services from the private sector and not using the funds for future government growth. if you add to the bureaucracy and then do not have a future funding mechanism in place, you are doomed to repeat your mistakes.
Did you know?
Marc Holtzman received a salary of $1.00 while serving the state of Colorado?
Did you know?
marc Holtzman is credited with bringing 50 firms to Colorado (approximately 36,000 jobs).
I’m sorry…can someone please tell me how many jobs Bob Beauprez created for Colorado as our Congressman. Actually, during the 108th Congress he only sponsored ONE bill that would bring home the bacon. Which is a fallacy since it requested $500,000 in additional government spending.
Now what did BB do for me again? I must have missed something. Speaking of message, what is Bob Beaprez’s campaign theme? What is his message again?
Speaking of someone who doesn’t have a message.
Bob Beauprez wrote the book on pandering to the base while not doing a thing without ever so much as picking up a pen. Bob Beauprez wants to take that money from government, give it back to government, and then let government decide where and when it wants to give it back.
Principled…conservative…well there cow poke, you’re not just whistling dixey! Bob Beauprez will work tirelessly to ensure that your tax dollars never get back to you while pushing forth a conservative platform without ever doing a single thing.
Now that’s Colorado values!
Holtzman perjured Himself??? Where’s the proof??? Stop the allegations and lets get real. let’s say he did everything that the Beprez Camp and Steve (I really used to be a Colorado Crazy) alledge. So what? Was it a felony? if so lock him up? Was he arrested? Prosecuted? Then send the man to jail.
If that is all you bleeding heart babies have to say is Holtzman Perjured Himself, and nothing else, then Ritter deserves to win. You people sicken even the most lame of us…put up or shut up. No one cares. Beauprez lies on a daily basis and you all just go along with the show.
here’s one:
FLASH…..FLASH…..FLASH…….FLASH……FLASH
Today marc Holtzman drove a stake to the very conspiracy theorists among the Beauprez Campaign. For months, the underlings of the Beauprez Campaign have been calling Holtzman’s relationship with the Reagan Administration all make believe. They never had any proof or documentation to back up their claims, but they persisted.
Now, in a move guaranteed to make the Beauprez Campaign the official winners of the “South End of the Elephant Parade Club” look just a silly as one could ever imagine, the Holtzman sent out copies of actual inter-office memorandums between the REagan Administration and Charles Black, Reagan Campaign.
In addition, the Holtzman crew provided a signed letter form Ronald Reagan’s former secretaty, and a letter for former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese. Interestingly enough, the memo is initialed by none other than the Gipper himself.
Wonder if the Rocky (We Love Bob Beauprez) Mountain News or Denver (We love Bob also) Post will cover the story. Forget that both newspapers took the effort to talk about Beauprez sisnging Musgrave’s petition, and nothing about Holtzman.
Ironically, Holtzman had been talking about Tax Cuts weeks ago. In a Meet and Greet in Colorado Springs, where more than 150 supporters were present, neither newspaper covered the story and therefore wer unaware of what was said.
NOTE TO JOURNALISTS:
Whenever there is a hotly contested race, and there are multiple candidates, maybe it would be wise to assign a report(s) to each of the campaigns. That way you dont look as silly as you look.
Now that Holtzman has made Beauprez look stupid, what next? The documents are fakes? They were found on a grassy knoll? Give it a rest, Berauprez won’t debate Holtzman for the simple reason that he knows what will happen. He will get eaten alive.
Oh, and by the way. Know those petitions the Holtzman Camp has been sending out? I know people who have filled not just the single page requested by the camp, but multiple pages of registered Republicans. In addition, they are sending Holtzman money (as requested) to show their support for Marc.
As for Holtzman supporting Coors, Bill Owens did too if I ‘m not mistaken, so shut up already. Your laundry is just as dirty, if not dirtier. I would imagine its the later.
If you want to talk about the millions (or billions) in wasted technology. How about the Colorado Judicial System’s boondogle of a computer system. That goofy program that was in stalled in 1987 and wasn’t, still doesn’t work todfay. Wasn’t it the Colorado REpublican delegation that put forth the funding for that failed experiment?
Story goes that main frame computers were hauled out of the Court Administrator’s Office in Denver and transported from various location to location in an effort to get the thing to work. Numerous versions of software were purchased, consultants (like Bob Roper) were hired as outside consultants and then positions created so that they are now permanent employees. Wasn’t that the Republicans? Bigger government? Didn’t state judicial lose several former top ranking administrators? Aren’t many of them living on their fat retirements in Costa Rica? Who footed the bill for that nonsense?
People like Ronnie (I owned a computer once) May. Now there’s a secret. Wonder what taxpayers would say iof they learned of the Republican’s antics? Would they be happy? Would they be impressed?
anonymous,
As just a quick definition of the laffer curve, from Princeton: “a graph purporting to show the relation between tax rates and government income; income increases as tax rates increase up to an optimum beyond which income declines.” If you want me to explain it more in depth, let me know.
Mr handy,
What you are talking about is a tax multiplier, not a money mulitplier as Keynes described. Tax multipliers only work in a perfect society, as you began to point out. The laffer curve basically works off of tax multipliers; as economists have found, it is impossible to be sure where on the curve a taxed society is and whether or not taxation or tax cuts will increase revenues or not. Money multipliers work differently, and require the Government intervention Keynes preached. As an example, consider the government increasing its expenditure on roads by $1 million, without a corresponding increase in taxation. This sum would go to the road builders, who would hire more workers and distribute the money as wages and profits. The households receiving these incomes will save part of the money and spend the rest on consumer goods. These expenditures in turn will generate more jobs, wages, and profits, and so on with the income and spending circulating around the economy.
As for the weakening dollar, yes, after 9/11 the dollar weakened. However, over the past two years the dollar has gained on most currencies. For example, run a simple line chart on Yahoo!Finance comparing the USD with GBP. ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=USDGBP=X&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=gbpusd=x )
Finally, the surpluses. I don’t think anyone here is advocating the use of them by the government except for the Dems who have posted on this topic. They ought to be returned to the taxpayers, however a tax cut that does not adress the surpluses is not a fix to the surpluses. It risks putting Colorado in another deficit if the economy takes a downward turn and opens the door for more measures like Ref C. The negative externalities of such a large tax cut being used to pay back the projected surpluses to the taxpayers over Ref C by lowering the income tax rate are too great.
lets just get the facts straight. Holtzman’s tax cut is nothing more than the re-instatement of the TABOR caps. Nothing more, nothing less. If there is a projected surplus now, then government doesn’t need the excess and should return the amount over and above what is requires to end the misery.
That is the TAX CUT. Holtzman didn’t say cut the tax rates from 5% to say 3%. Although, there are many of us conservatives that believe that is what should happen to insure that government does not go about expaning each and every year – even though it has since TABOR was initially passed in 1992.
The problem with those in government is that they think there should not be any ceilings at all. If that were to happen, Colorado would have ended up like Connecticut, and California with massive deficits.
Just so we are clear Voice of Reason.
But the tax cut does not restore the ceilings as it is written in the state constitution; it is a round-about way of trying to do get rid of Ref C. The problem is, it doesn’t remove Ref C, it only attempts to cover the surplus. However, if there are no surpluses due to an economic slide, the tax rate is still lower and will cause another deficit which will leave our Democratic (at least for now) legislature begging for an extention of Ref C, or worse, an increase in the tax rate through other taxes. The proposal isn’t a fiscally responsible check like TABOR, it is a fiscally unwise and potentially very dangerous measure that could very well put us in the situation Conneticut and California are in now.
“In addition, they are sending Holtzman money (as requested) to show their support for Marc.”
–Yeah, the problem is, while money from the east coast counts, their signatures don’t.
I haven’t heard the Beauprez camp saying that it wasn’t true that Holtzman had a relationship with Reagan, but that it was over-exagerated. I would like to see the memo(s) you are talking about. Are they on the net anywhere? What I have heard is that the Reagan Library (aka Mrs. Reagan) has asked Marc to stop using photos…if Marc and the Reagans were so close, why?
“South End of the Elephant Parade Club” eh? I think you are losing your short-term memory and have completely forgotten that Dick Leggitt was the campaign manager for Holtzman…
Speaking of sahort-term memory, how about Bb and this stuff. Hot off the presses.
http://www.progressnowaction.org/bwbdraft
Its even in color. Lots of good pictures of football player bob and Vietnam. Hmm, these people do not like BB at all.
Bet you don’t have pictures of Legitt like these?
By the way, Bob Beauprez has the worst voting record for Disabled Veterans of any member of the Colorado Delegation for 2004 and 2005.
Hey brainless, these are valid Colorado signatures. I get your drift but please stay on point.
Theres lots of stuff on BB at the following: http://www.coloradoconservatives.blogspot.com
A tax cut? How about doing away with the Colorado income tax and going pure consumption tax? There isn’t a conservative in the race when it comes to taxation.
Anonymous, you’re so bitter (“brainless”). Cheer up! Life isn’t as bad as your friends at Progress Now purport. Using Progress Now while painting the picture of ultra-conservativism for your candidate doesn’t really help you out.
Progress Now is a crazy, left-wing group who attacks anyone conservative who threatens their socialist goals…why aren’t they attacking Marc if he is such a strong conservative?
Hey, speaking of conservatives, notice BB’s Five Star Plan for eliminating illegal immigration:
We must end this business of “sanctuary cities.”
– We need to implement a quick, affordable, and accurate method that employers can use to ensure they are not hiring illegal workers.
– We need to adopt the policy that Colorado will not allow state tax dollars to be spent on illegal immigrants beyond what the law requires. Our state agencies must lead by example and enforce compliance of taxpayer-funded benefit restrictions to illegal immigrants.
– We need to make sure our local law enforcement officials are empowered to enforce our immigration laws.
– Finally, Bob will lead a coalition of governors to demand real, meaningful immigration reform from Washington, DC.
What’s missing from this picture. Bet Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, and the other conservatives would know. Care to take a guess?
You mean closing the southern boarder? The measure Beuprez has voted for in Congress, as it is something the Federal Government would have to do?? Hence the coalition of governors to pressure the Fed Govt…
Oh, Marc’s plan doesn’t mention anything about it either.
It’s protect our borders!!! Nowhere in his Five Star plan does BB call for protecting our borders!!! He’s in favor of the failed guestworker program we already have.
The Guest (if I come, do I have to go home) Worker Program. that means that BB favors expanding the current Green Card System with some version of a new I.D. program. Bet Bb supports increasing the number of visa’s already issued.
Know so, because he has voted for the legislation. Problem is, as we are inviting low paying high tech immigrants to the U.S., there are 2 million high tech workers out of jobs. Can you say SMOOTH MOVE EXLAX?
BB is merely pandering to the left wing of the Republican Party, notice he doesn’t address the Right wing of the REpublicans Party. Whoops!! Damnit, I am a conservative, Tom Tancredo say so.
he may have voted for it this year, but not during the 108th Congress. Also, I noticed how woud danced around the expansion of visas issue. Oh, I get it, lets not talk about that one. But hey, wanna see a card trick?
Also the vote restricitng the use of Consular Metricula Cards in the U.S. Aren’t the sanctuary cities the ones who are actively seeking their expansion?
Okay, now I’m confused. BWB votes against limiting the use of Consular Metricula Cards in the U.S. and then says he’s against sanctuary cities? Both Ways rides again.
Hey Anonymous,that’s a good broadast on Both Ways Bob.
You said that there were 150 people for a meet and greet in Colorado Springs but didn’t mention, if my info is correct that 92 of them were State Delegates an 31 of them were top ranked Alternates.
I have seen a copy of the Ed Meese and Von Damm letters. Beauprez lied in his email.
VoR, then since you have looked up the definition of the Laffer Curve, how does the Gini coefficient work? Especially in relation to incomes and tax rates?
What three measures can government use to satisfy a macreconomic disequalibrium? Which is the preferred? Which school of economic thought does George W. Bush function under?
As for the Americans for Tax REform and some of the other outfits that Bb uses. Even CUT (Colorado Union of Taxpayers) is engagin in outcome based education. Earn a 73%, get a Satisfactory. Hell, when I was in school, a 73% or 77% was average, middle of the road. Notice how they skewed their totals?
These outfits are laughable, which is why the Republicans stand to get a royal ass whooping in Washington, all because of this nonsense. Instead of saying, Look at what we have accomplished in Washington, our representatives are going to the Carl Rove school of political science. The “you don’t want Nancy Palosi now do you? shcool of politics. Affraid that this strategy will bite Rove in the ass, and the Dems will take control.
The REpubs had their opportunity and instead of leading, they acted like a bunch of frat boys and screwed things up. Most true Big “C” Conservatives will not fall for this stuff. Aka, Pete Coors and Ken Salazar.
Oh, and about that…
“http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13536“ –OpEd Written by Beauprez on Illegal Immigration
And http://blog.beauprezforgovernor.com/2006/03/bob_on_koas_mor.html –Bob on KOA’s Morning News
And http://blog.beauprezforgovernor.com/2006/03/beauprez_on_pet.html –Bob on Peter Boyle talking about immigration.
More?
Hey VofR, if you want to hear Holtzman speak about Illegal Immigration, you should attend one of his meetings. He gets pretty fired up over it. Noticed that BB did not make the Illegal Immigration Rally in Denver. I guess he was in D.C.
NOT. Wasn’t in D.C. Was busy campaigning. Wonder what his committee votes record looks like by now. Absent 80% of the time, and available to vote only 20%?
I know what BB says about illegal immigration. I have atape of him with Joseph machelli. they day he said he was just stopping in Colorado Springs on his way back to Washington. Guess where he was the next morning?
At a Meete and Greet at Falcon Police Station. Guess he changed his mind. funny thing, when machelli pressured him on the securing the borders, BB said” We must do that also, but first we must eliminate the magnet that draws people to the United States.” Of which, Machelli suggested that they talk again because there seemed to be a disagreement between the two.
Adding the word “BUT” indicates that he prefers something else first. I.e. identification cards. What happened when the Fed’s were suggesting i.d. cards for Americans. If we expand an already failed system of id cards, then the next step will be to determine who has i.d. cards and go after those who don’t. those who will have the cards will be American citizens, not mexican illegals.
According to Project VoteSmart (as far as I can tell) Beauprez has been in DC for all his votes…
And Ive heard Holtzman speak on Illegal Immigration. He repeats himself over and over again, yells some, turns red. Kind of like Howard Dean, actually…
No the word “but” means: “but first we must eliminate the magnet that draws people to the United States.”
hey VoR, give me your E-mail and I will send a copy of that great discussion to you. BB probably doesn’t want it in circulation. Problem is, it already is in circulation. Along wiith his “Everybody knows that I consistently voted against Refs C & D.” That’s one for the ages.
And wasn’t this about Marc’s tax cut? Why’d you change the subject? Anyhow, it’s past my bedtime for tonight–early morning tomorrow.
And there is no way Im giving you my email…i dont like being signed up for spam and you seem pretty vindictive…
yeah, iI get it. The magnet is jobs. However, regardless of whether there are jobs or not, a barrier to entry is much easier than attempting to police each and every company in the United States.
Afterall, don’t we already have form I-9’s that require employers to check for identification? Hmmm. Guess that program need more government bureaucrats to police it better. More bureaucracy, more government, more regulations, and little enforcement.
Didn’t work in 1986, and it won’t now. Who was it that said, If we do not learn from our past we are doomed to repeat it?
If all of this bureaucracy worked so well, why are Great Brittain, France, and German now limiting the number of immigrants to their countries? Limiting the amiount of homestead assistance? Limiting the amount of access to government services? Maybe they know something we don’t.
My real question for BB would be, “If you feel so strongly, why did you vote against the Tancredo Amendment? why haven’t you introduced any substantive legislation? Why is it that of the 16 bills (whooo) you introduced during the 108th Congress, none involved illegal immigration?
Vindictive, no. Not at all. I’m not vindictive. Disappointed that Colorado’s establishment appears set on squandering it opportunities and opening the doors for the Dems. Aka Ken Salazar, John Salazar, and more to come.
Look at how the REpubs behaved in the state legislature. Most acted like a bunch of scorned frat boyz. It is far better to say nothing and have others wonder if you are stupid, than to open ones mouth and confirm their suspicions.
By the way, why is it that BB (during the 108th Congress) had the Dems sponsore his legislation more time then the Repubs? Even if he knew he was going to run for Governor, which he did because of the court decision, why? By a 2 to 1 margin. Tancredo never co-sponsored any of his bills.
Worse yet. Many of his bills were housekeeping legislation and didn’t have any co-sponsors. Usually the strength of a bill is indicated by the number of co-sponsors. Not BB’s, his stuff looks like a lonely-hearts club invitation.
Amen Republitarian. I’m all for a consumption oriented tax structure. Both at the state and federal levels. Problem is no one has the balls to introduce it.
That is the truly fair tax system. If you spend, you pay a higher tax. If you don’t spend, you save and earn interest or dividneds from your investments which drives interest rates lower, makes borrowing for capital improvement or business expansion less costly.
Makes far too much sense.