President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 10, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
27 Comments
Troubling. So, the estimated Ref C windfall is increasing at the rate of $500 million every six months. Rounding up, the population of the state is 5 million, so that’s $200 per person so far and we’ve only just begun. The problem with proposing a cap on the Ref C windfall is … what?
Ref C windfall? You mean collecting income tax at the exact same level/tax rate while the economy improves as when it tanks? Boy, what a rip-off! The state is collecting money at the rate it said it would. This was all laid out that Blue Book, you know.
Then Romanoff kills ’em with kindness:
“We had a good debate last fall over Referendum C, and the governor, most of the legislature and the majority of Coloradans were on one side. Mr. Beauprez and Mr. Holtzman were on the other side,” [Romanoff] said. “That doesn’t mean that they are not free to come up with good ideas; it is just that their ideas aren’t good.”
Ha. Ha.
It seems that Bob is willing to sign up for someone else to do the work….just like writing a couple of letters to the editor is taking a strong stand.
Marc didn’t wait, but took action before last Nov. and seems to be wanting to take a proactive stance as governor…
That’s all I’m looking for, someone who will actually lead.
Obviously the problem is that the Dems can’t keep the extra money under a plan to cap the extra revenues that the voters didn’t vote on. Geez, it’s almost like you think this is a democratic society… (note the sarcasm)
Republitarian, those are the most dishonest numbers I have ever seen. “Oh, the state is collect $200 MORE in taxes from people ever 6 months”.
Lies! Lies! Lies! The only way the State collects more money from you is:
1. You Earn more money
2. You spend more money
No tax rates have changed. Remember, Ref C was NOT a tax rate increase.
pacified –
I didn’t say $200 more in tax every six months. Please read a little better. It’s an increase of $200 per person over the life of Ref C, so far and, we’ve only just begun. See? I can do numbers just fine, and I certainly don’t need to puff up the windfall. I rounded the population number up, you see; and did the calculation on a per capita basis, not on a per taxpayer basis. The “not a tax rate increase” statement is wrong. It is indeed a net tax tate increase.
Hey Hippoponymous, lay off my friend BB. He was “consistently opposed to both ref C & D and everyone knows that.” At least that’s what he continues to spew off about. On a local radio call in show, KVOR 740, Joseph Machelli BB is recorded as saying that he was “consistentanly” opposed to C & D.
Because he says it, we must believe it. Even if the truth, and facts say otherwise. And we’ll not talk about his voting record in Congress, left of Mark Udall and Diana DeGett. Even on the radio program he talks more about his buddies Mark Udall and John Salazar more than the Repubs. Explains why they co-sponsored his legiaslation more times (2 to 1 ) than the Repubs.
Musgrave 2, Hefley 1, Tancredo 0.
Not to mention the bills he couldn’t get co-sponsors for. More than half of his bills proposed. I mean really, just how hard is it to get a co-sponsore on a bill to recess, or accept a message from the President?
In the real world, there is a saying; “Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.” Holtzman chose to lead. Beauprez, I still can’t figure if he was getting out of the way (having it both ways), or following Bill Owen’ and Bruce Benson’s lead?
Why Ref C is a tax increase:
Year in and year out, pacifier and I have earned $10,000/yr. We have each paid $500 (5%) in tax to the state every year and at the end of every year, the state has refunded $250 to us both. Beginning this year, there will be no refund. pacifier is happy (delusional, but happy) because the 5% tax rate didn’t change and so there is no tax increase this year. I’m not so happy because I do numbers and I figure that my effective (net) tax rate just went from 2.5% to 5%. The state is giddy, of course. Yes, pacifier, Ref C is a tax increase.
In the real world there is also another saying: “Cut your losses and run.” Marc has put over half a million dollars into his own campaign and he’s tanking. It’s time for him to get over himself and realize that he can’t lie and buy his way into the governor’s seat.
There is a difference between a “tax increase” and a “tax rate increase” in this f’ed up system of the government taking my money, holding it for 8 months, then giving it back to me. But for some reason, thats what the GOP loves to do.
Hippoponymous,
Read more. Then post. Then you might understand what you are posting about.
Hippoponymous –
There is nothing dishonest about my comments. Ref C did, in fact, increase tax rates, at least effective tax rates which are really the only tax rates that matter. The Ref C pitch, “Hey guys, we already HAVE your money, we’re just not going to give any of it back from now on – so, what’s the diff?” glossed over the fact that Ref C was nothing but a tax increase. 10% tax – 1% refund = 9% effective rate. 10% tax – 0% refund = 10% effective tax rate.
Republitarian
I argued those points before the referendum was voted on until I was blue in the face. No matter how you cut it they are keeping more of my money than before. I call that a tax increase.
And we are reminded that a “majority” of Colorado voters voted for it. I say a majority of people who bothered to vote “barely” got it to pass.
Not the landslide some lead us to believe.
Do you really think they will give any back? HA.
Gecko –
Nope, I don’t think the Ref C windfall will be capped no matter how big it gets. It’s nice to hear the candidates talking about doing so, though.
So… the problem is that the economy is growing more than expected and so the government is taking in more revenue? This is bad news?
Ref C was passed so that the necessary fixes to deteriorating infrastructure and core programs could be done and we have tax rates (that were actually lowered in the not so distant past) set so that the needs of an expanding economy and population can be met with the needed government services. The $10K effective tax rate argument is false simply because the individual making $10K previously and paying a net $250 in taxes is now making $11K and paying $500. A higher effective tax rate on an even higher income seems like a good tradeoff. That’s not to mention the lowered costs to individuals of a more efficient and fully funded government. Better highways, limits on college tuition increases and fewer sick kids at school saves me quite a bit of cash.
I’m not saying that higher taxes are wonderful, but it seems that we’re striking a good balance and until the tax burden and government services start dragging down the economy instead of keeping pace with expansion it seems that jumping the gun with a cap on revenue is just ideological BS without any real need.
AsIf_I_care
No, it’s not ideological BS. The Democrats and the Repulicrats and the Governor who used to be conservative worked everything out and figured something like $3.1 billion extra would do the trick. Now, that number is $4.2 billion. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that number growing to twice that before the 5-yr Ref C term ends. So, that’s not ideological BS; that’s a real problem. What was originally going to be an increase in state revenue equal to a little more than $600 per capita could end up be closer to $1,600 per capita (not per taxpayer). I am one of a very small minority who believes that the only way to control government is through cashflow. The less cash, the smaller the government. That’s practical, not ideological. Now, the state’s take may be much much larger than intended. Why give the state so much more cash – possibly much more than it asked for? To save you quite a bit of cash? Uh … no.
You posted about there not being any projected surpluses in accordance with the voter Blue Book. Read on the subject, find the most recent outlooks on Ref C revenues, and then post. When you post things that are just absurdly untrue, you make yourself look like an incompetent intern.
Yes Hippy, Colorado did pass Ref C.
Barely.
But at least D failed………….
Hippoponymous –
It’s practical ideology, then. Or ideological practicality. You shouldn’t let the subject bore you to yawning. It’s an important question. Can we starve the beast into submission? No, though I wish we could. Can we put a leash on the beast and feed it enough, but not more than enough for its minimal health and our improved well-being? That’s the question. Of all the beasts spawned by man, government is the greediest and hungriest and yet the most loved sometimes for its warmth, too – by many, the majority often. Is this the land of the free and the home of the brave? That’s the ideal. It takes much more thought and imagination to control the beast than it does to feed it and give it the run of the range and to hope that it grows more and more teats for suckling. What’s the downside of trying to starve the beast other than it likely is a trivial pursuit? I think it’s worth a try – call it political sport. Call it fighting the beast with water balloons that do nothing more than make the beast snarl and flatten its warm furry coat enough to show the pussy nodules everywhere under its skin.
Sorry. I meant “pussey nodules”, as in nodules full of puss. I didn’t mean “pussy.” Does anyone know how to spell the adjective that describes “puss?” I know it’s not “pussy” after re-reading my post.
My apologies to the sensitive.
Ah ha, according to dictionary.com, “pussy” is the right word, but it relates to “pus”, not “puss.” Apologies to anyone who might feel like gagging.
I got a real bad mental image. I think I need to go hurl now.