March 16, 2010 01:39 AM UTC

Prop 101: Time to hit the road

•  
• by: Bowman for Senate

(Well Written and interesting (plus it was written by a candidate) – promoted by Danny the Red (hair))

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If Proposition 101 is approved, that road may be the only bit of pavement left in Colorado that doesn’t need repair.

In a nutshell, Prop. 101 seeks to cut vehicle ownership fees to $1/used cars and $2/ new cars, set vehicle registration fees at a flat $10, cut vehicle sales tax, incrementally decrease state income taxes to 3.5 percent and, other than 911 fees, eradicate all taxes and fees on phone, satellite, and Internet services.

The stated rational for this sweeping proposal is two-fold: limiting powers of government, and ceasing excessive collection of dollars that government allegedly does not need.

There are so many flaws in the simplistic application of these two arguments that it is difficult to know where to start, but let’s look first at limited power of government. No red-blooded American favors too much government, but even the Founding Fathers acknowledged that government has certain responsibilities, simple basics such as public safety and facilitation of a functioning society.

Maintaining a sound infrastructure of roads and bridges certainly fits those criteria.  

Yet right now, the Colorado Department of Transportation reports that more than one fifth of Colorado’s highway lane miles have exceeded their engineered life span. A total of 128 bridges are classified as structurally deficient, and there is no money to fix them.

CDOT projects a decline of anticipated revenues in 2011 of roughly $500 million – that’s without Prop. 101. There was a similar drop in estimated revenues in the previous budget year that was alleviated by a one-time shot in the arm from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In the CDOT Strategic Plan released in November, officials said that, while state roads “may appear to be in reasonably good condition (but) continuing underinvestment will take its toll.

Based upon current anticipated revenues, in just seven years our engineers estimate that there will be double the (amount) of bridge deck in poor condition, 65 percent of pavement in poor condition, (and) a D grade for maintenance, down from a B-…The difficult reality is that without additional resources Coloradans should expect the condition of many components of their transportation system to deteriorate, even as CDOT strives to improve its organizational performance.”

Okay, so facts and figures are admittedly not all that sexy for most of us, but here are a few more numbers that just cannot be ignored: Our current gasoline tax of 22 cents has not changed since 1991, when the price of a gallon of regular unleaded in Colorado ranged from $1.14 to $1.35.

If that 1991 rate had been set as an adjustable percentage of the price, the current tax would be somewhere between 40 cents and 49 cents. Now, that would be a serious burden on the consumer, so let’s just look at our 22 cents in relation to other states. Utah’s gasoline tax is 24.5 cents, Kansas collects 25 cents, and Nebraskans pay 27.3 cents.

What’s more, the national average is 28.9 cents and, as of a year ago, Colorado ranked 21st in the United States. Further, our combined local/state tax burden in Colorado ranks 46th nationally. So if you want to hamstring government from its due responsibilities with the argument that we are overtaxed, that dog just won’t hunt.

Proponents of Prop. 101 also argue that we just don’t need the money. The estimated $500 million that would be lost with this initiative is currently divided as follows: 65 percent for state highways, 26 percent for county roads, and 9 percent to municipalities. Tell local community leaders they don’t need those dollars.

But Prop. 101 supporters say the money is unnecessary because the federal economic stimulus plan supports infrastructure. They are forgetting, however, that the stimulus fund is not a bottomless cookie jar. As the CDOT report notes, ARRA money was a one-time infusion. These are also many of the same people who quick to decry the national debt – but they want Coloradans to rely on federal give-aways? And where do they think that money comes from?

Finally, here are a few more numbers it would be foolish to ignore. The non-partisan Bell Policy Institute estimates that passage of Prop. 101 would result in a loss of more than $1.9 billion in state revenues. That’s capital construction money for schools, State Patrol and other law enforcement programs, and a host of other services which government, by its very nature, is obligated to provide.

The figures also include a $732 million hit to local governments. What does that mean for rural Colorado? Consider, as an example, the city of Yuma, where this year’s general fund budget received $10,000 from vehicle registration fees, $44,000 from vehicle licensing fees, and $102,000 in State Highway User funds. The latter comes from gasoline sales tax, so that would remain constant except for inevitable impacts of a changing retail market and, of course, the effect of inflation on spending power.

More directly, Proposition 101 would effectively slash license and registration income by about $50,000, a cut to Yuma’s general fund of nearly seven percent. How many rural Colorado governments can easily absorb that hit?

Responsible leadership demands a decisive stand on such a dangerous initiative. Politicians who have failed to get off the fence on this issue – such as Greg Brophy, who currently represents Yuma as well as the rest of Senate District 1 – seem to not be interested enough to do the research, or perhaps are too concerned with the direction of political winds.

Meanwhile, tunnel-vision fringe groups are proposing legislation that would take Colorado down a very wrong road, in a hand basket.