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%
March 27, 2010 05:27 PM UTC
24 Comments
Although at the end of the day not a terribly important one. Take the pulling candy out of the food tax exemption (probably the simplest example). At the end of the day a good that previously was not taxed now is.
The most accurate way to phrase it is that it expanded the goods subject to an existing tax. But it’s equally fair to say both it removed an exemption and it is new tax revenue. It is a stretch to call it a new tax as the tax itself already existed.
But more importantly – who cares what it’s called? That doesn’t matter. At the end of the day business has to spend X dollars collecting Y dollars. Consumers see their cost go up by X+Y dollars. And the state gets Y dollars.
The questions we should be asking (and no on is):
1. How much should the state be aiming for in total receipts.
2. What is the best way to do this that has the least negative impact on the state (especially in terms of job loss).
No one talks about the above 2 issues. Not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not anyone. And saying the state needs “more” or “less” revenue is not an answer to question 1.
David, I appreciate the frank discussion.
Why squabble over the definition? Trying to catch Mcinnis on a technicality will not mean anything to the voters. Nor will pointing out that he shaved his mustache.
Once again, Jason Salzman delivers a worthless diary. David is touching on the real issue here: what is the best way for Colorado to raise more revenue in the most market friendly way. Jason is stuck in a gotcha frame of mind. I will pose the question one last time; why in the world is Pols putting everything this guy writes on the front page???
n/t
Jason you need a hobby.
Does anyone here want to claim that every single post of their is an absolute gem? I don’t think this was one of his top 10, but he has some that were spot-on and he puts in the time to dig.
His points on the Post never quoting Jane Norton were, I think, very legit. (And interesting that we never heard was it the Post not asking or Norton not answering.)
But the exchange above, yeah – I don’t see how that technicality means much to anyone.
Once again, McInnis is claiming that “thousands of jobs have been lost” due to the new oil and gas rules. That is a proven lie the last time I checked, and here McInnis is still saying it and a reporter is letting him get away with it. I don’t know about you, but I want him called on this.
We know how you feel about the tax exemptions, Dave. Not for thee, got it.
Not sure what the hard-on is for bashing Salzman at every opportunity (Aggie doth protest too much), but this is a good post IMO.
The central of this diary and the Q&A listed was were the recent tax changes increases. That particular argument I think is akin to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – not terribly interesting.
On the O&G issues – yes that’s a biggie and well worth calling out.
Hahaha, you are probably right, I should lay off the Salzman bashing.
It really isn’t about him, I just think that the topics he chooses to write about trivialize the whole debate. I hate it when R’s do it, and I need to be consistent here.
that bashing Salzman for every post is kind of weird. The guy writes about reporters and how they interact with politicians. It’s what he does. If you don’t like his free posts then don’t read them.
I tend to think that it does make a difference if your highest elected official can’t tell the difference between lifting an exemption and instituting a new tax. It means that he can’t countenance any discussion about taxes period except to say that this form of revenue is always bad. Why is this person bragging about his abilities to balance the budget when he has shown he can’t understand nuances in types of revenue? You need revenue to balance your expenditures Scott. Duh!
As far as this tall tale of thousands of phantom jobs on the Western Slope being lost, we’ll have to wait for Ellie to give us another false equivalency of Democrats saying jobs are being lost in the state (she won’t mention the time frame) before we can snicker at his big lie.
Jason is trying to say that the reporter was correct saying that the elimination of tax credits isn’t a tax increase. She’s wrong there.
Democrats should be explaining why they needed to spread out the pain of cuts across the state’s budget, and why the tax increases are necessary.
Trying to say that it isn’t a tax increase is just dumb. Ask Bill Ritter’s A-58 team how that worked out for them.
As JCB pointed out, McInnis’ O&G Regs talking were a blatant lie that he’s been repeating ad nauseum since he started running for Governor. I think it would have been better to call him out on that.
call him on it, David. It is a lie. A bald faced and willful lie. There are one or two courageous O&G company executives who have recently made public statements that downplay the effect the rules have had on O&G activity in Colorado. It is minimal, almost negligible.
In my next GJFreePress column, I discuss this very subject. (sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but it is extremely relevant.) Look for it Friday.
.
Jason,
how do you think Cynthia did with her follow-up questioning with him ?
Note that there wasn’t any follow-up questioning.
I suppose that’s because every utterance of a Dem candidate is not only true, but proven in the court of public opinion. And possibly ordained by the Almighty.
.
to post the first false equivalency argument.
Don’t comment on McInnis and his repeated lies. Try to make it about Jason and his post. Lame but predictable.
I guess his lordship is still grumpy from watching the Republicans flame out over health care. Ouch! Maybe he can spend his time driving around his welfare town counting all the cars that have government stickers on them. Maybe he should be counting the ones that don’t. It might be easier.
Your two posts in this thread using my name because I support McInnis are just what is being discussed in one of the diaries today about the current state of civil discourse.
I was just trying to see if you are still stuck on such rudimentary posts.
As long as we are talking about the un-mustached one what’s with this lie of losing thousands of jobs because the other states have better “rape-the-land” regulations? Doesn’t he know we are in a recession and the energy industry is affected like everyone else? Can you provide any references to how he computed these lost thousands of jobs? The reporter should have followed up on that statement and gotten him to reveal his sources or acknowledge it as a fabrication for partisan purposes. I’m all for talking about the facts.
and since you seem to speak in defense of candidate McInnis, please tell me how he explains away this fact: There has been an increase in PRODUCTION (both oil & gas in 2009 are projected to be 2% above 2008). So far, the reporting on 2009 production is incomplete, but 2009 already is way ahead of the total 2007 production and is only slightly short of the total 2008 production.
Williams energy plans to double its’ drilling activity in the next couple of years and Gunnison Energy is exploring in the North Fork Valley. Activity is growing across the state.
No one buys his story, Ellie. I don’t understand why COGA, IPAMS, and the CPA continue to pay him to say it.
You know McInnis is in trouble when even his most ardent sweaty supporters don’t want to try and spin this set of lies.
The guy is the very definition of tacky and tasteless. There will probably be a whole different set of lies for the general population if he wins the primary. McInnis, the moderate, who disavows his extreme rhetoric to the Republican party extremists.
How can you possibly know which set of facts is real and which ones are made up by him for that particular audience? This is a really ugly aspect of this man.
he shaved his mustache. It gets so stringy and unattractive when he breaks out in flop sweats.
Does McInnis really believe that thousands of jobs have been lost because of better regulations or does he know the real production and rig count totals and is saying these things to win the hearts and admiration of the most extreme elements of his party?
If it is the former than this guy lives in la-la land and day dreams that reality is whatever he thinks it is. If it is the latter than he is a professional politician in a tough primary and is blatantly lying because that is what he thinks his base wants to hear. Either way it doesn’t look like he has any impressive leadership qualities and is willing to offer new and pragmatic solutions to complex problems. He would rather lie his way to a win than earn it with careful thoughtful articulations of better solutions.
The goal is sustainable economies that don’t wreck our environment and keep Colorado a special land. The concept of no regulations and unlimited exploitation might appeal to McInnis but there are a lot of people in Colorado who think things should be done responsibly and with an understanding of long term consequences.
Coupled with his refusal to recognize that government funding can be increased without new taxes by eliminating loopholes leaves me with the queasy feeling that this guy doesn’t live in the same reality as the rest of us. We call it reality because it is real like production numbers and bird flocks. Regulations that protect diminishing resources are good policy. McInnis can’t seem to recognize that fact.
They can try and catch McInnis in a trap but honestly if you’re taking money away from the people in the form of fees, new taxes…whatever, it’s complete crap. Do they realize the more money they take from us the less we have to spend and thrive on. Why do we have to keep the government afloat? It’s not my job to fix them because they screwed themselves.
I don need no police or fire departments. We don need no roads or educatun stuff. We don need no army to invade anuther country. We don need no regulation of corporations because we know corporations always act in our best interests and if they be mean to us we can just get them to be fair by ourselves. We need to be like Somali with total anarchy. Oh and I’m as patriotic a patriot as you gonna find. I loves my country.