CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 21, 2010 06:23 PM UTC

New York Times Profiles "Dr. Evil" Initiatives

  • by: Colorado Pols

Spreading the alarm, with some interesting big-picture observations on Colorado’s Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101–the New York Times’ Dan Frosch reports today:

The measures – which would lower property, income and sales taxes; limit government borrowing; and reduce vehicle registration fees – are widely seen as too extreme by Democrats and Republicans alike. With the November election approaching, they present a test case for a conflict that is playing out, perhaps in less drastic fashion, throughout the country: voters showing a strong inclination to diverge from the recommendations of their elected officials. [Pols emphasis]

Both parties here fear that if frustrated voters approve the tax measures, they could pose major challenges for state and local governments in providing basic services.

“I don’t see them as good policy,” said State Senator Greg Brophy, a conservative from the state’s eastern plains, who worries that the proposals would make it virtually impossible to balance the budget. “It’s like losing your job and getting sick at the same time. I’m for limited government, but not no government.”

We’ve talked before about the odd position these three initiatives place Colorado Republicans in. The GOP is running for control of the state government based on the same small-government rhetoric that drives support for these initiatives, but they are also aware of the tremendous harm actual realization of that rhetoric would mean–these measures spell out in detail what Republicans say they want to do to the budget in hypothetical terms every chance they get. And that, for all the bluster about wanting to cut the budget even further, makes them very uncomfortable.

But as the author notes above, the “strong inclination” of many voters to reject sound advice at all levels, from all sources–like the rhetoric behind these initiatives, a sentiment deliberately cultivated by Republicans as electoral strategy this year–could be a monster that nobody can control.


16 thoughts on “New York Times Profiles “Dr. Evil” Initiatives

  1. Supporters took pictures of Doug Bruce when he was in the Statehouse and used it for a campaign ad on YouTube. Not going to embed it here – won’t give them the pleasure of helping. If you really want to see the lies you can go to youtube or to the paper that must not be named…

    Ignorant bastards trying to sell voters that these amendments have something to do with the federal debt.

    They don’t.


    1. It’s intellectually dishonest to say you’re helping the children by cutting off borrowing.

      Where the hell do these people think the money to build a new a school comes from?

  2. I pray republicans win too. they created the mess and it will be fun (*yet heartbreaking) to watch them wallow in it.

    *Heartbreaking as how many others/things will suffer even more.  

    1. In a nihilistic way, part of me almost wants these to pass (with a Republican landslide) just so this asinine ideology of “no government” might finally be discredited enough that the state could be allowed to move on to more productive things.

      Generally, though the better part of me says, while passage of these might do the trick, it would come at too high of a cost.


  3. After 4 years of tax hikes, expansive regulatory controls and public-private partnership schemes run amok some fiscal conservatives were driven to despair – and apparently a couple hundred thousand Coloradans agreed by signing the petitions.

    So now the business community is forced to spend $6-10 million dollars to defeat these proposals. That’s the outcome of Democrat control.

    Sure there are some solid policies in these measures, but in total they are not good for Colorado at this time.

    So thanks Democrats for forcing the business community to defend your tax hikes and government run amok. Instead of spending $6 million on job creation, Colorado businesses are left to pay-off Democrat’s debt.

    What’s $6 million in payroll or capital investment anyway? Not to mention the taxes that $6 million in investment would generate for certain Colorado governments that already over spend.

      1. for forcing the business community to defend your tax hikes and government run amok. Instead of spending $6 million on job creation, Colorado businesses are left to pay-off Democrat’s debt.  

    1. if you do not want to pay the fee don’t expect the service.

      these proposals would be on the ballot regardless of what party had been in power.

      if ya want to discuss the ripping off of society Libertard. then lets chat about Owens(R) giveaway of Public Service of Colorado to Xcel… Lost of Fees, yearly rate hikes and crumbling infrastructure. All to subsidize  Minnesota. and Privatize a PUBLIC SERVICE by the republicans… Gee that aint working out so well is it?

    2. As Pogo says: “We’ve met the enemy and he is us.”

      Gallagher than TABOR then Amendment 23, a conflict that makes it virtually impossible to balance the budget without resorting to accounting tricks.  

  4. I plan on voting against 60,61, and 101. In many ways these are symptom of the problem with the initiative and referendum process: special interests who put enough money and try enough times can get their own agendas forced on everyone else.

    The I&R process was started with the best of intentions. However, it has evolved into a something that subverts the legislative process and a constitutional nightmare.  

    1. because too many times in too many years past, proposals to revise this process have died.

      I, of course, blame the election activists (cough, Common Cause, cough) who argue that making it more difficult to amend our state constitution results in the loss of voters’ voices.

      1. Consider the number of signatures it requires to get something on, and passed, it’s special interests not the people who benefit.

        I might be more amenable to allowing the process if it resembled what it takes to pass a federal constitutional amendment. In the case of the I &R process I think the requirement should be 2/3 of every Congressional district just to get it on the ballot and 3/4 of the state to pass.


    2. ..had the “best of intentions”?  Maybe the inclusion of the process in the constitution was itself the result of moneyed special interests who wanted to fuck people over?

      1. I try to take a positive stance on these things: e.g. government is ultimately people, not some conspiracy.

        My argument rests on the assumption that the I&R process was ultimately intended to make government more accountable and more fair. As we’ve seen all to often, the I&R tends to have the opposite effect.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

44 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!