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) Lauren Boebert*

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Anna Stout





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

(R) Jerry Sonnenberg

(R) Richard Holtorf

(R) Heidi Ganahl

(R) Deborah Flora





CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Doug Lamborn*


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) Scott James




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 19, 2011 3:45 am

"If Prop 103 Passes..."

  • by: Colorado Pols

As we wrote earlier, we’re getting more than a little tired of hearing the doomsday scenarios about Proposition 103, which would restore the sales and income tax rates that were in effect in 1999: raising income tax rates from 4.63% to 5%, and sales taxes from 2.9% to 3%.

Conservative opponents of Prop 103 continue to claim that 119,000 jobs could be lost if the measure passes in November — a figure that is absurdly incorrect according to their own study; that study should have originally said that 27,000 jobs could be reduced by 2016 — a number that may or may not be true but is nonetheless nowhere near the 119,000+ that has been thrown around wildly.

Colorado’s media needs to do a better job of being critical about these talking points rather than merely reprinting whatever a Prop 103 opponent says. If someone held a press conference and claimed that Prop 103 would lead to 3 million jobs lost in Colorado, would reporters just reprint that, too? So in an effort to encourage the kind of thoughtful journalism that should take place with an issue as important as education funding, we’re going to start a new feature here that will run until Election Day: “If Prop 103 Passes…”. Some of these segments may feature negative outcomes, while some may forecast positive repercussions. Either way, none of them will be even remotely based in fact (much like the nonsense 119,000 number). Check out our first installment tomorrow…


15 thoughts on ““If Prop 103 Passes…”

  1. and claimed 3 jillion jobs would be lost, reporters would just reprint that too. That’s what many of them think their jobs are. This is the media we have. This is why Republicans win elections.

    1. You’re diverting $3 billion from the private sector to the public sector, it will kill jobs and put at risk families in a tough position.

      You have no known purpose for this money other then he lively white elephant you call education.

      1. But to date the proponent side has yet to clearly articulate the spending purpose for this series of tax hikes.

        I dare you to communicate any detailed justification for the tax hikes or the specific spending priorities the tax hikes will drive.

        1. include education. And that’s it. Education. The spending purpose is also education. The justification is that education funding was cut.

          It’s really so simple even Mark G. could understand it. Maybe he could explain it to you someday.

          1. Ritter hiked taxes, then cut education?

            Everything has been cut due to the great recession … well everything that is except Obama and the Democrats spending spree. How come they cut you out of the dinner table conversation on the spending spree?

            Why wasn’t education a capstone within your spending spree?

            1. Your first sentence is both wrong and irrelevant.

              Your second sentence is wrong and ignorant.

              Your third question makes no sense.

              Your fourth question also makes no sense.

              If you had a signature, that would probably be wrong too.

        1. A white elephant is an idiom for a valuable but burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost (particularly cost of upkeep) is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.

          1. burdensome possession of which its owner cannot dispose and whose cost … is out of proportion to its usefulness or worth.

            this is a definition of “Libertad”, nicht wahr?  

      2. Cuz money magically disappears if anyone from the government touches it.

        That why defense contractors (private) construction companies (private) and all other beneficiaries of government spending are going out of business, because none of that tax revenue ever finds its way back into the flow of the economy.


        Yeah, sure. Whatever.

        1. With DPS graduating only 43.5% of it’s enrollees, some Denverites will probably want to know you plan of fixing this problem with these tax hikes.

          Yet you seem not to want to commit to any reform or positive outcomes.

          The voters are looking for a return on their money, you have yet to educate us on the specific success factors you will deliver.

  2. This is the kind of thing that the assholes at cpp do and I find it immature and distasteful.

    COPols has remained a source of quality commentary and factual analysis for so long, and I would hate to see that thrown away, even for humor.

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

70 readers online now


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