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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 24, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Monday Open Thread

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Register and you’re off.

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

  6. Kind of surprised not one C proponent has denied the validity of the question by now, thought it would be too tempting for many of them to pass up.

    Then again, it may be due to the fact that the Dead Guvs have required us to sign in to comment and they are either afraid that “Big Brother” is watching, or they can’t figure out how to do it.

  7. the plame investigation might be ready to explode. UPI is reporting that Fitzgerald’s office has obtained documentation on the Niger Forgeries from the Italian Government.

    On Friday night on both “Hardball” and “The McClaughlin Group” the possibility was broached that Fitzgerald’s investigation may be well beyond just the leak and may be looking pretty heavily at the lead up to the war. That would of course be in keeping with him MO in investigations into the Ill Gov’s office and Mayor Daley’s office in Chicago.

    http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20051023-104217-9679r

  9. I am absolutely positive that if we could clarify this one tiny area of confusion for Go Raiders, he would vote for C and D.  And Mark Holtzman is six-foot-four.

  10. The math is not fuzzy, the person writing the letter simply didn;t have all the parts of the equation. They were not taking into account the special tax credits that fulfilled by TABOR rebate dollars before the general population gets theirs.

    According to the State Budgeting Office (I may have boofed their offical name), if a person does not qualify for any of the special tax credits (and I don’t think I do) they will get only $15 next year if Ref. C doesn’t pass

    So my choice is get $15 or save thousands on tuition if I choose to take another year of school. Hmmmmm….wonder which I will choose?

  11. Too late for that voyageur, I already voted NO on C two weeks ago and was proud to do it.

    As I have said before, I voted NO on C because I think it is a big rip-off for the taxpayers.

    I voted YES on D because if C does pass, I would like to see the sensibilities enacted in that referendum become the measuring stick, rather than the concept of “just give us more money and we can solve any problem”

    I commented on the fuzzy math as I am trying to figure out the formula used to come up with 491.00 per taxpayer and can’t seem to replicate it myself.  The real variables in here would be how much population growth is expected per year, and what the inflation percentage used for each year.

    Any insights anyone?

  12. Opponents of Referendums C and D (www.ifcwinsyoulose.com) claim that an estimated $5 billion of additional revenue will be spent on new programs if C passes, and that the average family of 4 will lose $3,200 in refunds over the next 5 years.

    Well, I’m no math major, but $5 billion divided by $3,200 means there are over 1.5 million families of 4 in Colorado. That would make the state population over 6 million, and the US Census Bureau estimates Colorado’s population at about 4.6 million.

    Does this make anyone else nervous that the opponents of Ref. C are using “fuzzy math” to back up their positions? Can anyone on this site reconcile the anti Ref. C crazy numbers?

  13. At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, loony lib, you’re confusing apples and pomegranates.  The $3,200 [a totally phony number] is based on the $3.7 billion C is estimated to raise through 2010 [a number lowered to 3.6 in the lastest quarterly forecast after the bluebook was printed.]  The $5 billion number assumes D also passes, which adds a extra $$100 billion to the base in 2011 to pay off $1.2 billion in highway bonds.  Essentially, add that $1.2 billion to the $3.7 billion and you get close enough to $5 billion for government work, especially if you add the $100 million in 2011.
    The $5 billion estimate is valid, but not for the 2005-2010 time period. 
    Yes on C and D, do it to hack off our favorite Oakland Raiders fan.  Go Broncos!

  14. Hey, did anyone else see that Bush appointed Greenspan successor?  While I would agree that Roberts, Miers is very important; Bernanke will play a very significant role in all of our lives.  What I am very curious to find out is what economic theories have developed his philosophies?  Since his background will drive his economic policies and should give us a decent look on the effectiveness of all social legislation will succeed or flounder.

  15. The most interesting part in all of the debates on Ref’s C and D is that all of the numbers are somewhat “fuzzy”.  I seem to recall it started out at 3.1 Billion, then 3.2 Billion, the 3.7 Billion, now 3.6 Billion.  Where will it go next?

    The truth is that none of us really “knows” how much additional money the state would get to keep if C passes.  It could be more, and it could also be less.

    I personally feel that the state can do better than this, and have voted against Ref C.

  17. Actually, Go Raiders, the numbers have been released for next year. If C fails people not qualifying for any of the special tax credits will get on their TABOR rebate $15. The amounts for each of the special tax credits was also released, but I don’t remember what they were…I assume they are on-line somewhere.

    I think I recall the average TABOR rebate next year was somewhere in the $50-55 range. Because of the number of people who qualify for each of the tax credits, roughly 60% of the population gets less than the average and roughly 40% gets more.

    In any event it is lower than what was predicted when the blue book was printed (they said average $72).

  18. However, the TABOR rebates are recalulated every year based on inflation and population growth.
    Since those numbers can be quite dynamic, how do we really know at this time how much money that will result in that is beyond the TABOR cap?

    Right now all we can look at is 1 year in advance, so how stable is this 3.6 Billion dollar number?

    And should I take it that the voyageur cannot take a rational debate?  Seems the tone in your posts have changed for the worse.

  19. Dan – the way I read the budget forecast, the ONLY TABOR rebate next year is the sales tax one that everyone gets, and it will be $15 per person.  The year after that the remaining rebates kick back in, and the only other rebate most people qualify for is the vehicle registration rebate (you either have to be poor or a business for the most part to get the rest).

    Raiders – how are we supposed to have anything other than a “fuzzy” estimate of a 5-year budget?  We don’t control the dial on inflation, population, or income.  Would you have preferred less information about the budget situation in the state?

    Voyageur – doesn’t it seem like the calculations on Ref C/ Ref D are double-counting Ref D money?  After all, Ref D is paid by Ref C; the only difference I see is that after Ref C expires, we have an extra $100m baseline for computing future revenues.  But that cap only comes in to play if we continuously maintain income of greater than inflation plus population growth.

  20. Call me crazy Phoenix, but don’t you think we should have a little more solid information and a little less fuzzy information when the state asks for an increase (albeit a temporary one) of that magnitude?

  21. Not quite, Phoenix.  The policefire pension and school construction parts of D are more or less paid for by revenues in C, although these are existing legal obligations and would actually have to be paid whether or not C passes.  But the $1.2 billion in highway bonds won’t be issues unless both C and D pass.  The $100 million added to the base in 2011 won’t be added unless they both pass.  Pass C alone and the $3.6/$3.7 is a reasonable guess as to the revenue impact.
    Go Raiders, of course, wants to know exactly how much the economy will grow, what the rate of inflation is and what population growth is, to the penny, over the next five years.  Obviously, that is impossible.  I think he knows that, he is just trying to throw sand in the gears.
      But it is fair to say that C and D total $4.9 billion (using Bluebook estimates.)  It’s not fair to use that as the five year figure and try to translate that back into how much it will cost a typical taxpayer over that five years.  Obviously, some of the bond costs will be paid from C revenue between 2006-10.  But we don’t just issue them as soon as the voters say yes, they are gradually ramped up.  Owens wanted the extra $100 million in 2011 (added to the base in subsequent years and hence also adjusted for inflation and population) to ensure we could pay off the highway bonds without threatening other basic needs.  So, I don’t regard it as double counting, it is just wrong to add them together to get a five-year impact and try to translate that into lost TABOR rebates.  Remember, if D fails and the bonds aren’t issued, but C passes, whatever money would have been used in that period for interest on the $1.2 billion in highway projects would be available to other needs.  Under terms of SB 1 of 1997, that money would be earmarked to capital construction needs if the 6 percent general fund trigger was met.  To make it really complicated, there are triggers that would allocate all that money to highways and other triggers, if we’re less than 6 percent, that allocate the money 2/3 to highways and 1/3 to other capital construction needs, like higher education or prisons.
    On other point, contrary to some reports, D does include some money for mass transit, notably state matching funds for federal grants for Roaring Fork Transit Authority and Grand Valley Transit in Mesa County.  The highway money under C also includes 10 percent for transit, under an amendment adopted by Owens and Stan Matsunaka in 2002.
    Bottom line, no, it’s not double counting as long as you make it clear that the highway bond financing stretches beyond 2011.  When the antis really want to stretch the point, they call it $6 billion or more by including interest costs.  That’s like calling a $100,000 house a $200,000 house because you’ll pay that much in interest over 30 years.  \
    Sorry for a long answer but I respect your insights enough to want to spell it out.

  22. Call me crazy, but isn’t what you’re proposing kind of like saying “we can never pass another piece of legislation or amendment because we can’t predict the future”?

    I’m all for information; the numbers keep changing because the budget estimates are continually updated based on ongoing revenue streams and economic forecasts – that’s a Good Thing.  But until we invent time travel that doesn’t violate the Uncertainty Principle, we cannot know the precise details of future budgets.  We have to go on our best estimates; the $3.x billion are those estimates.

  23. Dead right Phoenix.  C is simplicity itself, as long as we don’t raise tax rates, we can keep whatever money the existing rates raise as the economic pie grows.
    What we can’t possibly know is:
    A-Exactly how big that pie will grow over 5 years, in nominal dollars.
    B-Exactly what the rates of inflation and population growth will be over that period.  These elements, plus producity growth, make up the nominal pie in question A.  If you could know the unknowable, subtract inflation and population growth from the nominal gross state product, apply the existing tax rates to the difference (broken out by income and sales, of course) and you’d know exactly what the increase, if any, is.
    Maybe God knows that answer, I don’t.  And unless he is much dumber than I think he is, Raiders knows that too.  He’s just desperately trying to sow doubt, fear and confusion.

  24. It is not that I am trying to sow doubt, fear, etc.  If I wanted to do that, I would be making really lousy commercials.

    I am always concerned when we are asking citizens to forego a rebate, and we can’t pin down the final amount.  Seems like you guys trust the legislature a lot more than I do.  That is not necessarily for the better, or for the worse, it is simply a different perception.

    For the sake of arguement, if Ref C had also said that the amount extra will not exceed some specified figure (say 3.7 Billion), I might actually be in favor of it.

    I dsiagree with the whole 5 billion doller figure that has been referenced on basic principals because they are comparing apples and oranges and lumping the end results together.  Namely:
    Ref C + Ref D = 5 Billion

    They are two very different topics, so I don’t think it is appropriate to lump them together.

    Now to throw another reasonable question into the works here.  What happens if we have another economic slowdown in the state and we don’t collect all the money that would be allowable under Ref C?  What’s the plan guys?

  25. I think it’s the responsibility of the Legislature to stay after government efficiency even if Ref. C passes, and I think they still need to get a grip on the spiraling expenses.  Allowing the State to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies would have been a good start on that for Medicaid (Owens vetoed that), and I hope they can get together with the Governor to pass some type of reform like that next year.

    PS – am I reading your first statement right, Raiders?  Was that a (very funny) slap at the Vote No ads?

  26. You read it right.  I am against C, but I think their ads are poorly written, and really don’t get a message across other than Politicians are bad.

    I think a more effective commercial against ref C would be something along the lines of:

    Oxygen is Good…
    Taxes are Bad…
    I Like monkeys…

    In a stretch we could always lose the oxygen piece so we don’t confuse people.

    This seems to be a much more logical approach than having a gubernatorial candidate slamming politicians…. I am still confused by that one

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

73 readers online now

Newsletter

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