March 13, 2009 05:53 PM UTC

The Answer Is Still No, "Party of No"

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

It seems Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry has taken his case for “compromise”–as we’ve been discussing for several days now, the blanket stonewalling hasn’t been working out too well–to the Denver Post editorial board.

Whether to remove a 6 percent limit on the growth of state government’s general-fund spending has become one of the most contentious and partisan issues before the legislature this session. Meanwhile, all the fighting could be a waste; for as it stands, the solution the Democrats are seeking could prove illegal…

Not according to the best legal opinion we’ve seen on the issue, but we’ll come back to that in a moment. The Post continues:

A central problem with the Democrats’ original plan is that it depends on an interpretation of state law that suggests lawmakers could repeal the 6 percent cap on their own. Opponents say the matter must be settled by a vote of the people because the cap was locked into place by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, and that if Democrats repeal Arveschoug-Bird without a popular vote, they will take the matter to court.

We would much prefer that lawmakers reach consensus, build a coalition and take a proposal to the people. We would rather see a statewide vote settle the matter, as it would avoid the courts and remove any doubt about legality.

Would voters buy such a plan? We see no reason why not. After all, it wouldn’t raise taxes…

It seems Penry made a really impassioned plea to the Post board, but that last sentence sums up the gaping hole in their resulting analysis–repealing the Arveschoug-Bird limit won’t increase taxes, revenues, or spending. Which is what former Justice Jean Dubofsky said in her excellent summary of the issue:

Although TABOR requires that “limits on district revenue, spending, and debt” cannot be “weakened” without voter approval, the repeal of Arveschoug-Bird would not increase state revenues or spending. Therefore, the General Assembly has the authority under TABOR to repeal Arveschoug-Bird. [Pols emphasis]

What this boils down to, though the Post was apparently too deferential to get it, is the simple fact that Republicans say they will sue if the A-B repeal passes. The threat of a lawsuit is what the Post claims to fear, even though proponents don’t fear it. And it’s that speculative fear of a lawsuit which caused the Post to recommend abandoning the current proposal and seeking a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to put the repeal on the ballot this fall.

Isn’t that cool? After all these weeks of pearl-clutching obstruction and bad faith, Penry proposes a “compromise” that really isn’t squat out of one side of his mouth while threatening a lawsuit from the other! And his “solution?” A referendum that isn’t necessary and will give Republicans a whole new soapbox to prattle from for the next eight months–if a two-thirds majority in the Assembly can even be found to pass it.

No deal, folks. Democrats need to stick to their guns and reject this last-ditch stab at relevance, from a caucus that has squandered its legitimacy this session in fits of histrionics, convenient amnesia, and straight-up falsehoods. Fortunately, indications are that is exactly what will happen today early next week as Senate Bill 228 moves toward final Senate passage.