U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) David Seligman

50%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson (D) A. Gonzalez (R) Sheri Davis
50%↑ 40%↓ 30%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Milat Kiros

90%

10%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(R) H. Scheppelman

(D) Alex Kelloff

70%

30%

10%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) Eileen Laubacher

90%

20%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

70%

30%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Shannon Bird

45%↓

30%

30%

30%

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
March 13, 2009 11:17 PM UTC

No More Games on SB 228: A Future of Fiscal Sanity

  • 46 Comments
  • by: COFPI

(What they said – promoted by Colorado Pols)

As SB 228 appears to be headed for final passage in the Senate early next week, with momentum building and a broad coalition of supporters growing, we wanted to set the record straight on some points.  There’s been a lot of misinformation, plenty of political games, and a tired push by opponents toward the failed policies of the past.  

SB 228 is a budget reform bill that will help lift Colorado out of the recession quicker and get rid of an outdated budget formula-what is effectively an earmark-that has plagued the state in the past.  

Today’s Denver Post editorial said they were “heartened” by talk of a compromise between Republicans and Democrats on SB 228.  However, many of the proposals are not compromises.  Rather, they are recycled, failed policies that do not plug the leaks in the sinking ship that is our state budget.

A temporary lifting of the Arveschoug-Bird budget formula does not help shorten the recession, nor does it fix the unintended consequence of ratcheting down state investments in key priorities.  That’s why SB 228 is so important, because it’s a long-term reform that can also help address current economic challenges.

SB 228 addresses how money is spent, not how much.  As the Post itself asserts, the bill “wouldn’t raise taxes” and wouldn’t affect families’ “finances one way or the other.”  Since it doesn’t increase spending or taxes, and is really about setting budget priorities, it’s perfectly legitimate for the General Assembly to pass this bill.  In fact, this is the very kind of decision that the legislature should be making in a transparent, cost-effective, and accountable way.  Actually, sending this bill to the ballot would unnecessarily cost time and money, and further strip accountability from the legislature.    

The Denver Post asked for “a few years of fiscal sanity.”  More than 85 state and local groups representing hundreds of thousands of Coloradans are demanding a future of fiscal sanity, not just a few years.  SB 228 puts us on that path.  

Pursuing a temporary half-solution for a permanent systemic problem is a recipe for failure.  That’s the kind of piecemeal approach that has fueled Colorado’s chronic budget problems in the first place.

This is not a time to compromise with ourselves, and it’s not a time to play political games with our fiscal future.  This is a time for fresh ideas and workable solutions that will get Colorado out of the recession quicker and get our economy back on track.  That’s exactly what SB 228 aims to do.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “No More Games on SB 228: A Future of Fiscal Sanity”

  1. There are rumors that Gov. Ritter may not sign this bill, which would be unwise and shortsighted. The Democrats have basically run on being the adults in the room, and being realistic about the fiscal state of things. If the Governor vetoes this bill he will alienate large constituencies within his base and will, I suspect, receive only lukewarm, grudging support in his re-election bid.

    The Republicans and business leaders are going to say what they’re going to say regardless of whether he signs the bill, so there’s no real reason for him not to sign it. It is a reasonable and moderate measure that will not harm the economy, as other states that operate without such limits have long-since demonstrated.  

    1. If Bill Ritter vetoes this bill it would be about the dumbest move he could possibly make. I have no idea how he could justify throwing a wrench in all the work that Dems have put into making this a reality, and, by extension, giving Republicans a victory.

      Too many people have worked too hard on shooting this (Arveschoug-) Bird out of the sky to have the Governor veto it purely because he’s worried about how it will get played in the election.

      Ritter vetoes this, and then we might start hearing some real primary talk.

        1. Have we heard much from the Governor on this? I haven’t personally heard anything on this from any elected officials outside of the legislature. I might be wrong, but it’s leading me to believe he wants to distance himself from SB 228.

          It would be nice if he would say “Get this bill to my desk as soon as possible so I can sign it into law.” That’s what executives are supposed to do when contentious legislation is being held up in the state house–that is, of course, if they support said legislation.

    3. is keep itself in business.

      To pay more for government is to reward mediocrity. It kind of goes against most of the economic models.

      SB228 is not a threat in and of itself. It is a baby step toward government growth, That’s part of the strategy.

      Does anyone know who is funding Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, and what their long-term strategy is?

  2. and A-V and TABOR are the reasons why.  Without them, politicians can’t help themselves and they spend like CA and Michigan.  We don’t need that here in Colorado.  Improvements can be made, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

      1. GF programs tend to be recurring in nature, while capital programs are one-time expenditures that don’t impose a recurring burden on the budget.

        1. An absolute cap is an absolute cap, regardless of how the pieces are broken out.

          As to capital programs, if you use the capital budget to build a new C.U. campus – I’m guessing that has a significant impact on spending. Same for additional railage for FastTracks, etc.

    3. California already has a budget allocation cap just like Colorado. It apparently didn’t help them much being that they have a huge deficit. This policy piece was meant to limit government spending when the economy was growing; however, the anti-government ideologues who pushed it didn’t think that the free market would actually “self-correct” as the theorists predicted it would and lead to recession or worse? This is much in-line with the one-quarter-at-a-time approach that Wall Street took before the economic crisis.

      We have to stop talking about ideology and talk about policy that is good for the taxpayers. Do you remember when California used to be home to the virtually free university experience for state residents? There was also a time when Colorado used to be above dead last in the country in higher education support and funding and could argue that we had a quality state-wide education. These fiscal policies have not helped our state or its citizens and taxpayers. We are in a worse state right now than when it passed in 1991.

      Remove one of the barriers that prevents our elected leaders from being able to do their jobs effectively.  

      1. we could make sure our elected leaders and the vested interests that have the pols in their pockets can’t stick their hands in our pockets without our consent.

        The center-right ideology is going to be hard to change, unless the government all of a sudden becomes efficient and more productive then the private sector, making incresed expenditures on government somehow more productive at increasing GDP. The government can’t even seem to regulate anything effectively, how are they going to actually do anything that requires actual productivity? I haven’t seen it. The government almost always hires an outside firm to do anything substantial.

    4. and everyone here knows why.  This bill has exactly zero impact on the amount of money spent by politicians in the state.

      You’re not just wrong, though, but also ridiculously wrong.  We have serious challenges to face in this state.  If people in Colorado didn’t like the way politicians were solving problems, they could vote for different politicians.  There’s no need to tie everyone’s hands behind their back on the insane theory that the chance budget decisions made by people two decades ago are somehow inherently better than anything smart people can do today.

      It’s almost like someone wants the government to fail in trying to solve our problems, like someone wants Colorado families to be suffering around the next election time…. oh wait, we’re not supposed to mention that side of what’s going on, huh?

      2. Remember to watch and see if, over time, the two types of people change their preference … Those are called ‘opportunists’. You can’t give $12M illegal aliens citizinship and automatic membership in the Democratic party so you can win all the elections. It isn’t economically feasible.

        You also can’t ‘un-do’ government growth by “voting for different politicians next time”. If you create a new program, you create legacy of what will almost always eventually be unproductive beaurocracy and entitlement spending that are the most dangerous threat to the long-term welfare of said Colorado families.

        It’s almost like someone wants the government to fail in trying to solve our problems, like someone wants Colorado families to be suffering around the next election time…. oh wait, we’re not supposed to mention that side of what’s going on, huh?

        That goes on on both sides. The Dems were positively giddy when the economy tanked in Sep-Oct 2008. Rahm said it more eloquently than I ever could.  

    5. That’s about how much sense you make.

      The reason Colorado isn’t hurting as much as other states are several fold, but A-V and TABOR ain’t in the mix. The question isn’t how much of Colorado’s economy is taxed, it’s how much is there of Colorado’s economy.

      The good news is that it appears that finally CO is off of the mining boom and bust. The economy is quite diversified.

      We have a well educated work force (thank you, public education!) and companies like David’s sell internationally.  We never flew as high as CA, FL, or NV in the housing bubble; that helps, not as far to fall.  We don’t have the number of immigrants, legal and not, that CA does that put a HUGE drain on the education, prison, and medical systems there.

      Try again.

      1. The diversified economy, no moronic bank executives, and a moderate (not insane) housing boom are why Colorado is doing well.

        And the bet placed on green energy is about to pay off big time – we should come out of the recession faster than most other states.

        We also have one other gigantic advantage – our political leaders are responsible and competent. They’re not perfect and we all disagree with some at times. But I have yet to interview one that I do not walk away from impressed with their approach to their job (including Republicans John Suthers and Mike Coffman).

    6. Since Colorado became a state in 1876, we have had a constitutional requirement that the state budget be balance every single year, including before TABOR or A-B. California is in trouble because they have sold state bonds which put them in debt. The only major debt we have incurred is during the Owens administration when we financed TREX through future federal highway funds.

      Also, what your really saying is you don’t believe in representative government because you say politicians can’t help themselves. Normally, they are responding to their constituents. If we don’t like how they vote, wecan turn them out in the next election.

      1. But the constitution forbids general obligation bonds. So that minimizes our indebtedness. Being able to float those bonds right now would be a good thing – but having no outstanding ones right now is also a good thing.

            1. Is headed by Wayne Gable, the President of the Koch Charitable Foundation, started by Charles Koch, long time friend of Howard Rich, the man behind all of the right-wing “non-partisan” think tanks advocating that we drown government in a bathtub.  Howard Rich is known for setting up front enterprises and staffing them with his friends so he can funnel money to right-wing nut-job organizations like the Independence Institute.  Try using statistics not produced by Howard Rich next time.

              1. Do you think they manufactured the 26th in the nation figure to make a point in Colorado only?  They have a very sound, empirical methodology applied equitably to all 50 states.  Tax Foundation is a national organization, unlike the Bell Institute, which truly does manufacture figures to make its liberal points.

                1. You can’t believe any of their numbers.  All of their data is fabricated to support an extremist agenda.  

                  Furthermore, since this organization is just one part of a very shady group of orgs all ultimately funded by Howard Rich, it is hard to take it seriously as a truly independent non-partisan group.

                  1. Tax Foundation just computes the data and reports it.  Each state can make its own conclusions.  They’ve been using the same formula for years and years.  The Bell Institute is different.  It looks to manufacture Colorado-specific data to drive its big government agenda.  For example, Bell recently reported that CO has one of the lowest rates of state spending per capita (can’t remember the exact rank, but it was low).  That, of course, is selectively choosing data to make a point.  In Colorado, we have very strong local governments and a greater percentage of total spending occurs at the local level.  So that’s why state + local spending is the right measure.  I have seen no one challenge the Tax Foundation’s 26th in the nation figure for Colorado state and local spending.  Glad to look at it if you’ve got it, but I haven’t seen anything to rebut it.

        2. We are the 6th wealthiest state according to per capita income. That said, we should be top ten in education, infrastructure, reduction in poverty, crime enforcement, green energy projects.

          Instead, we are at the bottom half of services provided in nearly every major indicator. There is a direct relationship between being able to adequately fund programs and their success. Then, it is up to the lawmakers and citizens to make sure that the programs are accountable to the taxpayers.

      3. but it’s almost impossible to get rid of their spending legacy. Ever tried to lay off thousands of government employees? I can’t recall a time when that happened. But I read about it in the private sector almost daily.

        Long-term, it ain’t gonna balance…… You have to have proactive spending controls, because everybody always thinks they need more money.  

        1. You must’ve missed the mid ’90s then. Between military downsizing (one benefit of winning the Cold War) and the 1994 Workforce Restructuring Act, the federal government eliminated 272,900 positions. You might recall that was one plank of Al Gore’s platform in 2000, that he’d led a “reinventing government” campaign through the decade. Of course, those penny-pinching, small-government conservatives who followed undid some of that.

  3. I’m not seeing it- but I hope so.

    We should all be pushing on our elected reps to get behind Marostica on this one.

    Forget all the partisan posturing- what happens when we have 6% + inflation next year or the year after? THen AB is going to really hurt- not just force fiscal discipline (which it doesn’t) but just plain suck.  And then voters like me will make the time to initiate changes that will force our legislators to do a job: make a budget, stand behind it and get re-elected or not based on it.  Every year.

    And no one who likes the state on TABOR auto-pilot wants that.

    Wait- most civilian pilots and the aerospace workers are union… so scratch autopilot

    No one who likes the state in a fiscal stranglehold wants that.

    1. Good point, hadn’t thought of that.

      Warren Buffet is predicting just that after the economy ramps up.  Sort of an over-correction if I understand his thinking.  

      The R’s here in FL are floating a TABOR in the legislature, although without a catch name.  

    1. won’t change the amount of tax revenue nor the total amount spent by the spent by neither a nickel nor a dime.

      It won’t change it at all. Not by a penny. Not by a the opportunity to spend a penny. Not by the chance to to raise tax without a TABOR vote of the citizens.

      So keep spinning and lying to the consumer. Meanwhile- get out of the way, there’s competent Republicans trying to lead here.  Or at least one anyway

      1. “Not by the chance to to raise tax without a TABOR vote of the citizens.”

        That’s your idea of competence?

        No wonder the Republicans are in such deep shit.

        The consumer doesn’t need to be spun. He only needs to look at his expenditures.  

        1. He may occasionally commit a typo like me- or he may not drink nor sometimes surf the web when he does.

          Either way- he deserves our support on this one.

  5. ANDREW ROMANOFF 2010!!! WE NEED A GOV WHO WILL LEAD DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR CO!!! NOT FOLLOW OTHERS, CALCULATING HIS NEXT POLITICAL STEPPING STONE… RITTER IS A DISAPPOINTMENT TO ALL. HE IS SO GUTLESS. EVEN WITHOUT FACING REELECTION IN HIS SECOND TERM, THE POLITICAL CALCULATION FOR HIS NEXT JOB WOULD BE WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

135 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols