Referendums C and D
Early voting continues Monday in Denver .
Here's an opinion piece in favor of Referendum C written by Governor Bill Owens from today's Rocky Mountain News [October 22, 2005, "Governor backs Ref C to stop cuts in transportation, education, health"]. Mr. Owens writes, "Over the past two decades, I have been involved - directly and indirectly - in numerous elections in Colorado. Many have been hard-fought and that's good. Because in a clean, hard-fought election, the voters are the winners. Unfortunately, some of the opponents of Referendums C and D seem to think that a hard fight means distorting the facts and misleading the voters. They are also guilty of violating the spirit, if not the letter, of campaign finance laws in Colorado by refusing to disclose who is providing millions of dollars to fund their 'vote no' effort. What are they trying to hide?...If, on the other hand, Referendums C and D are defeated on Nov. 1, the state will be forced to drain another $365 million to $500 million from its already recession-depleted budget. Those supporting a 'no' vote on these measures would prefer to pull the plug on Colorado and watch state-funded services go down the drain over the next several years. Referendums C and D provide a realistic, fiscally conservative means to restore needed funds to the state's budget. I ask all Coloradans to join with me in voting yes on Referendums C and D on Nov. 1."
Here's an opinion piece in opposition to Referendum C written by Douglas Bruce from today's Rocky [October 22, 2005, "Anti-tax crusader gives a dozen reasons to vote no on referendums"]. Bruce writes, "Remember, TABOR is the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, written to help you. Defend it by voting no on Referendums C and D."
Here's the Denver Post endorsements for the November 1st ballot [October 22, 2005, "The Post's endorsements"].
Here's the seventh article in the Rocky's series on the budget effects of TABOR [October 22, 2005, "Refs C&D: Budget breakdown:
Struggling to succeed"]. From the article, "Forget all you've heard about the upcoming vote on Referendums C and D, says University of Colorado Interim President Hank Brown. The state's all-star former U.S. senator - known nationally for his fiscally conservative ways and his budget-cutting prowess - wants you to remember just one thing when you go to the ballot box in 10 days. The ballot will ask you whether you want to allow the state to keep five years' worth of tax money that would otherwise be refunded to you under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. But there's more to it than that, Brown says. 'The question with Referendum C is this: Do you want to help low-income kids go to college?' Brown says. 'Or is it something you want to phase out?'...Public colleges in Colorado actually are receiving fewer state dollars this year, without factoring in inflation, than they have each year since 1997, despite having to educate nearly 30,000 more students. The state spends 20 percent less on higher education now than at the start of the last recession in 2001. If the trends continue, Colorado is on track to become the first state in the nation to completely stop funding public higher education with tax money, according to a study by CU - a study whose conclusions are rejected by opponents of Ref C."
The Rocky Mountain News editorial staff is urging voters to approve Referendums C and D on the November 1st ballot [October 22, 2005, "Colorado needs Refs C and D"]. They write, "We'd like to explain why we believe Referendums C and D are not only good for Colorado, but consistent with the spirit of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. Right up until Colorado's tax revenues fell off a cliff in 2001-2002, the state's economy coexisted quite contentedly with TABOR. State residents had enjoyed their four years of TABOR refunds, state lawmakers managed to do what they needed to do within the TABOR spending limits, and prophets saw nothing but surpluses on the horizon. Alas, tax revenues did fall off a cliff, with a plunge worse than any since World War II. In fact, they haven't fully recovered yet, although other parts of the state budget, including income from tuition and other fees as well as federal grants, have grown. Something else happened, though, when revenues fell: the TABOR limit on spending (which by definition includes both actual expenditures and increases in reserves) fell along with them. That's the "downward ratchet" or "glitch" you hear about. For the last several years, though, it has had no practical effect, since the state was taking in less money than the lowered TABOR limit anyway. But with the economy recovering, state revenues are expected to rise above that lower, recession- caused TABOR limit. Referendum C would suspend the limit for five years, from 2005-06 to 2009-10, and at the end of that time reset the limit based on revenues during those five years and eliminate the downward ratchet for the future."
The Denver Post editorial staff is also on board with Referendum D [October 22, 2005, "State roads depend on Ref. D verdict"]. They write, "Referendum D is literally where the rubber meets the road for Colorado's hard-pressed motorists. A yes vote will allow state government to get started on 55 badly needed highway construction and maintenance projects across the state."
Here's another article from the Rocky Mountain News about the budget effects of TABOR and the recession on education in Colorado [October 22, 2005, "On cutting edge of cuts"]. They write, "Higher education has lost more than $150 million - about a fifth of its state funding - since 2002. But add in tuition increases, grants and federal aid, and higher ed's total budget has grown by 12 percent. That still hasn't been enough to keep up with rising costs and increasing enrollment, education leaders say. Total spending per student from all sources has grown less than 1 percent since 2001, not counting inflation. So colleges have cut programs, shrunk raises and put off building and maintenance."
Dani Newsum: "If I lived in Denver, I'd be voting 'yes' on ballot question I-100 on Election Day. I-100 would legalize the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana by an adult in Denver. Marijuana is no more dangerous to its user or the general public than alcohol or tobacco, although like booze and cigarettes, pot use comes with serious physical and emotional hazards for those who abuse it. But the fact that some folks can't handle pot isn't a rational justification for making it illegal for everyone. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, wouldn't work for tobacco, and isn't working for pot. There's no sound reason for prohibition to work anyway."
Category: Denver November 2005 Election
7:14:19 AM 
|
|
