Skip to comments.Their Right to Your Money
Posted on 03/23/2014 11:37:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Thirty-three hifalutin members of Colorados political elite state legislators, former legislators, board of education officials, city and county politicians, and assorted insiders have locked arms in whining solidarity as plaintiffs in whats called a federal case.
Why? They lost an election . . . way back in 1992!
Now, as the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals put it, Plaintiffs claim that they have been deprived of their power over taxation and revenue.
Back in 1992, the pesky people of Colorado petitioned the Taxpayer Bill of Rights onto the ballot and passed it, against the objections of these same potentates. And in the 22 years that followed, the aggrieved politicians have had neither the courage nor the democratic sensibility to take the issue back to the voters.
Why try to reason with the unwashed Rocky Mountain State masses about what is in their own best interest? Instead, the politically powerful have hired top-notch lawyers to sue in federal court to overturn the vote of the public they ahem serve.
For the peoples own good, no doubt.
Known by the acronym TABOR, the popular constitutional amendment limits the growth of government spending from year to year to the rate of inflation plus population growth unless the people vote to approve higher spending levels. The amendment also requires voter approval for any tax increase, except in an emergency.
Were the only state in the nation, wails Wade Buchanan of the liberal Bell Policy Center, where you can only raise revenues, taxes, by a vote of the people.
Heavens, what more vicious crime against humanity could there possibly be than public servants having to ask the people they work for if they can tax more or spend more of the peoples money?!
It frighteningly approaches a system of citizen control of government.
In fact, the bizarre legal theory behind the lawsuit complains that TABOR, by limiting the legislatures ability to unilaterally raise taxes or spend money as it pleases, denies state government a fully effective legislature. Therefore, these learned leeches lament, TABOR violates the federal Constitutions guarantee that each state possess a republican form of government.
Coloradans no doubt agree (same as their fellow Americans in the other 49 states) that their legislature is not fully effective though, certainly not because legislators are restrained from taxing and spending to their hearts content. But the idea that the people exercising their authority to democratically check the power of their representatives is somehow unrepublican is preposterous.
Representative government is indeed a key feature of republican government. But, though virtually forgotten in our modern times, actually representing the will of the people is the entire point of that representative system. Folks back in 1776, just as today, had farms and jobs and families to take care of and didnt have the time to make every decision affecting public policy or managing the minutiae of running government. So, they chose a few to represent the many.
Representatives are servants, not kings. At least, that was the original idea. As James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, put it, the people are the fountain of all power. Apparently, once politicians get drunk on power they want to turn off that fountain.
This lawyerly attack on citizen control of government is silly and sophomoric, but it is also extremely dangerous.
Special interests can employ this theory, warns constitutional scholar Rob Natelson, to destroy well-founded and long-standing safeguards against legislative fiscal abuse. Furthermore, they can use the same theory to attack the voter initiative and referendum process, and other constitutional limits on the power of state politicians.
No court has yet ruled on the merits of the case, or the obvious lack thereof. But a federal district court judge decided state legislators do have standing to bring the lawsuit. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit, which recently agreed with the district court that these politicians can sue the people of Colorado over the legislators right to tax and spend without a bunch of pesky voters getting in the way.
Those who founded our republican form of government would be absolutely astounded that todays politicians would have the temerity to bring such a suit, much less that modern judges would allow it to proceed . . . if those Founders could only be stopped, first, from spinning in their graves at such high rates of speed.
Actually, this gets right down to the nitty gritty - they have stripped the veneer off what most politicians are about.
Thanks for the article.
The new Coloradans will gladly repeal TABOR now. 92 was pre-Californication.
Throw it out, sanction them and embarrass them publicly.
Then what’s the point of laws? What’s the point of anything? TABOR is not the only limits I’m sure placed on legislative behavior and process. There are laws from how to get on the ballot, to election laws, legislative district map laws, to bribery, influence, and lobbying laws, other budgetary laws, bonding laws, property tax laws, legislative rules, rules of conduct, to the state constitution itself. Do we throw them all out too?
The people elect their legislators. They control the process. They therefore have the right to limit their legislative behavior as well.
Legalized slavery is what these DEMS are after.
Your work is measured in the wages you’re paid. When your wages are confiscated by taxation, you are forced to work for others at no compensation.
what a bunch of sore losers.
If they happen to “win” some short term “victory” in this scheme, they find 33 schemers in the ditch and NO Dem’s elected to ANYTHING in Colorado!
When you are hired, your employer tells you what your job is to be and how he expects you to do it. That’s how it works. If you don’t like it, tough. Leave, or be let go. Your choice.
Does anyone have a list of these 33 miscreants. No names in article.
Criminal..to have to pay any government taxes government in order to own a home, gun, food, car...that’s why the founders set up indirect taxation and the 16th amendment never overthrew that because they never properly rarified it, as Red Beckham exposed.
We have been run Ing on a criminal taxation system, and it is coming to a speedy end.
Your the only state in the UNION that has had the good sense to limit the power of politician to extort money from the people to be used by politicians to buy the votes of those trying to get their hands in the government cookie jar.
The state does not have the right to take any more money from the citizens than is necessary to fulfill the legitimate needs of the state.
Those needs do not extend to providing college education subsidies to non-citizens, providing financial incentives to private corporations to relocate to the state, providing welfare payments to non-citizens and a whole plethora of other illegitimate things that politician think are worthy redistributions of wealth.
We’re down to that IRS joke -
how much did you make?....send it in.
The communists....err...rats...really do think it’s all theirs. After all, we didn’t build that.
They want there hands on all that pot tax money.
The plaintiffs are listed at the bottom of this article: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18118976
Interestingly, they are not all Dems, but they are all anti-taxpayer. The list does include FORMER state senator, John Morse.
The United States, and each state individually are not democracies....they are representative democracies where your representative votes in your place...your power exists in the right to elect the person who represents you. It would be an unworkable nightmare for the public to have the right to a direct vote on things like taxes. On the local level, the people do haVE SOME RIGHTS TO A SAY SO, BUT NOT ON THE STATE OF FEDERAL LEVEL. (wHOOPS) hit caps lock!
If the definition of slavery is a 100% income tax rate, then any lesser percentage is merely a matter of degree.
The only reason that Colorado was not on the verge of bankruptcy was that it had passed TABOR and had limited the expansion of government to the rate of inflation
These 33 idiots would rather their state be on the brink than have to live within the borders of what the people can be convinced is necessary spending.
They cant even be bothered to pay attention to current national event and divine the simple lessons of their states recent history but they expect free reign over the financial affairs of their state and local governments. I think not.
OH WAAA, you voted me in but you wont let me play with the money. Oh Boo Hoo, I want to spend your money.
I didn’t know that about Colorado limiting the spending. I wonder if such a vote would pass now? And why isn’t this more publicized....I know ..rhetorical question.
Pretty dang shocking that these people would have the nerve to attempt this lawsuit. It boggles the mind.
Sure they do but not in a Federal court. This is a STATE court problem. Considering that it is a duly passed amendment to their constitution I dont see these weasels having a case (no offense to any real weasels out there, I do respect your varmint hunting abilities)
Each STATE is a sovereign STATE. The STATES have the right to set up their own government provided that the state has a REPUBLICAN form of government (Article 4)
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence
Other than that the courts and the Federal Government need to stay out of it.
If you have a constitutional limit on taxing and a constitutional requirement to a balanced budget you have to limit spending to the constraints of the revenue available.
Colorado Ping ( Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
This means that they cannot spend money from anyone not represented. If you are not represented, you are not getting this "guaranteed" Republcan form of government. Those who are not yet born cannot possibly be represented so debt cannot be passed unto them. Spending their money before they can have a voice on representation denies them of this "guarantee".