Would State Budget Cap Pinch Like Colorado's? (L.A Times Slams TABOR Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/23/05 | Evan Halper

[goldstategop]

The scene may seem familiar to Californians: a Republican governor warning that fiscal meltdown is imminent unless voters approve new rules on how much money the state can spend each year.

But Colorado Gov. Bill Owens isn't looking for the kind of budget cap that California Republicans want voters to approve next month. That was imposed 13 years ago.

Now he is pleading with voters to lift it.

The problem: Colorado's spending controls appear to have worked too well. Now some of the most strident fiscal conservatives in Colorado — long viewed as a model for others considering such restraints — say the cap has strangled government. There is talk of closing community colleges, privatizing the university system, releasing inmates early.

Owens said he never saw it coming.

"I don't think it was designed to cripple government," he said of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or TABOR, amendment his state's voters approved. "This is an unintended consequence."

[goldstategop]

Boy, do I love this - politicians complaining about Colorado's state government being shrunk by its spending limit. Bill Owens sees it as a problem: "We've been cutting virtually every department," Owens told a group of seniors Tuesday in Loveland, a bedroom community an hour's drive from Denver. "

Oh yeah? And what's wrong with cutting every department, exactly? That's how a spending limit is supposed to work: the government never spends more in revenue than it takes in revenue. Its like the Los Angeles Times inverts the logic of TABOR on its head. If Colorado doesn't have a California-style fiscal hangover, there's something wrong. Happily, Colorado voters are skeptical of the let's allow the politicians to spend like a drunken sailor pitch.

The smaller the government, the better it will perform. That's what the Republican Party has up to now - always advocated and its not something that should change just because the government can't live within its means.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[FairOpinion]

"the cap has strangled government. "

===

Sound to me like a GOOD thing.

[DB]

That article is the best endorsement for it I've seen so far...

[goldstategop]

I liked this rejoinder to Colorado's bi-partisan big spending elite:

His opponents have crafted a highly effective campaign around the real costs they say will fall on voters if the cap is lifted. Perhaps the staunchest defender of TABOR is the man who wrote it, a crusty El Paso county commissioner named Douglas Bruce. He says Owens is a "sellout" who has "made himself look like a national fool." At a debate with the governor this month, Bruce pulled a pair of flip-flops out of a bag and handed them to Owens.

"They're saying all the lawns in our parks will shrivel and die, all the children will get Alzheimer's, everything else in the world will go wrong and this place will be a living hell," Bruce said in an interview. "They're trying to scare people."

Bruce says the problem is not a lack of revenue, but a lack of leadership.

"They are saying, 'Because we are weak and can't take control of a budget, you have to give away your spending limit,' " he said. "Now that is a bad deal."

In a word, the elite class must think people are stupid. To lift the spending limit is akin to asking for a match to set the house ablaze. Yeah right. Colorado enjoys low taxes and no multi-million dollar budget deficit to worry about. It could be a lot worse. Which brings to mind the old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't mess with it." What the voters shouldn't do is give the establishment the opportunity to really mess things up.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[BIRDS]

Yeah, agreed, but among the biggest problems facing our current society is the reality of many elderly in need of certain supports. These represent the already retired and the soon-to-present-retiring groups who are reliant upon Social Security and Medicare as being available and have limited options otherwise for survival throughout old age.

Society has to help them, is the point. Many object correctly theoretically, but they're humans and not theories and their remaining years need social services for basic life sustaining things such as shelter, food, medical care.

For everyon else, the idea is there's still time to plan ahead but for many already in the elderly years, there's a different set of expectations, is my point.

That group of humans and also the huge illegal alien numbers in the country...where the social services funding is going or at least, has been.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

My God, if politicians can't spend money, what in the world are they going to do? Come up with ways to consolidate departments, cut wasteful spending and regulations, and worst of all, lay off workers! Perish the thought.

[goldstategop]

And they're warning if voters don't blow the spending capo sky-high, schools will close, children will starve, the air will be polluted, new roads won't get built and new business won't come to invest in the state. These things are going to happen regardless of whether or not there's a spending cap in place. Either we can have smaller government or deficits as far as the eye can see and higher taxes. The proponents of big spending should be honest instead of selling voters scare stories.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[goldstategop]

In fact, at the end of Halper's piece, the opponents of lifting the spending cap are quoted to the effect the extra money would be spent on illegal aliens. I think that's a good reason to keep it in place. The politicians in effect have made the argument they can't be trusted to manage the public's money responsibly. So why should they be given the freedom to mismanage it? That's exactly what Owens and the proponents' argument amounts to and they miss the irony of it. Personally, I think the refund check helps to remind the elite that its our money they're spending and that bothers them a lot more than the existence of the spending cap itself.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[goldstategop]

What's funny is you never hear those in power make the stipulation the government is spending plenty. We're also warned that if we cut spending, real people are going to be hurt and the economy is gonna tank. And then let's remember there are people whose livelihoods depends on continued growth of government: the politicians and their dependent class. No wonder they're so anxious to trash the spending limit. I mean its akin to saying if I'm drunk, give me more till I pass out. Colorado needs to keep TABOR and keep the elite's hands off its money - just like an alcoholic should be kept away from the bottle - for their own good.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[Morgan in Denver]

Don't know if this thread is still alive, but a comment is in order.

Governor Owens is correct about Colorado not having the money to do the things politicians want to do. Owens is a Republican but he's also a politician who thinks his legacy and reputation is dependent on how much he spends on projects versus how much he saves. Colorado seems to have the money to spend on increasing social programs and pet projects but did not save for a rainy day. That alone proves you can't trust politicians to spend wisely. They will spend whatever money they can get from taxpayers, and demand more.

Colorado's spending controls have worked exactly as intended, which frustrates politicians of both parties. Our states fiscal conservatives remain in support of TABOR, contrary to what this article claims. TABOR can be suspended anytime a referendum is placed before voters for approval. The current referendum on our ballot wants to stop TABOR for five years and give a blank check to the state politicians. Had these addressed specific needs, they would stand a better chance of passing, as it's been done in the past. The blank check approach is not a responsible answer to Colorado's budget woes.

In fact, Colorado has two initiatives on our ballot. One to address the so-called shortfall in funding, Referendum C, which actually produces so much extra money that the second ballot question, Referendum D, is a wish list of projects the excess money would pay for.

The real question on the ballot is whether or not the media, politicians and special interest groups were able to scare voters enough to approve them.

[Mark was here]

Royal Oak is a city in the Detroit suburbs, (Oakland County). It has a downtown area that is growing and flourishing because it actually draws in people. The housing prices are better than it's neighbors.

The city can not handle it's health care and pension costs and now is cutting services.

When the poop hits the fan you can see the true makeup of a person, or a city. You can see what they are really about. their true priorities.

The city in choosing to cut services shows the true basic function of the city is to transfer wealth from the taxpayers to government workers, providing services is way down the list.

I recall the Mayor of nearby Sterling Heights refer to the city's workers as one of the cities assets. Wrong . They are a growing liability, the furthest thing from an asset. This backwards thinking, that liabilities are assets, is what affects all types of governments. From little cities to big states like California. They see their mission as providing for government workers, "their assets" and not providing the services taxpayers pay for.

[goldstategop]

I think the voters are smarter than the politicians and special interest groups give them credit for. As you mentioned, if there's a real need to spend more - Owens and the state's Democrats could have put forward a list of specific needs that have to be funded with more money. But a downright suspension of the spending cap for five years coupled with a blank check to the politicians is not the way to keep CO's fiscal house in order. We can all hope the state's voters say NO to the politicians' desire to spend without checks and balances. And TABOR is the only real check they have on the government being able to spend more than it takes in revenue. Its really called common sense.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[Morgan in Denver]

Thanks for the support. TABOR is under assault, that's for sure. Denver will vote to approve but I'm hoping the rest of the state will defeat these initiatives. Polling has them under 50%, which is a good sign, but the propaganda in the papers daily will have an impact on voting.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. The real motive behind the drive to repeal TABOR isn't a desire to provide better services but to pay off government workers and groups that have a vested interest in the continued growth of government. Bureaucrats and pro spending groups have deep pockets. The taxpayers can't spend enough to get their voice heard and their interests protected. You can imagine where they are in the priorities of those in power. We know that there's no crisis in CO and if there's really one that affects services, the government could reallocate spending to provide them or ask the voters for permission to authorize funding for services. That's the honest approach. But of course doing that would be tantamount to admitting the spending cap works and that's anathema to the politicians. They value their power more than your freedom.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[jan in Colorado]

Colorado Gov. Bill Owens is a huge disappointment to conservative Republicans in this state.

Vote NO on "C" and "D"!

[Amerigomag]

Society has to help them, is the point.

I think your point was that their family has to help them. Wasn't it?

[Red Boots]

We've been cutting virtually every department- what a load of bull ! The State budget has grown every year, and the state employees just got a $90 Million dollar pay increase! Even Ward Churchill got a merit pay increase of $6000.00 a year !

Hopefully, Colorado voters will defeat this pair of initiatives, but, as always, Denver and Boulder outweight the rest of the state.

[goldstategop]

Yep. I betcha Denver and Boulder voters are why the Democrats have a majority in the State House and Senate, right? We can only keep our fingers crossed and pray CO doesn't share of California...

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[goldstategop]

Did the Democrats make any concessions in returning for lifting the spending cap? I think we all know the answer to that question. How any one thinks acquiring a multi-billion dollar debt will improve CO's fortunes is beyond me.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")