TABOR on life support

Seventeen years ago, Colorado voters frustrated by the excesses of an unresponsive government passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutional amendment designed to limit government spending and give voters to final word on tax hikes. Initially, government officials largely adhered to TABOR's strictures, ever mindful that the voters had spoken and expected those they elected to play by the rules.

Last month's Orwellian decision by the Colorado Supreme Court signaled that no longer will the executive, legislative nor judicial branches of state government - all dominated by liberals - abide by a constitutional amendment that crimps their big-spender style.

Governing powers wager than most voters have forgotten why TABOR passed, much less what it was intended to do. That's a dangerous gamble because TABOR's primary tenets - subjecting tax increases to a public vote and limiting government spending - still elicit strong public support.

Last year, a constitutional amendment that would have rolled back the requirement that surplus tax revenues be refunded to taxpayers lost 55% to 45%, despite a $2.5 million campaign and only token opposition.

Instead of living within TABOR's easily-defined guardrails, Democrats have adopted a strategy of making it irrelevant through subversive interpretations and raising unprecedented revenue through "fees" - indistinguishable from taxes to anyone but a lawyer.

Last year, Gov. Bill Ritter first proposed a $100 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee - distinguished from the registration tax only by the quarter-inch that separates the two on your car's registration papers.

When KOA radio's Mike Rosen suggested that Ritter was merely side-stepping TABOR because it didn't apply to fees, the governor explained that this $500 million measure was legitimately a fee because "there really is a direct relationship between highway usage and infrastructure."

He didn't bother to explain how that was different from the fuel tax, since there is obviously a "direct relationship" between gasoline and transportation.

This year, Democrat legislators gave Ritter a $250 million vehicle fee increase. Can a fuel "fee" increase be far behind?

Ritter and his Democrat spending machine have also devised a new fee on hospitals, calculated to raise $600 million a year, while claiming to do so without raising costs on consumers. Magically, hospitals and state government rake in more money, but conveniently nobody pays more. Right.

Which brings us to the courts, unelected because the justices are expected to apply the law regardless of whether doing so is convenient or popular.

When the courts ruled that no "tax policy change" occurred even though Ritter and the legislature amended state law - what is law if not "policy"? - to force school districts to raise more property tax revenues, liberals were emboldened to short-circuit another TABOR provision that puts voters in charge.

The "weakening" clause reserves to voters the ability to ease existing limits on revenue, spending or debt. But Democrats, taking another page from Orwell, declared that the state's general fund spending limit - that's what state law calls it - is not a limit but "an allocation strategy."

"TABOR is silent on allocation strategies," declares Democrat Sen. John Morse, endorsing yet another slap in the face to taxpayers.

It's difficult to imagine why Democrats lawmakers would present voters with an outright tax increase ever again, so long as they can find legal lapdogs who will apply weasel words to change tax increases and spending limits into something else.

What tax issues, then, will voters be asked to consider? Mostly local government taxes or state matters in which the legislature or a special interest thinks it can fund a warm-fuzzy government program by taxing an unpopular target.

TABOR's most significant remaining limit, a cap on total state spending, was modified and temporarily suspended by Referendum C. Under those terms it returns in 2011, whereupon the cult of big government will undoubtedly devise a scheme to render it meaningless, too.

Won't it be ironic if, by inventing so many loopholes through which taxpayers can be soaked, overreaching Democrats sew the seeds of the next taxpayer revolt?

Justices blow off vote on taxes

Colorado's constitution plainly says that state and local governments can't raise taxes without voters' permission. If only the Colorado Supreme Court could read plain language. Instead, the court's liberal majority ignores terms that should obviously protect taxpayers and instead emphasizes extraneous arguments that accommodate government.

This latest legal chicanery comes from the same playbook that turned the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom into a tool to suppress religious speech.

Now voters who allowed their local school to keep, rather than refund, excess property tax collections are being hit with a backdoor property tax increase imposed by Gov. Bill Ritter and Democrat legislators.

Three factors determine property taxes: property value, the assessment rate, and mill levy.

If your home is worth $200,000, the assessment rate is 8%, and the mill levy is set at 50, the tax calculation looks like this: $200,000 x .08 (assessment rate) = $16,000 taxable value x .050 (mill levy) = $800 property tax.

When Colorado voters added the Taxpayers Bill or Rights (TABOR) to the state constitution, they prohibited state and local governments from enacting "a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain" without voter permission.

TABOR also limited total tax revenue increases to the combined rates of inflation plus population growth. If population plus inflation increase by 5% but total property valuation increases by 10%, the excess must be refunded to taxpayers and future mill levies reduced to avoid collecting the excess again.

Lawmakers from both parties have understood that neither the mill levy nor the assessment rate can be increased without a public vote. (The last attempted vote failed by a 3-to-1 margin.)

In 174 of Colorado's 178 school districts, voters have authorized their schools to keep the excess with the understanding - based on explicit promises from school and state officials - that taxes would remain subject to the population-plus-inflation limit.

Enter Colorado's newly empowered Democrats, who pay lip service to taxpayers but pledge allegiance to government. Ritter and his minions decided - without voter approval - that reducing mill levies was no longer necessary if voters had given their local school permission to keep excess revenues.

As a result, taxpayers coughed up an extra $117 million in the first year - an amount estimated to double every three years. This obvious "tax policy change" resulted in a "net revenue increase" which, to anyone without a law degree, clearly means voter permission is required.

But not according to Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey who ruled that Ritter and his fellow tax-hikers were merely implementing the wishes of the voters in those 174 districts - albeit years later.

Assurances to voters by school officials that taxes would remain capped don't matter, the court said, because those voters approved ballot questions that permitted schools to retain "all revenues" - even revenues that didn't exist at the time of the vote.

Worse, those tax dollars won't increase funds for local schools. As local taxpayers dig deeper, the state will reduce its contribution - instead paying more for welfare entitlement programs or to colleges and universities.

The consequences for voters and for schools are unfortunate. Voters can no longer take the word of school officials that "no one wants to raise your taxes." Even if local officials don't; state officials might and, thanks to Mullarkey, they can do so without the consent of voters or local schools.

Colorado Association of School Boards also backed the tax hike, leaving many local officials with egg on their faces. School leaders who conscientiously recognize the potential backlash from voters who feel betrayed should present taxpayers with the opportunity to re-instate the TABOR limit on property tax revenue and ask voters if their school can keep the change under that limit.

For voters and taxpayers, the recurring lesson is that constitutional limits on government are worthless if lawmakers won't abide by them and judges won't enforce them.

Mark Hillman served as Colorado senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

'Big boy britches' time for Obama

"The country looks to the President on occasions like this to be reassuring to the nation," Peter Jennings once said. "Some Presidents do it well, some Presidents don't." That's how the late ABC News anchor assessed President George W. Bush's performance on Sept. 11, 2001. The criticism was superficial, shortsighted and unfair, given that President Bush's finest moments came in rallying the country after 9/11 ‹ not scapegoating the previous administration.

Bush didn't spend the next few months claiming that he "inherited" a national security mess ­ nor did he complain about the economy which faltered in two of the final three quarters under President Clinton before contracting again in Bush's first year.

Likewise, President Reagan didn't whine about the soaring unemployment and burgeoning inflation that awaited him after President Carter's tenure. These men understood that they campaigned for the opportunity to serve as President and to lead by making difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions.

That's why President Obama's transformation from a candidate of hope and change to a president of gloom, blame and opportunism is so disappointing - even for those who didn't buy what he was selling as a candidate. His ability to truly inspire 53% of the voters seemed, at least, refreshing.

Now, the Obama team takes every opportunity to complain that they "inherited" a deficit, an "economic crisis," and "a big mess." No hope, just bellyaching.

Despite his messianic aura, Obama didn't mysteriously appear on planet earth a few months ago, whereupon he was thrust into office. He spent four years in the U.S. Senate (between campaign appearances), including two years when his party was in the majority with power to block policies it deemed destructive.

If he and his Democrat allies accept no responsibility for the current mess, it's fair to ask:

Did you see it coming but chose to do nothing, calculating that the ensuing catastrophe would be more beneficial to your political ambitions?

Or were you just as complicit in or oblivious to the financial implosion as those who came before you?

Either Obama put his political agenda ahead of the country's economic wellbeing or he, like those before him, is severely over-matched. Now he has reverted to the form that made him The Most Liberal Member of the U.S. Senate - exploiting economic turmoil to advance an agenda that rapidly expands the size, scope and debt of the federal government.

Americans might have accepted the behemoth $787 billion stimulus as a one-time response to severe economic distress but not as an opening bid on future spending. After all, Obama told us, "When the American people spoke last November, they were . . . looking for a change in the way Washington does business."

Instead, Americans got a Trojan horse that indefinitely expands entitlements and explodes deficits.

Obama promises to cut budget deficits in half. But compared to what? Bush's deficits, prior to 2009, maxed out at $412 billion. Obama's benchmark is the $1.3 trillion deficit for 2009 - the one he "inherited" - which is approaching $2 trillion under his stewardship.

To Bush, 2009 was an aberration in response to a fiscal crisis; Obama sees it as an opportunity to grow government permanently. Even taking Obama's budget at face value, his smallest deficit will be $533 billion in 2013.

Obama's budget includes his own $750 billion banking bailout, a $650 billion carbon tax, a $410 billion omnibus appropriation for 2009 - loaded with 8,570 earmarks. Even Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) said this "only exacerbates the problem."

After vowing to "ban all earmarks" and to "go through the federal budget line-by-line" to cut wasteful spending, Obama is now falling into the same trap that snared President Bush.

No change here, except that Bush seems miserly.

Because I reject his principles, the best I hoped for from President Obama was honesty, responsibility, and a degree of humility. So far, he's 0-for-3.. Worse still, the pathetic tactic of whining about problems you campaigned to solve is beneath the Office of the President.

Memo to President Obama: You may never be a President I can agree with, but put on your "big boy britches" and start acting like one I can respect.

------------------------------ Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To read more or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Motorists shafted by Dems' tax trick

Beginning July 1, Colorado drivers will pay higher taxes--we're told to call them "fees"--on every vehicle every year when we renew our license plates. The increase of $29 to $51 per vehicle is projected to generate $250 million annually to repair unsafe roads and bridges, Gov. Bill Ritter said when he signed the "fee" hike into law.

All this occurs under the guise of economic stimulus as Colorado Democrats learn from their Washington counterparts to strike quickly while the economy is on the ropes and the public is too worried about their own finances to pay attention to statehouse shenanigans.

To be fair, transportation funding from Colorado's fuel tax has been stagnant in recent years because it's calculated on a per-gallon, rather than a per-cent, basis. Higher fuel prices and better fuel efficiency keep total fuel consumption relatively flat. For the last 10 years, the state's share of fuel tax receipts never fell below $379 million but never grew above $430 million.

When the economy is booming, roads and bridges receive a tremendous bonus from the general fund ‹ income and sales taxes ‹ which nearly matched the fuel tax, adding $1.3 billion to the transportation budget from 2005 to 2007.

However, just hours after Gov. Ritter signed the vehicle fee hike into law, every Democrat in the state senate voted to sever this general fund lifeline to transportation.

If it sounds like Democrats are talking out of both sides of their mouths, it's because they are - at least, so far. One day, they say our roads and bridges are unsafe and demand more money from Colorado drivers. The next day, they take a hatchet to transportation funding.

Any sane person can be excused for wondering what they're drinking or smoking at the state capitol.

Sadly this is nothing new. Dating back to former Gov. Roy Romer, Democrats' favorite tactic has been to grow social welfare spending and leave transportation with scraps. Romer's approach was to tell voters that if they wanted more money for transportation, they should vote for higher taxes.

In 1997, Romer and Republicans reached a compromise that guaranteed the aforementioned bonus source of highway funding and limited general fund spending increases to no more than six percent per year.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens staunchly defended that compromise and worked out a similar agreement with Democrats in 2002.

Now that Democrats hold a monopoly at the state capitol, they seem intent upon smashing those agreements in order to boost social welfare spending.

Senate Bill 228 would eviscerate the limit on general fund spending, end a vital source of transportation funding, and allow rapid expansion of entitlements. Even Gov. Romer didn't suggest repealing this limit without the required public vote, but today's Democrats are above consulting lowly taxpayers.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. John Morse, nearly stepped in it recently when, reacting to opposition from Denver chamber of commerce, he declared, "Let's let the people's elected representatives decide that - not the chamber."

Better yet, Sen. Morse, let's let the people decide for themselves, as the constitution ­ which you pledged to uphold ­ requires.

Ironically, proponents suggest that eliminating a spending limit to facilitate more spending on social welfare will help Colorado "get out of a recession."

That's an argument with rife with economic illiteracy. If all spending limits disappeared tomorrow, state government still couldn't spend an extra dime. In a recession, it's the economy that limits spending. Moreover, Colorado's government doesn't fund the economy; the economy funds government.

If Democrats want to expand social welfare spending, they should be honest about it. If they believe transportation needs more money, they should first protect every existing resource. And if they want to repeal state spending limits, they should follow the constitution by asking the voters.

Mark Hillman served as senate majority leader and state treasurer. To readmore or comment, go to www.MarkHillman.com

Spenders aim to bust the 6%

Emboldened that the state supreme court still hasn't ruled on Gov. Bill Ritter's plainly unconstitutional property tax hike, tax-and-spenders at the State Capitol are drawing up their game plan for another end-run around voters. If they can get away with hiking property taxes by claiming it's not a tax increase, then Democrats are increasingly confident they can again bypass voters and the state constitution by claiming that a spending limit is something else.

The Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) in the state constitution famously mandates that taxes cannot be increased without voter approval. However, voters also get the final word on weakening any limits on "revenue, spending and debt."

In 2005, Referendum C suspended much of TABOR for five years and modified other portions indefinitely. However, Ref C left intact a provision that limits annual increases in general fund spending to six percent and devotes anything over that amount to roads and bridges.

Now Democrats - and one Republican - want to eviscerate that limit, too, although their justification and methods are dubious.

Even Gov. Ritter's budget office - known for its dreamily-optimistic projections - doesn't expect general fund growth to bump against the limit in the next four years.

Why then are liberals chafing at a limit that won't actually impede them anytime soon? For the same reason their counterparts in Washington turned an "economic stimulus" bill into a big-government spending binge.

"You never want a crisis to go to waste," reminds Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to President Obama.

Taxpayers striving to keep their own financial boat afloat don't have time to worry about the minutiae of government formulas, so Democrats shamelessly use today's economic distress to dismantle anything that might slow state spending when the economy rebounds.

Spendaholics are all atwitter. "We've got to do something!" more often conceals an agenda of opportunism than of necessity.

"We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem," complain activists at the liberal Colorado Center on Law and Policy. Translation: "Government can't spend enough because taxes aren't high enough."

No wonder they don't trust the voters.

Next, Jean Dubofsky, a former supreme court justice with a crafty legal mind and a penchant for legislating from the bench, proffered a clever legal strategy.

Dubofsky is no neutral observer. She's a board member of the Colorado ACLU and two liberal think tanks that despise TABOR. Her opinion suggests that the six percent limit really isn't a limit and can, therefore, be changed without voter approval.

Two Democrat legislators are dutifully parroting that message.

Denver Rep. Mark Ferrandino claims the six percent limit "doesn't actually limit the amount of money we're spending." Colorado Springs Sen. John Morse calls the six percent limit "an allocation strategy. TABOR is silent on allocation strategies."

Past legislatures and former governors from both parties have taken TABOR at its word when it plainly says: "Other limits on . . . revenue, spending and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval." Further, the constitution requires that TABOR's "preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.."

Although a spending limit of six percent is indeed arbitrary, it is hardly draconian. Yes, it could cause major difficulty in an age of hyper-inflation, but for eight of the past 10 years, six percent was more than the combined growth of inflation and population. Why then do liberals find it so oppressive?

Because expanding entitlement spending is the holy grail of the Left. More people who depend on government means more votes for the party that promises bigger government. Expanding social welfare is difficult when anything over six percent must go to roads and bridges.

It's ironic that liberals who liken government spending to "investment" now prefer to shift money away from lasting infrastructure and into social programs where more spending always begets demand for more spending.

If Gov. Ritter and Democrat legislators aren't willing to trust voters with these decisions, as the constitution requires, why then should voters trust them with their taxes?