Defeat Amendment 59 or lose TABOR

(Source: National Taxpayers Union) Colorado voters made history in 1992 when they enacted TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, the strongest set of taxpayer protections in the country. In guaranteeing refunds of overcollection of taxes, mandating spending restrictions, and giving Coloradans the ability to vote on all tax increases, TABOR has been instrumental in the state's booming economy. Unfortunately, over the past 16 years, rent seekers have sought to weaken these provisions through the passage of Amendment 23 and Referendum C, which allowed a increased rate of government spending growth. They're at it again, with TABOR-killing Amendment 59 on the ballot in November.

Supported by the National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers Against Amendment 59 is leading the fight against this destructive initiative.

Visit the Web site at www.noto59.org to join the pro-taxpayer fight. There you will find more information on Amendment 59, including a detailed description of its consequences, links to research and media, and opportunities for you to take action against its big-government proponents.

Amendment 59, being sold as the Savings Account for Education (SAFE) plan, constitutes a blank check for legislators in Denver. It would gut TABOR, allowing for the same rampant spending that led to the stagnation of Colorado's economy in the 1980s. Roughly half of Colorado's general fund will be exempt from TABOR's spending restrictions under Amendment 59.

What's more, the claim that the increase in revenue and spending capacity will be spent solely on education is disingenuous and misleading. As you'll see on www.noto59.org, the list of pro-59 big-money donors includes special interests from the health lobby to trial lawyers. It's time for the taxpayers of Colorado to turn out the vote in November and work to continue the economic progress the state has enjoyed under TABOR.

Previous efforts to weaken TABOR have successfully expanded the role of government in Colorado. Enough is enough. Visit www.noto59.org and find out how you can take action. This is the most important ballot fight in the country this election cycle. Don't be left on the sidelines.

For more information on Taxpayers Against Amendment 59's fight, contact NTU State Government Affairs Manager Josh Culling at jculling@ntu.org or 703-299-8680.

No on 3A & 3B, Creek & Jeffco

Editor: Suppose the education lobby asked to put a tollbooth at your front door where they would charge you 50 cents every day except Sunday, just to leave home. You'd want to know that before saying yes or no, wouldn't you? Well, that's the tariff on an average homeowner in Cherry Creek Schools if the twin tax and bond measures on this year's ballot are approved, though you'd have no idea of it from the fancy mailers going out, and you'd get only half the truth from supporters' press releases.

So we asked a district parent and experienced financial analyst, appearing here as Number Cruncher, to run the figures for several different housing sizes. Here's his report:

============================

Caveat Voter: 3A and 3B are Expensive!

The Cherry Creek Schools Board of Education and the citizens asking voters to vote for 3A and 3B have only discussed the cost of 3B, but have not disclosed or discussed the annual cost of 3A and the total annual cost of both measures to our District’s taxpayers.

Measure 3A, the $18,000,000 annual operating override costs an additional 3.964 mills per year and Measure 3B (the $203,500,000 bond question) costs an additional 2.172 mills per year. The total tax increase will be 5.136 mills per year. Wow!

Below you can see what the annual property tax increase will be for you depending upon the assessable value of your home.

The cost is high in these strained economic times. I am very displeased at the district’s failure to inform taxpayers of the cost, and I encourage people to take this into account when voting on these measures.

Assessable......3AAdditional......3BAdditional......Total Additional Home Value.....Annual Cost.......Annual Cost......Annual Property Tax

$250,000........$79..................$43.................$142

$336,000........$106.................$58.................$164 = Average Home

$500,000........$158.................$86.................$244

$750,000........$237.................$130...............$367

$1,000,000......$316.................$173..............$489

$1,500,000......$473.................$259..............$732

(Some differences due to rounding)

============================

Editor: Jefferson County Schools have their own 3A and 3B, seeking to raise almost twice as much money as Cherry Creek, and taxpayers should also look skeptically on those big tax increases in the current economic climate. Our friend Tom Graham has Jeffco and the daily papers in a tizzy with his wicked satire on "reasons to vote yes" in that election.

Meanwhile back in Cherry Creek, The Villager, principal newspaper serving the area, carried in its 10/2/08 edition an article and a letter from the Board of Education, both discussing ballot measures 3A and 3B. for Cherry Creek Schools. (Not available on their website at VillagerPublishing.com.)

The article discussed the cost of the bond issue (3B) for the average priced home, but did not mention the annual cost of the $18,000,000 override (3A) to the average homeowner. The school board's letter suggested the combined cost of the two measures is only $58 per year, which is inconsistent with the information in the article and with the mill levy increase required to generate an additional $18 million annually.

The article said the assessable taxable value for the average home (presumably including single family homes, condominiums and townhomes) is $336,620. As the above table by Number Cruncher shows, the combined added cost of 3A and 3B for a taxpayer owning an average priced home of $336,000 will be about $164 per year.

Our imaginary tollbooth figure is calculated by taking a year of 365 days, subtracting 52 Sundays, and dividing the remaining 313 days into that $164 annual tax increase, for a daily charge of just over 53 cents.

Listen to Ballot Issue Rundown

Here's audio for the full hour of "Under the Dome: Ballot Issue Voter Guide," our election special that aired 10/6 , on 710 KNUS with John Andrews as host along with me and Joshua Sharf chiming in. To listen to the program, click the link below:

click here Andrews, Sharf, LeCrone

Business chumps fund their opponents

Colorado's so-called "business leaders" just don't get it but, oh boy, are they about to. Shrewd in making deals in their own respective realms, the power brokers who agreed to pay labor union bosses $3 million in exchange for withdrawing four job-killing ballot initiatives have been played for suckers. Politics is a different ballgame. These business executives consented to an extortion racket and will pay the price for years to come.

It is understandable that business leaders didn't want to risk passage of even one of these four destructive initiatives. But the peace they have purchased is only temporary.

Anyone who still believes that businesses are philosophically conservative should take note. CEOs are more pragmatic than ideological, especially in big business. Their primary interest is building a profitable enterprise and they disdain uncertainty. From that perspective, negotiating a truce seems like a better plan than trying to score a big win over labor at the risk of suffering a costly loss.

However, trading something tangible for something intangible is always a lousy deal. Years ago, Israel learned that trading land for peace with the Palestinians doesn't work. Peace is a promise that can be rescinded at any time while land can be reclaimed only with force.

The business participants in these negotiations made an even worse bargain, trading cash for peace. By this time next month, labor bosses will have spent the $3 million. Business will then be out $3 million and left only to trust labor's good will for as long as it lasts.

These are many of the same business types who bought the myth of Bill Ritter as a pro-business Democrat, only to watch him unionize state workers and raise property taxes. About the only business benefiting from Ritter's reign are trial lawyers and electric utilities - which might well explain Xcel Energy's participation in this newest trade-off.

Now, thanks to the gullible generosity of these business leaders, labor - which had already raised $12 million for this election - can re-direct much of its cash to electing more labor union puppets and trial lawyer lackeys to the state legislature where they can haunt business interests for years.

Interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Colorado State University professor Ray Hogler sees the big picture clearly, noting that "labor will now enjoy an even bigger financial advantage" and can "divert some of their campaign cash to help Democratic allies."

How this obvious strategy escapes business executives who have lived through the hostile legislative climate of the past two years is utterly inexplicable.

If labor is successful in defeating Amendments 47 (right to work) and 49 (ethical standards), its agenda will be bolstered by an apparent voter mandate.

Labor's iron grip over the legislature will be strengthened by electing more of its own and by more political clout to intimidate the few remaining business-friendly Democrats and any Republican silly enough to think that labor will ever back him or her against a Democrat.

Nothing prevents labor bosses from trotting out these same anti-business initiatives at any time in the future to extract another payoff from business.

Business leaders just purchased the ammunition for their own execution. Labor bosses and Democrat activists - like shrewd negotiator Ted Trimpa who helped engineer this deal and just happens to be an advisor to Democrat financier Tim Gill - will be laughing all the way to the ballot box.

Labor union leaders understand strength and toughness. Unfortunately, many Colorado's self-proclaimed business leaders have responded with weakness and timidity. In so doing, they have thrown to the wolves the handful of gutsy business leaders who truly understand labor's political strategy and therefore backed Amendments 47 and 49.

Labor will continue its racket of extortion and intimidation until business executives grow tired of being beaten with their own hammer or until so few of them remain that their opinion doesn't matter.

Flat no on Ref O

Without question Colorado's constitution has suffered from various inconsistent amendments. The primary argument in favor of the so-called SAFE Amendment is that we need some solution to thetraffic jam of Amendment 23, TABOR, and the Gallagher Amendment. That's Exhibit A, although it's hard to actually find an Exhibit B.

Now, the Democrats, with considerable Republican support in the state Senate (8 of 15 Republicans supported the bill), are trying to use this vague dissatisfaction to pass Referendum O, a constitutional amendment making it harder to, well, pass constitutional amendments.

Referendum O would:

1) Increase the signature requirement by 7,000. Currently, constitutional amendments require 5% of the last vote for Secretary of State. Referendum O would require 6% of the last vote for Governor.

2) Push the deadline back to April from August. Petitions campaigns would have to start before the legislature met, and wrap up before adjournment. For all practical purposes, anything passed by the legislature wouldn't be subject to an Amendment over-turn for over a year. Any effort to pass anything could be derailed by a plea to wait and led the legislature deal with it. And if you believe that...

3) Require that at least 8% of signatures come from each Congressional district. Initially, it would have required 8%.

Here's where we need to do some math. With roughly 93,500 signatures needed, that means that about 7,500 valid signatures would be required from each Congressional district. Realistically, we'd need 15,000 since up to half may get invalidated by the Secretary of State. This won't affect signature gathering in Denver, Colorado Springs, or Boulder (CD-1, CD-5, or CD-2), and probably wouldn't affect CD-6 very much, as it's becoming urbanized, or at least, suburbanized. But take a look at the population distribution in CD-3 and CD-4.

CD-3 has liberal Pueblo, and more-liberal-than-conservative Grand Junction. The population - especially the more Republican population - is much lower density, much more spread out. And it's not even like Grand Junction is that large. According to the Mesa County Clerk and Recorder, at the last municipal elections, there were roughly 21,000 registered voters in Grand Junction.

So this, just like Amendment 27 -- the notorious campaign finance measure voted into the state constitution in 2002, more draconian than McCain-Feingold -- places a premium on organization and money to pay for signature-gatherers, especially for more conservative amendments. Especially as proponents will no longer be able to rely on popular anger over legislative action.

While the Democrats were in a perpetual minority, they made spectacularly effective use of the initiative amendment process, passing Amendment 23, which has helped hamstring the budget, and Amendment 27, which has placed a premium on big money and union organization in campaigns. Now that they are in the majority, the modern-day "progressives" find no end of fault with the only meaningful check the citizens have on a runaway legislature backed by a governor and a compliant State Supreme Court.

This is what the Democratic party is exceptionally good at: using power to perpetuate power.

When Coloradoans passed Amendment 27, they probably didn't realize that in their desperation for "reform," they were actually voting for a Trojan Horse.

This time, there are no excuses.