Comments on: Colorado Referenda C & D http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/ Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:49:54 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: mek-meka http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/#comment-156 mek-meka Thu, 20 Oct 2005 04:12:32 +0000 http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=98#comment-156 i think that they are just making up this stuff. there is no such thing as referendum D they are just tryin to find a way to make us poor. they think they need the money more than we do. we already pay taxes, there's no need for another thing to come up out of the blue and take more of our money! and thats a fact!!! i think that they are just making up this stuff. there is no such thing as referendum D they are just tryin to find a way to make us poor. they think they need the money more than we do. we already pay taxes, there’s no need for another thing to come up out of the blue and take more of our money!

and thats a fact!!!

]]> By: SG http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/#comment-154 SG Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:53:25 +0000 http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=98#comment-154 JAM refers to the "blue book" which is a mandatory publication by the state government explaining ballot issues. The blue book is prepared by a "non-partisan" research staff of the CO legislature, and it is supposed to explain the background for an issue and what will happen if it is passed, along with supposedley "balanced" arguments for and against. The wording of the explanation, and the arguments, is supposedly approved by the parties before the blue book is mailed to every voter in the state. It seems to be something of a game over there to see what political shenanigans can be embedded in the book without being noticed by "the other side." The "ratcheting down" issue is case in point. The Blue Book says that since current year spending is limited to a formulaic increase on the previous year, spending can NEVER achieve the levels that it would have if there had been no recession. Duh! They make it sound as if this is a fundamental flaw in TABOR, but in fact it is intentional. If you counter the effect (as they are trying to do with Referendum C) then the state budget becomes partly immune from recessionary effects in the economy, at the expense of taxpayers who have no such protection. But here's an analogy which will clearly show you why the "ratcheting down" idea is a red herring. We are all familiar with the concept of "accumulated interest." That means if you put $100 in the bank for a year at 3% interest, at the end of the year you will have $103 in your account. Next year you will earn the interest on the $103, or $3.03 instead of just $3.00. And so it goes. Let's say in the second year, your bank reduces the interest to 2%. You have less interest income and a lower balance at the end of the year. If the bank puts the interest rate back up to 3%, you will NEVER EVER have as much money as you would have if they hadn't reduced it for a year. What the proponents of C are saying is, in effect, "the state will never have as much money as they would have, if they had more money." Their attempt to redress the situation through C would be a bit like you going to the bank and telling them they must increase your interest rate to 4% make up for your "loss" when it was only 2% As for your other question, the the proposed expenditure of the "surplus" is so general that it amounts to a blank check. The SIX "areas" in which the surplus can be spent amount to 86% of the budget. That's why so many organizations are campaigning in favor of it-- they think that the state is going to spend the money on THEM! AARP is supporting it because they say the state will be able to restore the property tax exemption for senior citizens. The state COULD restore the exemption (whether C passes or not), but there is nothing to indicate that they WILL, and they certainly won't be REQUIRED to! If this hasn't made you suspicious of the "factuality" and "impartiality" of the blue book writers, consider this: one of the listed arguments FOR the referendum begins "Without raising taxes...." And the very first argument AGAINST it begins "Referendum C is effectively a tax increase." It can't be both, guys, so WHICH IS IT? --SG JAM refers to the “blue book” which is a mandatory publication by the state government explaining ballot issues. The blue book is prepared by a “non-partisan” research staff of the CO legislature, and it is supposed to explain the background for an issue and what will happen if it is passed, along with supposedley “balanced” arguments for and against. The wording of the explanation, and the arguments, is supposedly approved by the parties before the blue book is mailed to every voter in the state. It seems to be something of a game over there to see what political shenanigans can be embedded in the book without being noticed by “the other side.”

The “ratcheting down” issue is case in point. The Blue Book says that since current year spending is limited to a formulaic increase on the previous year, spending can NEVER achieve the levels that it would have if there had been no recession. Duh!

They make it sound as if this is a fundamental flaw in TABOR, but in fact it is intentional. If you counter the effect (as they are trying to do with Referendum C) then the state budget becomes partly immune from recessionary effects in the economy, at the expense of taxpayers who have no such protection. But here’s an analogy which will clearly show you why the “ratcheting down” idea is a red herring. We are all familiar with the concept of “accumulated interest.” That means if you put $100 in the bank for a year at 3% interest, at the end of the year you will have $103 in your account. Next year you will earn the interest on the $103, or $3.03 instead of just $3.00. And so it goes. Let’s say in the second year, your bank reduces the interest to 2%. You have less interest income and a lower balance at the end of the year. If the bank puts the interest rate back up to 3%, you will NEVER EVER have as much money as you would have if they hadn’t reduced it for a year.

What the proponents of C are saying is, in effect, “the state will never have as much money as they would have, if they had more money.” Their attempt to redress the situation through C would be a bit like you going to the bank and telling them they must increase your interest rate to 4% make up for your “loss” when it was only 2%

As for your other question, the the proposed expenditure of the “surplus” is so general that it amounts to a blank check. The SIX “areas” in which the surplus can be spent amount to 86% of the budget. That’s why so many organizations are campaigning in favor of it– they think that the state is going to spend the money on THEM! AARP is supporting it because they say the state will be able to restore the property tax exemption for senior citizens. The state COULD restore the exemption (whether C passes or not), but there is nothing to indicate that they WILL, and they certainly won’t be REQUIRED to!

If this hasn’t made you suspicious of the “factuality” and “impartiality” of the blue book writers, consider this: one of the listed arguments FOR the referendum begins “Without raising taxes….” And the very first argument AGAINST it begins “Referendum C is effectively a tax increase.” It can’t be both, guys, so WHICH IS IT?

–SG

]]> By: Small man in a big world http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/#comment-153 Small man in a big world Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:16:32 +0000 http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=98#comment-153 Thanks for the valable information. Now i can make somewhat of an educated vote in November. Thanks for the valable information. Now i can make somewhat of an educated vote in November.

]]> By: just another moron http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/#comment-152 just another moron Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:55:57 +0000 http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=98#comment-152 I just got my blue book and the only thing that worries me is the part about "ratcheting down." What is that all about? Plus doesn't the referendum say what the money is to be spent on, so wouldn't it be ok with TABOR? I just got my blue book and the only thing that worries me is the part about “ratcheting down.” What is that all about? Plus doesn’t the referendum say what the money is to be spent on, so wouldn’t it be ok with TABOR?

]]> By: Thrif T. Pocket http://stengazette.org/wordpress/2005/09/26/colorado-referenda-c-d/#comment-151 Thrif T. Pocket Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:31:46 +0000 http://stengazette.org/wordpress/?p=98#comment-151 Stupid government. What do they think we are? All the signs about vote yes on c & d cost a bundle. If it passes it will allow the state to INCREASE spending by $3.743 BILLION dollars over the next 5 years. Ridiculous. If not passed then the state will have less to spend over the following years. well they could try budgeting--HELLO. Stupid government. What do they think we are? All the signs about vote yes on c & d cost a bundle. If it passes it will allow the state to INCREASE spending by $3.743 BILLION dollars over the next 5 years. Ridiculous. If not passed then the state will have less to spend over the following years. well they could try budgeting–HELLO.

]]>