May 7, 2010

Twin amendments represent rebrucing with a vengeance

During this past Legislative session, we heard how taxing high-fructose corn syrup delivery devices would bring Colorado’s nascent economic recovery to a halt. The extra three pennies now collected on a dollar Snickers bar looks like a sweet deal compared to the potential effects of two measures on the November ballot.

Amendments 60 and 61, along with Proposition 101, would ban the state from issuing any kind of debt and severely limit what local governments could issue. The trio would reset limits on property taxes to 1992 TABOR levels, repeal Referendum C and local “debrucing” measures, and lock down our economy at its current recessionary level.

Talk about your job-killers.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Ways to thank a caregiver

If you have a caregiver or know someone who has been serving as a primary caregiver, March 3rd is the day to reach out and show them how much they are valued!

Set aside the argument that these measures provide relief from property taxes eating the individual taxpayer alive. Thanks to the Gallagher Amendment, business already shoulders a disproportionate burden of those taxes.

Equally disingenuous is the idea that school districts can cut their mill levies in half by 2020 because the state is required to make up any shortfall. Would that be the same state seriously considering funding its colleges with Keno proceeds?

Proponents say they want to reinstate the original ban on “debt in any form” in the 1876 Colorado Constitution. While the state is prohibited from issuing general obligation bonds, revenue anticipation notes keep the cash flowing and certificates of participation support construction and repairs. If the amendments pass, the state won’t be able to borrow anything, even from itself – next year’s tax revenues, buildings, vehicles, or equipment.

Local governments, including enterprises and authorities, would be able to borrow – if approved in a November election – in an amount that ratchets down as outstanding debt is paid off. And citizens could petition for further tax cuts on each and every ballot.

The irony of paying for an election to keep from paying taxes seems obvious. What must not be obvious to proponents is that when Colorado is the only state unable to fund public/private projects, no primary employer will give us a second look.

Although the fine hand of TABOR’s Douglas Bruce seems evident, the issue of who financed the ballot petition effort comes before an administrative law judge in Denver at the end of the month – if Bruce deigns to answer his subpoena this time.

On the bright side, gubernatorial candidates John Hickenlooper and Scott McInnis have already agreed on something: Vote no on Prop. 101 and Amendments 60 and 61.

During this past Legislative session, we heard how taxing high-fructose corn syrup delivery devices would bring Colorado’s nascent economic recovery to a halt. The extra three pennies now collected on a dollar Snickers bar looks like a sweet deal compared to the potential effects of two measures on the November ballot.

Amendments 60 and 61, along with Proposition 101, would ban the state from issuing any kind of debt and severely limit what local governments could issue. The trio would reset limits on property taxes to 1992 TABOR levels, repeal Referendum C and local “debrucing” measures, and lock down our economy…

Categories:
Sign up for BizWest Daily Alerts