Schaffer vs. Udall

I've been listening to KCFR's series on the Senate candidates, and I just wanted to make a quick note about two things that surprised me. Udall is against gay marriage, on the principle that marriage is a religious institution and people of faith should be the ones to define it. He does support civil unions however. Second, Schaffer is against the "Definition of a person" amendment. Both of these really surprised me when I first heard them. Without being fully immersed in Colorado's senate race, I have to some degree replaced both of them with Strawmen who tow the party line. Listening to this series, not just this little snippet, but the whole thing, has given me a better perspective on the two candidates. To those Coloradans who have not voted yet, I recommend that you listen to them.

kcfr.org

Referendums

Having looked again at the ballot I've realized that the referendums don't require too much opinion from me. Let's give this a go.

Referendum L
An amendment to section 4 of article V of the constitution of the state of Colorado, concerning the ability of an elector of the state of Colorado who has attained the age of twenty-one years to serve as a member of the Colorado general assembly.

I know what I was like at 21. I would not have been ready for a position in the state legislature and I doubt many 21 year olds would be. I agree the the age of 25 strikes a good balance.

Referendum M
Shall section 7 of article XVIII of the state constitution concerning outdated, obsolete provisions regarding land value increase be repealed?

Article XVIII, Section 7, authorizes the state to delay collection of additional property taxes when a property is improved by the planting of trees. There are, however, no tax breaks that take advantage of this. Nor is there any reason that such a law could not be passed if we wanted to have such a tax break.

Referendum N
Shall there be a repeal of section 5 of article XVIII and article XXII of the state constitution, concerning the elimination of outdated obsolete provisions of the state constitution?

Do we get rid of the law that prohibits saloons? I guess. I doubt we will see a resurgence in them.

Referendum O
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning ballot initiatives, and, in connection therewith, increasing the number of signatures required for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution; reducing the number of signatures required for a proposed statutory initiative; requiring a minimum number of signatures for a proposed initiative to amend the state constitution to be gathered from residents of each congressional district in the state; increasing the time allowed to gather signatures for a proposed statutory initiative; modifying the review of initiative petitions; establishing a filing deadline for proposed initiatives to amend the state constitution; and requiring a two-thirds vote of all members elected to each house of the general assembly to amend, repeal, or supersede any law enacted by an initiative for a period of five years after the law becomes effective?

If you have followed this at all, you will notice that I think people who use the citizen's initiative process are generally short-sighted or attempting to serve specific pet projects. Making it easier to propose statutory amendments compared to constitutional ones may help in this regard. I feel that the Colorado constitution has been messed with too much in the last couple of years and people really need to knock it off.

Amemdments 52, 54, 58, and 59

Hello again everyone. We really are getting down to the line here. I'm sure many of you have already voted using a number of early voting options, but since I'm a bit busy with other things, I haven't been able to finish up this series as quickly as I would like. Today, I'll look at the last four amendments on the Colorado ballot. We're skipping a few numbers because those measures have been withdrawn by their sponsers.

Amendment 52
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the allocation of revenues from the state severance tax imposed on minerals and mineral fuels other than oil shale that are extracted in the state, and, in connection therewith, for fiscal years commencing on or after July 1, 2008, requiring half of the revenues to be credited to the local government severance tax fund and the remaining revenues to be credited first to the severance tax trust fund until an annually calculated limit is reached and then to a new Colorado transportation trust fund, which may be used only to fund the construction, maintenance, and supervision of public highways in the state, giving first priority to reducing congestion on the Interstate 70 corridor?

Another taxation and budget issue wrapped up together in an amendment issue. The trouble with this one is typical of initiatives that are put on the ballot in Colorado. This is an amendment to the state constitution; its very difficult to change. My response here is fairly similar to several other initiatives such as this. A change in the severance tax policy would not be bad. As part of an overarching strategy, I think it would be wise to increase the tax on fossil fuel development and add further incentives to renewable energy research and implementation. I really dislike setting aside budgetary items in amendments. I-70 needs some work, but it really needs to be addressed in another way.

Amendment 54
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning restrictions on campaign contributions, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the holder of contracts totaling $100,000 or more, as indexed for inflation, awarded by state or local governments without competitive bidding ("sole source government contracts"), including certain collective bargaining agreements, from making a contribution for the benefit of a political party or candidate for elective office during the term of the contracts and for 2 years thereafter; disqualifying a person who makes a contribution in a ballot issue election from entering into a sole source government contract related to the ballot issue; and imposing liability and penalties on contract holders, certain of their owners, officers and directors, and government officials for violations of the amendment?

Alright, this amendment basically says that people with government contracts should not be allowed to donate that money to campaigns or use it for other political purposes. The blue book has probably pointed out the biggest problem with this issues: it prevents county or city level contractors from contributing money to candidates or causes outside of the limits of the person holding their contract.

Amendment 58
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $321.4 MILLION ANNUALLY BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING THE SEVERANCE TAX ON OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR TAXABLE YEARS COMMENCING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2009, CHANGING THE TAX TO 5% OF TOTAL GROSS INCOME FROM THE SALE OF OIL AND GAS EXTRACTED IN THE STATE WHEN THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL GROSS INCOME IS AT LEAST $300,000; ELIMINATING A CREDIT AGAINST THE SEVERANCE TAX FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAID BY OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS AND INTEREST OWNERS; REDUCING THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION THAT QUALIFIES WELLS FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX; EXEMPTING REVENUES FROM THE TAX AND RELATED INVESTMENT INCOME FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS; AND REQUIRING THE TAX REVENUES TO BE CREDITED AS FOLLOWS: (A) 22% TO THE SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND, (B) 22% TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEVERANCE TAX FUND, AND (C) 56% TO A NEW SEVERANCE TAX STABILIZATION TRUST FUND, OF WHICH 60% IS USED TO FUND SCHOLARSHIPS FOR COLORADO RESIDENTS ATTENDING STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, 15% TO FUND THE PRESERVATION OF NATIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT, 10% TO FUND RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, 10% TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IMPACTED THE SEVERANCE OF OIL AND GAS, AND 5% TO FUND COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT GRANTS?

This is again, a good place for the state to increase its revenue, but a bad way to target the spending of such.

Amendment 59
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STATE FUNDS PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, FOR THE 2010-11 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, REQUIRING THAT ANY REVENUE THAT THE STATE WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED TO REFUND PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING BE TRANSFERRED INSTEAD TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT THAT, FOR THE 2011-12 STATE FISCAL YEAR AND EACH STATE FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER, THE STATEWIDE BASE PER PUPIL FUNDING FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM PRESCHOOL THROUGH THE TWELFTH GRADE AND THE TOTAL STATE FUNDING FOR ALL CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS INCREASE ANNUALLY BY AT LEAST THE RATE OF INFLATION; CREATING A SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND; REQUIRING THAT A PORTION OF THE STATE INCOME TAX REVENUE THAT IS DEPOSITED IN THE STATE EDUCATION FUND BE CREDITED TO THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; REQUIRING EITHER A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE OF EACH HOUSE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR, IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH COLORADO PERSONAL INCOME GROWS LESS THAN SIX PERCENT BETWEEN THE TWO PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEARS, A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO USE THE MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT; ESTABLISHING THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH MONEYS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT MAY BE SPENT; ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT MAY BE IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT IN ANY STATE FISCAL YEAR; AND ALLOWING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO TRANSFER MONEYS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE STATE EDUCATION FUND, SO LONG AS CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ARE MET?

This amendment is trying to fix some of the funding conflicts already in the state constitution by creating more of them. I think that summarizes my opinion on that pretty well.

As some of you may know, I still haven't received my official Colorado ballot, and so I will most likely not get to actually vote on these ballot issues. I have submitted a write-in ballot for the federal and state elections, so my voice will be heard in that way at least. I guess I'm also doing this blog, which may help to raise attention to some of these ballot issues. I'm at a conference on election day, so I won't be able to follow everything, but I will do my best to keep an eye on things.

If I have some more time, I'll cover the four referendums on the ballot as well.

The Bachmann Slip

I meant to talk about this a few days ago because I think it is shocking. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann calls for a return to McCarthy-ism in America. Regardless of which party she is from, promoting the idea that some Americans are anti-American or have anti-American views is stupid. All of us want what is best for the country, we just have different views about what is best.

Colorado Ballot Issues - Amendments 49, 50, and 51

Hello again to everyone. I haven't had as much free time for posting lately, but I thought that I should try to make some time to go over a few more of the ballot issues that Coloradans will be seeing this year. I should also speak about one of my biases. I think that the Citizen Initiative method in Colorado is a bit broken. Activists of all stripes tend to use this process in an attempt to lock things into the state constitution that cannot be easily changed. We elect our General Assembly for a reason. We use a republican model for a reason. Sometimes, it is better to leave the lawmaking in the hands of people who dedicate their lives to it. They are (or should be) experts on it. It is the same as trusting the advice of a doctor or lawyer in the appropriate situations. Therefore, unless I see an initiative that actually changes something that is wrong in the constitution, I will probably vote it down. Even if it is a good cause, a worthy initiative, I will try to block it. Our legislature is in charge of the State budget. If you would like to see more funding go to a specific project, write to your representative or senator and get them to do something about it. Vote people into office who you think will push the causes that you care about. Certainly, our representatives should take the opinions of the electorate to heart, but they also owe us their judgement. If the electorate is pushing Issue X but Rep. Smith knows that passing Issue X would cause a $2 mil shortfall in state revenues, he should vote against it.

Now, on to the main event.

Amendment 49
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning deductions from governmental payroll systems, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting a governmental payroll system from taking a payroll deduction from any government employee except deductions required by federal law, tax withholdings, judicial liens and garnishments, deductions for individual or group health benefits or other insurance, deductions for pension or retirement plans or systems, or other savings or investment programs, and charitable deductions?

Alright, this is a constitutional ammendment that prohibits government employees from having certain types of witholding. Simply put, I think this is unnecessary. There are already laws that people can opt out of any witholding that they don't want. I'm voting "no" for this.

Amendment 50
SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS TO LIMITED GAMING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING THE LOCAL VOTERS IN CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK TO EXTEND CASINO HOURS OF OPERATION, APPROVED GAMES TO INCLUDE ROULETTE AND CRAPS OR BOTH, AND MAXIMUM SINGLE BETS UP TO $100; ADJUSTING DISTRIBUTIONS TO CURRENT GAMING FUND RECIPIENTS FOR GROWTH IN GAMING TAX REVENUE DUE TO VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN GAMING; DISTRIBUTING 78% OF THE REMAINING GAMING TAX REVENUE FROM THIS AMENDMENT FOR STUDENT FINANCIAL AID AND CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE STUDENT ENROLLMENTS, AND 22% FOR LOCAL GAMING IMPACTS IN GILPIN AND
TELLER COUNTIES AND THE CITIES OF CENTRAL CITY, BLACK HAWK, AND CRIPPLE CREEK ACCORDING TO THE PROPORTION OF INCREASED TAX REVENUE FROM VOTER-APPROVED REVISIONS IN EACH CITY OR COUNTY; AND REQUIRING ANY INCREASE IN GAMING TAXES FROM THE LEVELS IMPOSED AS OF JULY 1, 2008 TO BE APPROVED AT A STATEWIDE ELECTION, IF LOCAL VOTERS IN ONE OR MORE CITIES HAVE APPROVED ANY REVISION TO LIMITED GAMING?

Simple version of this ammendment: allows cities to set new limits on betting, and changes the allocation of the revenue. I'm not against a constitutional change that would allow the expansion of gambling options. However, tacking on the changes for the revenue targets is not so good. This gets a "no" from me.

Amendment 51
SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $186.1 MILLION ANNUALLY AFTER FULL IMPLEMENTATION BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE RATE OF THE STATE SALES AND USE TAX BEGINNING ON JULY 1, 2009, BY ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT IN EACH OF THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS; PERMITTING THE STATE TO RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM THE NEW TAX, NOTWITHSTANDING THE STATE SPENDING LIMIT; REQUIRING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE NET REVENUE FROM THE NEW TAX TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE NEWLY CREATED DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES LONG-TERM SERVICES CASH FUND; REQUIRING THE MONEY IN THE FUND TO BE USED TO PROVIDE LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; AND PROHIBITING REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVEL OF STATE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL EXISTING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS MEASURE FOR LONG-TERM SERVICES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES?

This is a good example of the worthy cause that should not be an ammendment. Although this is only a statutory ammendment, I'm still against this on the basis that it is an ammendment. Certainly we should fund programs that we have so that they reach the people that need them. Again though, this should just be something that the legislature should take care of in their annual budget vote. If we need additional tax revenue to cover the costs, it can be brought before the voters as a referendum. I would encourage the proponents of 51 to get out and encourage the General Assembly to fund this program. Adding an ammendment to change the sales tax and lock that revenue into one program is not the way to go about this. Fiscal situations change every year, which is why the budget is voted in on an annual basis.

Conservatives for Obama

Recently, two prominant conservative writers have written editorials supporting Obama. The first is Chris Buckley, son of William F. Buckley. The second is Wick Allison, former editor of the National Review. I think Allison's argument is a bit stronger and more appealing. I think his assement of what conservitism and liberalism as ideals is very good and in fact reaffirms my position as a centrist. Namely, I think I have a bit of the liberal idealism for what ought to be done, but I also look back at what has been done to see whether or not it worked. Anyways, both are good reads.

Also, I had trouble expressing this when I was asked about it the other day, but I have to say that I think the wall of seperation between church and state must go both ways. Neither should have undo influence on the other. I hope that makes more sense.

You can put lipstick on a pig...

...but that still doesn't make Fox News happy.