View Full Version : Amendment 60, Amendment 61 & Proposition 101
Mobat555
09-23-2010, 11:55
Been reading both sides of this and while I am all for budget responsibility, this appears to be far to drastic to have a positive effect. Also seems that it would drastically affect our public school system.
For it (http://cotaxreform.com/)
Against it (http://www.donthurtcolorado.com/)
The post is also stating that 61 will inevitably raise taxes as Colorado would no longer qualify to pay a discounted rate on their federal unemployment taxes and instead would see those taxes increase nearly seven-fold.
Can Read here (http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16148957)
Thoughts?
ronaldrwl
09-23-2010, 12:08
They sound like good ideas to me. Every time a revenue cut is tried all the politicians scream about losing fireman, teachers and all the unicorns will disappear.
OgenRwot
09-23-2010, 12:09
The big argument against tax cuts is always "What about the kids?" it's always the schools. Schools can cut their budgets too. Most districts have way too much overhead especially in their bureaucracy. Schools waste so much money it's not even funny.
Schools waste so much money it's not even funny.
Amen and +1. I usually defend the teachers but on this point I will have to concur. There is sooo much monetary waste in schools that it's unbelieveable. And a lot of it the tax payers don't even know about like equal scholarships, or "mandatory and nessecary" training, or etc. Like how the administrators... Oh, I better stop while I'm a head....
Zundfolge
09-23-2010, 12:25
The opposition to these three is primarily financed by large labor unions ... that alone is a good enough reason for me to support them.
Gotta starve the beast before its too late and we become East California.
The ads are long on hyperbole and short on facts. Read the darn things yourself and then make up your mind (they're not long, convoluted, lawyerese pieces either).
Amendment 60 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Property_Taxes,_Amendment_60_%282010%29)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning government charges on property, and, in connection therewith, allowing petitions in all districts for elections to lower property taxes; specifying requirements for property tax elections; requiring enterprises and authorities to pay property taxes but offsetting the revenues with lower tax rates; prohibiting enterprises and unelected boards from levying fees or taxes on property; setting expiration dates for certain tax rate and revenue increases; requiring school districts to reduce property tax rates and replacing the revenue with state aid; and eliminating property taxes that exceed the dollar amount included in an approved ballot question, that exceed state property tax laws, policies, and limits existing in 1992 that have been violated, changed, or weakened without state voter approval, or that were not approved by voters without certain ballot language?Amendment 61 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_State_and_Local_Debt_Limitations,_Amendme nt_61_%282010%29)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning limitations on government borrowing, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting future borrowing in any form by state government; requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities; limiting the form, term, and amount of total borrowing by each local governmental entity; directing all current borrowing to be paid; and reducing tax rates after certain borrowing is fully repaid?
Prop 101 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Motor_Vehicle,_Income,_and_Telecom_Taxes, _Proposition_101_%282010%29)
Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits on government charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases?
Mobat555
09-23-2010, 12:40
The ads are long on hyperbole and short on facts. Read the darn things yourself and then make up your mind (they're not long, convoluted, lawyerese pieces either).
But they give no indication of impact.
ronaldrwl
09-23-2010, 12:48
But they give no indication of impact.
Impact the governments wallet
ghettodub
09-23-2010, 12:57
Hmm, after skimming through them, they don't all sound bad to me. I'd be curious to ask my dad though, because he's very well informed, and is a small-businessman, since one of the things they're saying is that it hurts small business
Mobat555
09-23-2010, 13:07
Impact the governments wallet
Yet all government spending "in theory" is to our benefit.
I'd hit it. Especially Prop 101.
Zundfolge
09-23-2010, 14:00
Yet all government spending "in theory" is to our benefit.
Yeah, thats the big lie. Praise Government from whom all blessings flow.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar taken away from someone productive and used in a generally less productive manner (with the exceptions of money to run our military and our court system ... and even there you hit the point of diminishing returns pretty quickly).
Government spends more money so it can grow itself; so it can steal more money. Very difficult cycle to break.
Ask the people of Bell, California if they would have liked these in place for their state over the last 10 years.
68Charger
09-23-2010, 15:09
Oh, I better stop while I'm a head....
I see what you did there... from the bad joke thread...
my gut says that a penny given to the gov't is a penny that will be spent foolishly, and whenever a politician says "it's for the children" my BS[Cheer]goes up- they're trying to appeal to emotion, since they can't appeal on the basis of logic, common sense, or other sorts of reason
Byte Stryke
09-23-2010, 15:15
The big argument against tax cuts is always "What about the kids?" it's always the schools. Schools can cut their budgets too. Most districts have way too much overhead especially in their bureaucracy. Schools waste so much money it's not even funny.
The problem is, as with any Bureaucracy, the cuts will not affect the overhead and the "Fat"
in today's environment we cut from the Bottom, not the top.
the top must remain fat and happy!
OgenRwot
09-23-2010, 15:52
The problem is, as with any Bureaucracy, the cuts will not affect the overhead and the "Fat"
in today's environment we cut from the Bottom, not the top.
the top must remain fat and happy!
I know, it's ridiculous. Teachers get cut or have their salaries cut, less goes into the classrooms (supplies etc), cass sizes grow and administration gets fat paychecks.
We agree on something, woohoo [Beer]
funkfool
09-23-2010, 16:05
I just paid one of my vehicle registrations and AGAIN it had gone up...
Suprising?
NOPE!
They place the taxable value of one of my cars at 18000.00
(EIGHTEEN THOUSAND FREAKING DOLLARS)
It is a '99 Ford Contour... with 100,000 miles... Kelly Blue Book of 2000.
WTF?!?!
[Rant1]
The taxation in this country is OUT OF CONTROL!
When was the last time you looked at all the charges on your bills?
Telephone for example:
I have just a basic land line telephone at the house...
I am charged 20.00 by the phone company for this service...
after the telecomunications taxes and 'fees' I pay 37 dollars a month.
Almost DOUBLES the cost.
If you sat down and figured out how much of your annual salary goes to GOVT. through taxes and 'fees'...
You would find you are paying one H*LL of a lot more than you think.
REIGN THEM IN!
Vote YES on these three.
ronaldrwl
09-23-2010, 16:30
I have estimated with all the taxes and fees that over to 60% of what you make is gobbled up.
To mention it again, after what is happening in Bell, California, perhaps we should look into starting a similar investigation here.
On a completely unrelated issue, I still can't get over the fact that the gov is allowed to tax you on fees you pay to them. How is it possible that you pay a tax on a fee?!
All three sound good to me.
There is 1 point I do not like about amendment 60
.
1. I do not like that the state has to backfill the lost revenue.
I'm a proponent of education, not the bloated bureaucracy. Most large organizations are top heavy, the only proof I need is the company I work for.
OneGuy67
09-24-2010, 09:34
There is little doubt that all the municipal, county, special district, state and federal governments could work leaner with some less funding. However, these proposals aren't the way to do it.
These proposals paint with a broad brush and everyone's arguments are broad and overreaching, "the government is bloated" and the "the government spends too much money on (fill in whatever issue you don't like)".
These aren't the way to get anything done. They are short sighted measures.
Imagine Prop 61 passing and not allowing the borrowing or bonding of money. How will any government be able to build a new school, replace or build a new roadway, build the light rail, to name a couple of projects? If the prop passes, they will have to save up to pay in whole for the project or building, which would take a number of years, but in doing so, that violates TABOR.
What people don't seem to understand is, they voted for a patchwork of Constitutional Amendments that have really fucked up our budget and how we manage money. TABOR, Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment's have made our state's fiscal issues a huge problem. Having just TABOR isn't in itself a problem, except it gave its author Doug Bruce, the former Californian and current slum lord, certain protections in the tax law (and other slimy bastards like him) regarding their property taxes. Now, he wants people, during a time that they are upset with government in general, to vote stupiditly and really fuck it up. Someone mentioned being east California here. If these pass, we most certainly will be.
There was a great article in the Denver Post yesterday on the impact of Prop 61. You might want to read it before making your anti-government rants and pulling a lever on something you'll regret later (and probably bitch about it being the government's fault later.)
Anyone else a fan of the voucher system? My mother was a teacher in a horrid public school system, fought the teachers union, had to buy supplies for her kids from Big Lots out of her own pocket... There's a difference between public education and public schools.
H.
Listening to the labor and teacher unions going crazy against the amendments has convinced me that they are probably a pretty good thing to vote for. Are there possibly unintended consequences? Certainly. But what are the intended and unintended consequences of unions continuing to demand more and more taxes to support them in perpetuity? As I think Margaret Thatcher was reputed to have famously said, "The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Anyone else a fan of the voucher system? My mother was a teacher in a horrid public school system, fought the teachers union, had to buy supplies for her kids from Big Lots out of her own pocket... There's a difference between public education and public schools.
H.
I am single and have no children. I hate paying for schools, if a person has kids then that person should be responsible for their children in their entirety. Don't make me share the costs of educating or otherwise caring for your children.
Having said that I'd rather see vouchers where parents make the call on the school their kid(s) get.
Crush the NEA and that will be a good start.
I am single and have no children. I hate paying for schools, if a person has kids then that person should be responsible for their children in their entirety. Don't make me share the costs of educating or otherwise caring for your children.
Having said that I'd rather see vouchers where parents make the call on the school their kid(s) get.
Crush the NEA and that will be a good start.
I actually agree with that. Parents would take a more hardline and active approach if they WERE directly involved in the education of their children instead of using teachers (who have their hands tied behind their backs) to raise their kids and then blaming the education system for failing to instill discipline/respect (when teachers can't use corporal or harsh words as it might damage said childs poor self esteem), or learning anything (when over half the class is dealt with dealing with discipline problems), etc and et al ad nauseam.
I am single and have no children. I hate paying for schools, if a person has kids then that person should be responsible for their children in their entirety. Don't make me share the costs of educating or otherwise caring for your children.
I also have no children, no plans on ever having children, and I strongly disagree. There are a LOT of negligent parents. A lot of poor parents. Not a majority, to be sure, but we're still talking about thousands of kids in this condition in every city. Why is this your problem, you ask? Well I'm glad you asked. The answer is, in 18 years you're going to be living with those children as adults.
So public schools may be very inefficient, kids might drop through the cracks and end up at 18 unable to read, but far fewer than if it wasn't state mandated and (at least partially) state funded.
The benefit outweighs the cost, even to those of us who don't have kids (or didn't attend public schools). My two cents, you're welcome to disagree.
H.
Interesting line of thought Hoosier... do you think that parents would NOT take a more active role in their childs education if they had to directly pay for it?
Zundfolge
09-24-2010, 13:29
There is little doubt that all the municipal, county, special district, state and federal governments could work leaner with some less funding. However, these proposals aren't the way to do it.
Yeah, but my plan (involving a back hoe and a ma deuce and a few thousand pounds of lye) won't ever happen.
There was a great article in the Denver Post yesterday on the impact of Prop 61. You might want to read it before making your anti-government rants and pulling a lever on something you'll regret later (and probably bitch about it being the government's fault later.)Yeah, the Denver Post ... there's an honest, unbiased source.
Shut down 95% of the government and my life will be the same (probably be better).
So public schools may be very inefficient, kids might drop through the cracks and end up at 18 unable to read, but far fewer than if it wasn't state mandated and (at least partially) state funded.
No, prior to forced public education the literacy rate was actually higher than it is today.
funkfool
09-24-2010, 13:44
Imagine Prop 61 passing and not allowing the borrowing or bonding of money. How will any government be able to build a new school, replace or build a new roadway, build the light rail, to name a couple of projects? If the prop passes, they will have to save up to pay in whole for the project or building, which would take a number of years, but in doing so, that violates TABOR.
You are incorrect on this point...
Here is why...
"requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities,"
This is the place where people are trying to say...
"What about the CHILDREN!!!" How will we build new schools, or infrastructure?!?!"
Simple - we vote on it.
(Unless, as some would say "We don't know what is best for us...")
I also have no children, no plans on ever having children, and I strongly disagree. There are a LOT of negligent parents. A lot of poor parents. Not a majority, to be sure, but we're still talking about thousands of kids in this condition in every city. Why is this your problem, you ask? Well I'm glad you asked. The answer is, in 18 years you're going to be living with those children as adults.
So public schools may be very inefficient, kids might drop through the cracks and end up at 18 unable to read, but far fewer than if it wasn't state mandated and (at least partially) state funded.
The benefit outweighs the cost, even to those of us who don't have kids (or didn't attend public schools). My two cents, you're welcome to disagree.
H.
I've also been told that paying for the education improves the value of my home.
I think it's all horseshit and I'd like to stomp a mudhole in the motherfucker who started it, I hope they died a slow and painful death.
OneGuy67
09-24-2010, 17:40
You are incorrect on this point...
Here is why...
"requiring voter approval of future borrowing by local governmental entities,"
This is the place where people are trying to say...
Simple - we vote on it.
(Unless, as some would say "We don't know what is best for us...")
You are not quite accurate. Here is the wording from the proposed amendment.
"(i) The state and all its enterprises, authorities, and other state political entities shall not borrow, directly or indirectly, money or other items of value for any reason or period of time. This ban covers any loan, whether or not it lasts more than one year; may default; is subject to annual appropriation or discretion; is called a certificate of participation, lease-purchase, lease-back, emergency, contingency, property lien, special fund, dedicated revenue bond, or any other name; or offers any other excuse, exception, or form."
So the state cannot borrow money for any reason. Right now, all those who are getting unemployment benefits are getting borrowed money. The state borrowed from the feds in order to keep paying these people. Anyone here getting benefits want to comment on the loss of their funds?
"(ii) Local districts, enterprises, authorities, and other political entities may borrow money or other items of value only after November voter approval. Loan coverage in (i) applies to loans in (ii). Future borrowing may be prepaid without penalty and shall be bonded debt repaid within ten years. A non-enterprise shall not borrow if the total principal of its direct and indirect current and proposed borrowing would exceed ten
percent of assessed taxable value of real property in its jurisdiction.
(iii) No borrowing may continue past it original term. All current borrowing shall be paid. Except enterprise borrowing, after each borrowing is fully repaid, current tax rates shall decline as voter-approved revenue changes equal to its planned average annual repayment, even if not repaid by taxes. Such declines do not replace others required. Future borrowing is void if it violates this paragraph (c), which shall be strictly enforced. Conflicting laws, rulings, and practices are repealed, overturned, and superceded."
So, if the voters do approve a new building, then they must repay it within 10 years instead of a longer bond and cannot refinance the bond if there are lower interest rates. Smart to tie the hands of people who do have more knowledge and experience with public works bonding than you or I do and tell them we know better.
Who is going to lend the money to a situation like this? At times, one building is used as collateral for another, in order to finance. That would be ended.
Again, the state would not be able to borrow money AT ALL. How do you expect the state to pay for things like new roads, road improvements not covered by federal money, that public area you like to shoot at? Do we start selling off state assets? How much is Chatfield or Cherry Creek reservoirs worth? Pueblo reservoir? Who do we sell it to? Someone who we hope will run it for the benefit of the people, or their own personal use. Drain them? Build condos and a shopping mall on the spot?
Completely short sighted policy.
I'd have to get a job a lot faster than I've been able to so far. I'll still vote for it though.
gnihcraes
09-24-2010, 21:42
some rambling thoughts; a little whining and views from the other side, which I'm sure someone will complain about. I'm taking the risk I guess.
My father's tax load is 67% I believe he has figured. Someone else here said a similar thing. I'm all for reducing the taxes, and we should start over. Chopping at things like this will have bad impacts.
Yes, I work for the state. A lot of people work hard, and some do not. We've been on Pay for Performance the last few years and it's a real pain to bust your butt and have someone work less and get the .1 score better than you to get their reward. So it seems at times anyway. Depends on how the scores come in from supervisors, clients and management.
This year there just like many others, there is no reward. No cost of living, no additional pay increase, all the top performers got were 8 hours extra paid time off. The rest got nothing.
9 years I've worked for the state, and have only seen two increases in my salary (i think?). I'm finally back to where I was 10 years ago in the private sector.
Our budgets are on a curve slower than the rest of the private sectors, 2011 sounds stable, but 2012 they say is not looking good unless things really pick up. (Yes your tax money and fees for services)
You get a real sinking feeling when the email comes in with the "Length of Service Form" to fill out and turn in to HR. Great, who was hired after me?, did I have any military service to get me that extra weighted preference point?, was my Pay for Performance enough to keep my job? I guess it's better than the private sector where they just walked me out the back door and gave me the $8k severance which was taxed at 50% as a "Bonus".
I see a lot of waste, I do what I can to correct it or save the money where I can in my position and department. I feel it's only the right thing to do, and so do many others. We're running on very limited staff, holding many job positions vacant until the economy comes back around. Most of us are working beyond the normal limits set in the private industry, our energy is completely drained by the end of the day.
We don't get paid overtime, and are not allowed to work any overtime. 40 hours max. and can't get everything done that needs to be done every day just to keep things functioning. It's tough. And nobody in the public sector gives a crap, everyone hates you because you're taking their money and probably not deserving of it and don't understand why there is a process or rules to getting something done.
At one time in the computer industry, the ratio was One Computer Nerd per 125 people or systems. We're running 300+ per nerd in multiple locations and things are way more complicated than years ago. Blah blah blah. Much of the equipment is in good shape, although some is not and hasn't been replaced in years due to lack of funds. (any of you IT nerds on here can come visit me if you want) I must say the "City and County of Denver" is hurting, they got some old stuff. Sad.
The customers at all day long complain, bitch and moan about the fines, fees and other crap they have to put up with. Well, stupid, don't do bad shit and you wouldn't be here.
You can put us out of business right now if all 1000 of you POS would quit doing drugs, killing, stealing, drinking, gang banging, pimping, hooking or whatever else it was that put you here and you blame us for taking your money because of it.
Keep spraying the walls with graffiti that we don't want and have to spend time and money to cover up. They just don't get it, but they aren't paying their share of tax anyway because they aren't working so what do they care, it didn't hurt nobody.
Most of them get some assistance with RTD tokens so they can show up on time for their required meetings. Others come to "Classes" to learn how to be a better person, or Victim Empathy class, etc. Most of this stupid crap is paid for with tax dollars, state and federal grants etc. (salaries for the people to assist all these jerks, materials etc.) Job search assistance and training. GED Classes because they can't stay in school long enough to learn anything there.
I work, do a good job, get paid a reasonable salary, PTO, and benefits, I'm not complaining. Glad to have the job when others do not. I just don't think these amendments are the best solution.
There is more, but I won't post publicly for various reasons.
It's been a tough week working for the state.
I needed that. Thanks for listening.
gnihcraes|searching
P.S. I didn't mention that I along with many others in the department are "On Call" for the entire weekend, and I don't get paid crap for it. I can't leave town, cannot do anything outside of cell phone range and must be able to report to the work site in 90 minutes or less. I don't get paid to respond if needed, nor do we get any compensation for modifying our personal life because of the on call status. Gun show it is I guess.
spencerhenry
09-25-2010, 08:28
i for one am sick of paying for shit that i dont use, much less want. i dont want another rec-center for the illegals to use as a public shower. privatize these things, if they cant make a profit, they shouldnt be around. we live here in one of the greatest places in the world, why do i have to pay so others can live here. i am a single guy, do my own thing, never taken a dime of unemployment, or any other kind of welfare. i pay over $200 per month to the county for property taxes. for the library, fire protection, ambulance service, sheriffs office, schools. i live out in the boonies, my $400 or so that goes to fire and ambulance is wasted. i had a natural gas emergency a few years back, a 1" line at 825 psi blew out. fire department guy from somewhere not responsible for here showed up, told me i am "not in anyones fire district". great, so what do i get for my tax dollars? a county owned road that is in the winter almost impassable, i plow it, the county doesnt. no fire protection. a library? who the fuck goes to a library anymore? i am sick of the government always needing more money, when you need something from the goverment, they always say that they are so overworked and under staffed because of budget constraints.
i hope all these propositions pass. taxes are my second biggest expense after insurance. i could live on what i pay in taxes every year.
OneGuy67
09-25-2010, 10:13
Spencerhenry,
I'm not going to ask you to reveal where you live, but given what you've mentioned, you may have been a recepient of benefits you are unaware of.
We all pay fees (taxes) related to our cell phones and land lines that go to the companies to pay for lines and equipment installation in areas that are not profitable. Given you you've stated, your area probably isn't a profitable area, but you have service to access the internet and probably have either a cell or land line or both. The equipment was paid for by your fellow citizens. Same for electrical and gas, if you have access to the public lines. There isn't a profit to lay line out to your residence to put junction boxes in areas where the population is scarce and I'm pretty sure the power company didn't ask you to pay for the line all the way from the nearest town, but just from the nearest junction box, if not closer. Who pays for that? We all do.
spencerhenry
09-25-2010, 10:58
you really shouldnt make assumptions about my situation. you are not correct. i live out in the boonies, that is correct. the phone company when we wanted to put in phone lines was not offering any kind of discount because of tax supported subsidies. we were quoted actual cost of $58,000 just to get the phone lines to the edge of the subdivision, i am another 3/4 mile from there to my lot line, others are another 1.5 miles beyond that. my share of phone service getting it to my house would have cost me around $10,000 back in the early '90's. in todays dollars i would guess that to be about double. the gas line that i tap off of was not installed to benefit me or anyone else that taps off it. it is a high pressure service line that runs through my property. i had NO choice in whether the line went through here or not. it was going to happen no matter what i said. i believe the term is "eminent domain". yes i get gas service from it. but i have a 75 foot wide scar through my property that even after 15 years is clearly visible, i also have a pile of rocks left over from the installation of the 13" diameter steel high pressure line. i also have to deal with gas company people coming on to my property any time they feel like it. do i get a discount on gas? NO. in fact it costs me $121 per year whether i use any gas or not. electrical service? can you say high tension lines damaging my view of the mountains, lines that i cant build under or near, lines that allow the power company to come on my property at any time. they can "remove vegetation" to "maintain" their easement as they see fit.
i am not a "taxes are good for the betterment of all" kind of guy. i work damn hard for what i have and resent people like you for telling me that i should be happy to help others who dont work as hard. i dont want a government to subsidize phone service, or electrical distribution, or gas service or whatever. there are free market solutions to all of that. if you want to build out where there is no phone or power or gas, fine, but dont expect me to help pay for it.
there are obviously things we need to have taxes for, like law and order, and fire protection. but the abuse of power, corruption, and outright waste of resources in those government agencies is astounding. things like libraries and recreation centers, and others are a waste of my hard earned money. i know people in law enforcement, and in fire protection. it is sickening to listen to what goes on there.
so please dont tell me that i have what i have because someone else paid for it. and dont make assumptions about other peoples situations when you know nothing about it.
i am very surprised to see how many 'socialist light" people are here on this site. i thought gun owners as a group were more of the take care of yourself mindset.
Byte Stryke
09-25-2010, 11:24
All three sound good to me.
There is 1 point I do not like about amendment 60
.
1. I do not like that the state has to backfill the lost revenue.
I'm a proponent of education, not the bloated bureaucracy. Most large organizations are top heavy, the only proof I need is the company I work for.
I don't call the Police, I am not a criminal.
There is a fire extinguisher in every room of my house.
I Still pay for emergency services.
It an equal distribution tax.
can you imagine losing your home and property to a fire and getting a bill for $500K-1.5 Mill??
Depending on how much equipment responds that not entirely unreasonable.
So you paying for your neighbors kid to be in school instead of at home setting your cat on fire is a pretty fair trade off if you ask me.
Some countries don't have a public education system.
Kuwait...
Annual enrollment in an elementary class $40-90K
OneGuy67
09-25-2010, 16:08
you really shouldnt make assumptions about my situation. you are not correct. i live out in the boonies, that is correct. the phone company when we wanted to put in phone lines was not offering any kind of discount because of tax supported subsidies. we were quoted actual cost of $58,000 just to get the phone lines to the edge of the subdivision, i am another 3/4 mile from there to my lot line, others are another 1.5 miles beyond that. my share of phone service getting it to my house would have cost me around $10,000 back in the early '90's. in todays dollars i would guess that to be about double. the gas line that i tap off of was not installed to benefit me or anyone else that taps off it. it is a high pressure service line that runs through my property. i had NO choice in whether the line went through here or not. it was going to happen no matter what i said. i believe the term is "eminent domain". yes i get gas service from it. but i have a 75 foot wide scar through my property that even after 15 years is clearly visible, i also have a pile of rocks left over from the installation of the 13" diameter steel high pressure line. i also have to deal with gas company people coming on to my property any time they feel like it. do i get a discount on gas? NO. in fact it costs me $121 per year whether i use any gas or not. electrical service? can you say high tension lines damaging my view of the mountains, lines that i cant build under or near, lines that allow the power company to come on my property at any time. they can "remove vegetation" to "maintain" their easement as they see fit.
i am not a "taxes are good for the betterment of all" kind of guy. i work damn hard for what i have and resent people like you for telling me that i should be happy to help others who dont work as hard. i dont want a government to subsidize phone service, or electrical distribution, or gas service or whatever. there are free market solutions to all of that. if you want to build out where there is no phone or power or gas, fine, but dont expect me to help pay for it.
there are obviously things we need to have taxes for, like law and order, and fire protection. but the abuse of power, corruption, and outright waste of resources in those government agencies is astounding. things like libraries and recreation centers, and others are a waste of my hard earned money. i know people in law enforcement, and in fire protection. it is sickening to listen to what goes on there.
so please dont tell me that i have what i have because someone else paid for it. and dont make assumptions about other peoples situations when you know nothing about it.
i am very surprised to see how many 'socialist light" people are here on this site. i thought gun owners as a group were more of the take care of yourself mindset.
You shouldn't make assumptions either, my friend. Name calling isn't very nice since you don't know who I am or what I believe. Calling me "socialist light" is akin to me calling you a right wing militia, anti-government (fill in the blank). Gun owners come in all shapes and sizes and not all have your belief system.
Nowhere in my statements did I tell you you needed to be happy with helping others. Read it again. I simply stated you may have been someone who has received the benefit of others, and frankly, you have been whether you agree or not. The cell towers put in place so specific companies can claim they cover 97% of the U.S. were not put in for their sake, or even their own dime, they were put in to benefit others. I, and those who live in the Denver metro area, paid for those so people in the boonies could have access to cell service. Those in the boonies sure as hell didn't pay for them all on their own. Not enough of you to make it worthwhile for a free market system to spend the money. If you fit that, so be it. If you don't, that's ok too.
Lastly, I am in law enforcement. Have been for nearly 20 years. I don't speak to what I don't know, but in this arena, I know a lot. Far more than you, my friend.
We need to cut taxation, period.
For instance, how do we force the education system to cut administrative costs without cutting services to children? The admin is bloated, it needs to be cut, but it never happens and it never will until we CRUSH the union.
This is just like when the city says it is short on money, they don't cut welfare or help for illegals, they cut police and fire. We don't need to be giving money to illegals or 95% of the folks on public assistance, we need to make sure we have police and fire protection. Then they turn around and ask for MORE money to re-establish police and fire.
I am so sick of hearing 'its for the children', what a LIE, its for the admin and the union, neither one of which collectively gives a rats ass about the children.
Vote YES on 60, 61, and 101.
OneGuy67
09-25-2010, 21:43
We need to cut taxation, period.
For instance, how do we force the education system to cut administrative costs without cutting services to children? The admin is bloated, it needs to be cut, but it never happens and it never will until we CRUSH the union.
This is just like when the city says it is short on money, they don't cut welfare or help for illegals, they cut police and fire. We don't need to be giving money to illegals or 95% of the folks on public assistance, we need to make sure we have police and fire protection. Then they turn around and ask for MORE money to re-establish police and fire.
I am so sick of hearing 'its for the children', what a LIE, its for the admin and the union, neither one of which collectively gives a rats ass about the children.
Vote YES on 60, 61, and 101.
Sooo....you think that if these three abominations passes, the powers that be will cut services you consider unnecessary and continue to attempt to fund services you think are necessary?
Sigh.
Mobat555
09-25-2010, 22:52
how do we force the education system to cut administrative costs without cutting services to children? The admin is bloated, it needs to be cut, but it never happens and it never will until we CRUSH the union.
Not sure how other districts handle this, but in Jeffco the 2009 mill levy did not pass and Cindy Stevenson, superintendent of the Jefferson County School District, told her school board she will not accept $40,000 in performance bonuses she is due and expects her salary to be frozen for the two-year period. Also Stevenson's top administrators (her cabinet members) have also agreed to a pay freeze.
Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg donated about $47,700 in deferred raises and bonuses to the Denver Public Schools Foundation.
Perhaps Administration is bloated in your districts, but in ours it seems they are willing to make sacrifices.
Sooo....you think that if these three abominations passes, the powers that be will cut services you consider unnecessary and continue to attempt to fund services you think are necessary?
Sigh.
No.
So I'm just supposed to roll over and give up huh. NEVER!
The more you write the less I think of you, keep writing.
Mobat555
09-26-2010, 08:04
Any Bill Owen's supports can see his take on the measures here: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16158190
Any Bill Owen's supports can see his take on the measures here: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16158190
Good for Bill, he advocated for Ref C and D so I am not surprised.
Zundfolge
09-26-2010, 11:14
Another thing about the whole 60,61,101 thing is that we're being asked to support or oppose in bulk.
I can actually see some of the arguments against 60 and 61 (although I still support them because I believe the solution is to "starve the beast") but I can't for the life of me see how anyone could oppose 101 unless you see the people as slaves to the state that should have to pay through the nose for the privilege of owning property (the reality is that Ritter's increases in car "fees" was a trick to raise taxes while getting around the law). Also the libs have decided all of the sudden that tax cuts for anyone but the rich is a good thing and I guarantee you that vehicle taxes/fees have a hugely disproportionate negative impact on the poor.
I'd prefer to see these initiatives debated individually, otherwise we might as well have omnibus ballot initiatives full of lots of unrelated crap.
I'd prefer to see these initiatives debated individually, otherwise we might as well have omnibus ballot initiatives full of lots of unrelated crap.
Colorado Constitution, Article XIX, Section 2 limits amendments to the constitution to one subject. So you can only have ballot initiatives of related crap.
I agree. These should be debated separately.
Zundfolge
09-26-2010, 21:12
Also this argument that if we cut any spending on education we'll get worse education for our children assumes that money=quality.
Clearly this is not true.
http://simplecomplexity.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/cato.jpg
OneGuy67
09-27-2010, 14:04
No.
So I'm just supposed to roll over and give up huh. NEVER!
The more you write the less I think of you, keep writing.
No one asked you to roll over. In fact, I would suggest you get involved!
I'm just stating that these three proposals are the wrong way to get things done. They amend the constitution in a very permanent way. It might be different if these didn't, as I do believe permanently amending our state constitution is no place to experiment with untested ideas and beliefs that if the opponents are right, will cause far more harm than what the proponents argue will happen.
I will keep writing on the issues that directly affect me, both personally and professionally and to which I have direct knowledge of and I could care less what you think of me.
OneGuy, I feel like you've mostly been posting about 60 and 61. What do you not like about Prop 101?
OneGuy67
09-27-2010, 15:37
OneGuy, I feel like you've mostly been posting about 60 and 61. What do you not like about Prop 101?
Here is the wording to Proposition 101.
Proposition 101
Motor Vehicle, Income, and Telecommunications Taxes and Fees
Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning limits ongovernment charges, and, in connection therewith, reducing vehicle ownership taxes over four years to nominal amounts; ending taxes on vehicle rentals and leases; phasing in over four years a $10,000 vehicle sale price tax exemption; setting total yearly registration, license, and title charges at $10 per vehicle; repealing other specific vehicle charges; lowering the state income tax rate to 4.5% and phasing in a further reduction in the rate to 3.5%; ending state and local taxes and charges, except 911 charges, on telecommunication service customer accounts; and stating that, with certain specified exceptions, any added charges on vehicles and telecommunication service customer accounts shall be tax increases.
Text of Proposal:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
Title 39, article 25 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
Reducing government charges
(1) Enforcement. This voter-approved revenue change shall be strictly enforced to reduce government revenue. (At least they are honest about it) It is self-executing, severable, and a matter of statewide concern that overrides conflicting statutes and local laws. Prevailing plaintiffs only shall have their legal fees and court costs repaid. The state shall audit yearly compliance with this reform to reduce unfair, complex charges on common basic needs.
(They wish to have someone(s) in the state government audit these issues. Do we add to the overworked accounting staffs load or hire new people to do this work, how many and where would their salaries come from? Remember, the state can't afford to hire additional people and forum members believe the state government is too big anyway.)
(2) Vehicle. Starting January 1, 2011: (a) All annual specific ownership taxes shall decrease in four equal yearly steps to: New vehicles, $2; and other vehicles, $1. All state and local taxes shall cease on vehicle rentals and leases, and on $10,000, reached in four equal yearly steps, of sale prices per vehicle. Sale rebates are not taxable.
(b) All registration, license, and title charges combined shall total $10 yearly per vehicle. Except those charges, and tax, fine, toll, parking, seizure, inspection, and new plate charges, all state and local government charges on vehicles and vehicle uses shall cease. Except the last six specific charges, added charges shall be tax increases.
(I grabbed my registration from my vehicle, a 2001 Chevy Tahoe and it is due for registration soon. My 2009 ownership taxes were $106.53. Their proposal would make my tax $1. My license fee was $47.42. Their proposal would make that $10. So, before I paid a total of $153.95 and they are proposing it be $11. Sounds good, right? Now, where does that money go? El Paso County was nice enough to show a nifty pie chart on their website, which shows the OWNERSHIP TAX goes in this manner:
- 68.75% School Districts
- 4.96% Library Districts
- 11.27% El Paso County general fund
- 8.78% Service Districts
- 6.23% Cities and Town general fund
Now, the proponents say the only effect of Prop 101 on school district revenue is on the vehicle ownership tax, as stated above, reduced in yearly steps, although it isn't specific to its method and that state aid is already required by law to replace 100% of that revenue effect. Schools will not face any revenue loss. Really? Where exactly is the state going to get the money to make up that loss of revenue to give to the schools? I'm all for reducing this to ease my tax burden, but this isn't the way to do it. Instead, how about a repealing of the statute (SB09-108) enacted that increased the amounts?
The LICENSING FEE is broken down this way:
$4.00 - Street fund of your city, or to the county street fund if you
live in a rural area
$4.00 - County general fund for clerical processing in the MV Dept
$0.70 - County Emission Control Account Diesel Only
$0.60 - Peace officers Standards and Training
$1.50 - State Dept of Health for emission control Diesel Only
$2.00 - State for emergency medical services in rural areas
Remainder - State Highway User Fund
So the licensing fee's pay for the clerical of getting your registration, some road maintanence, some State Troopers (Hwy User Fund), and some extra things if you got a diesel engine.
Now, some would say, "I don't have kids, why should I pay for the schools" or "I don't use the library or the recreation center. Why should I pay for them?" Well, I guess that is something we've perpetuated for over a hundred years using taxpayer money to fund. The normal argument is, is the betterment of society. I guess you would have to make your own arguments for or against. I personally would rather the rug rats have someplace to go like school and rec centers and keep them busy instead of vandalizing my property. That's just my opinion. Yours may differ.
My argument is this. The state cannot make up the loss to the schools, or anywhere else if the income being currently received is lessened or gutted. Read the papers. Believe them or not. We are again going to have a shortfall and the budget for 2012 (which starts July 1, 2011) is looking really bad. The question would be, where would the money be cut? Here is where people start tossing out their ideas of not giving out welfare, not paying for illegals, not (add item here). That is great and I support reducing a lot of the programs people mention on the forums, but they cannot be done with a broad brush or simple elimination of a specific program. It just can't. What can be done is to pressure the legislators, whom if all things go right, should be favoring the republicans, to reform the spending, to "inspect the books" of the programs and make precision cuts and eliminate waste.
(3) Income. The 2011 income tax rate shall be 4.5%. Later rates shall decrease 0.1% yearly, until reaching 3.5%, in each of the first ten years that yearly income tax revenue net growth exceeds 6%.
(Isn't this what TABOR is supposed to do? So, when a city or county or state votes to allow their government entity to keep the overage as many have done since the inception of TABOR, this would override the people's will?)
(4) Telecommunication. Starting January 1, 2011, except 911 fees at 2009 rates, no charge by, or aiding programs of, the state or local governments shall apply to telephone, pager, cable, television, radio, Internet, computer, satellite, or other telecommunication service customer accounts. Added charges shall be tax increases.
(This is what I referenced in earlier posts. Some of the fees collected go towards improvements in service areas where it isn't profitable for the companies to bother unless stimulated. So, to have that cell service in 97% of the state when it is only profitable in 50% of the state isn't the free market making money, or the companies doing it for the benefit of their fellow man, it is because they are getting paid. Once again, you can make your own opinion on this to decide if it is beneficial to you to be able to make a phone call while traveling through a chunk of this state, if you break down or just want to call your Aunt Petunia and tell her you love her.
The other portion of this is the taxes paid to the local governments on the bills. I don't know. I guess you are receiving a service and you pay a tax on the service. The same argument could be said for someone coming out and doing work on your house and putting sales or service tax on the bill. Another argument would be employment tax that several cities have in which you pay a fee each month for the privilege of being employed with a company in that city. I agree there are too many of these small taxes, but once again, is Prop 101 the right mechanism to deal with these issues? I just don't think so.)
Okay, Stuart, I've opened myself up again for additional ridicule by the members of the forum in order to answer your question to me.
Mobat555
09-27-2010, 15:51
Also this argument that if we cut any spending on education we'll get worse education for our children assumes that money=quality.
Clearly this is not true.
After seeing your chart I would like to point out that Colorado (and specifically Jefferson county) spend far less then $10,000 per pupil.
In 2007, Colorado spent $1,919 less than the national average of $9,963.
In 2008 Jeffco had $6,501 per student.
Colorado ranks among the stingiest states in the nation in how much it spends to educate its children, according to a government report. (http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12926871)
Based on scoring our state ranks #26 in the nation (on average). Our schools are already running at 65% of the average budget per student and still able to rank average.
My point being that our public schools are already working on a tight budget while maintaining the level of education. You cut that anymore how can you expect the level of education to not drop?
On a side note the highest ranking states in education all have higher income, sales, and property taxes then Colorado.
What can be done is to pressure the legislators, whom if all things go right, should be favoring the republicans, to reform the spending, to "inspect the books" of the programs and make precision cuts and eliminate waste.
Okay, Stuart, I've opened myself up again for additional ridicule by the members of the forum in order to answer your question to me.
Thanks very much for putting yourself on the line to answer my question.
I left in the part of your response that made me laugh out loud though. I think we're beyond the point of just asking legislators to reduce government spending.
You bring up a lot of valid points. My family didn't think it could afford me going onto unemployment. We have done our best to figure out how to keep going. I suspect the state can do the same.
OneGuy67
09-27-2010, 20:10
My family didn't think it could afford me going onto unemployment. We have done our best to figure out how to keep going. I suspect the state can do the same.
You do realize that Amendment 61 stops the state from borrowing of any kind and that the state ran out of unemployment funds at the beginning of this year. All the benefits that people have been receiving is due to the state borrowing funds from the feds to pay unemployment benefits. If the Amendment passes, the funds stop.
Yeah, that'd be pretty rough. Progress isn't always easy though.
OneGuy67
09-27-2010, 21:27
I'll hand it to you, Stuart. You literally put your money where your mouth is. My hat is off to you. [Tooth]
I just know that I perform best under pressure. Not everyone does, but I believe that as a community, a society, and as a nation, history has shown that to be true for most people.
Why do you think the people of Colorado voted TABOR into the constitution (of Colorado)?
Also, people can call Douglas Bruce all the names they want; but, apparently, he gets more accomplished than they do. I am voting YES on 60, 61 and 101.
On another note, our public schools suck, period and it is not for lack of funding. My 2 oldest children went to Cherry Creek schools. I would grade the district a D. To be fair, I think 50% of the problem was/is the parents. I am blessed in that my youngest has been able to attend christian schools for 7 out of 9 years. My 3rd child did attend a Cherry Creek elementary school in 3rd & 4th grade. Guess what, those 2 years were a waste. The academic level coming out of second grade (private school) was equal to being halfway through 4th grade (public school, Cherry Creek Dist.). Please note, my 3rd child is no genius, just an average kid. Another thing: the total cost, including the tuition I paid, was less than the 2008 per pupil funding in Jefferson County ($6501.00).
Vouchers are the answer. People should be able to opt-out of the public school system.
I see now on the KKTV website that the bankers have jumped in with the unions to oppose the measures. That cinches it for me, when those two groups are vehemently opposed--time to vote yes on the props!
Has anyone besides me heard the anti 60, 61, and 101 advertising by donthurtcolorado.com? This ad is full of bullcrap to say the least.
1. Government payroll does not contribute to the economy because the money used to pay the government payroll has been REMOVED from the private sector. The private sector is what builds the economy.
2. Did you hear the threat to your children, TEACHERS will lose their jobs, not administration. Like I said before the school administration and teacher's union are not interested in your children otherwise they'd be cutting bureaucracy not teachers.
There is more but I'll need to hear the ad again to deconstruct it further.
ronaldrwl
10-01-2010, 17:10
I just know that I perform best under pressure. Not everyone does, but I believe that as a community, a society, and as a nation, history has shown that to be true for most people.
+1 Stuart. I believe people do their best when they have no choice and are under pressure. The only way the government is going to reduce spending is if they have no choice.
OneGuy67
10-01-2010, 17:13
1. Government payroll does not contribute to the economy because the money used to pay the government payroll has been REMOVED from the private sector. The private sector is what builds the economy.
So the money I earn as a government employee and then spend in the stores, pay private contractors for repairs on my house, buy goods and services with doesn't help those entities at all? Since I am a cop, what exactly private sector job am I removing from the economy?
The elimination of my job not only hurts me and my family, it removes those funds in which I would have normally paid to other sectors of our economy. That is money lost.
ronaldrwl
10-01-2010, 17:24
So the money I earn as a government employee and then spend in the stores, pay private contractors for repairs on my house, buy goods and services with doesn't help those entities at all? Since I am a cop, what exactly private sector job am I removing from the economy?
The elimination of my job not only hurts me and my family, it removes those funds in which I would have normally paid to other sectors of our economy. That is money lost.
Police, Firefighters... are necessary services. They certainly are not a 'economic stimulus'. Although probable more so than the last stimulus package we paid for.
Inconel710
10-01-2010, 19:38
I just moved here and I have to say, figuring out what do with these amendments has me stumped. In general, I'm for reducing government waste. And I understand the argument for starving the beast. It'll be painful and disruptive and I don't think there's any guarantee the outcome will be what the promoters want.
Registering my vehicles here was a shock after paying about $40 per vehicle per year! Personally, I think 101 is good except for the part about rental cars. I don't get that part of it and I don't think it was thought through very well. I was a Florida resident for my entire military career and the one thing Florida did right was tax the crap out of the tourists! They'll keep coming and they don't vote here! So why get rid of the rental car tax?
As for property taxes, they're a heck of a lot higher back east. I had a higher millage rate in Georgia and these people are bitching? Yes schools have too many administrators, but guess whose jobs are going to get cut first? The teachers. Eventually, parents will scream loud enough at the school board meetings and the pendulum will swing back the other way. Meanwhile the system convulses and who knows what the unintended consequences will be? And dumping the funding requirement back on the state while also reducing the ability of the state to raise funds is insane.
All in all, as much as I like the ideas and hate the unions, I find the amendments to be too ham-handed. And the consequences of passing all three at the same time will be unthinkable.
So the money I earn as a government employee and then spend in the stores, pay private contractors for repairs on my house, buy goods and services with doesn't help those entities at all? Since I am a cop, what exactly private sector job am I removing from the economy?
I did not say that you are taking a job from the private sector, I said you are paid with money taken from the private sector.
Law enforcement and fire protection are 2 classes of government jobs that are possibly exempt from this argument due to their nature. I am trying make the case for privatizing these 2 jobs but I am having difficulty because all citizens benefit from law enforcement and fire protection equally.
The same cannot be said for schools (you have to have kids), roads (you have to have a motorized vehicle), and welfare workers (you have to be receiving welfare) to name a couple.
The income that is earned by a government worker has to be taken from the private sector first. The government worker replaces some of that money when they make purchases in the private sector, these purchases are taxed and the money earned by the private sector is taxed and the government worker also pays taxes. This private sector spending results in taxes so the government worker is in essence partially paying themselves.
The elimination of my job not only hurts me and my family, it removes those funds in which I would have normally paid to other sectors of our economy. That is money lost.
Yes it will hurt you and your family if you lose your government job and since you're a LEO that will hurt the private sector too because you provide an essential government service.
That money is not lost if the private sector can keep it, that money is lost only to you if the government keeps it and reallocates it within the government.
OneGuy67
10-02-2010, 15:37
Yes it will hurt you and your family if you lose your government job and since you're a LEO that will hurt the private sector too because you provide an essential government service.
That money is not lost if the private sector can keep it, that money is lost only to you if the government keeps it and reallocates it within the government.
I understand your argument, but it doesn't make sense on the whole if you were to break it down. I have no hard and fast statistics to back this up, but if my salary was broken down to what each person in this state paid for it, it would literally come down to less than 1/2 of $.01 per person. Your argument that one cent is better to be in each and every persons pocket in which to spend doesn't equate well on the whole as the comibination of those pennies to equate my salary and I spend that salary in chunks to private sector people.
Additionally, government entitities do not produce "things" and must purchase "stuff" in order to accomplish their jobs. The loss of some of these jobs will affect private entities who do business with the government(s) in products used. An example: Office Depot or Office Max in retail purchases of office supplies; FedEx or UPS in shipment of materials and supplies; asphalt producers and construction equipment rentals; gasoline purchases; vehicle maintenance purchases; real property leasing; the entire list would be too long to produce here. The loss would affect almost every business in the state in one way or another.
I'm just saying the anger and rhetoric isn't the way to deal with the issues you have with government and these half-baked measures aren't the way to pressure government into being more sensible.
You seem to be forgetting that the 1/2 of one cent for you is added up with all of those OTHER people you seem to have forgotten. When you add them up, well... I would like that money back.
Firemen, Police, teachers are overhead. They do nothing to stimulate the economy and they do not produce anything. They are paid with money that someone else would have used in a more productive fashion.
but, Overhead is a necessary evil. The problem I have is paying for all the overhead on our overhead. The administrators making $200k plus... the need for a "diversity administrator" etc. There is a huge amount of fat that could be trimmed.
There is a huge amount of fat in Welfare. State Welfare needs to made extinct. I really don't feel sorry for Some Welfare cow dropping kids like they were trail mix. No one deserves my money except me. I work hard for my money and while I am willing to pony up for Police, fire and even schools, I am not willing to fork over 1 dime for someone who did not earn it as Overhead.
OgenRwot
10-02-2010, 22:13
After doing a lot more research into these ballot initiatives I've decided that they cannot pass. They are far too overreaching and they will cripple the state. I agree with most of your arguments on how we need to cut spending tax less have less programs etc etc...at the federal level. The states are where these things are supposed to be done. Sure there is waste but these bills gut the budget. You think it's bad having a 1 billion dollar shortfall, try living in Arizona where it's a 3.3 billion annual shortfall. When services start getting cut and when they start making up revenue elsewhere you notice it big time. 60, 61 and 101 were poorly written and will cause much more damage than good in the long run.
I mean, they want to sell the light rail. Who the hell is going to buy the light rail? Public transportation is something that city and state governments need to do. Yeah it has to be subsidized...so what? You can't sell the light rail because it looses money. They also think it's dumb because it's 19th century technology. Um...ok boys, so are cars. Might as well get rid of electricity too, I mean after all that was harnessed way back in the 18th century, it's antiquated.
These would cut the budget so bad that after they dish out k-12 funds that would leave 38 million left. It's currently 7 billion. So say goodbye to the universities. Say goodbye to CDOT snow plows (good luck this winter).
There's lots more all you have to do is start looking into the numbers. I'm all for ideology, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
The only one I'm certainly voting for is Prop 101.
OgenRwot
10-02-2010, 22:26
I forgot to mention that this is TABOR all over again. TABOR nearly killed the state. Read up on that here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/amanda_lang/2010/03/a-formula-for-decline-lessons.php
OgenRwot
10-02-2010, 22:30
Last thing.
Say you only vote for 101, you don't think they are going to make up for it elsewhere? You want to get nailed on sales tax? That will skyrocket if the lower the income tax. High sales tax is incredibly regressive and really hurts the poor. I don't like our progressive income tax rates that we have but you gotta admit that a 15% sales tax hurts lower income families more than it hurts upper income families. Poverty will skyrocket and crime will rise.
ETA:
A lot of people talk about starving the beast. We need to focus federally first and this hurts us. What was a big argument for the bail outs? The states need us. I was in Arizona at the time, we had a 10 billion dollar budget shortfall over three years. So the federal government used that as an excuse to pump money into the state. I guess what I'm saying is...if you cripple the Colorado government the federal government will say "See, this is why the 10th Amendment doesn't apply anymore, the states obviously can't handle shit themselves so we need to help out".
I personally, would be all for paying significantly higher taxes, IF there was a comprehensive plan set up with long term goals in mind. For example, everyone across the board pays a certain percentage of higher taxes for a period of how ever many years, with the idea in mind that it will be specifically to cut the deficit. If there were tangible cuts made throughout government, smaller budgets, ways to verify that the extra tax money is being used to reduce debt, a guaranteed time line when the higher taxes would cease, etc. I could go along with a plan like that.
Too many things are passed without much thought put into them. We need more money now, so start paying more right now, with no thought to what is going to happen when we're out of money again next year. America is a very short sighted country and that needs to change.
I was recently in a paid opinion group discussion about government spending. Nearly 100% of the people in the room agreed that government spending needed to go down, but a couple of the people argued (with decent points) about certain things. For example, one guy piped up that we could spend less as a nation, but not without reducing our level of comfort so to speak. I wanted to tell him, "So what? Sometimes you have to cut back on comfort to prolong your future." Especially since he made that comment right after we were shown some thing with a stat saying how we could eliminate our debt in something like 10 years simply by living at 1992 standards. Something like that. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't really remember 1992 as being all that bad. It's not like we'd have to go back to living like we did in 1892, or even 1922.
The country needs to come together with a long term plan that have clear, achievable goals that can be measured at regular intervals. If people keep thinking that issues like gay rights or abortion are even important on the grand scale, and focusing on those while the larger budget and spending problems fly under the radar, we're doomed.
OgenRwot, I'd like to see some of the research you looked into if you wouldn't mind sharing it.
I understand your argument, but it doesn't make sense on the whole if you were to break it down. I have no hard and fast statistics to back this up, but if my salary was broken down to what each person in this state paid for it, it would literally come down to less than 1/2 of $.01 per person. Your argument that one cent is better to be in each and every persons pocket in which to spend doesn't equate well on the whole as the comibination of those pennies to equate my salary and I spend that salary in chunks to private sector people.
Additionally, government entitities do not produce "things" and must purchase "stuff" in order to accomplish their jobs. The loss of some of these jobs will affect private entities who do business with the government(s) in products used. An example: Office Depot or Office Max in retail purchases of office supplies; FedEx or UPS in shipment of materials and supplies; asphalt producers and construction equipment rentals; gasoline purchases; vehicle maintenance purchases; real property leasing; the entire list would be too long to produce here. The loss would affect almost every business in the state in one way or another.
I'm just saying the anger and rhetoric isn't the way to deal with the issues you have with government and these half-baked measures aren't the way to pressure government into being more sensible.
The loss of government revenue by private entities would be more than made back by private enterprise spending money that was theirs in the first place.
Government needs to be reigned in, reduced in size, reduced in responsibility. We need to start yesterday but November 2, 2010 will have to suffice.
I am rethinking my position on Amendment 60.
Replacing property tax with state funds doesn't seem right to me, the state will just raise it's tax rates and we the people won't gain anything.
Requiring PUBLIC (yours and mine) owned enterprises to pay property tax seems to me to be pointless as well, they will just raise the fees they charge to cover the additional expense and we the people won't gain anything.
gnihcraes
10-05-2010, 07:34
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/10/20-government-workers-with-super-sized-pay.html
ronaldrwl
10-05-2010, 09:13
1- These amendments are not perfect.
2 - We need to cut speeding.
I think we can all agree to this.
My fear is that the imperfections in the amendments are nothing compared to the problems that will occur when the governments ponzi scheme collapses. We need to cut out spending now with a machete not a scalpel before it's to late.
Mobat555
10-05-2010, 09:35
We need to cut out spending now with a machete not a scalpel before it's to late.
Just my opinion, but this is more like a Guillotine then a machete. If you want to renovate the house you live in you don't start by demolishing it. You start with a plan and tear out what you don't want then build it back up.
im voting yes for all 3, less taxs, more control on gov spending, i cant see why anyone would not support these unless they are on the tax payers payroll.
im voting yes for all 3, less taxs, more control on gov spending, i cant see why anyone would not support these unless they are on the tax payers payroll.
The devil is in the details. Did you read 60, is that really what you want or would we be better off doing it in smaller steps? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind 60.
Right now I'll vote for 61 and 101 and I am still undecided on 60.
We need to teach our government where to cut. We need to cut non-essential services like public assistance and anything for illegals - I mean anything for illegals especially hospital care, run those maggots out of state. The bureaucracy likes to cut essential services because they know they can raise taxes to get essential services reinstated and they won't touch their entitlement loving base.
The devil is in the details. Did you read 60, is that really what you want or would we be better off doing it in smaller steps? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea behind 60.
Right now I'll vote for 61 and 101 and I am still undecided on 60.
We need to teach our government where to cut. We need to cut non-essential services like public assistance and anything for illegals - I mean anything for illegals especially hospital care, run those maggots out of state. The bureaucracy likes to cut essential services because they know they can raise taxes to get essential services reinstated and they won't touch their entitlement loving base.
If Hick makes it to the Gov seat then we wont be able to teach our Gov how to make percision cuts at all for 4 maybe 8 years on the items you speek of, you know the Dems will cut police and firemen and increase illegals services.
If the poles show Tom is going to win before I cast my vote then I may vote diffrently on this but if Hick is winning, then I will have to go for what I can get.
If Hick makes it to the Gov seat then we wont be able to teach our Gov how to make percision cuts at all for 4 maybe 8 years on the items you speek of, you know the Dems will cut police and firemen and increase illegals services.
If the poles show Tom is going to win before I cast my vote then I may vote diffrently on this but if Hick is winning, then I will have to go for what I can get.
Yup, that would be fun to hand the looper 60, 61, and 101 on one plate. I like your thinking. [Beer]
OgenRwot
10-06-2010, 09:15
The same cannot be said for schools (you have to have kids), roads (you have to have a motorized vehicle), and welfare workers (you have to be receiving welfare) to name a couple.
So you're arguing that an uneducated society is a better society than one where most people have at least a high school diploma? And that roads that all of your goods and services are delivered on should go away since you don't have a car? What about the ambulance that takes you to the hospital that drives on the roads?
So you're arguing that an uneducated society is a better society than one where most people have at least a high school diploma? And that roads that all of your goods and services are delivered on should go away since you don't have a car? What about the ambulance that takes you to the hospital that drives on the roads?
No I'm not saying that at all.
I'm saying that people shouldn't expect others to subsidize their burdens. Alot of you guys are really pissy about this education thing aren't you, Kinda dependent on people like me to help pay your kids way aren't ya. Maybe you should have thought about that before you had kids.
Ambulance is like LE and Fire, essential.
As to roads, I'm not sure if they should be privatized or not. I need to think on that for a while.
Will you plow all the roads in your neighborhood if they are privatized? You could always set up a scummy HOA in your neighborhood to charge everyone for those services.
I don't really have an opinion on snow plowing, just something I thought of.
gnihcraes
10-06-2010, 19:16
im voting yes for all 3, less taxs, more control on gov spending, i cant see why anyone would not support these unless they are on the tax payers payroll.
You make it sound easy. Step up, take a government job and make a difference.
I am being ornery on a couple of topics in here. There are some things that I can't get a straight answer to from anyone anywhere.
I've been called a selfish bastard (not here in print yet) for some of my positions on taxation. I've been called a racist and a bigot for my thoughts on illegal immigration. I know that when the pejoratives come out I've won the argument.
Anyway, I'm still mostly unclear on 60 and I'm pretty sure I'm voting YES on 61 and 101 unless there is some hidden thing that pops up at the last minute. Conservatives need to start somewhere.
I just want to make sure that going forward all levels of gov't get less and less of our hard earned money. Now if a person wants to give voluntarily I won't stop them, it is YOUR money after all, in spite of the withholding and what the liberals want you to think.
gnihcraes
10-06-2010, 20:41
(repeating myself some here probably)
Cutting the services provided by the government will cut the money. Look there first.
Cutting the money directly out will only stop most of the government, be it the necessary parts or unnecessary parts, causing problems for everyone. Unfortunately I somehow believe the bad parts would still manage to function and fund themselves, putting the good parts out to pasture.
I guess it's too personal for me, I work for the government, I work hard, and feel everyone hates me because of who I work for. I said it before, I didn't take the government job to create a vacuum of tax payer money, I needed a job like everyone else and this is the job I was offered at the time and choose it to stay alive. I see I'm needed, and more of me are needed. Money isn't there.
More people in society, the more the government has to spend to provide those services people need, want or don't want.
Put us out of business. Don't steal things and get caught. Don't drive a car on that road and bitch about it being bumpy. Don't get a divorce and need a court hearing. Etc.
I know many agencies that have let bad people go in the last six months, it's a good thing and a lot of money has been saved. I can directly see several hundreds of thousands of dollars has been saved. Old timers with high salary, doing nothing. The bad economy/budgets have already been a good thing.
Think about how you're treated by a government worker next time you need something from us, and ask why everyone seems so down, angry, grouchy or mean, being hated all day long is a tough thing.
Vote for it and see what happens. Maybe it will fix everything that you believe is wrong.
OneGuy67
10-06-2010, 20:48
The problem is, you want to wean the government of excess funding with the thought that they will HAVE to stop paying for services you think are not essential. Some think schools as they don't have kids, some think roads as they don't utilize them. Others argue that police, fire and ambulances are essential services and won't be affected. Wrong.
These three abominations are not the way to get it done. You forget about Amendment 23 and the Gallagher Amendment, which require spending, no matter what income sources there are. You think your pet peeve social program, like welfare or food stamps will be cut with this action. They won't.
You will totally fuck up the apple cart and there won't be any apples left. Your essential services will be cut, guaranteed. Less cops, less fireman, less everyone. Goodie, you say?
One little thing to think about that isn't in my arena, but is in my brothers. Firemen and fire protection. You realize that your homeowner's insurance is rated a lot based upon the distance between you and the nearest firehouse, right? Are you prepared to pay double for your homeowner's insurance due to the closing of fire houses, ending of volunteer fire department subsidies and tax income and the increase for a ride to the hospital by private ambulance as there won't be a government subsidized one for you to ride in? Oh wait, that hospital receives government funding, so it may not be open to accept you as a patient, even with your insurance.
These measures aren't the answer in the way they are written. Luckily, according to the polls, there is only 10% support for them. We may still evade becoming the next California.
I see I'm needed, and more of me are needed. Money isn't there.
What do you do?
gnihcraes
10-06-2010, 21:08
IT for state agency. We're currently hiring, but only to replace others that were bought out in the last fiscal year due to budget issues or attrition. Out with the expensive old and in with the cheaper new. (salary, Paid time off, etc)
I can't do IT. :/ Thanks.
Zundfolge
10-06-2010, 21:26
You think your pet peeve social program, like welfare or food stamps will be cut with this action. They won't.
You will totally fuck up the apple cart and there won't be any apples left. Your essential services will be cut, guaranteed. Less cops, less fireman, less everyone. Goodie, you say?
Maybe the only way the people will finally stand up and DEMAND smaller government and good stewardship with tax dollars they'll have to lose some of the bennies they're getting now
We may still evade becoming the next California.
Not without cutting spending and taxes.
Frankly I believe its too late (not just in Colorado but everywhere). There are just too damn many people in this country taking from the government (and by extension from the tax payers ... a subset of the society that is also shrinking). Colorado is already California (if nothing else tying our minimum wage to the inflation rate and not passing the Right to Work law last election have sealed our fate ... if not the upcoming coronation of Hickenlooper will).
Honestly even looking beyond the borders of Coloradofornia I pretty much can't see American ever getting back on track. The system will continue to grow and metastasize as it is until it collapses and then we'll either end up with civil war or totalitarian dictatorship from DC (or maybe Beijing). Maybe with a turn to the right we can put off this calamity for another generation or so, but someday its gonna happen.
Private enterprise in Colorado has had to tighten it's belt.
The time has come for state and local governments to do the same.
These 3 amendments will bring reality crashing into the lives of government bureaucrats and their lackeys.
We could continue down the road we are on, then the comeuppance will be merciless and the whole of state and local governments will collapse.
2 choices people, government cuts now or no/very limited government and the resulting chaos later. What is your choice?
Byte Stryke
10-07-2010, 10:50
Ive stayed out of this about as long as I could.
I agree that the fat has got to be cut.
Government is too big for these lean times and we have got to "Starve the Beast."
HOWEVER.
if these pass its like amputating someones entire leg for gangrene in their toe.
As Ogen said, It's excessive and over-reaching.
we cannot support this bill simply on the generality of it's objective. We have to look at exactly what it will do. It will do more harm than good and I don't like it.
Aloha_Shooter
10-07-2010, 15:10
Right now I'm leaning for 60 and 61 and against 101.
Most of the arguments I've seen against all three are typical scare tactics like were used for 1A, 2C and 300. The fact Barry Noreen seems to go into convulsions when he writes a column even remotely related to these three is (IMO) a plus for all three but I'm not really sure we need 101 if we get 60 and 61. There's always time later to resubmit 101 if we get those two and we can still send a message that we're against the kinds of shady tactics Governor Ritter and the Colorado Springs City Council have been using.
The only way to evade being the next California is to stop the spending. California didn't get in its mess by reducing taxes, they got into it by CONTINUING to spend money they didn't have. Schwarzenegger actually tried to get the California Legislature to reduce spending because he saw what was coming. Their economy is going down the toilet because the taxation and legal framework is driving productive companies out of the state -- you can't build a productive economy by recirculating money between government workers.
After the last few times being raped at the DMV, I swore that I'd never spend more than the barest minimum I had to for a vehicle again, no matter how much money I had. Sure, it was pretty easy to do before I ever made any money, but I wonder how many people don't go out and buy new cars because of the ridiculous cost of registering them. When it is cheaper to register a vehicle in California than here, you know we're out of whack.
Byte Stryke
10-07-2010, 20:37
Private enterprise in Colorado has had to tighten it's belt.
The time has come for state and local governments to do the same.
These 3 amendments will bring reality crashing into the lives of government bureaucrats and their lackeys.
We could continue down the road we are on, then the comeuppance will be merciless and the whole of state and local governments will collapse.
2 choices people, government cuts now or no/very limited government and the resulting chaos later. What is your choice?
Thing is that these will not do anything to the lives of government bureaucrats and their lackeys. it will crush the working mother, the Interns and the daily drones. The ones that have absolutely no say so in the policies and pay. This doesn't say that the fat-cat Bureaucrat at the top cant make 180K a year working 10 hours a week.. it doesn't say that he cant use the government credit card and vehicle for his vacation.
The ones you want to hurt will continue laughing at you for voting yes on this silly shit for cutting your own nose off to spite your face. When you complain they have a REALLY Simple answer, "You voted for it."
When you dial 911 and they ask you to input your credit card number before they will respond, we told you so.
Think it wont happen? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHpNhvFPFG8)
be careful when you ask for something as general as "Smaller Government."
OgenRwot
10-10-2010, 17:32
Here ya go, water rates going up if 60 passes:
http://cbs4denver.com/consumer/denver.water.bills.2.1955198.html
Sounds like a threat from them to me. What did the line about them avoiding TABOR laws mean?
dodgefreak8
10-11-2010, 09:13
While I am not in complete disagreement with these laws entirely I cannot be completely bias. I am a Master plumber that was laid off last October because of the economy. I took a job at my local community college for HALF of what I was making plumbing as Maintenance staff. While I can't guarantee what will happen to Higher education if these laws pass. I can guarantee that us little guys will be affected before the higher ups take a pay cut. I am just as fed up with the government spending as everyone else, and believe me I have personally witnessed the wasteful spending that take place at the state level. But Please keep some of us in mind when you make your choice on these Amendments
theGinsue
10-11-2010, 17:54
Here ya go, water rates going up if 60 passes:
http://cbs4denver.com/consumer/denver.water.bills.2.1955198.html
Well, water rates will go up in Denver if 60 passes, but I heard one of the Colorado Springs City Council members on the news last night say that the rates on ALL utlities (water, sewer, gas & electric) in Colorado Springs are definitely going up next year - whether these bills pass or not.
Colorado Springs Utilities handles all of these utilities for the bulk of city residents. Of course, there are a couple of districts which have their own water delivery system.
I have stayed out of this, but decided I will give my take on it all.
I KNOW for a fact that school spend too much...waaaayyyy too much.
My wife is a teacher, my sister, brother in law are both teachers all in 27J. my parents are retired teachers from district 12.
http://www.brightonps27j.k12.co.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/362208/File/Mill%20Levy%20Override%20Presentation%208-31-10.pdf?sessionid=cd40bcb372fa76b499b7cf0cc1755d57
that is a powerpoint for what schools receive, where they receive their money.
The biggest bullets points for us is the amount of mill levy money received for 27J school district vs. the rest. they get $55 a student compared to $881 for district 12. Cherry Creek tops it out at $1217 per student....all of that money is addition property tax money.
The actual amount of money per student is based on local taxes, state funds received and mill levys. He district is at the bottom of $$ received at $6871 per student, while sheridan tops it out at $8911. interestingly enough, boulder gets a huge portion, in comparison to other districts, from local tax and not from the state.
The next big bullet point for us is the Mill levy override they are requesting here (local for us and won't affect most of you). I don't have a big problem because it would amount to about $75 on my property taxes. the district has said it will use the money to retain highly qualified teachers, bring on absolutely necessary new ones and maintain buildings. this again is just for our local area and doesn't affect most of you.
The downside to this locally is the small business aspect, they would get nailed for $116 per $100,000 value. basically just means the price of goods will be increased to make up for that addition tax burden.
For my wife, she used to have 2 planning periods last year, now has one because of the cuts (they lost 3 teachers for this this I believe), that just means more time after school and at home figuring out plans, grading etc on her own time, not being paid since they are salary. they didn't get their raise this year. several positions were cut as well. Now she is teaching an extra class, has right around 35 kids per class (this makes the learning environment that much more difficult...maybe think back when you were in school), and pretty much only has a job because she is dual qualified.
They also had to pay more for their health care and the % put into their retirement accounts was increased by i believe 2%, but might have been 1%.
Next year, for district 27J they are looking at about a $12 million budget decrease if 60 61 and prop 101 pass. this will mean more teachers losing their jobs, and the remaining ones taking on more kids per class. now your kids will receive less one on one instruction and will be taught k-12 like a college room more than a focused school classroom. I can't see that as being a positive thing, especially for the k-8 kids. once they get into high school they have developed some pretty good personal responsibility habits, but at the younger ages, they still need to have some personal focus from the teacher.
Honestly I can say 60 and 61 are not going to be a good thing locally for us. I would like to see schools spend their money more wisely and not see it wasted on a lot of things. locally that isn't as big on an issue but it is where my parents taught. they just built a swimming facility for no reason other than they either had to spend the money or lose it...something like $20 or $30 million for a swimming facility...I don't know about you but I don't remember a single kid in my school that was a swimmer and I play sports year long. I think that money could have been put into a savings account for a rainy day...like right now.
60 and 61 are definitely going to have an impact on us, and if you have kids it will have an impact on you too, in a negative way. more kids in a classroom and college lecture type teaching is not the way to develop young minds. once they are in high school I don't see as much of a problem but having a 7 year old try to focus without a little adult interaction is going to be a problem.
I do see the benefit of reduced taxes and a lot of you are going to say screw the public schools, they suck, and they will continue to suck no matter what, but a lot of us here are the product of public schools and seem to be doing alright. Parental interaction has a lot to do with kids learning and these days when people are scraping by it is harder to spend the quality time with kids and help them learn, get their homework done, keep on them about turning in assignments etc. etc. that is a large reason kids aren't doing as good now.
back when just the man worked and there was a larger proportional number of stay at home moms who were taking care of the house, keeping the kids on task etc etc, the kids did better. maybe we screwed up by giving women the right to vote and wanting them[Swim]...just kidding! Now with a lot of families having both parents with full time jobs, if not more than 1 job each, or a single parent with multiple jobs it is taking that much more away from the kids. guess who deals with those kids 5 days a week 8 hours a day...the teachers and the public school system. yet they receive the blame for the kids doing shitty in school.
And I am not going to say there are not bad teachers and i can assure you there are, I see them, I have worked with them and I have been taught by them. luckily the recent bill that went through will hopefully give way to allowing administration do a better job of weeding these people out and keeping teachers a little bit more on their toes about doing a good job.
as for prop 101, from what I can see I would absolutely love to see the price of my truck registration go to $10. I bought a new truck this year and the plates and registration were just short of $600. that is beyond fucking ridiculous. the only reason I buy a new truck every couple of years is due to the massive discount I receive that makes it worth while, even with the taxes and even with the retarded amount of registration $$ the state gets.
I would love to see my state income tax down to 3.5% as well. I see a lot of other states that don't charge a state income tax yet they seem to be doing just fine if not better than other states and I don't know why it can't be done here in CO.
Honestly though, I have not read much into 101 yet, but from the surface it looks like something I would like. But I also want to see where that money savings is going to get cut from and who will be affected by it.
Right now in my current state I am a no when it comes to 60 and 61 and that will not change. 101 I like but need more research done to it.
Obviously my views would be different if I and my family were not going to be directly affected by them, because I, like most everyone else hates taxes, hates having my money taken from me without my say in where it goes or who it goes to and I hate to see the .gov waste soooo much money and we see it every day.
But it will also directly affect you if you have kids.
if you don't have kids and don't have a teacher or fireman or cop in the family then i would say 60 61 and 101, if passed would save you a lot of tax dollars, but I will throw out that those kids who are being educated will some day be making decisions for you as well...
While I am not in complete disagreement with these laws entirely I cannot be completely bias. I am a Master plumber that was laid off last October because of the economy. I took a job at my local community college for HALF of what I was making plumbing as Maintenance staff. While I can't guarantee what will happen to Higher education if these laws pass. I can guarantee that us little guys will be affected before the higher ups take a pay cut. I am just as fed up with the government spending as everyone else, and believe me I have personally witnessed the wasteful spending that take place at the state level. But Please keep some of us in mind when you make your choice on these Amendments
I see exactly that.
last year the bottom end teachers, the ones who have the least experience, maybe the least qualification, but also the ones who get paid the least were cut. they are out on their asses while the old hag who has been around since the 70's won't retire because she has a guaranteed job for the rest of her miserable life still wants to make children want to hang themselves while in class.
management can't be cut...because who on earth would lead these people who are trusted with the lives on children. The administration controls damn near every aspect of the teachers curriculum and what they can teach. They also have to tell teachers how to administer state tests...since those teacher who teach reading can not read themselves...
I understand the need for management/administration, but these people are truly the ones who need to be cut, not the front line teachers, not the school lunch lady, not the custodians.
cut some middle management.
I always wondered why at my high school there was one principal, 3 vice principals and I believe 6 deans....
I mean that is absolutely ridiculous and you figure all of them are making $70K plus with the vice principals and principal easily making $100K or damn near close to it.
same with those higher up in the administration building.
essentially the school system is just like big government. lots of lower on the totem poll workers getting paid reasonable salaries for good hard work and a disproportional number of management figures who receive high paid salaries for jobs that should be consolidated by probably 50%+.
Right now I wish admin would pick up the slack and teach a couple classes a day to reduce the class size teachers have to deal with. I wish the admin building would have its staff cut in half. I guarantee that would far outweigh the budget deficits they are facing and not hurt the children.
What we all know and see is that those in higher power obviously know more than us and should tell us how to do things...that also assures them their job will be safe, but we all know that those on the front lines work much harder and are doing the real "jobs" that have a positive impact and the rest is politics.
I just don't see how gutting the entire system which 60 and 61 and more than likely 101 are going to have a positive impact. It will be a lot of the front line works out on the streets pulling in a limited amount of time for unemployment while the leftovers have to fill in the gaps, take up whatever slack they can if they aren't pushed to the limits as it already stands, and then wait on their great leaders to try and pose the question to the voters to see if they will vote in some money to keep things from completely falling apart.
As much as I only want to pay $11 for my truck next year and as pissed as I was about paying nearly $600 for my truck tags last year and $100 for a $600 trailer...I just don't see the positive outcome outweighing the negative.
You ever notice how when they say something has to be cut, it's never administration. There are only 3 students per one employee in Colorado. I think they can take a cut. You never hear a politician say "if this passes, we'll have to take a pay cut". Or if we don't pass this tax, we won't get a raise. Their just worried about not being able to rob the coffers as much. Screw um!
Mobat555
10-12-2010, 00:39
You ever notice how when they say something has to be cut, it's never administration. There are only 3 students per one employee in Colorado. I think they can take a cut. You never hear a politician say "if this passes, we'll have to take a pay cut". Or if we don't pass this tax, we won't get a raise. Their just worried about not being able to rob the coffers as much. Screw um!
Not sure how other districts handle this, but in Jeffco the 2009 mill levy did not pass and Cindy Stevenson, superintendent of the Jefferson County School District, told her school board she will not accept $40,000 in performance bonuses she is due and expects her salary to be frozen for the two-year period. Also Stevenson's top administrators (her cabinet members) have also agreed to a pay freeze.
Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg donated about $47,700 in deferred raises and bonuses to the Denver Public Schools Foundation.
Perhaps Administration is bloated in your districts, but in ours it seems they are willing to make sacrifices.
My hat off to them. It's not very often that happens.
last year the bottom end teachers, the ones who have the least experience, maybe the least qualification, but also the ones who get paid the least were cut.
In my experience, it was the opposite. The teachers with the qualifications, advanced degrees, and experience were cut so they could hire younger teachers that they wouldn't have to pay as much for. I.E. Hire the great guy with lots of experience and an advanced degree, or hire the noob that we can boss around for x amount less so my admin and coaching staff can get a raise. Noob!
Never understood that philosophy. 6 or 7 coaches for 30-40 boys but only one music teacher for often 80-100 kids.... Anyways, different rant.
told her school board she will not accept $40,000 in performance bonuses she is due and expects her salary to be frozen for the two-year period. Also Stevenson's top administrators (her cabinet members) have also agreed to a pay freeze. Denver Superintendent Tom Boasberg donated about $47,700 in deferred raises and bonuses to the Denver Public Schools Foundation.
Now that is inspiring! My hats off to them as well.
I understand the need for management/administration, but these people are truly the ones who need to be cut, not the front line teachers, not the school lunch lady, not the custodians.
cut some middle management.
I always wondered why at my high school there was one principal, 3 vice principals and I believe 6 deans....
I mean that is absolutely ridiculous and you figure all of them are making $70K plus with the vice principals and principal easily making $100K or damn near close to it.
same with those higher up in the administration building.
This is nearly exactly the opposite of what happened in the company I used to work for. When the economy started to tank in 2008, they held on to people for as long as they could, but when it came down to it, then ended up getting rid of most of their middle managers. I think public schools could take a lesson from that.
OgenRwot
10-12-2010, 10:21
as for prop 101, from what I can see I would absolutely love to see the price of my truck registration go to $10. I bought a new truck this year and the plates and registration were just short of $600. that is beyond fucking ridiculous. the only reason I buy a new truck every couple of years is due to the massive discount I receive that makes it worth while, even with the taxes and even with the retarded amount of registration $$ the state gets.
State gas tax hike, more toll roads, a fee to use I-70 go skiing like what was proposed a few years ago etc etc. They will make up the revenue elsewhere. I agree that vehicle registration is out of control. But going from hundreds of dollars to 10 is very very extreme.
I would love to see my state income tax down to 3.5% as well. I see a lot of other states that don't charge a state income tax yet they seem to be doing just fine if not better than other states and I don't know why it can't be done here in CO.
In every state that they have zero income tax they have very high property taxes. So you're going to get taxed on your house year after year at a much higher rate than we have now. You rent you say? Well your land lord is going to pass those costs on down to you. Stores will have higher prices too, so they can make up for their higher property taxes. 4.5% income tax is very good.
Honestly though, I have not read much into 101 yet, but from the surface it looks like something I would like. But I also want to see where that money savings is going to get cut from and who will be affected by it.
This is the biggest thing. These initiatives paint with very broad brush strokes. They don't specify where cuts will be made so that means the agencies getting their funds cut can do whatever the hell they want.
OgenRwot
10-12-2010, 10:25
This is nearly exactly the opposite of what happened in the company I used to work for. When the economy started to tank in 2008, they held on to people for as long as they could, but when it came down to it, then ended up getting rid of most of their middle managers. I think public schools could take a lesson from that.
Schools don't have a ton of "middle managers". The districts have some of that but it's mostly a two tier system. Upper end administrators in the district office (I would include principles, deans etc here) and then the teachers, janitors, counselors, secretaries etc on the bottom level. Say hypothetically you wipe out the middle in a district, you're gonna cut what, 10-15 jobs? That's not gonna make the dent we need. Yeah there needs to be cuts in the upper management, but we also need to pay teachers more. Restructuring the public education is what we need, we don't need to cut it's funding because they are misappropriating it. That's like taking a kids allowance away because he bought a Mountain Dew instead of orange juice. A lesson needs to be taught.
Of course that's all true, but what else can the tax paying public do? I don't think everyone going to PTA meetings is going to cut it. What other options do the people who are only involved financially have, other than to take away financing?
Don't think that I necessarily think that 60, and 61 are the best options, but what are the more realistic options? How would you rewrite the bill for example?
Mobat555
10-12-2010, 10:46
Schools don't have a ton of "middle managers". The districts have some of that but it's mostly a two tier system. Upper end administrators in the district office (I would include principles, deans etc here) and then the teachers, janitors, counselors, secretaries etc on the bottom level.
You are correct, my daughters school is 7 admin (including secretaries janitor etc) to 40 teachers.
The high school she will attend is currently 28 admin to 88 teachers. The 28 includes 7 custodians, 5 cafeteria workers, 4 secretaries, 4 assistant principals, and 1 principle (and a few misc). This seems fairly balanced to maintain a population for 1600 students.
I am curious if you could give an example of how money is mis-appropriated by schools?
How difficult would it be for us to attempt to re-write these bills with a more specific focus, so they still accomplish some of the same goals, send the same message to government, but are less damaging? Maybe this could be something that we could step up and do as a community like that other thread has suggested.
This is nearly exactly the opposite of what happened in the company I used to work for. When the economy started to tank in 2008, they held on to people for as long as they could, but when it came down to it, then ended up getting rid of most of their middle managers. I think public schools could take a lesson from that.
And that is what happens when a system or company have to be efficient and make valuable use of their money and resources. management are pretty much non-producers but keep the producers in line.
when the producers know they are at risk of being let go, the one who want to be there will inevitably pick up the slack.
But when you are getting tax payer funding and don't have to worry about how much money you make or what you produce (to an extent), they really don't seem to give a shit.
I really would like to see someone go in and take out all the fat in the system. This bill will cause the lower end people to suffer more and very few management positions to be cut. that is just the way of the system unfortunately. the process for removal of positions needs to be addressed before gutting out the funding which will ultimately cost people their jobs.
Originally Posted by sniper7 http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=248321#post248321)
as for prop 101, from what I can see I would absolutely love to see the price of my truck registration go to $10. I bought a new truck this year and the plates and registration were just short of $600. that is beyond fucking ridiculous. the only reason I buy a new truck every couple of years is due to the massive discount I receive that makes it worth while, even with the taxes and even with the retarded amount of registration $$ the state gets.
State gas tax hike, more toll roads, a fee to use I-70 go skiing like what was proposed a few years ago etc etc. They will make up the revenue elsewhere. I agree that vehicle registration is out of control. But going from hundreds of dollars to 10 is very very extreme.
I agree they will definitely end up getting the money elsewhere, it would only benefit those who don't use the system as frequently...I would be one of those people.
I would love to see my state income tax down to 3.5% as well. I see a lot of other states that don't charge a state income tax yet they seem to be doing just fine if not better than other states and I don't know why it can't be done here in CO.
In every state that they have zero income tax they have very high property taxes. So you're going to get taxed on your house year after year at a much higher rate than we have now. You rent you say? Well your land lord is going to pass those costs on down to you. Stores will have higher prices too, so they can make up for their higher property taxes. 4.5% income tax is very good.
Not exactly true, I have several friends who live in states that don't have income tax and their property tax is pretty close to what I pay. A lot of their money comes from what the state has to offer be it tourism or natural resources.
Honestly though, I have not read much into 101 yet, but from the surface it looks like something I would like. But I also want to see where that money savings is going to get cut from and who will be affected by it.
This is the biggest thing. These initiatives paint with very broad brush strokes. They don't specify where cuts will be made so that means the agencies getting their funds cut can do whatever the hell they want.
I agree and will most likely vote no on 101. as much as I would love to save some bucks, I see this as a very drastic and extreme measure. they need an alternative in place that says they will tax medical marijuana 50% to make up the lost revenue and no other means of backfilling the taxes as a result of this tax cut will go into effect...ever.
see my above post for what 60 and 61 will do to the schools
Why should marijuana be taxed extra? They shouldn't over tax ANYTHING. Instead, they should spend smarter.
You are correct, my daughters school is 7 admin (including secretaries janitor etc) to 40 teachers.
The high school she will attend is currently 28 admin to 88 teachers. The 28 includes 7 custodians, 5 cafeteria workers, 4 secretaries, 4 assistant principals, and 1 principle (and a few misc). This seems fairly balanced to maintain a population for 1600 students.
I am curious if you could give an example of how money is mis-appropriated by schools?
the problem is, at least here that the number of management positions needs to be reduced and the number of teacher positions increased. you can get 2 teachers for every management position (not custodial or cafeteria).
secretary positions can be consolidated.
teachers are the ones who do the actual hard work, deal with your kids day in day out, teach them the things they need to know in life and hopefully give them the tools necessary to make good decisions and be a benefit to society and not a drain on it. parents play a huge role with this as well but I have seen some kids headed for the down and out get turned around 180 degrees because a teacher made an impact on them.
the other issue with the management is: teacher know what to do...the management guides them sure, but the top level admins can send out the information just as easy as a principal or VP can have a meeting. Where the teachers truly need management is an authority figure over the students, a middle person who can deal with unruly parents or ones who just don't get it as well as a figurehead to the public.
I can assure you that my high school cut have had 1 principal, 1 VP and 1 dean, maybe even 0 deans, cut their secretary staff in half and would be just fine and dandy.
that money could be appropriated to more teachers to reduce the class sizes, offer extra classes etc etc.
Just your example of 4 VPs...that is ridiculous. there is no way in hell they need 4 VPs. they need 1. cut 3 jobs, hire 4-6 teachers and you will see class sizes drop etc etc.
Right now they wouldn't be able to hire, instead the money saved would offset the budget reduction they will be receiving and they will have to learn to do more with less.
One thing nobody has brought up is the free assistance a lot of kids receive. around here it is pretty rampant. free and reduced lunch is a major cost to public schools, not only that but parents who are undocumented are not paying property taxes yet their several children receive the same benefit and those who pay the property taxes. on top of that they are getting free or reduced lunch.
yes, I am talking about illegals. it is a $500 million a year problem for Colorado schools. maybe that is where we need to take our focus instead of gutting the funding to our schools.
Why should marijuana be taxed extra? They shouldn't over tax ANYTHING. Instead, they should spend smarter.
Do you think your vehicle registration is over taxed?
what about tobacco? or alcohol? gambling?
I am simply giving alternatives.
Would you rather see a legalized system with tax revenue, or a semi-black market system with very little to no tax revenue. just the opposite with the amount of law enforcement used to fight the drug.
Sure on a legalized system with some taxes, but not more than the taxes on say...milk or coffee. I think that alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are all over taxed. The purpose of private industry is to make the masses money, not so the government can over tax stuff it doesn't like and get rich that way. That is wrong thinking.
The whole reason marijuana is as close as it is to being legal is because the dumb advocates have sold themselves out to the government by selling the idea that the gov should over tax it in the first place. Between the choices of over taxing pot or having a black market, I'll take the black market any day.
This is all besides the point though. I'm still interested in how these bills can be rewritten to be more feasible.
Sniper7, wonderful postings about school systems... Bravo dude.
I can assure you that my high school cut have had 1 principal, 1 VP and 1 dean, maybe even 0 deans, cut their secretary staff in half and would be just fine and dandy.
I don't even know what a dean is. My high school never had one. That's crazy that these schools have more than one of something I didn't even know existed at that level.
I don't even know what a dean is. My high school never had one. That's crazy that these schools have more than one of something I didn't even know existed at that level.
Good Lord I agree with that one.
The dean acts as a sort of Osmbudsman or a gobetween for teachers/students. They also make sure kids are passing or "pick" kids for advanced placments, etc. It is a totally worthless position quite honestly.
They also have things now that I never had in highschool either like truancy officers (in my time the principal came knocking on the door) teachers aides (cheap way not to hire another certified teacher) and the list goes on.
Mobat555
10-12-2010, 13:45
the problem is, at least here that the number of management positions needs to be reduced and the number of teacher positions increased. you can get 2 teachers for every management position (not custodial or cafeteria). secretary positions can be consolidated.
Any group of people requires management on some level. This is why we have government or at least how government was intended to be. People will never always agree and their has to be someone to make decisions.
Just your example of 4 VPs...that is ridiculous. there is no way in hell they need 4 VPs. they need 1. cut 3 jobs, hire 4-6 teachers and you will see class sizes drop etc etc.
On VP for each grade level gives essentially 1.25 decision making Admins per 400 kids. From what I see these people are not exactly sitting on their hands, but your district could be different.
One thing nobody has brought up is the free assistance a lot of kids receive. around here it is pretty rampant. free and reduced lunch is a major cost to public schools, not only that but parents who are undocumented are not paying property taxes yet their several children receive the same benefit and those who pay the property taxes. on top of that they are getting free or reduced lunch.
yes, I am talking about illegals. it is a $500 million a year problem for Colorado schools. maybe that is where we need to take our focus instead of gutting the funding to our schools.
Unless these "undocumented" people live in their car (aka do not rent) then they are paying property taxes via the owner of their residence. I find it entertaining when people quote the cost of illegal immigrants since these people apparently import all their food so they never have to pay sales tax and never pay income taxes. Neither of which is true. They buy everything here paying sales tax and I guarantee you vast majority pay income tax. Want to know why? Tax evasion is a felony 5 years in prison $100,000 fine. Illegals pay taxes in anyway they can because if they don't when they get caught instead of being deported they go to jail. Tell me whats worse 5 years in prison or a ride home?
How difficult would it be for us to attempt to re-write these bills with a more specific focus, so they still accomplish some of the same goals, send the same message to government, but are less damaging? Maybe this could be something that we could step up and do as a community like that other thread has suggested.
I don't think it would be too terribly difficult to re-write. I have a ton of questions.
What are the parameters that we would have to follow?
For 60, can we tell the school districts where they can spend money and make cuts? Can we force the teachers union to cut teachers based on merit instead of tenure? Can we force the schools to check for citizenship of the parents/guardians of students?
For 61, how do we encourage the government to spend OUR money more wisely so they don't have to take short term loans. How do we encourage the government to save money instead of exhausting the entire budget? Do we present a bonus to the entity that preserves the largest percentage of their budget?
I'm voting for 101 however I do disagree with a $10 registration fee. $10 won't cover the costs expended by state employees to maintain registrations, maybe $30 would have been a better number.
Maybe we need an amendment that provides a definition to the state government as to which services are essential and which are non-essential. We could give specific instructions on the order of cuts starting with illegal aliens and then entitlements and instructions not to touch LE, Fire, and Medical first responders. We'd need a provision to charge back illegal aliens when we check their citizenship status after we provide their emergency services. No elective medical care for illegals or their anchor babies.
You can't take away schooling or medical to babies that were born here.
OgenRwot
10-13-2010, 12:43
I don't think it would be too terribly difficult to re-write.
Unless you have a team of lawyers and legislatures helping you out it's going to end up being exactly the same. Stuff like this always comes up and then everybody realized "oh wait, didn't look at it from x angle and now that we are it's flawed because of y." Obviously the writers of these amendments took a lot of time and put a lot of effort into everything but once it gets out there and you have thousands of eyes looking over it, that's when the flaws come to the surface.
Unless you have a team of lawyers and legislatures helping you out it's going to end up being exactly the same. Stuff like this always comes up and then everybody realized "oh wait, didn't look at it from x angle and now that we are it's flawed because of y." Obviously the writers of these amendments took a lot of time and put a lot of effort into everything but once it gets out there and you have thousands of eyes looking over it, that's when the flaws come to the surface.
You know, I think a lot of this is because people writing legislative material always try to make the law encompass everything they could think of. So we'll have one law for jaywalking, but there is also a subsection saying that a 3% tax hike on cheeseburgers is mandatory for all fast food joints. Yes, that example is totally derived, but it has to do with all the earmarks etc put into bills.
I think the simple solution would be to write VERY specific laws about a Very specific topic.
In this case a specific law for a x amount of tax cuts for x business for x reason whereas x amount of the money goes directly to x account to be used soley for x project, etc. Have a review board once every two years or so and if they fail at documenting, etc. Tax cuts and other beneficiaries cease.
I don't really see why that's not possible... so if someone could explain it, I'd be grateful.
OgenRwot
10-13-2010, 12:59
There's not a lot of pork at the state level. There isn't a large enough discretionary fund for that to even take place. A vast majority of laws are very simple and straight forward at the state level, very rarely do you see amendments slipped in for non-related issues. There isn't that much going on (hence a short legislative session) and so those kind of things would be noticed. Lawmakers have more time to look at the proposed laws. There also isn't a lot of tax breaks within the tax system here either. Most of that kind of stuff goes on at the federal level.
Hmm... I don't know then. No ideas here.
You can't take away schooling or medical to babies that were born here.
Why not? Please use language specific to illegal aliens and their spawn.
To clarify my position further, I don't care if the illegal alien(s) in question came from Africa, Russia, China, Mexico, Central / South America, or name-your-country.
You can't take away schooling or medical to babies that were born here.
Can we keep the babies and send the parents away then? lol.
You want Americans that feel pride and belonging and dedication to their country right? That will never happen if you alienate someone from the beginning. They didn't chose to be born here. Children are malleable, use it to an advantage.
Mobat555
10-13-2010, 14:38
Stuart let me help you in answering roberth's question.
Why not? Please use language specific to illegal aliens and their spawn.
To clarify my position further, I don't care if the illegal alien(s) in question came from Africa, Russia, China, Mexico, Central / South America, or name-your-country.
Its against the constitution via the 14th amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court case of Plyer v. Doe, a 1982 decision that struck down a Texas statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. The court found that the policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as immigrant children are people “in any ordinary sense of the term,” and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.
I was thinking just that. Use the kids. Raise 'em right to have pride in our country.... If we take 'em young enough, they won't be alienated as they will not know anything else...
I know, I know. Here come the moral arguements. I was just being sarcastic.
They are illegal period. Kick 'em out. They can choose to leave the kid here or take it with them. Either way, the ILLEGAL must leave.
You want Americans that feel pride and belonging and dedication to their country right? That will never happen if you alienate someone from the beginning. They didn't chose to be born here. Children are malleable, use it to an advantage.
I want to be clear here. I live in Colorado and I am speaking about illegal aliens who come from Mexico, Central America, and South America since I believe they are the predominant illegal alien in Colorado.
1. Anchor babies generally aren't Americans, their parents see to that. All the proof I need is the attitude and predominance of Mexican flags in their neighborhoods.
2. I believe that the case Mobat555 cites is a gross mis-interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 14th is about slaves and the children of slaves who should be treated as citizens. The 14th isn't about illegal aliens coming here to take advantage of U.S. Federal and State public assistance programs. That ruling should be over-turned.
We've had these discussions about illegal aliens before and I'm seeing and presenting the same arguments as before.
Could you guys address the other stuff in my post about how we re-write these 3 amendments, I really didn't want to get off of 60, 61, and 101.
Yeah me either. However, this little side tangent was good to point out a very important thing. You have to write it in a way that will get MOST people to vote for it. Writing a bill to reduce government spending, then focusing on illegals right off the bat is in-congruent and wouldn't go over well.
I think Ogen is probably the best bet in knowing a good way to narrow down the scope of the law, but he doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. :p
OgenRwot
10-13-2010, 18:03
Nope! You gotta pay me to do that hahaha.
I'm not the one you want. I am just a regular guy that's interested in politics. I followed a lot of bills at the state level when I was in Arizona and a few up here before I moved. I've also taken a few classes about this kind of stuff but I'm by no means an expert.
You can see what I'm talking about once the session starts up in January.
Here's what SB 10-092 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2010a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/2D5FE3C68F88F2DC872576A80027B78E?Open&file=092_01.pdf) for example. As you can see there is extensive text in the bill even though it's only talking about one thing. Sometimes simple bills work, but often they don't because you have to cover all of your bases.
Yeah me either. However, this little side tangent was good to point out a very important thing. You have to write it in a way that will get MOST people to vote for it. Writing a bill to reduce government spending, then focusing on illegals right off the bat is in-congruent and wouldn't go over well.
I think Ogen is probably the best bet in knowing a good way to narrow down the scope of the law, but he doesn't seem to be up to the challenge. :p
I agree, baby steps and writing it so it is easy to understand and the results are easy to achieve and report on later. We'll need to be able to report on our success before we move to the next step.
There are other ways of dealing with illegals, Federal enforcement at the border for starters. I think the rest would just follow naturally.
Let's do it anyway, we have time to perfect it before the next election. Keep the blue book to use as a template.
I got my mail-in ballot today and dropped it off. I voted NO on 60, I just didn't like the shifting of funding from property tax to state sources, that wouldn't save us anything and gives the state another reason to raise taxes.
buffalobo
10-13-2010, 18:35
Any group of people requires management on some level. This is why we have government or at least how government was intended to be. People will never always agree and their has to be someone to make decisions.
On VP for each grade level gives essentially 1.25 decision making Admins per 400 kids. From what I see these people are not exactly sitting on their hands, but your district could be different.
Unless these "undocumented" people live in their car (aka do not rent) then they are paying property taxes via the owner of their residence. I find it entertaining when people quote the cost of illegal immigrants since these people apparently import all their food so they never have to pay sales tax and never pay income taxes. Neither of which is true. They buy everything here paying sales tax and I guarantee you vast majority pay income tax. Want to know why? Tax evasion is a felony 5 years in prison $100,000 fine. Illegals pay taxes in anyway they can because if they don't when they get caught instead of being deported they go to jail. Tell me whats worse 5 years in prison or a ride home?
Don't want to get off topic or nit pick, but govt was never intended to manage its citizens.
Illegals don't pay income taxes because they fear a felony or doing jail time, they pay income taxes because the employer follows the rules and withholds income taxes. If the illegal can get someone to pay cash under the table they will.
The cost of free healthcare to illegals is much greater than the small amounts they pay in income, sales and property taxes.
Alot of good points in this thread, much to consider. A point I would make is(since schools have been a main topic in this thread) the whole issue of how to pay for the schools would be eliminated if public education were eliminated and privately owned schools charged tuition.
Would eliminate all the effort and complications involved with these lengthy complex pieces of legislation. One thing public education does not have is simplicity, and the more complex something is, the more expensive it is.
Flame away
OneGuy67
10-13-2010, 20:49
For 60, can we tell the school districts where they can spend money and make cuts? Can we force the teachers union to cut teachers based on merit instead of tenure? Can we force the schools to check for citizenship of the parents/guardians of students?
Uh, nope, not directly. That is why you have representative government and a school board. Uh, nope. Teachers union too powerful. Uh, nope. As listed further below, it is a Supreme Court case that requires the public school system to educate EVERYONE, which is part of the problem as the school districts need to spend money on special education, English Immersion or English as a Second Language courses, Bi-Lingual teachers or assistants.
For 61, how do we encourage the government to spend OUR money more wisely so they don't have to take short term loans. How do we encourage the government to save money instead of exhausting the entire budget? Do we present a bonus to the entity that preserves the largest percentage of their budget?
The majority of the loans (bonds) being taken out are for public projects like roads, bridges or buildings. Hard to pay them off in the timelines 61 wants. Can't save up for them as TABOR doesn't allow that. Most government entities don't exhaust their entire budget and do roll over excess funds, although I've seen where there is a mass spending spree at the end of the fiscal year to spend funds because "if we don't, they won't give us the money next year" arguments. I don't like those arguments much, although I understand the mentality (and I do work in government).
I'm voting for 101 however I do disagree with a $10 registration fee. $10 won't cover the costs expended by state employees to maintain registrations, maybe $30 would have been a better number.
Maybe we need an amendment that provides a definition to the state government as to which services are essential and which are non-essential. We could give specific instructions on the order of cuts starting with illegal aliens and then entitlements and instructions not to touch LE, Fire, and Medical first responders. We'd need a provision to charge back illegal aliens when we check their citizenship status after we provide their emergency services. No elective medical care for illegals or their anchor babies.
Hospitals who receive public funding are required to provide aid, no matter how major or minor to anyone who walks through their door.
Now, we could make being an illegal in Colorado more difficult and bothersome and they will migrate to more simpathetic states. Arizona's law had that effect. We could require all businesses to use the ID validation software (E-Verify) already available and provide/empower a state entity to be able to check records and levy fines for violations, could sign the agreement for the arrested to have their fingerprints checked against I.C.E. records that is sitting on Ritter's desk, could require all government entities to verify all contractors and subcontractors obtaining government funding for projects E-Verify, write a state statute requiring ALL vehicles of non-licensed drivers stopped by law enforcement towed (which will cause hardship to non hispanics as well and create an argument of heavy enforcement against those of lower income brackets), etc. These are just a few off the top of my head, that if enforced, would create an air of negativity or unwelcomeness that those who are here undocumented, would move to New Mexico or Kansas or Utah to live. The United States' problem isn't fixed, but Colorado's is.
I was once taught a way to view crime to determine if it was problem and there were four possible outcomes. 1). Eliminate the problem 2). Minimize the problem 3). Discover there is no problem and 4). MOVE THE PROBLEM. These measures could do that.
OneGuy67
10-13-2010, 20:54
I believe that the case Mobat555 cites is a gross mis-interpretation of the 14th amendment, the 14th is about slaves and the children of slaves who should be treated as citizens. The 14th isn't about illegal aliens coming here to take advantage of U.S. Federal and State public assistance programs. That ruling should be over-turned.
It is a Supreme Court decision so the situation is done. Period. The Supremes are the last word on anything. Now, if a similar case makes it to them again, they may re-visit their previous decision and amend it, but you will never see them say a previous Supreme Court decision was wrong and overturn it. Case in point: In the 60's they decided on Miranda v. Arizona which put out a set of guidelines for law enforcement to follow when interrogating a suspect. Since then, they've re-visited the issue several times and the original decision has been tweaked a bit, here and there. They will never overturn it.
Denver tried to pass a mandatory tow law and it was rightfully shot down. There is a big difference between not having your driver's license on you, and not having one at all. I am NOT a big fan of one punishment for multiple levels of violations.
OneGuy67
10-14-2010, 12:57
True Stuart, however, the vast majority of people contacted in a traffic stop have their ID with them and for those small amounts who don't, it is very easy to prove you have a license nowadays through the DMV database.
When I would stop someone for a traffic violation and they didn't have their license on them, I asked for some other thing that may have their name on it. Some were going to/from the gym and only had their gym ID, but some didn't have anything at all. For those with absolutely nothing to show other than their word as to who they were, we would go through the quiz of all the information that would be onthe driver's record such as SSN, address, height, weight, hair color, what year you got the license, etc. I would then have them step out of their vehicle and stand in front of my vehicle where the video camera in the vehicle took their image for a short period of time. If that person lied about their identity and I wrote them a citation to which the real person later showed up and stated they weren't the person stopped, we could go back to the video and the maligned person usually knew who the liar was and we prosecuted them. That happened only about 3-4 times in the 14 years I was on patrol.
They are still working on associating all the photos with the DMV entries and have been for about 10 years. All the different software companies who specialize in selling software to law enforcement that utilize the DMV files are not in alignment with how it should be done.
Additionally, they have the nifty little fingerprint scanners now that you can utilize in these cases that will scan through the fingerprint provided to the DMV and determine/confirm identity.
Again Stuart, I only advocate what I did for years on patrol. If you were revoked, suspended, or denied a license and you were driving or if you didn't have a license on record and showed me your fictitious Mexican driver's license, your vehicle was towed and you were either arrested and ticketed, or just ticketed and sent packing. It depended upon the situation and severity of the reasons for revocation, suspension or denial such as you've been revoked a number of times for alcohol offenses and keep driving (you were going to jail) to your license got suspended because you didn't pay a parking ticket (you were walking with a ticket in your pocket). In the cases where I suspected you were an illegal alien and you didn't have a license on record, I would also tow the vehicle. If you as a out of country driver who provided me with a driver's license AND a passport from your home country (as required in the compact), you didn't have anything to worry about.
This is what I did and what I taught as a police trainer. I can't say to what other officers do now. I would hope they use common sense in their approach to things.
ronaldrwl
10-14-2010, 16:29
It's been crossed.
http://janezlifeandtimes.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/a-line-in-the-sand.jpg
Vote yes on 60, 61, 101
This adv brought to you by Citizens Tried of Government Spending.
trlcavscout
10-14-2010, 22:00
I am single and have no children. I hate paying for schools, if a person has kids then that person should be responsible for their children in their entirety. Don't make me share the costs of educating or otherwise caring for your children.
Having said that I'd rather see vouchers where parents make the call on the school their kid(s) get.
Crush the NEA and that will be a good start.
Who paid the taxes for you to go to school? I doubt you paid it out of your pocket shoveling snow. I am a parent and I would like to have more say on where the tax money goes but such a small percentage of the tax's we pay go to the schools, their is much bigger fish to fry. What about all the new bull shit fees when registering our vehicles so we can drive through crater sized pot holes while they build those fucking fancy dividers and medians. I think only the people of denver who ride the rails and buses should have to pay for them since I never will, I dont even like going to the big shit hole.
Like every other bull shit thing they put in front of us these Amendments and props are full of shit also. Ya they cut current programs budgets but you know it would benefit someone otherwise it wouldnt have made it this far. And yes it could screw us in the future so I am saying NO. He have to feed the fuckers at the top in order to get the trickle down we need unfortunately. Politicians are worthless POS!!!
Who paid the taxes for you to go to school? I doubt you paid it out of your pocket shoveling snow.
I went to a private school so my parents paid for that AND for public school.
High Altitude
10-16-2010, 23:31
I am going to vote yes for all three.
IMHO, we need to do something drastic to show the government that we mean business and they need to start working for us and making decisions in our best interest.
We have to break down and cripple the entire system before we can build it back up into something meaningful.
Hopefully most of the lazy asses and illegals will leave the state and let the hard working citizens actually have a chance at turning it into something we can all be proud of.
I am sick and tired of getting bent over by government.
It occurred to me today that if 60 and 61 passed that it could just cripple the economy under conservative control and the dems would sweep next election like the conservatives are going to this election. Just something to think about. Just because I thought of that, doesn't necessarily mean I didn't think it was worth it though. I'd LOVE to pass those laws under democrat control though.
I don't understand how removing funding from the government hurts the economy, government money was confiscated from the economy in the first place.
What am I not getting?
60 doesn't do anything except shift the funding from property tax to making the state liable. The state will just raise it's taxes to cover the passed along cost. Do you really think your property tax will go down? I voted NO.
61 should force government entities to spend more wisely by disallowing their ability to get funds to cover their self induced shortfalls. Government entities will have to plan better for their annual spending instead of relying on their ability to get a loan. This will cause government some pain in the beginning but in the long run it will be better for the taxpayer. I voted YES.
Aloha_Shooter
10-17-2010, 21:38
Originally Posted by sniper7 http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/showthread.php?p=248321#post248321)
In every state that they have zero income tax they have very high property taxes. So you're going to get taxed on your house year after year at a much higher rate than we have now. You rent you say? Well your land lord is going to pass those costs on down to you. Stores will have higher prices too, so they can make up for their higher property taxes. 4.5% income tax is very good.
Not exactly true, I have several friends who live in states that don't have income tax and their property tax is pretty close to what I pay. A lot of their money comes from what the state has to offer be it tourism or natural resources.
Just to back this up, my property taxes in Florida were LOWER than they are in Colorado. I paid no income tax, my sales tax was 7% -- less than 1% difference over what I'm paying in sales tax in Colorado Springs.
More to the point, state AND local taxes were much lower 20 years ago. The things that have changed since then aren't IMNSHO much of an improvement. In some ways, we've regressed despite (because?) of the higher taxes. I actually support the TOPS tax (although it takes Outcome Based Education to turn Trails, Open Space and Parks into TOPS) but the whole government based industry needs a slap with the 10th Amendment Clue-by-Four.
ghettodub
10-18-2010, 08:14
I was pretty set on voting yes on all but 60, but after speaking with a few different people, I ended up voting no an all. So many proposals and amendments have too much in them. If they had less in each (and more individual proposals), i may have voted differently.
I like the idea that these idiots need to fix their own problems and not be bailed out all of the time, but because of how much is in these different amendments, they're really over-reaching. After speaking with my dad, who is a very conservative person and small-business owner said he was voting no on all of them, my mind was made up.
jscwerve
11-02-2010, 21:46
Well, looks like they all failed. Awesome. Onward with rampant government spending, wreckless borrowing, property taxes going up even though houses are worth less, and outragous vehicle taxes (oh, sorry, "fees")!!!! YAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!!!
The mentality of the masses is so dissappointing most of the time. This is why unions and coorperations own our government. People as a whole are too stupid not to believe what they hear on the talky box they sit in front of 10 hours a day. This proves that he who has the most money wins.
OneGuy67
11-02-2010, 21:51
I, for one, am thankful they failed. I get to keep my job, keep living in my house, and keep paying my bills. Thank you. The Ritter announced today that state employees will not get a raise again next fiscal year for the 4th year in a row. No kidding. Oh well. One battle at a time.
hurley842002
11-02-2010, 21:55
I, for one, am thankful they failed. I get to keep my job, keep living in my house, and keep paying my bills. Thank you. The Ritter announced today that state employees will not get a raise again next fiscal year for the 4th year in a row. No kidding. Oh well. One battle at a time.
X2 I'm right there with you
OneGuy67
11-02-2010, 22:23
Did 63 pass?
63 is leading yes 53% to 47% no. Probably will pass.
nogaroheli
11-02-2010, 22:23
I, for one, am thankful they failed. I get to keep my job, keep living in my house, and keep paying my bills. Thank you. The Ritter announced today that state employees will not get a raise again next fiscal year for the 4th year in a row. No kidding. Oh well. One battle at a time.
I wish I still had a job that I hadn't gotten a raise at for four years...
OneGuy67
11-02-2010, 22:28
I wish I still had a job that I hadn't gotten a raise at for four years...
Sorry, my friend.
nogaroheli
11-02-2010, 22:37
Sorry, my friend.
No worries, I'm learning a lot about life and myself, I'll appreciate the normal life more after this.
Just to clarify after my statement, I AM glad you still have yours though.
OneGuy67
11-02-2010, 22:41
No worries, I'm learning a lot about life and myself, I'll appreciate the normal life more after this.
Just to clarify after my statement, I AM glad you still have yours though.
Thanks. Me too.
OneGuy67
11-02-2010, 22:45
63 is leading yes 53% to 47% no. Probably will pass.
Sorry Stuart! I read it backwards. It is losing by 53% to 47%. Probably will NOT pass.
Did 63 pass?
63 failed. Sorry
http://www.9news.com/news/elections/results/2010/results.aspx?racetype=BallotInitiatives&raceid=64
ghettodub
11-03-2010, 07:51
Can't believe 63 failed... lame...
Can't believe 63 failed... lame...
The entitlement mentality wins.
ghettodub
11-03-2010, 08:22
The thing that boggles my mind is that they voted against choice, which you would think everyone would be for...
Not if you are a liberal, the liberal mindset dictates choice and the choice is socialized medicine.
Kinda like Henry Ford, you can have a Model T in any color...as long as the color is black.
gnihcraes
11-03-2010, 10:47
I wish I still had a job that I hadn't gotten a raise at for four years...
Check the state websites, people are leaving for other jobs due to the lack of pay increases and no growth opportunities internally. (again and again)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.