Referendum on TABOR
Re: “The truth about TABOR,” Sept. 11-14 series.
The Post’s series on the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights may be one of the most relevant newspaper reports to be printed this summer/fall. Regardless of the outcome of the vote this November on Referendums C and D, the result will have very significant effect on every Colorado citizen for many years to come. While the concept of the TABOR amendment – better citizen control of the state’s expenditures – was needed and due in the spending atmosphere of Colorado in the late 1980s, the amendment as finally approved and interpreted had several serious flaws.
Opponents to Referendums C and D play on our emotional desire to pay absolutely minimum taxes. Understandable. However, their arguments contain serious flaws in logic. For example, they cite ever-increasing state spending. When one takes into account inflation and increased state population, the actual per capita expenditures have decreased in the last decade. They also tend to ignore, among other things, the increasing deterioration of our roads and schools.
Although I was born and raised in Colorado, if Referendums C and D do not pass, the destruction of our state’s infrastructure will be so severe, I fear I may no longer care to live here.
Phil Olbert, Parker
…
Re: “Much at stake in election; Services in peril if measures lose,” Sept. 4 Perspective article.
I have read several articles and fliers both for and against Referendums C and D, and I have to agree with those who say the state is in need of some extra revenues. Unfortunately, our legislature and governor chose not to be fiscally responsible to plug some leaks created by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and Amendment 23, but instead go for broke and ask the taxpayers for a full remodel with no guaranties as to whether they would use any of the increased revenue to plug the leaks.
My biggest problem with C and D is the lack of sound explanation for the selection of five years as the length of time to suspend TABOR refunds. The recession was two to three years. Most everything is about next year’s financial problems.
Kip Bryan, Arvada
…
I voted for the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in 1992 because I believed then – and still do – in participatory, grassroots democracy. I voted against Amendment 23 a few years ago because I thought it was a bad idea to tie the state into mandated increases in any particular area, be it education or anything else. At the time, I was also worried what effect Amendment 23 would have in the event of a recession. Indeed, we can see now how Amendment 23 has squeezed the state budget. But blaming Amendment 23 will not solve the budget crisis that looms over the state.
Our Democratic House and Senate and our Republican governor have crafted a solution to the mess we’ve put ourselves in. It may not be ideal, but it’s all we’ve got and it is the duty of every responsible citizen to either support Referendum C or offer a realistic and timely alternative. And not one of those opposing Referendum C – not Grover Norquist, Jon Caldara or Douglas Bruce – has offered any realistic and measurable alternatives that will save us from drastic cuts in funding for higher education, highway construction and maintenance and prisons. The idea that we can save enough by “cutting waste” and eliminating unnecessary spending is pure wishful thinking. Every organization humans have ever devised – and ever will devise – has had some degree of waste, corruption and inefficiency. That’s reality.
Michael Adams, Lafayette
…
Sure it’s my money. But those preaching the politics of greed and selfishness turn me off. We have to balance limiting government and taking care of our community. We know the recession and modest recovery have meant serious cutbacks. It doesn’t take a TABOR expert to recognize that without Referendums C and D, state investments will be stuck below pre-recession levels for years. We need to invest in order to grow and prosper. Economic growth dries up where there is inadequate health care, crumbling schools and deteriorating transportation.
We hear sensational stories of wasteful government spending. But add up the numbers: Eliminate all waste, become super-efficient, and we’d still need C and D to address our critical unmet needs.
Are we each willing to give up a small rebate so we can invest to secure the future for our family, community and state? Let’s ignore the appeals to greed and selfishness and vote for our future. Vote “yes” on C and D.
Charles Kreiman, Centennial
…
Letter-writer Steven Wells writes, “No. 1 reason to vote for Referendums C and D: Louisiana. We are only a catastrophe away” (Sept. 11 To the Point). This is a reason not to support the referendums. No amount of money thrown at this problem could have solved it. It was bureaucratic bungling from the beginning. Government has yet to show responsibility, planning and accounting with taxpayer dollars. Only when the government decides to draft and implement actual programs instead of studying them ad nauseam, and to get rid of the layers of bureaucracy, will I consider giving the state more of my money.
As a widow with three children not receiving government assistance and looking at an income that has not increased with expenses that have increased (gas, food, electricity), I can only state that meeting my family budget needs is more important than that of the government (and I do a far better job at stretching the dollar than our government does). Why are the government’s needs and budget more important than my family’s? I am voting “no” on Referendums C and D.
Cheryl Redmond Doyle, Littleton
…
Poor university students are paying higher costs for their education to supply the immediate needs of higher education because of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR constrains the increases in legitimate state funding by refunding surpluses to taxpayers. Redistribution of wealth of this nature is most definitely not fair.
Progressives should be outraged that higher education has been cut from $800 million to less than $600 million in annual funding.
Referendum C is a realistic, pragmatic, reasonable compromise. Moreover, it is disingenuous to say it is a tax hike. It is not. Rather, it allows the government to get outside of the faulty ratchet effect of TABOR. The compromise does not alter TABOR, it fixes its ratchet.
Wendell C. “Chuck” Fogland, Fort Collins
…
Until recently, I had been in favor of Referendums C and D. As more information has become available, however, I have become increasingly skeptical. What really changed my mind was something I saw recently at the Colorado State Fair. There was a booth there with signs on it saying something to the effect of: “Support C & D – Health care for all Coloradans.”
My understanding of C and D has certainly been incomplete up to now, and obviously in error. I had thought that the primary intent of withholding tax refunds and borrowing money was to make needed improvements in infrastructure and educational facilities that had been delayed or prevented by the restrictions of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
Apparently, with the prospect of a windfall from passage of C and D, there’s already a feeding frenzy by people with every sort of social agenda.
There is only one thing that brings prosperity and benefit to all here in Colorado or anywhere else: a robust economy. The most basic things required to ensure that are an educated workforce and sound infrastructure. From a robust economy flows increased tax revenues to fund all government activities.
Considering that supporters of Referendums C and D are already seem determined to misspend the proceeds, throwing the money into the bottomless pit of social programs, it’s obvious that voting in favor of Referendums C and D is a bad idea.
Dennis Chappell, Pueblo
…
I’ve found it useful to compare supporters and opponents to various issues when making my own decisions. I understand that members of both major political parties support the passage of Referendums C and D, which will begin to undo the damage caused by the so-called Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. TABOR severely curtailed the ability of state government to respond to Colorado’s changing needs. That’s why support for education, transportation and other social services that serve all the people of Colorado have been slashed. TABOR was passed with the help of a massive infusion of funds from out-of-state conservative anti-tax organizations.
They’re back. Opposition to C and D has been concentrated – and paid for – by the same conservative lobbying groups that have attempted to influence elections throughout the country. What is the “Club for Growth,” and why is it spending so much money in Colorado when its backers don’t live here?
Why don’t more Coloradans understand that the “Independence Institute” is another corporate-sponsored propaganda mill whose only purpose is to spread conservative dogma?
I would urge all Coloradans to go online and look for the funding behind such lobbying fronts as the Club for Growth, the Claremont Institute, the Independence Institute, and many other conservative “think tanks.”
When so many wealthy corporations and ultra-rich conservatives are against a movement to take control of our own government spending, you can be sure that it’s a movement that will restore control of our government to we, the people.
Scott Mock, Boulder
Respect for truckers
Regarding your Sept. 11 editorial critical of the trucking industry, the biggest problem for truckers is that they are paid for the miles they drive and not for the hours they work. No one wants tired truckers on the road, including truckers. The time they are forced to spend waiting at shippers and receivers, at scales and inspection stations, and just waiting for freight is not a factor when allowing them 11 hours of driving in a day. Shippers and receivers need to be made part of the time regulations, along with the drivers. As long as their time is regulated but their pay is per mile, the system will not support fair compensation for truckers.
A professional driver in a big truck is the least of your worries when you are driving on a highway in a car. With hours and hours of training and experience, truckers know that the real risk is an inexperienced, tired, bored, drunk or distracted driver in a car. Four-wheelers will try anything to avoid being behind a truck, including passing on the right (the “suicide” side), cutting in front, slowing down, and cutting off a truck that is trying to change lanes. Car drivers are completely unaware of vehicle safety issues or of their own ability to drive on a highway.
Trucks are necessary for this country’s existence. Remember, if you eat it, wear it or live in it, it came on a truck. Give drivers the benefit of space and courtesy. They make it possible for you to have the necessities of life when you need and want them.
Donna Kimsey, Denver
…
Your editorial provided a distorted picture of the driving-hour rules for truckdrivers as well as the trucking industry’s safety record.
Your editorial notes that “safety advocates claim the change is a bad one.” While some groups have contended that the new driving rules are bad, the vast majority of real professionals in truck safety – such as the state and federal enforcement agencies as well as the many safety professionals in the trucking industry – believe that the new rules provide a safer environment. This fact is further borne out by a drop in the truck accident rate from 2003 to 2004, when the new rules first went into effect.
Further analysis by The Post would have found that the trucking industry’s accident rate has shown steady improvement over the past 20 years. The improvement in our accident rate did not happen by chance but rather due to concerted actions on the part of our industry in supporting vehicle safety improvements and implementing enhanced safety programs.
While we may not agree with everything in the new hours-of-service rule, we do sincerely believe that the decisions by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration were predicated on the best interests of safety for truck drivers and the traveling public.
While The Post may wish to encourage its readers to cast “a wary eye on the big rig in their rearview mirror,” I am sure there are a number of families and evacuees from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who are only too happy to see one of these big rigs in their rearview mirrors bringing vital supplies to them in their time of need.
Gregory D. Fulton, President, Colorado Motor Carriers Association
American statesmanship
Re: “Will we return to statesmanship?” Sept. 11 Colorado Voices column.
Kudos to Paul Johnson for raising the issue of the absence of statesmanship in our nation’s politics. If either political party would put forward a statesman as candidate for president, that candidate would have no trouble winning election, regardless of his party affiliation. Last election, I voted for George W. Bush as the lesser of two poor choices, but it wasn’t a satisfying win. Are there no statesmen left in America?
J.W. Mulholland, Denver
U.S. nuclear weapons
Re: “Pentagon draft details pre-emptive nuke use,” Sept. 11 news story.
Every thoughtful American should be revolted by the policy for pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons adopted by the Pentagon and the Bush administration. Under this policy, the same shoddy intelligence and bad decision-making that led us into Iraq could result in an unnecessary and disastrous American nuclear “first strike.”
With this policy, the administration effectively eliminates any U.S. moral imperative or leadership regarding nuclear disarmament, arms control and WMD proliferation. In fact, it gives other countries the incentive to develop military nuclear programs as a deterrent against possible pre-emptive U.S. attacks, creating the same situation that existed between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It makes the world – and our country – much less safe.
Paul Aldretti, Denver
Hurricane Katrina and Sept. 11: The responses to two national tragedies
America will forever remember the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina. We will remember the faces of grief and survival, but unfortunately, that’s all most people will recall. In 2008, when we return to the polls, will we remember to ask ourselves, “How is it possible that thousands of Americans died as a result of our own government’s negligence?”
Ever since Sept. 11, President Bush has touted the benefits and necessity of homeland security. Yet, for most Americans, our newfound sense of security has been replaced with embarrassment when the underwires in our bra set off an “orange terror alert” at the airport. How are we to believe that our Homeland Security Department will shield us from terrorists when it can’t even protect us from a hurricane that it knows about several days in advance? Meteorologists knew exactly when and where Katrina would hit, and yet, for days after the storm, our own citizens sat in filth with no food, water or medical supplies while they watched their loved ones die.
The victims of Hurricane Katrina will eventually return to the normal, mundane routines of everyday life just as America did after Sept. 11. We will always remember when Katrina’s victims died, but will we remember why?
Lisa Jackson, Westminster
…
The $2,000 debit card program for Katrina survivors was scrapped even while President Bush hailed the “acts of great compassion and extraordinary bravery” similar to Sept. 11. While both events came under Bush’s watch and both were, to varying degrees, predictable (if one was paying attention), why did our leaders authorize something approaching a gazillion dollars, up to $2 million-plus per family, for the Sept. 11 victims, while revoking up to $2,000 per person for Katrina victims?
It seems that both the Sept. 11 and Katrina victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, it seems as if the Katrina victims may have lost more than family members, considering that their homes, possesions, livelihoods and dreams were swept away by the storm.
I didn’t agree with awarding money to survivors of Sept. 11 based on an arbitrary, government-assigned value of the victims’ lives. However, given the precedent set by Sept. 11, I hope our leaders haven’t been struck blind, deaf and dumb, vis a vis the Katrina victims, by the socioeconomic class, predominant race and probable political leanings of the victims.
James C. Bailey, Jr., Boulder
…
It has been very heartwarming to see how everyday Americans and charity organizations have opened their wallets and given their time to help the unfortunate victims of Hurricane Katrina. Yet, it has been equally disheartening to see how many Democratic leaders, black leaders, rappers, entertainers and other “armchair first responders” have capitalized on this natural disaster to further their political agendas. The rhetoric has been shocking and divisive to our country.
Yes, Bush did blow it with a slow response. It was disappointing. Yet, what about the mayor of New Orleans, who did not order a timely evacuation of the city and who let the school buses sit in the parking lots until they were unusable, rather than evacuate people without transportation? Instead, he sent people to the Superdome, which he knew was inadequately supplied and guarded.
What about the governor of Louisiana, whose job it was to take command and order necessary soldiers from the federal government? There was a huge delay in the order, and it would have looked bad for the president to overstep a female governor of the opposite political party. The mayor and governor were supposed to be the first responders to the emergency, and they utterly failed.
This is a time when our country should pull together and not let people try to divide us by playing the race, class or political-party cards. Let’s tone down the shrill rhetoric and get to work, becoming part of the solution to the problems, instead of grandstanding for political gain.
Barbara Backlin, Littleton
…
In the past, conservatives have made every effort to demonize, bash and portray many Hollywood stars and musicians as out of touch with Americans, living in an idyllic, wealthy fantasy world. But after Hurricane Katrina, it’s become obvious who truly cares about “all Americans,” as Hollywood stars and musicians came to the aid of victims, raising money and providing uplifting emotional and volunteer support. This is in stark contrast to some of our government leaders who chose to spend the valuable post-Hurricane hours vacationing in Wyoming, shoe-shopping in Manhattan, and doing a cursory airplane flyover of the storm region on the way back to Washington. These facts will surely not be forgotten on voters in 2006.
Adam Lussier, Denver
…
If you can cut through all the rhetoric and “blame game” tactics of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, there is one thing that is apparent, at least to me. I am a conservative Republican, so I am a bit biased on this one. Of all the things that the left loves to criticize, three institutions often top the list: the U.S. military, corporate America, and faith-based institutions of any kind. Well, if anything has worked after Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast, it is these three vitally important legs of a free-market, capitalist and religiously free America.
You may be able to criticize the various government agencies that control the military, but once they were deployed and allowed to do what they do best, things turned around immediately. Corporate America has also stepped up to donate money, housing, clothes, food, water and almost everything else needed by the victims of this tragedy. That goes, too, for the churches and all the faith-based organizations that have pitched in so well to offer aid and comfort to these people.
Michael Zsitnyar, Lakewood
…
Re: “Storm swept away trust,” Sept. 11 news story.
Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco knew that Hurricane Katrina was headed for New Orleans five days before it hit. She was “blistering mad” that the federal authorities did not send buses to remove people from the “fetid Superdome,” and yet much of the television coverage showed what appeared to be hundreds of local school buses that were sitting around unused and ended up being flooded out. Why weren’t they used to remove people before the levee broke?
Also, the Superdome is near New Orleans’ joint train/bus station. Why did she not get Amtrak and Greyhound to help remove people. This assistance was already there, if local authorities had made any effort to utilize what they had at hand.
Although I do not live in Denver, I would bet my bottom dollar that if we had a major disaster in the metro area, Mayor John Hickenlooper would not sit around and wait for someone to tell him what to do.
David W. Salter, Englewood
Two-wheeled solution to rising gas prices
Recent media coverage of rising gas prices has been focused primarily on motorized solutions. However, such coverage has largely ignored an increasingly viable and economical solution to the problem: bicycling.
Bicycle commuting is an ideal way to save on fuel, transit and parking expenses. Bicycling even one day a week can help cut transportation-related expenses. In addition to saving on gas, some employers offer reductions on health insurance costs and other incentives.
With adult and childhood obesity reaching near-epidemic levels, commuting by bicycle provides an excellent opportunity to improve fitness levels. Denver’s mild climate makes it possible to commute by bicycle year-round. I have been commuting by bicycle for several years now, and there has never been an instance when I’ve been on my bike and wished I was in a car.
For those people who want to commute by bicycle but aren’t sure how to start, there are resources available to help. Local organizations such as Bicycle Colorado and BikeDenver can offer tips and suggestions to get you on your way. Check with the bicycling organizations in your area and join your fellow bicycle commuters on the local roads and trails.
Tracy Halasinski, Denver
The writer is vice president of external communications for BikeDenver.
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
I hope one of the lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina is that an evacuation plan that does not include pets is not a workable plan.
Debbie Bendell, Denver
Does charity begin at home? With the bankruptcy of United, Delta, Northwest, the spending of a billion a week in a nation that kills our youth (and will forget us in two years), the only winners are Big Oil, sleazy lobbyists, Halliburton and the agenda of the GOP.
David W. Hester, Littleton
The Post reports Sen. Ken Salazar met with Judge John Roberts to discuss legal issues before his confirmation hearings start. John Roberts discussing legal issues with Ken Salazar is like Stephen Hawking discussing astrophysics with my labrador retriever.
Clay Berger, Crested Butte
I see that Bush is taking “full responsibility” for the failures in the federal reaction to Katrina. Does that mean that he will resign? Or is he slightly less honorable than Michael Brown?
John Morris, Indian Hills
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
