DENVER—Tax surplus refunds under the Taxpayers Bill of Rights would permanently disappear and instead go to fund education under a proposal by Democrat House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
Romanoff said the measure would get rid of automatic spending increases for education, as required by Amendment 23, and take the state budget off of “autopilot.”
The proposal, which hasn’t been introduced yet, would have to get two-thirds support in both the House and Senate in order to be placed on the ballot in November. Two Republicans—Sen. Steve Johnson of Fort Collins and Rep. Ellen Roberts of Durango—endorsed the plan at a news conference Thursday. It’s not clear how many other Republicans are interested.
Romanoff said the measure would end the conflict between TABOR, which limits how tax money is collected and spent, and Amendment 23, which requires the state to increase spending on education at the rate of inflation plus 1 percent until 2010, and then at the rate of inflation afterward.
Colorado voters approved giving up tax surplus refunds for five years under the hard-fought Referendum C in 2005, where opponents argued that tax rebates would disappear for good once state government got the extra money.
Under the proposal, voters would give up future tax surplus refunds and that money would go into a separate “rainy day” account in the education fund created by Amendment 23. Education would also stop getting the automatic increases required by Amendment 23.
Voters would retain the right to vote on any tax increases, another part of TABOR.
Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter said he’s very interested in the idea and would continue to work with Romanoff on it but stopped short of an outright endorsement.
Democratic Treasurer Cary Kennedy, who wrote Amendment 23, endorsed the plan and Republican Attorney General John Suthers said lawmakers who are critical of TABOR and those who are critical of Amendment 23 should consider backing it. He said the political reality is that neither one will be changed without the other also being changed too and they will continue to tie the hands of lawmakers in how they spend the state’s money.
“I can’t believe there’s anyone in this building who doesn’t understand the problems we have,” Suthers said.
However, Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, said the state is on track to take in $5.8 billion—$2 billion more than originally forecast—by the end of Referendum C’s five-year time out. He said the state was able to survive the post-Sept. 11 recession under the budget constraints. However, backers of Referendum C said suspending those tax surplus refunds was needed to recover from the budget cuts during the recession.
“If we’ve survived the worst we can certainly pass budgets going forward without getting deeper into taxpayers’ pockets,” said Mitchell, who didn’t support Referendum C.
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, was one of a handful Senate Republicans who did support Referendum C. While she said she thinks some of Romanoff’s ideas are good, she didn’t think it would be politically smart to put the measure on a lengthy ballot in a presidential election year because it would be difficult to find the money to run a ballot campaign.
“If this fails one time, I think it’s doomed for a number of years,” Spence said.
