It’s always refreshing to see an elected official shed partisan politics in favor of pragmatism — even if the delivery is botched.
Such was the case this week under the gold dome when Sen. Don Marostica broke ranks with state Republicans in supporting a bill he believes would be good for Coloradans.
Unfortunately, he then spoiled the moment with an offhand remark. No matter. It takes a brave Republican to question the efficacy of anything that might have to do with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which is just what Marostica has done.
Working as a member of the Joint Budget Committee, which controls the state’s budget, has taught the second-term legislator that sometimes ideology has to bend to pragmatism.
Marostica wants to repeal the state’s 6 percent spending cap, known as Arveschoug-Bird. When told that prominent Republicans such as the Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara, former Senate president John Andrews and former state treasurer Mark Hillman want to kill the effort to remove the spending limit, Marostica told a Rocky Mountain News reporter: “They’re has-beens. They’re losers.”
Reaction was swift. Marostica had to go, principal’s-office style, to a meeting with GOP chairman Dick Wadhams. Rumors blew through the assembly that Marostica would be stripped of his JBC post.
Fortunately, party leaders haven’t punished the senator, and he has promised to call those he mocked and apologize. Fade to black on that little drama.
We hope Marostica continues his support for Senate Bill 228, which on the surface sounds worthy of discussion. Earlier this month, we were pleased to read an opinion by former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky that says the 1991 Arveschoug-Bird spending limit is statutory and is not protected under TABOR, which is constitutional. Her opinion, if correct, would allow a legislative work-around and would mean that repealing the 6 percent limit doesn’t have to go to a vote of the people.
We support the idea of some type of a legislative fix, but hope lawmakers can build a coalition that eventually reforms TABOR through a statewide vote to set the change in the constitution. Otherwise, the legislative fix will end up in court. And the courts have yet to decide if Gov. Bill Ritter’s property-tax freeze is constitutional.
If all Arveschoug-Bird did was keep a cap on government spending, we wouldn’t have a problem with it. It helps separate us from California. (Well, that and palm trees.) But the limit has proven complicated and hamstrings government when the state tries to recover from lean budget years, because it arbitrarily sets the 6 percent spending cap based on the prior budget year, and not on average spending levels or the pre-recession level.
Anything over the cap now goes mostly to transportation funding. Without the cap, we worry lawmakers may shortchange roads and bridges even more.
We support adding more flexibility to Colorado’s budget, but this issue needs more debate.
We applaud Marostica’s independent streak, and hope other lawmakers follow his example — minus the insults, of course
