How does this sound: The Golden Corral’s Gold Dome at Mile High?
On the same day the state announced it had yet another California-sized, $250 million hole to fill in this year’s budget, The Denver Post ran a front-page story about the deteriorating Capitol dome.
The gold dome, one of the more picturesque capitols in the country and the very symbol of state government, needs $10 million to $30 million in repairs. It’s money the cash-strapped state doesn’t have.
It gave me an idea: naming rights.
If we can sell our civic souls for $60 million to an investment firm to help build a soul-less cavern of a stadium on once hallowed ground, we could certainly hang a “for rent” sign atop the Capitol.
The Golden Corral Gold Dome could advertise its meal specials, such as, wait for it, all-you-can-eat pork. Or how about the Coors State Correctional Facility?
No-Doz, of course, could sponsor the Colorado House’s new TV channel. Oh, the possibilities.
All joking aside, Colorado’s budget is in tough shape. But unlike California, where spending has been out of control for years, Colorado had a spending cap in place for 18 years. (Lawmakers, however, lifted it this year.)
Colorado also has had a revenue cap, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, in place for 17 years.
This year’s budget drama is a revenue problem.With double-digit drops in sales tax revenue, the state isn’t collecting enough money to meet its funding obligations.
Solving the budget crisis isn’t easy, but the tough decisions and innovative thinking required could produce the next generation of state leaders.
Republicans want the state to cut spending. Easier said than done. There’s little discretionary spending left in the budget.
In previous years, higher education was an easy target. Now, it’s off limits. President Barack Obama’s gift of stimulus money was wrapped with strings: Higher ed can’t be cut below 2005 levels, which the state has now reached.
Sentencing reform may save a few bucks in prison costs, a huge chunk of the budget, but certainly not enough to close the gap.
Spending on K-12 education is largely protected by the state constitution. Amendment 23, approved by voters in 2000, mandates that spending increase at the rate of inflation plus 1 percentage point. (Lawmakers can trim K-12 funding by essentially reducing money to at-risk kids, but it’s a tough political move in an election year.)
Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, thinks lawmakers ought to seriously look at the salaries of state workers. After all, salaries and personnel costs are the bulk of most any budget, and many workers in the private marketplace have endured pay cuts, furloughs and layoffs. State workers will face furloughs this year.
But in 2007, Gov. Bill Ritter helped unionize much of the state workforce. At the time, his supporters said it was a harmless move that didn’t mean anything. We’ll see if that’s true if the state tries to actually cut salaries across the board or lay off workers. Colorado WINS, the union that formed immediately after Ritter’s order, went before the Joint Budget Committee last week to say it knows the state doesn’t have money now, but if the state can’t show that salaries will improve, workers will leave.
Thanks to a gift from the Supreme Court, also wrapped in political strings, lawmakers can eliminate certain tax exemptions to raise revenue without asking voters, as required by TABOR. Though it would raise revenue, it also would raise the ire of more than a few Coloradans. Is that what lawmakers want in an election year?
Hmmm. Can’t cut spending in an election year, and can’t raise taxes.
Frank Azar Courthouse, anyone?
E-mail editorial page editor Dan Haley at dhaley@denverpost.com.
