In the past several weeks I have fielded a number of comments in favor of the three fiscal initiatives (Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101) on the ballot. The overarching theme is most certainly distrust of the political arena, primarily focused at the federal level and less so but still important at the state level.
Local government was not immune but the fervor was not nearly as intense. That being said, how can you argue against lower taxes and smaller government? I suspect most of us prefer that prospect but the questions that arise are not simple ones.
For example, “What should the proper level of taxes be?” and “How small should government be?” Worded differently, what is it that we want government (all levels) to provide and what is a reasonable cost for that? I seriously doubt that we’ll ever get consensus on those questions but let’s add some context to a few components of them.
One comment indicated that “Property tax revenue has increased, rapidly, 183 percent since TABOR passed, thanks to the loopholes You the Politicians invented.” While I’m not sure about the “loopholes invented” phrase (none were specifically mentioned), I do know that a large number of local governments have passed bond elections and other tax questions since 1992.
All of these measures were submitted to and approved by the majority of voters in accordance with the constitution and statutes. In other words, where property taxes increased it was with the specific agreement of voters. As for a comment about “taking” additional money from individuals as a result of Referendum C, that too was voter approved as was TABOR.
Another comment indicated that “they (the government) are constantly increasing tax levies without my permission ,” referring to property taxes on their home. If that is true then the person should certainly challenge it through the legal system and they would have my full support as that is not in accordance with law. However, if the property tax increases were voter approved that is a completely different story. Not knowing the particulars it is difficult to respond to these comments with any specificity or proper context.
One thing is certain about both sides of the question; their passion about the issues is very intense. While I fully understand the distaste for the political arena, as evidenced by many of the attack ads on the air waves (my TV is getting a rest and the remote’s mute button has “expired”!), I seriously question whether the consequences of these three initiatives have been fairly and fully assessed.
It is one thing to be sorely upset about and even vengeful regarding the workings of our governmental entities (read: primarily elected officials) and quite another to be fair and objective in consideration of any tax proposal, whether to increase or decrease them. I fear the backlash displayed may be more “biting off your nose to spite your face” than good rationale.
Denny Hill lives in Castle Rock. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
