We asked for it, and we got it.
Last week, The Denver Post published suggestions from a bipartisan panel of former state lawmakers that centered on how to fix structural problems with the state budget that result in recurring deficits and cripple the fiscal process.
The panel included former state Sens. Norma Anderson and Penfield Tate and former state Reps. Steve Tool and Alice Madden — two Republicans and two Democrats.
As part of the package, we invited readers to share their budget-balancing ideas with us. We got an earful. The panel was castigated by readers — and we think wrongly so — for a number of issues. Here are some of the readers’ questions, along with our attempt to explain the issues in more detail.
Why did the panel focus on increasing revenue, rather than cutting spending? At the outset, the panel largely endorsed the budget-balancing (and cost-cutting) plan recently submitted by Gov. Bill Ritter before he left office. That plan closes the projected $1 billion shortfall in the $7 billion general fund.
The questions the panel chose to focus on centered on how to reform the system for the future so that higher education, in particular, would not suffer repeated devastating cuts, with the eventual result being the elimination of public support for higher education.
Some readers, though encouragingly not all, were outraged by the idea of boosting the state income tax rate by 0.37 percentage points to bring it back to 5 percent, where it was before 1999. At some point, repeated budget cuts damage the core mission of government. The panel believes — and we concur — that Colorado has reached that juncture and it is time to talk about additional resources.
Why wasn’t the panel more broadly composed? We asked former legislators to be on the panel rather than people who have known positions favoring current spending and revenue constraints.
Legislators are responsible for crafting the budget. It’s one of their main jobs. We asked people to the table who have thought deeply about these issues and would be willing to talk through answers. Someone who staunchly supported the status quo wouldn’t be interested in doing what we asked, which was to come up with ideas for change.
Do the suggestions really close the budget gap? A couple of readers criticized the panel’s suggestions — which included structural changes, revenue increases and areas to study for efficiencies — for not completely closing the $1 billion gap.
And that’s true. The panel’s intent was to craft reasonable revenue enhancements in conjunction with structural changes to address long-term problems. Panel members also highlighted areas where additional savings could be pursued.
In Colorado, spending and revenue are controlled by constitutional amendments approved by voters. The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights imposes a wide range of limitations on how much money government can collect. The Gallagher amendment, in combination with TABOR, holds down the proportion of residential tax value that is subject to taxation. And Amendment 23 guarantees minimum levels of funding for K-12 education, which comprises 43 percent of the general fund, by far the largest part of it.
That is the essence of the so-called Gordian Knot.
Why not cut corrections costs? Certain areas of the budget may not be protected by constitutional amendment, such as prisons, but are difficult to cut because of staffing requirements and other issues. There is still room for change, but it’s complicated and needs to be addressed thoughtfully. A state commission is doing just that, and our panel thought some good cost-cutting suggestions could come from their work. It’s also important to keep in mind that prisons, public safety and judicial costs comprise just 14 percent of the budget.
What about cutting staff and furloughing state employees? Many of our readers zeroed in on state personnel costs, suggesting legislators cut them across the board. It is, no doubt, an important place to look for savings. And it’s an area that has not been overlooked. During his term, Gov. Ritter pushed furloughs, two pay cuts for state employees, and three years of no pay increases.
Furthermore, it’s important to keep in mind the scope of what you can do with state employee costs. Personnel is about $596 million. Even if you furloughed every state employee for six months — impractical and irresponsible — you’ve got a long way to go to close the state budget gap.
How about cutting off funding for illegal immigrants? A touchy subject that a handful of readers brought up is illegal immigrants and the costs they impose on the state. Some said children of illegal immigrants should not be citizens; their parents should pay for their children’s K-12 education; and that illegal residents ought to be forced out of the country.
These are generally federal issues, and not easy ones at that. Changing the U.S. Constitution so the U.S.- born children of illegal immigrants are not citizens would be a massive undertaking. In addition, a U.S. Supreme Court decision requires all children, regardless of immigration status, be afforded a K-12 education.
Also, in a 2006 special session, the legislature passed a bill largely prohibiting the expenditure of taxpayer money on illegal immigrants, so that already has been minimized.
Higher ed? Enterprise zones? Suggestions that we thought had merit include finding efficiencies in higher education. One person pitched the idea of limiting enterprise zone tax credits, which the legislature did last year. Others suggested legalizing marijuana and taxing the heck out of it.
It was gratifying to see the time and energy that concerned Coloradans devoted to our budget piece. We hope the conversation has only just begun.
E-mail Alicia Caldwell at acaldwell@denverpost.com.
