More than 100 people who came to The Denver Post’s building downtown earlier today used interactive technology to learn something six lawmakers on the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee know all too well.
It’s really hard to balance the state budget.
Colorado’s conflicting constitutional amendments – restricting revenue while mandating increased spending – combined with federal law that restricts some programs from being cut, makes for a tangled mess.
“It’s a delicate balance. It’s like trying to keep 15 ping pong balls underwater all at once,” said Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, vice-chairwoman of the Joint Budget Committee.
“The moment you think you have one problem solved, something else slips up,” she said.
The purpose of the gathering Wednesday was to highlight the Colorado Backseat Budgeter, an online, interactive tool that allows ordinary people a shot at balancing the state budget. The web tool was developed by the firm Engaged Public and Colorado State University’s Bighorn Leadership Development Program.
You can try it yourself at
The forum on Wednesday was sponsored by the Post, CSU, 9News and the Colorado Health Foundation. The event featured a panel consisting of Gerou; state Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, chairwoman of the Joint Budget Committee; CSU President Tony Frank; Shepard Nevel, vice president of policy and operations for the Colorado Health Foundation; Dan Haley, editorial page editor for The Denver Post; and Tim Ryan, assistant news director for 9News.
The audience included a variety of lobbyists, policy advocates, academics, students and others. And they held interactive keypads that allowed them to vote on budget options.
The state faces a $1.1 billion shortfall in the 2011-12 fiscal year that begins in July. Gov. John Hiceknlooper has proposed a variety of cuts to help bridge the gap, including a $332 million net total reduction to K-12, which includes a $258 million reduction in general fund support.
So, Chris Adams with Engaged Public asked the audience if they agreed with Hickenlooper’s proposed cut or if they would take another route. Their choices were cutting the same $258 million in general fund support; maintaining the status quo; increasing funding by $148 million; or increasing funding by $1.8 billion to reach the national per pupil average.
Of 98 audience members who weighed in with their wireless keypads, 37 percent said they wanted to maintain the status quo while 31 percent said they would impose the same cut as Hickenlooper. So, the top choice was not cutting school funding, meaning there were no budget savings there.
So what about Hickenlooper’s proposed $36 million cut to higher education?
Audience members were asked if they wanted to reduce state funding for higher ed by 50 percent, saving $277 million; privatize one of Colorado’s major universities and close five rural community colleges, saving $76 million; only privatize one of colorado’s major universities to save $64 million; or only close five rural community colleges, saving $12 million.
Alternately, participants could restore higher ed funding to 2007-08 levels, costing $42 million; or restore higher ed funding to 2007-08 levels and fully fund the state’s community colleges, costing $133 million.
A plurality of 34 percent said they would privatize a major state university.
“Do we get to vote on which one?” Frank deadpanned.
The toughest choices came on potential tax increases. Participants were asked whether they would cut state income taxes from the current flat rate of 4.63 percent to 3.5 percent, costing $1 billion; maintain current income tax rates; return the income tax rate to the 1999 level of 5 percent, generating $341 million; raise income taxes to to 5.5 percent, generating $800 million; or switch to a graduated income tax system as some liberal groups have proposed, generating $1.1 billion.
Sixty-eight percent said they favored going to a graduated income tax system, while only 17 percent said they supported returning income taxes to 5 percent. Only 1 percent of respondents said they would actually cut taxes.
But several on the panel agreed the audience’s response wasn’t necessarily what you’d see from the public at large.
“I don’t think that would ever pass,” Haley said.
Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com
