I've spent the past 2 months at work looking through the ballot initiatives in Colorado this year (started at 18, now it's 14, more on that later), and I've decided that I would send out a voter guide for some of us progressively-minded folks. I'm not saying that you shouldn't go and do some research on these, but the Colorado Blue Book is the size of "The Old Man and the Sea" (actually, 10 words shorter), and so I thought I would do some of the hard work for you.
So here it is, with some snarky analysis to boot:
A-46: NO. This is the so-called Civil Rights Amendment, which would completely eliminate any racial or gender preferencing by a governmental entity. Now, We might not agree on how affirmative action currently works, but getting rid of all preferences would be disastrous to minority and women-owned business, along with scholarship programs for at-risk youth and even government contracts with Native American tribes. It's bad news, and has been a disaster in other states (CA and MI, for example).
A-47: NO. This is the "Right to Work" measure, or as I like to call it "Right to Work for Less." Now, I'm not the biggest fan of unions out there, as you may know, but I do think unions serve a valuable societal function. This amendment would encourage "freeloading", or, the ability of a non-union employee to get the same benefits of those in the union without paying dues. It's simply unfair. The Colorado business community agrees, and has given $3 million to fight it. When business is taking the unions' side, you know this is dangerous.
A-48: NO. "Personhood". This is the most vague and dangerous amendment on the ballot. Period. Now, I'm pro-choice, and many of my friends are pro-life, but I think we can all agree that defining any fertilized egg as a person is terrible public policy. This would make paramedics liable for harm to any egg when treating women, it would ban chemotherapy for pregnant women who have cancer, and it would ban abortion in all cases, even to save a mother's life. On the plus side, I could create 40 "test-tube babies" and keep them in a vault, all the time collecting child tax credits.
A-49: NO. This measure would eliminate the right of public employees (police, firefighters, teachers, etc.) to voluntarily send money from their paychecks to organizations. It's just a fundamental violation of a person's first amendment right (much like 54...which I'll get to soon). 49 is part of 3 amendments (47, 49 and 54) that are being jointly opposed by labor and business.
A-50: YES. Yay, a Yes vote. This was the last vote I made on my ballot though, so take that for what you will. This is the "Limited Gaming" measure, that would allow the three cities in Colorado that already have casinos to raise the single-bet limit to $100, add craps and roulette, and extend hours. Extra tax proceeds would go to funding community colleges (probably about $80 million/year), which are woefully underfunded in the state. On the downside, it reduces the casino tax rate from 40% to 20%, so it's definitely a balancing act. I voted yes reticently, but nonetheless voted yes.
A-51. NO. The toughest vote I've made since I've been able to vote, actually. This bill would raise the state sales tax rate from 2.9 to 3.1 and earmark additional revenue to the waiting list for services to the developmentally disabled. This is an incredibly needy group in Colorado, with a 9,600 person waiting list, and they deserve more funding. I have 2 problems with the measure: first, it doesn't have a sunset clause, so the DD waitlist would get about $170 million per year starting in 2010 and going forever; and second, that in order to create systemic fiscal and healthcare reform we shouldn't siphon off smaller groups for tax increases. Where do we stop? The mental health community will be putting a tax on the ballot in 2009, and I worry about the precedent this sets. I didn't want to vote no on this TYPE of measure, but I did vote no based on the specifics.
A-52: NO. This is a constitutional change to Colorado's severance tax (for oil and natural gas), but it doesn't actually change the tax rates, just where the money goes. It would cap current funding for water projects and energy programs that are both partially funded through the severance tax (about $78 million/year) and would only allow for increases based on inflation. This means that water projects and low-income energy assistance, not to mention renewable programs and wildlife protection, will see across the board funding cuts. New revenue (almost $1 billion over 10 years) would be given to transportation projects, mainly on I-70 between Grand Junction and Limon. This has no sunset either, so if it passes we'll have a kick-ass stretch of I-70 by 2030 but no water to plant crops. Hmmm, seems like a terrible tradeoff to me.
A-53 (and 55, 56, and 57): These 4 amendments were pro-union measures, things such as workplace safety and mandatory healthcare. They were put on the ballot as a response to 47, 49, and 54 (so many damn numbers...) but have now been pulled, through an agreement between labor and business, and instead both are concentrating their energies on defeating 47, 49 and 54. IF they were still on the ballot, I would've voted NO on all 4, but they're not, so yay! We don't even have to make that choice.
A-54: NO. This so-called "Clean Government" Amendment would ban the leaders of any company that receives a sole-source government contract from giving ANY campaign donations to ANY candidate. This would also prohibit family members (including cousins) of these individuals from donating as well. It's a fundamental violation of free speech rights, but more importantly it's just a ridiculous idea: most sole-source contracts aren't given because of corruption, it's because many companies specialize in particular products and services that no other corporation in the area provides.
A-58: YES. This is another severance tax amendment (though it's statutory, not constitutional...the devil is in the details). Gov. Bill Ritter is pushing A-58, which would eliminate a current tax credit given to oil and gas companies that allows large corporations to get out of paying severance taxes almost completely. It would do some other things as well, like flatten the severance tax rate and exempt more "low-production" wells (read: mom and pop shops) from having to pay these taxes. 60% of this new revenue would be given to scholarship programs for low and middle-income students, while some would be given to water projects and transportation. This would also have NO effect on current rates for oil and natural gas for consumers, since the market prices of both commodities are set based on the international markets. Don't believe the ridiculous assertions on TV.
A-59: YES. YES. YES. You should've seen this coming, since I'm working on the campaign, but Amendment 59, the "Savings Account For Education" would create a new rainy day fund that saves money in good times so that services aren't cut in bad times. It would also dedicate a source of revenue for the current State Education Fund without raising taxes, just allowing the government to keep revenue it already receives. It also takes a step to fix the current fiscal knot in Colorado, which calls for mandatory spending increases (inflation + 1%) on education while also mandating rebates for the taxpayers (even if it's only $1) if the state takes in more than 6% over inflation in a given year. Right now, Colorado is the only state in the nation that can run a surplus AND a deficit at the same time. A-59 takes a step to change this and to make the education system more solvent.
Ref. L: YES. This lowers the age one can run for the state legislature from 25 to 21. There's not much more to it, and it seems like if you can buy beer, you should be able to run for office. If you're not experienced or bright enough, let the voters decide.
Ref. M and N: YES. These eliminate obsolete statutes in the CO constitution dealing with forestry regulations and alcohol distribution. They're simple fixes to make our constitution more manageable.
Ref. O: YES. This measure would make it more difficult to put things in the constitution while making it easier for citizens to change statutory laws. Right now, if Colorado voters can get 76,047 signatures on a petition (5% of the number of voters in the last Secretary of State's election), they can put a law on the ballot. It's how bad policies like TABOR and A-48 are even a part of the conversation. This increases the requirement for constitutional changes by 16,000 sigs and slightly reduces the number for statutory changes. It also makes a distribution requirement, so that 8% of all signatures have to be collected in each House district in the state. Let's keep Doug Bruce from destroying our state even more and pass Ref. O.
So there you have it. In short, vote YES on 50, 58, 59 and the Refs, and vote NO on everything else.
Cheers,
No comments:
Post a Comment