Prop CC is a “de-Brucing” measure. Colorado’s famous TABOR constitutional amendment, authored by Douglas Bruce, limits the amount of money a government may collect each year. Excess revenues collected must be refunded to the taxpayers unless voters have de-Bruced -- given approval for the governmental jurisdiction to keep the excess revenue.
The Denver Post notes that 230 local governments have de-Bruced. State voters agreed to a 5-year time-out from TABOR refunds in 2005 with the passage of Referendum C.
Individual tax refunds, if any, are often relatively small -- projected to be between $28 and $90 per taxpayer for the next two fiscal years. The tax rate is set and can only be increased by a vote of the electorate so governments can’t willy-nilly collect as much as they want. The state typically issues TABOR refunds through property taxes or income taxes, either by increasing the refund due to the taxpayer or by decreasing the taxes due to the state. Tax filers who overpay income taxes and expect a refund will get the complete refund; Prop CC does not affect these non-TABOR refunds.
The excess revenue would be directed in thirds to transportation projects, higher education and public preschool through 12th grade.
This ballot issue started out as House Bill 1257 sponsored by the Democratic Speaker of the House KC Becker (who represents Boulder) and another Democrat. In the senate HB 1257 had bipartisan co-sponsors. The companion bill, HB 1258, with identical sponsors specifies how to allocate the excess revenues if Prop CC passes. Both bills were signed into law.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
No other state has followed our example and handcuffed itself fiscally as we have with TABOR. Its deleterious ratchet-down effect during FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 brought a bipartisan effort to pass Ref C which effectively eliminated the ratchet-down effect in addition to de-Brucing for five years. Now the state has the opportunity to de-Bruce permanently.
In 1992 voters passed TABOR. In 1994 voters passed Referendum A “requiring that any measure proposed by initiative or referendum be confined to a single subject.” In June of this year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision that a ballot question to fully repeal TABOR would not be in violation of Colorado’s single-subject rule. However, repealing TABOR in one fell swoop would likely be a hard sell because many Coloradans appreciate the TABOR requirement that voters approve tax or debt increases.
A legal challenge to TABOR dating back to 2011 argues that requiring voter approval of tax increases is a violation of the Guarantee Clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) that calls for republican governments at the state level, not direct democracy. In July of this year the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2017 ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing so the challenge may now go forward on its merits. David Skaggs, who represented Boulder in Congress from 1987 to 1999, is an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Prosperity (aka Yes on Prop CC)
https://yesonpropcc.com/
Website for the No side – No on CC
https://votenooncc.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition CC (STATUTORY)
Without raising taxes and to better fund public schools, higher education, and roads, bridges, and transit, within a balanced budget, may the state keep and spend all the revenue it annually collects after June 30, 2019, but is not currently allowed to keep and spend under Colorado law, with an annual independent audit to show how the retained revenues are spent?
Yes/For ___
No/Against ___
HB19-1257 to refer Proposition CC to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1257_signed.pdf
HB19-1258 specifying allocation of retained funds if voters approve Prop CC
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1258_signed.pdf
The Denver Post notes that 230 local governments have de-Bruced. State voters agreed to a 5-year time-out from TABOR refunds in 2005 with the passage of Referendum C.
Individual tax refunds, if any, are often relatively small -- projected to be between $28 and $90 per taxpayer for the next two fiscal years. The tax rate is set and can only be increased by a vote of the electorate so governments can’t willy-nilly collect as much as they want. The state typically issues TABOR refunds through property taxes or income taxes, either by increasing the refund due to the taxpayer or by decreasing the taxes due to the state. Tax filers who overpay income taxes and expect a refund will get the complete refund; Prop CC does not affect these non-TABOR refunds.
The excess revenue would be directed in thirds to transportation projects, higher education and public preschool through 12th grade.
This ballot issue started out as House Bill 1257 sponsored by the Democratic Speaker of the House KC Becker (who represents Boulder) and another Democrat. In the senate HB 1257 had bipartisan co-sponsors. The companion bill, HB 1258, with identical sponsors specifies how to allocate the excess revenues if Prop CC passes. Both bills were signed into law.
Recommendation: YES/FOR
No other state has followed our example and handcuffed itself fiscally as we have with TABOR. Its deleterious ratchet-down effect during FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 brought a bipartisan effort to pass Ref C which effectively eliminated the ratchet-down effect in addition to de-Brucing for five years. Now the state has the opportunity to de-Bruce permanently.
In 1992 voters passed TABOR. In 1994 voters passed Referendum A “requiring that any measure proposed by initiative or referendum be confined to a single subject.” In June of this year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 5-2 decision that a ballot question to fully repeal TABOR would not be in violation of Colorado’s single-subject rule. However, repealing TABOR in one fell swoop would likely be a hard sell because many Coloradans appreciate the TABOR requirement that voters approve tax or debt increases.
A legal challenge to TABOR dating back to 2011 argues that requiring voter approval of tax increases is a violation of the Guarantee Clause of the US Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) that calls for republican governments at the state level, not direct democracy. In July of this year the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2017 ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing so the challenge may now go forward on its merits. David Skaggs, who represented Boulder in Congress from 1987 to 1999, is an attorney for the plaintiffs.
Website for the Yes side – Coloradans for Prosperity (aka Yes on Prop CC)
https://yesonpropcc.com/
Website for the No side – No on CC
https://votenooncc.com/
Approved Ballot Language
Proposition CC (STATUTORY)
Without raising taxes and to better fund public schools, higher education, and roads, bridges, and transit, within a balanced budget, may the state keep and spend all the revenue it annually collects after June 30, 2019, but is not currently allowed to keep and spend under Colorado law, with an annual independent audit to show how the retained revenues are spent?
Yes/For ___
No/Against ___
HB19-1257 to refer Proposition CC to the voters
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1257_signed.pdf
HB19-1258 specifying allocation of retained funds if voters approve Prop CC
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1258_signed.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comments. Please only make comments that add to a fruitful discussion.