2018 COLORADO MID TERM ELECTION
MEASURES
First,
I LOATHE that Colorado makes laws REGULARLY through Constitutional
Amendment. It is a dumb way to operate
and our constitution is WAY TO EASY to amend.
But at the same time it is too hard to amend to fix little unintended
consequences of the last election’s constitutional amendment. An amendment campaign for a little “tweak”
costs too much to do for that little “tweak” so we learn to live with it – and
it SUCKS! I wish we did make law this
way, but we do… Here are my takes on
this year’s midterm ballot. I have to give a huge nod to Ross Kaminsky for his
posted analysis. I used his information
as a basis of where to start – I removed a lot and added some and here is my
summary.
AMENDMENT A: YES
Purpose:
The Colorado Constitution currently says "There shall never be in this
state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Amendment A
would remove everything after the first comma so the part about “punishment for
a crime…” and all after that would be gone.
I am
sort of on the fence on this one. I
think it will somehow affect the department of corrections and they will say
that they are “slaves” if made to work for low or no wage. The pundits say that it is just to get the
word slavery out of the Constitution and remove any remote possibility of
slavery in Colorado. I think that is a
STRETCH and I will be watching the ACLU on this one… I am barely a YES because of this and might
still waffle…because I what I think will happen with the Department of
Corrections.
AMENDMENT V:
Purpose:
To lower the minimum age to serve in the Colorado state legislature from 25 to
21.
NO, NO,
NO, HELL NO! I have met FEW 21 year olds
who would be remotely qualified and frankly few 25 year olds. Live a little LIFE first and then you can
make decisions that affect me J Until you
have paid some taxes and paid your own bills for a while, I don’t trust your
judgement. Until you have actual skin in
the game you don’t get to affect my skin.
AMENDMENT W: YES
Purpose:
To allow county clerks to shorten the judicial retention part of ballots by
asking the retention question at the top of the list of each court's judges
where judges are facing retention, rather than having to repeat the entire
question for each judge. So the ballot will just have a single retention
question at the top of the judges and the judges will be listed.
Right
now they have to print out the whole retention question for EACH judge. The current method is dumb, lengthy and it
will save tax-payer dollars to have shorter ballots. Easy-peasy.
AMENDMENT X: YES
Purpose:
To remove the definition of "industrial hemp" from the state
Constitution so that it will be defined either by federal law or by Colorado
statute. This is a good idea because ANY TIME a definition is in the
constitution it is totally inflexible.
Researchers are finding that slightly higher THC is needed to make
quality CBC (medical) products. This
doesn’t abolish the need for a clear definition, it just takes it out of the
constitution. The whole NEED for this
amendment to the constitution is because something was put IN the constitution
that shouldn’t have been.
AMENDMENT Y: YES
Purpose:
To create an INDEPENDENT COMMISSION for the purpose of drawing Colorado's
congressional district maps every 10 years, to end the political shenanigans
(which are stunning and unacceptable).
This
would create a 12-member commission composed of 4 members from the state's largest
political party, 4 members from the state's second-largest party, and 4
unaffiliated members. "The commissioners will be chosen by a panel of the
three most recently retired judges from the Colorado Supreme Court or Colorado
Court of Appeals, no more than one of whom may be registered with any one
political party and the panel's decisions must be unanimous." There is a
bit more to it but this amendment is designed to minimize the ability of one
political party to dominate or control the results. We need to STOP THIS. It always ends up in the courts and it always
produces bad results. Colorado has
pathetic gerrymandering. This may not be perfect but it is SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT
WE HAVE.
AMENDMENT Z: YES (THIS IS
COUPLED WITH Y ABOVE)
Purpose:
To create an independent commission for the purpose of drawing Colorado's state
legislative maps every 10 years. This is the analog of Amendment Y but for the
state legislature rather than the federal Congress. This is sort of a 2-part
amendment and both need to be supported.
Amendment 73: NO (HELL NO – NOT
ON A COLD OR HOT DAY IN HELL OR ANYWHERE ELSE)
Purpose:
To increase income tax rates on Coloradans earning over $150,000 (whether as
individuals or married filing jointly) from 4.63% to a maximum rate of 8.25%,
ostensibly to support a new "Quality Public Education Fund" and to
fund specified minimum expenditures on a per-pupil basis, and for specific
programs such as full-day kindergarten, preschool, gifted & talented, and
English language proficiency. There would be a very small drop in the
residential property tax rate (from 7.2% to 7%), a drop in the commercial
property tax rate (from 29% to 24%) and an increase in the corporate income tax
rate from 4.63% to 6%. Those who support this claim the measure would raise
$1.6 billion annually – which also means they are TAKING $1.6 BILLION dollars
from US!
Colorado
is not suffering from a shortage of revenue. In the Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the
state's operating budget was $19.54 billion. In FY 2018-2019 the budget is
$30.63 billion, an increase of 57% in less than a decade. During that same
period, the state's population rose from approximately 5.03 million people to
5.68 million people, an increase of 13 percent. Spending rose more than four
times faster than the population – WTF? THIS MEANS THEY ARE SPENDING OUR MONEY
REALLY POORLY!! I refuse to give government more of our hard-earned paychecks
UNTIL THEY CONTROL THEIR OWN SPENDING.
VERBATIM FROM ROSS KAMINSKY: Furthermore,
this bill would add multiple tax brackets (as noted below) to our state's
flat-tax system which is one of the aspects of Colorado law that attracts
business and investment. It would also add a potentially enormous marriage
penalty for successful couples. Imagine a couple where one person earns
$140,000 and one earns $165,000. Under Amendment 73, that couple's tax rate
would go from 4.63% to 7%. Keep in mind that with the $10,000 cap on federal
deductibility of the combination of state income tax and property tax, there is
(properly) nowhere to hide from state income tax hikes. And that fact is
causing population to leave high-tax states...which is what Colorado will
instantly become if this terrible idea passes. Add an increase in the corporate
tax rate which will have an additional negative effect on economic growth and
employment (despite small drops in property tax rates) and you have a proposal
that will raise substantially less money than proponents suggest.
THIS IS TIED WITH
PROPOSITION 112 AS BEING THE WORST MEASURE ON THE 2018 BALLOT IN COLORADO. If
you do nothing else make sure you vote NO on 73. It is HORRIBLE!
AMENDMENT 74: YES.
Purpose:
To amend the Colorado State Constitution to require the government to
compensate landowners (or owners of other property) if the value of the
land/property is reduced through the enactment of a state law or regulation.
If a
government takes your land through eminent domain to put in a freeway, they
have to pay your fair market value for it.
But what if you bought some agricultural land, way out for a gravel pit
(this is based on a real event). This
was your investment and would pay for your grandkids' college. The zoning when you bought it allowed for
that use. Fast forward a decade. The local government undertakes a massive
government-driven rezone of all lands like yours. Suddenly because of that act, of which you
were not a party, rezoned your investment property in such a way that gravel
pits were no longer allowed. The value
of a property is based on its highest and best use. Suddenly this valuable use is no longer
available. In a severed state like
Colorado oftentimes another party owns the mineral rights below the surface. Our example rezone strips the person who owns
the mineral rights of their asset. This proposition says that if a government
act, such as a massive re-zoning, devalues your property, then you would have
to be compensated for that loss in value; they have affected your rights
associated with your property.
While
this will create some messes, I can already see their potential, it will also
cause governments to do thorough research before they undertake massive
rezones. The messes are pain-in-the-ass people who will make egregious claims
about their “plans” for their property (when they never had any) that they now
can’t do if they are rezoned. They will
come up with some stupid story about the ONE thing they can no longer “do” on
their property and will file a lawsuit and demand to be compensated with tax
payer dollars for something that was never, ever really on their horizon and
never within their power to actually do.
AMENDMENT 75: YES
Purpose:
To amend campaign contribution limits for statewide (non-federal) candidates so
that if any candidate donates or loans one million dollars or more to his/her
own campaign, then the campaign contribution limits would rise to five times
their then-current level.
While
Amendment 75 IS called "Stop Buying our Elections" by its supporters
though doesn't go far enough, it's a step in the right direction. What is true
is that Colorado has VERY LOW campaign contribution limits. This seems like a GOOD thing. BUT it has a downside – very rich people who
want to run can “loan” their campaign their own money. That is why and how the wealthy win elections
here! What this does is allow their
competition to have higher campaign limits if a candidate lends his or her own
campaign one million dollars or more.
Right now the max contribution for a single candidate is $1,150 and only
$400 for a state legislature election.
Think about how MANY individuals would need to contribute to raise a
million dollars to run against a rich opponent! Colorado’s limits are the
lowest in the country – well the $1150 is the 2nd lowest and the
$400 is THE lowest. So this just gives a
boost to a guy or gal who is up against wealth.
It is a drop in the bucket but it helps.
Proposition 109: YES, YES,
YES!!!!!! Also known as, “FIX OUR
DAMNED ROADS!”
Purpose:
To require the state government to issue $3.5 billion in bonds "with the
proceeds to be spent solely on road and bridge expansion, construction,
maintenance and repair" on a specified list of projects across the state,
and to repay the bonds out of existing state revenue sources, i.e. without
raising taxes. I repeat – this does NOT raise taxes. To be totally honest it does utilize some of
the higher taxes we will pay to the state since the federal government tax
reform. It shifted some taxes from the
federal pot to the state pot. But that
is already done we might as well grab it and seriously earmark it for something
we ALL NEED and not let the legislature use it for their pet programs.
Like
in Amendment 73, our state government under back-to-back Democratic governors
has massively increased spending, particularly with John Hickenlooper's MASSIVE
Medicaid expansion after the passage of Obamacare – we have SO MUCH MORE
REVENUE THAN THEY WANT TO YOU BELIEVE and they have spent it on welfare-type
projects and for handouts. At the same
time they TOTALLY neglected what was needed to take care of our critical road
and bridge infrastructure. Like in ANY other amendment, I am NOT GIVING THEM
MORE MONEY. They have PLENTY of MONEY
and this amendment acknowledges that and earmarks it. They need to manage money MUCH better and
stop spending on things that win them elections and instead on things we all
need – LIKE ROADS. This amendment
addresses very specific ROAD PROJECTS THAT SIMPLY MUST HAPPEN AND SHOULD HAVE
HAPPENED DECADES AGO.
PROPOSITION 110: NO, NO, NO (THIS ONE ISN'T REALLY ALL ABOUT ROADS)
Purpose:
To authorize the Colorado Dept. of Transportation to issue up to $6 billion
dollars in bonds to fund "transportation" and fund the repayment of
the bonds by raising the state sales and use tax from 2.9% to 3.52% for 20
years, raising an anticipated $767 million annually from Colorado shoppers.
This
bill is a smoke and mirrors one. Only a
minor fraction of the revenue goes actually to ROADS. The rest goes to local government for their
pet projects and to “multi-modal” projects: busses, rail, bikes paths,
etc. I am not saying that some of those
projects don’t have value but we need focused work on ROADS and nothing but
ROADS.
As far
as rewarding bad government, I oppose Proposition 110 for exactly the reasons
that I support Proposition 109 – they have the money, the have HAD the money
but instead they funded their pet projects.
UNTIL THEY SPEND MY MONEY MORE WISELY I SURE AS HELL AM NOT GIVING THEM
MORE! But wait, there's more: Prop 110 would send 15 percent of the money it
will spend on "multimodal transportation" to include mass transit and
walking and bike paths. I need the roads fixed; I don't need to subsidize more bike
paths, urban light rail or busses. This
will take money from ALL Coloradans and inject it into primarily the urban
areas, once again rural Colorado gets screwed. What it also does is hamstring local
government – that is YOUR backyard. It
raises the base, state sales tax so if a local government needs to fund a local
project through a local tax increase, people are less likely to vote to support
it because the base sales tax is so high.
This would put the sales tax level for Brighton and a few other Cities over
10% because their local taxes are already so high.
PROPOSITION 111: NO
Purpose:
To reduce the maximum allowable interest rate on short-term "payday"
loans to 36% per year and bar any other fees or finance charges associated with
such loans.
These
are expensive but very high risk loans. But they are VOLUNTARY transactions
among the borrowers and lenders which government should stay the heck out of. (Colorado
already regulates rates and fees on these loans; this measure would regulate
them much more aggressively.) Proposition 111 is a measure supported by
do-gooder liberals who don't care if they hurt the poor as long as they can
claim their intentions are good, and shady bankers with a history of preying on
the poor. This is government over-reach
telling a group of people they are too dumb to make their own decisions and government
injecting themselves into the private sector telling them how they can and can’t
run their business.
PROPOSITION 112: NO (HELLLLLLLLL
NO, NO, NO!) NO, NO and did I say NO?
Purpose:
To mandate that any new oil and gas development projects, including fracking,
other than those on federal lands, be at least 2,500 feet from occupied
buildings (homes, schools, hospitals, etc.) and any other areas that government
defines as "vulnerable" which would include almost every body of
water along with parks, playgrounds, open space and an essentially unlimited
range of other places.
So
HERE is a HOOT!! The Democrat dude
running for Governor, Jared Polis, is now advertising that he is “opposed” to
this amendment – it was in part HIS IDEA!!
He realized that he had better jump on the bandwagon but HE HELP FUND
THE DAMNED THING. You have GOT to
REMEMBER that when casting a vote for Governor!
This is the sort of thing that he will promote. Now back to this S.T.U.P.I.D. amendment… It is being called by many the “WORST BALLOT
MEASURE EVER IN COLORADO” (remember Polis funded it when you vote). This would take nearly ALL OF WELD COUNTY
(just as an example) out of oil production.
The job losses for this one are projected to exceed 100-150,000 in the
first decade. The state GDP would drop
by $26 BILLION by 2030 and the losses to state and local tax revenue would
exceed $1 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!! This
proposition would truly TUBE the state’s economy. It would end land investment as we know
it. The cascade effect that it will have
on roads, schools, and multitudes of other seemingly unrelated projects and programs
would be devastating. If this passes the
negative effects will be MONUMENTAL.
SO AGAIN – NO AND
HELL NO ON PROP 112!
