Colorado Politics Thread, nothing to see here (Sportsfan68)

[WheresFanny]

You are very funny in the Six Pack thread. Even if you had to spell it out in big, bright letters. Ha!

Anyway, you seem to be quite informed on political matters and, even though I disagree with many of your stances, it appears that you know your stuff.

So, can you possibly tell me WTF is the deal with Amendment 58? It confuses the hell out of me. The opposing ads seem to be saying the same thing and the exact opposite thing at the same time. I don't get it.

The Amendment 58 proponents have started dragging out the middle-aged couples in work shirts and sweater cardigans for their ads, which is usually a clue that panic has started to set in and they're desperate for the common man vote since said common man has started to figure out that it's not such a good deal for them.

[SportsFan68]

The only reason I changed the color is because the bold face looked the same as the regular to me.

I have very strong opinions on Amendment 58, even though it would make our colleague BobJ suspicious of me.

What 58 does is end the severance tax waiver which big oil companies have enjoyed for 30 years, to the tune of about 320 million dollars, turning ridiculous profits into obscene profits. I have no problem with profits, but I do believe that ridiculous profits are enough, especially when the difference between ridiculous and obscene in this case would have gone, as it does in every other state, into benefiting those people in the cardigans.

Characterizing it as a tax hike is also ridiculous -- it only ends the waiver, which was meant to encourage expansion of an industry which probably didn't need any encouraging, but there it was.

One of my local colleagues puts it a little more calmly:

Amendment 58 proposes a change to Colorado's Statutes to
eliminates a state tax credit for an industry that is
currently experiencing record profits, and has been making
enormous profits from Colorado resources for years.

The effort to get this initiative on the ballot, and to support
its passage has been led by Governor Bill Ritter.

Colorado currently has the lowest severance tax rate among the 8
western states with large energy resources. By eliminating the
state tax credit and tightening the small-well tax exemption,
Amendment 58 increases the compensation that Colorado citizens
receive for the extraction of our natural resources and brings
Colorado's tax rate more in line with other states (3rd of 8,
rather than 8th of 8 ).

Raising the extraction cost of those resources is not likely to
have much of an effect on production in Colorado as oil and gas
production is necessarily limited by the location of reserves.

The energy companies have been spending millions to run a major ad
campaign against this amendment because they want to absolutely
maximize their profits. They should not be so greedy.

By voting YES on 58 we make the common sense decision to stop
giving the wealthiest companies in the world huge tax breaks in
Colorado.

The increased severance tax revenue would be allocated to college
scholarships for state residents, wildlife habitat, renewable
energy projects, transportation projects in energy-impacted areas,
and water treatment grants.

[WheresFanny]

The only reason I changed the color is because the bold face looked the same as the regular to me.

By spelling it out in big, bright letters I meant having to overtly state what it is you were getting at, not the actual font. Ha!

I have very strong opinions on Amendment 58, even though it would make our colleague BobJ suspicious of me.

What 58 does is end the severance tax waiver which big oil companies have enjoyed for 30 years, to the tune of about $320 million dollars, turning ridiculous profits into obscene profits. I have no problem with profits, but I do believe that ridiculous profits are enough, especially when the difference between ridiculous and obscene in this case would have gone, as it does in every other state, into benefiting those people in the cardigans.

Characterizing it as a tax hike is also ridiculous -- it only ends the waiver, which was meant to encourage expansion of an industry which probably didn't need any encouraging, but there it was.

That's what is so confusing. The 'con' ads highlight a line that states it's a "320 million dollar tax". So it's 'Big Oil' (if I never have to hear that phrase again it will still be too much!) behind the con ads? I hate the groups that have names that say nothing about who they really are.

What about the 'special goodies' that Ritter added for his friends? I must admit I was a little suspicious of that because they never specified what even one of said goodies was exactly.

My main concern is Amendment 48. That one is the scariest, but 58 is the most confusing.

[WheresFanny]

I changed the subject title, because nobody would suspect a thread started by me was about politics. Ha!

So, this way those that want to stay out of all the political threads won't have to waste time wanting to know what juicy stuff is being discussed by the two of us.

As well as those who wouldn't be interested or aren't really affected one way or the other, which I think is everybody other than sprots and me.

[SportsFan68]

That's what is so confusing. The 'con' ads highlight a line that states it's a "320 million dollar tax". So it's 'Big Oil' (if I never have to hear that phrase again it will still be too much!) behind the con ads? I hate the groups that have names that say nothing about who they really are.

Yes, the big oil companies are 100% behind the financing of those ads. That's the troube with "527" organizations, they're shadowy and don't have to tell who they are in the ad.

What about the 'special goodies' that Ritter added for his friends? I must admit I was a little suspicious of that because they never specified what even one of said goodies was exactly.

Of course they didn't! The money is specified to go to higher education scholarships, wildlife habitat preservation, clean energy production, transportation, and drinking water and wastewater projects.

I admit I'm not thrilled with putting the scholarships at the top of the list. A severance tax is designed to help mitigate the impacts the severance creates -- added stress on infrastructure, water and wastewater systems, etc. etc. I'd like to have seen the priorities order reversed. But that's not enough to cause me to vote No, and another that's attractive, it amends the statutes, not the constitution. So the legislature can reverse the order next year if they see fit.


My main concern is Amendment 48. That one is the scariest, but 58 is the most confusing.

48 is screamingly scary, and it needs to go down hard. This is from a supporter:

"Burton repeatedly agreed that discussions on controversial topics such as abortion, birth control and a mother's rights need to take place, but hesitated to discuss any single topic in detail.

" 'Before we deal with these important life issues, let's decide who we believe a person is and who we're going to protect and has rights in our society,' she said."

And yet, she refused to discuss the right of a person to terminate a pregnancy which had been caused by rape or incest. Even if 48 did pass, it would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Can you imagine any court requiring a woman or girl to bear her rapist's child?

I hope it goes down 5 or 6 to 1.

[WheresFanny]

Reading this back over, I realized that it might sound like I was downing you for spelling out things over in the six pack thread. I was actually complimenting you and just noting that it's a drag when you (the universal you) have to spell out your cleverness when people don't get it.

As for 48, the Independent had a very thought provoking article on it last week. It's kind of a hippy dippy outfit (think Manitou crossed with Boulder) but I like the paper.

http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A30405

Oddly enough, my grandma called me this morning shortly after I read your responses here for help with her ballot.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Speaking of Colorado politics... Maddie and I went to LA to see a play last night. The tickets were part of our season tickets package at the Kirk Douglas Theater. When they sold me the package, they really talked up some of the plays, like Heddatron, Hedda Gabbler with robots, but they really didn't talk about last night's play.

So anyway, we showed up and started watching the play. It was called "This Beautiful City" and it was about Colorado City, the Evangelical Movement, Focus on the Family, New Life Church and Ted Haggard. Oh yeah, it was a musical and they kept mentioning Pike's Peak, something that ranks up there with OJ Simpson with me. The musical numbers were all Christian Rock or Revival types of numbers.

It was the first time ever that I left a play at intermission. Maddie was amazed that I lasted that long.

[WheresFanny]

So anyway, we showed up and started watching the play. It was called "This Beautiful City" and it was about Colorado City, the Evangelical Movement, Focus on the Family, New Life Church and Ted Haggard. Oh yeah, it was a musical and they kept mentioning Pike's Peak, something that ranks up there with OJ Simpson with me. The musical numbers were all Christian Rock or Revival types of numbers.

It was the first time ever that I left a play at intermission. Maddie was amazed that I lasted that long.

Colorado City is that wacky joint in Arizona where Warren Jeffs' bunch hangs out. The subject of this play is Colorado Springs.

Counterintuitive I know, but Pikes Peak has no apostrophe.

[BigDrawMan]

we dont have a mineral extraction tax in panow that Big Gas is tapping the marcellus shale deposit, fast eddie is trying to cobble something together.or he will sell the turnpike to spain. this board looks different for some reason

[cindy.wellman]

The only reason I changed the color is because the bold face looked the same as the regular to me.

I have very strong opinions on Amendment 58, even though it would make our colleague BobJ suspicious of me.

What 58 does is end the severance tax waiver which big oil companies have enjoyed for 30 years, to the tune of about 320 million dollars, turning ridiculous profits into obscene profits. I have no problem with profits, but I do believe that ridiculous profits are enough, especially when the difference between ridiculous and obscene in this case would have gone, as it does in every other state, into benefiting those people in the cardigans.

Characterizing it as a tax hike is also ridiculous -- it only ends the waiver, which was meant to encourage expansion of an industry which probably didn't need any encouraging, but there it was.

One of my local colleagues puts it a little more calmly:

Amendment 58 proposes a change to Colorado's Statutes to
eliminates a state tax credit for an industry that is
currently experiencing record profits, and has been making
enormous profits from Colorado resources for years.

The effort to get this initiative on the ballot, and to support
its passage has been led by Governor Bill Ritter.

Colorado currently has the lowest severance tax rate among the 8
western states with large energy resources. By eliminating the
state tax credit and tightening the small-well tax exemption,
Amendment 58 increases the compensation that Colorado citizens
receive for the extraction of our natural resources and brings
Colorado's tax rate more in line with other states (3rd of 8,
rather than 8th of 8 ).

Raising the extraction cost of those resources is not likely to
have much of an effect on production in Colorado as oil and gas
production is necessarily limited by the location of reserves.

The energy companies have been spending millions to run a major ad
campaign against this amendment because they want to absolutely
maximize their profits. They should not be so greedy.

By voting YES on 58 we make the common sense decision to stop
giving the wealthiest companies in the world huge tax breaks in
Colorado.

The increased severance tax revenue would be allocated to college
scholarships for state residents, wildlife habitat, renewable
energy projects, transportation projects in energy-impacted areas,
and water treatment grants.

Sprots,

I ask this next question in a very sincere way. I'm asking because I truthfully want to know, not because I have an agenda:

Would you say that the abolition of the waiver would be the same thing as when the Alaska state government stopped the tax breaks that the, ugh, "big oil companies" were receiving there?

I see it as such, and I applauded that decision.

[Bob78164]

this board looks different for some reason

Nothing's changed, beedums. It must be your big blue eyes acting up on you. --Bob

[WheresFanny]

Sprots,

I ask this next question in a very sincere way. I'm asking because I truthfully want to know, not because I have an agenda:

Would you say that the abolition of the waiver would be the same thing as when the Alaska state government stopped the tax breaks that the, ugh, "big oil companies" were receiving there?

I see it as such, and I applauded that decision.

What was the consumer outcome as a result of this move? I ask because the No on 58 people have started with the 'just folks' ads to combat the Yes on 58 people's 'just folks'. A nice lady pumping gas and unloading groceries tells me that the all of us just folks will end up paying the $320 million for 'big oil' through gas prices, groceries and heating bills (then she shows us her heating bill with a "gas cost adjustment"). And, that makes sense, because all companies end up paying for increased costs through their prices.

Now I'm back to not sure on 58.

[gotribego26]

I understand the change to the extraction tax - I have no idea what the right number is, but I don't want them destroying my state because the extraction tax makes it more desirable to drill there. Make it an even field so they look where they are more likely to find oil.

I'm guessing that there will be some pass through to consumers - but $324 million from an industry that has a trillion of revenue seems likely to be pretty small. I don't think any of this gets refined in Colorado. So it leaves the filed goes somewhere and gets thrown in with a bunch of other oil and gets spread around. I think most of it will be paid by folks outside of Colorado (which I like if I'm a Coloradianite).

What I don’t understand is the whole property tax issue - does this put some areas at a disadvantage compared to where they are today - has this been thought out?

But my biggest problem is that this commits tax revenue to a specific purpose - after 23 hasn't Colorado learned a thing? Change the tax, ask for a TABOR exception if you need it and let smart folks figure out the right way to use it.

Given the swings in the Colorado economy why do you keep committing to the spending of future revenues? It would be like you having a good year and committing only to buy Filet Mignon for the rest of your life - If you have a bad year, a couple of hamburgers makes sense in the future.

I voted against 23 when I lived there for that reason - I liked the idea of supporting education, I thought TABOR was too restrictive but committing to a ten year spending plan was not smart, IMHO. Committing to this plan seems foolish to me also.

If 59 passes that means you've created budget stress for 10 years and had to pass two referendums to deal with the mess created by 23.

It seems that the spending half of this idea is flawed. .

[SportsFan68]

Sprots,

I ask this next question in a very sincere way. I'm asking because I truthfully want to know, not because I have an agenda:

Would you say that the abolition of the waiver would be the same thing as when the Alaska state government stopped the tax breaks that the, ugh, "big oil companies" were receiving there?

I see it as such, and I applauded that decision.

The Alaska situation may be the same thing, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. I agree in general that companies which are already making extremely high profits shouldn't get extra help in increasing them at the expense of regular taxpayers.

[SportsFan68]

. . .

But my biggest problem is that this commits tax revenue to a specific purpose - after 23 hasn't Colorado learned a thing? Change the tax, ask for a TABOR exception if you need it and let smart folks figure out the right way to use it.

Given the swings in the Colorado economy why do you keep committing to the spending of future revenues? It would be like you having a good year and committing only to buy Filet Mignon for the rest of your life - If you have a bad year, a couple of hamburgers makes sense in the future.

I voted against 23 when I lived there for that reason - I liked the idea of supporting education, I thought TABOR was too restrictive but committing to a ten year spending plan was not smart, IMHO. Committing to this plan seems foolish to me also.

If 59 passes that means you've created budget stress for 10 years and had to pass two referendums to deal with the mess created by 23.

It seems that the spending half of this idea is flawed. .

The use of any new tax revenue has to be designated under regulations created by TABOR. There was a big court fight a couple years ago about whether issues similar to the one in 58 were even covered by TABOR since it could be argued it's not "new," but the judge said Yes. He believed that the intent of the electorate was to cover all such issues.

Given the swings in the Colorado economy, every sane person should have voted no on the original TABOR law, but insanity prevailed in that case, and we've been dealing with it ever since.

59 is a great idea because it de-Bruces Colorado forever. But part and parcel with that is the required revenue designation. I don't only agree that the spending half is flawed, I think that the only piece of TABOR that's not flawed is the part that taxpayers have to vote Yes on new taxes. People have been very generous when officials have demonstrated the need, such as the new local library. Or, as in the case of a road-fixing bond that failed about three elections ago, the need demonstrates itself. Ever since the bond failed, one heavily-trafficked road has steadily crumbled, and fixing the potholes has amounted to a band-aid. The same bond issue, with changes only in the dates and inflation adjustment, is expected to pass easily this time around.

[gotribego26]

The use of any new tax revenue has to be designated under regulations created by TABOR. There was a big court fight a couple years ago about whether issues similar to the one in 58 were even covered by TABOR since it could be argued it's not "new," but the judge said Yes. He believed that the intent of the electorate was to cover all such issues.

Given the swings in the Colorado economy, every sane person should have voted no on the original TABOR law, but insanity prevailed in that case, and we've been dealing with it ever since.

59 is a great idea because it de-Bruces Colorado forever. But part and parcel with that is the required revenue designation. I don't only agree that the spending half is flawed, I think that the only piece of TABOR that's not flawed is the part that taxpayers have to vote Yes on new taxes. People have been very generous when officials have demonstrated the need, such as the new local library. Or, as in the case of a road-fixing bond that failed about three elections ago, the need demonstrates itself. Ever since the bond failed, one heavily-trafficked road has steadily crumbled, and fixing the potholes has amounted to a band-aid. The same bond issue, with changes only in the dates and inflation adjustment, is expected to pass easily this time around.

Ok, now I understand - but as flawed as TABOR is, 23 made it much worse - spending decisions like that should not be mandated. This doesn't mess with TABOR, but in order for the money to go elsewhere it has to be designated. Oh well, at least I don't have to worry about how to vote. I think it is as clear as mud. I also suspect they will collect less than the planned $320 million, but at least they designated percentages not dollar amounts. I do think most of the tax will not hit Colorado consumers.

[christie1111]

Oh that all the political threads can be as civilized as this!

How refreshing!

[SportsFan68]

Ok, now I understand - but as flawed as TABOR is, 23 made it much worse - spending decisions like that should not be mandated. This doesn't mess with TABOR, but in order for the money to go elsewhere it has to be designated. Oh well, at least I don't have to worry about how to vote. I think it is as clear as mud. I also suspect they will collect less than the planned $320 million, but at least they designated percentages not dollar amounts. I do think most of the tax will not hit Colorado consumers.

You'll get no argument from me. Between TABOR, 23, old Amendment 45 (which bounces personal property tax limits off commercial property tax collected within a county), and oh yeah, Arveschoug-Bird, which limits governmental growth to 6%, we called our 2003 mess The Perfect Storm. Arveschough-Bird was never really part of the problem, though. It was something that legislators kept in mind as they struggled with the consequences of The Perfect Storm.

You are correct about the "much worse" part. If things had continued as they were, without the brilliant work of Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff's team and their crafting of Referenda C and D, the entire Colorado budget would have been dedicated to K-12 education in about a dozen years.

And finally, a word about term limits. We're without the services of dozens of highly-qualified legislators, including Speaker Romanoff, because voters would not accept that they always had the power of term limits at the ballot box, and instead threw the baby out with the bathwater. Sigh. We're going to miss Romanoff keenly.

[WheresFanny]

Oh that all the political threads can be as civilized as this!

How refreshing!

I think it might be because we are interested in asking the opinions of others to perhaps learn something instead of posting solely to denigrate or find an opening to force our opinions on others. Maybe it's just me. Ha!

Welcome to Colorado, beyotch!

(I feel a little weird about addressing christie as 'beyotch' but hope she knows the spirit in which it is given.)

[SportsFan68]

All y'all are welcome to visit anytime.

Keep Colorado green, bring money!

[WheresFanny]

59 is a great idea because it de-Bruces Colorado forever.

If only we could be that lucky! I used to have to deal with his slumlording self every day and he's the biggest ass that ever assed.

Even so, I do kinda like the idea of TABOR. The concept of it, at least. The realization and execution leaves quite a bit to be desired.

[WheresFanny]

I would wager that you are a big Udall fan, sprots. I have to say that I really like the bent that his new ads have taken. They are some of the few that I can actually tolerate at this point.

[SportsFan68]

I would wager that you are a big Udall fan, sprots. I have to say that I really like the bent that his new ads have taken. They are some of the few that I can actually tolerate at this point.

I am a big Udall fan. I really like that he voted against the bailout twice.

Where my support originated was how green he is. I think that Udall, Senator Salazar, and Representative Salazar will be an excellent team with regard to protecting the environment.

I can't stand the Schaffer ads and turn the radio off, which does not endear me to my local radio owner. So far in Fifth Grader, there haven't been any political ads, so I don't have to turn it off.

[gotribego26]

I am a big Udall fan. I really like that he voted against the bailout twice.

Don't get too excited - Elizabeth DOle voted against it - but she only got to do it once.

Although the fact that Udall thumbed his nose at Pelosi is admirable.

[SportsFan68]

I am a big Udall fan. I really like that he voted against the bailout twice.

Don't get too excited - Elizabeth DOle voted against it - but she only got to do it once.

Although the fact that Udall thumbed his nose at Pelosi is admirable.

OK, I won't.

I just hope he prevails against $15 million of attack ads.