Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills

The following article originally was published in the May 11, 2009, edition of Grand Junction's Free Press.

Legislature passes job-killing bills

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

The Colorado legislature is pro-business in roughly the same way that throwing a dog a bone after beating him mercilessly is pro-dog.

That didn't stop three journalists -- Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal, Peter Marcus of the Denver Daily News, and Steven Paulson of the Associated Press -- from regurgitating political propaganda last week about "job creation" bills and calling it news.

So now we'll give you the full story. (We figure if you're going to get lame editorials on the news pages elsewhere, you might as well get some real news on the editorial pages here.)

The main "jobs" measure in question is House Bill 1001, fawned over by politicians, bureaucrats, and various journalists alike. While the measure features Democrats as lead sponsors, various Republicans also signed on, including Steve King and Josh Penry.

Bill 1001 adds several new pages of tortured legalese to the Colorado statutes (section 39-22-531, because we know you'll want to look it up later) allowing the Colorado Economic Development Commission, at its discretion, to offer a "job growth incentive tax credit," as calculated in accordance with the bill.

And what is the Colorado Economic Development Commission? Its web page notes, "It consists of nine members five of whom are appointed by the Governor, two by the President of the Senate and two by the Speaker of the House."

Those of you who thought we lived in a free-market economy were sorely mistaken. Now we have a bureaucratic commission to help set the rules of business and determine the winners and losers. Business is no longer about offering goods and services on a level playing field where the laws apply the same to everybody. Now business is about sucking up to the Commissars for special political favors.

Bill 1001 is about taxing businesses with existing jobs more in order to reduce the tax burden on businesses with "new" jobs. And we're supposed to swallow the notion that these discriminatory taxes are fair.

The hidden premise behind Bill 1001 is that taxes kill jobs, a premise with which we agree. Yet, instead of reducing taxes across the board so that everyone can benefit equally, the legislature wants to reward politically-correct and politically-connected businesses at the expense of everybody else.

And Bill 1001 is the good news of the legislative session. Remember, even the Democrat-controlled legislature implicitly grants that taxes kill jobs. Therefore, the legislature has done everything it can to increase taxes during the current recession. (Note that the governor had not acted on some of these bills as of our deadline.)

During this recession, many taxpayers are taking a hit, either in reduced work, reduced wages, or less business. Yet, rather than take an equal hit, Governor Bill Ritter just signed a $17.9 billion state budget, or about $3,500 for every man, woman, and child. While the total budget is less than the $18.6 billion for 2008-09, it exceeds the $17.2 billion for 2007-08 (as relayed by the Joint Budget Committee).

To keep state spending high, the legislature has looked for new ways to make people pay. Two of the worst bills of the session raise fees on cars and hospital visits. During a recession the legislature must screw drivers and the sick especially hard to fund more bureaucracy.

Senate Bill 108, the Denver Post reports, would increase the "cost of vehicle registration by an average of $41 for typical vehicles." We continue to wonder where all our gasoline tax dollars are going.

House Bill 1293, laughably called the "Health Care Affordability Act of 2009," would impose "hospital provider fees... on outpatient and inpatient services provided by all licensed or certified hospitals."

You see, this fee will make your health care more "affordable" by forcing you to pay more for the health care of others. (Paging Dr. Orwell.)

In order to hide these fees from patients, the legislature helpfully included the following line: "A hospital shall not include any amount of the provider fee as a separate line item in its billing statements."

As we have discussed, the real problem is that the federal government forces hospitals to provide care without compensation. But the solution to the problem is to repeal those federal controls, not force even more wealth redistribution.

The legislature also passed bills to increase capital-gains taxes (bill 1366), cigarette taxes (bill 1342), and net sales taxes (bill 212). (Though we gave the Denver Business Journal a bit of heck earlier, we gratefully acknowledge the paper's reporting on these bills.)

But doesn't the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights require voter approval for all such hikes? Silly taxpayer. You have obviously confused the plain language of TABOR with the Colorado Supreme Court's transcendent reasoning. (For details, see ClearTheBenchColorado.org.)

We haven't even gotten into the bills that increase the costs of doing business and reward people for not working.

We do have one thing to be thankful for: the legislature has disbanded till January.

Supreme Court Approves Property Tax Without Vote

Steven Paulson of the AP reports, "The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a property tax measure expected raise $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years."

This tax increase was imposed despite the clear language of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which requires voter approval for tax increases.

Several Republicans immediately blasted the court's ruling.

Cory Gardner said, "The Colorado Supreme Court is the most partisan court in the United States; today's decision shows a blatant disregard for the Colorado Constitution and the taxpayers of this state who simply want to be asked first before they are taxed. Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey just managed to make Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg look like a conservative."

Josh Penry said:

It's fitting that the most partisan court in the land rubber stamped the governor's property tax increase on exactly the same day Senate Democrats are poised to repeal Colorado's landmark spending limits, and exactly two weeks after the Governor signed the largest increase in car taxes in a generation.

With loyalist Democrats in charge of the Governor's mansion, the state House, the state Senate, and the Supreme Court, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights is on life support and the principle of fiscal restraint is in full retreat.

Unfortunately for citizens, this property tax hike comes at the worst possible time -- the moment when many Coloradans are struggling just to keep their homes.

Apparently the Democrats have grown weary of controlling Colorado government, as they have now handed the Republicans a real campaign issue for next year.

Election Blues and Reviews III: Tax Hikes Lose

See also Part I, "Created Equal," and Part II, Religious Right Loses."

Something extraordinary happened in Colorado: at the same time voters elected Democrats throughout most of the state, they also rejected several tax hikes on the state ballot. So Democrats would do well not to interpret the election results as a mandate for big-government, tax-and-spend, anti-liberty, regressive "progressivism." This election was fundamentally a defeat of the Republicans, not a victory for the left's agenda. (For example, I voted for several Democrats and not a single Republican this year, yet I hardly endorse the Democrats' corporate welfare, tax hikes, and central planning.)

If national Democrats want to stay in power, they would do well to follow the lead of Colorado Democrats, and run a moderate agenda, pay off their special interests as little as politically feasible, and refrain from pissing off the nation's honorable gun owners.

The big news of of the night is that Amendment 59, the cleverly written net tax hike superficially for education, lost by a healthy margin. (See all of the ballot results.) To review quickly, 59 would have forever wiped out the tax refunds of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), thus raising net taxes forever. The measure was brilliantly conceived in that it didn't raise the rate at which taxes are collected, it allocated the money to education, and it created a "savings account." Yet, as opponents pointed out, it would merely have freed up existing money for other purposes.

Obviously the measure went down to defeat because of the article I wrote against it back in September. Kidding. Diana Hsieh put up a great web page against the measure. Penn Pfiffner and the Independence Institute put out some material criticizing the measure. Douglas Bruce, known as the father of TABOR, mailed out a flyer attacking the measure. And various bloggers joined the chorus singing no.

But I have to say I figured 59 would win. Its backers raised substantial funds and organized an effective grassroots campaign. I thought this was Referendum C all over again. Meanwhile, Jon Caldara was busy with his failed effort to curb union funding, and Hsieh and I were busy fighting Amendment 48. It's tough when Team Liberty has to go up against the religious right and the statist left at the same time.

In the end three things worked together to defeat 59, I think. First, a lot of voters remember Referendum C, TaxTracks, etc., etc. When is enough enough? Second, the economy is a little shaky, and people realize they can put their own money to good use. Third, with so many ballot measures, I think "no" became the default vote for many.

Two other important tax hikes also failed: 51 and 58. And they lost by wide margins that surprised me. Amendment 51 would have raised the sales tax for "people with developmental disabilities," while 58 would have raised net taxes on energy producers.

Other Ballot Measures

I was sorry to see Amendment 49 lose. That would have prevented government from diverting funds from the paychecks of government employees to unions. But 49 got lumped in with two anti-union measures that I opposed: 47 ("right to work") and 54 (limiting campaign contributions by government contractors). It's too bad that, in their anti-union zeal, the conservatives didn't think about protecting individual rights. Had 49 run solo on the ballot, it would have had a much better chance.

Amendment 46, which would have banned race-based affirmative action by government, remains close, but it appears to be going down. That's too bad, but its practical implications would have been slight.

The other measure worth noting, Referendum O, went down to defeat. It would have made it harder to amend the state's constitution by ballot. So it's status quo.

As far as the ballot measures go, the big news is that 48 and 59 lost. Those were the two most important issues, they were both bad, and they both went down. And that's a big reason why I'm relatively pleased with the election results.

In the next and final part, I lay out a plan for the GOP to regroup and develop a new winning coalition.

Fox 31 Interview on Amendment 59

Tonight Fox 31 news broadcast a segment by Deborah Takahara about Amendment 59. Watch it here.

Then read Diana Hsieh's great web page explaining in more detail why Amendment 59 is a bad idea.

Gaming the Voter Guide in Jefferson County

I actually had to dig my Jefferson County voter guide out of the trash after I read this story from the Denver Post. Thomas Graham of Arvada totally gamed the guide.

Here are Graham's comments, published at taxpayer expense:

The following summaries were prepared from comments filed by persons FOR the proposal: ...

Senior citizens with fixed incomes are hard-pressed to shoulder increases in property tax. These people should recognize that their reduced productivity calls for them to be replaced by the youth of our nation. This measure calls for some of the property taxes to be earmarked for: "Expanding options for career job skills and technical training to prepare students for today's work world." Half of these should be committed to the following:

Seniors on fixed incomes, to whom this school tax is burdensome, need training, as well as compassion. They must be offered the opportunity to learn how to locate more modest accommodations than those they currently occupy, and how to cope, in other communities if necessary.

This tax increase furthers the goals of our teacher unions. It is consistent with a presidential candidate's promise for change, and hope for progress toward the Socialist utopia through education. This increase could create a pad until the oppressive TABOR measures can be repealed, and the Amendment 23 extra millions for schools be made permanent. The same criteria and logic should be applied in consideration of ballot question 3B, resulting in a resounding approval of the $754 million debt. This will add as much as $69 million to the $34 million for 3A, annually, a picayune amount considering the future of our youth and well-being of the District's employees.

The Post reports:

Superintendent Cindy Stevenson said the district was prevented by law from substantially changing or eliminating Graham's comments.

Graham submitted the language minutes before the deadline for inclusion in the booklet that voters began receiving this weekend, Stevenson said.

The district's lawyers said case law prohibits "substituting their judgment with our judgment," Stevenson said.

The language is totally inappropriate (even if it's hysterical). As much as I like the spending restrictions of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, I don't like the provision that requires tax funding for the distribution of people's opinions about ballot measures.

Article X, Section 20, subsection 3(b)(v) states that a voter guide must be sent out with the following:

Two summaries, up to 500 words each, one for and one against the proposal, of written comments filed with the election officer by 45 days before the election. No summary shall mention names of persons or private groups, nor any endorsements of or resolutions against the proposal. Petition representatives following these rules shall write this summary for their petition. The election officer shall maintain and accurately summarize all other relevant written comments. The provisions of this subparagraph (v) do not apply to a statewide ballot issue, which is subject to the provisions of section 1 (7.5) of article V of this constitution.

I wish TABOR had been simpler; maybe then it would not have been continually eroded.

Update: 9News reports additional interesting details on the matter. It turns out that Graham is 84 years old -- one of the senior citizens of which he writes.

Jefferson County Schools superintendent Cindy Stevenson said (9News reports), "This did not come from Citizens for Jeffco Schools or from the district... I want to be very clear, we cherish our seniors. The statement in there is cruel."

No, what's cruel is Stevenson's plan to forcibly take more money from citizens like Graham to spend on other people's education (and, incidentally, Stevenson's own salary). The proposal is cruel; Graham's statement merely reveals that cruelty.