The Era of "The Era of Big Government Is Over" Is Over

Tim Cavanaugh | November 2, 2005

Colorado votes to give up $3.7 billion in tax refunds in order to "help the state bounce back from a recession."

Republican Governor Bill Owens and a "conservative" coalition prove essential to getting the measure passed.

Inevitably, fraudsters are irate about voting irregularities in conservative districts.

More inevitably, the pro-tax vote is hailed as an example of pragmatism and "guts."

Mike Lynch explains the finer points of tax refunds.

Samuel Johnson declares "Taxation No Tyranny."

Comments

|11.2.05 @ 7:35AM|#

It seems that the Co. GOP has finally got Nixon's "We're all Keynesians now" memo.

|11.2.05 @ 7:42AM|#

It's estimated at $3.7 billion. That's the beauty of this one, we voted to forgo ALL consitutional limits on revenue. It could end up costing us more or less, depending on the economny. While there is harldy a tax increase we apperantly can't live without around here it is worth noting that the companion $2+ billion bond measure did fail.

|11.2.05 @ 7:42AM|#

Suckers.

|11.2.05 @ 7:58AM|#

"Colorado voters agreed Tuesday to give up $3.7 billion in taxpayer refunds over the next five years to help the state bounce back from a recession,..."

Er, who exactly is saying that this refund give back will help solve a recession? It may help a government budget shortfall caused by an economic recession but that would actually improve the economy is a dubious assertion at best. Paulson simply asserts this belief as fact in the first line of the article, and therefore is either guilty of sloppy writing or editorializing in his reporting.

|11.2.05 @ 8:08AM|#

"Republican state Sen. Norma Anderson said Owens "did the right thing."

She said Owens will be fine politically because "he has a long record of being a conservative."

"The far right do not understand the people of Colorado," she said. "The people in this state are very pragmatic."

Sen. Anderson must be using a different dictionary than the one I'm familiar with, where "pragmatic" means "economically ignorant" or "easily misled".

Another promising fiscal conservative Republican who's now "grown in office". Sigh.

|11.2.05 @ 9:48AM|#

The government plays a stupid trick on us every year by pretending that a tax refund is some sort of gift. It looks like the people in Colorado have actually bought it. DF, you're right. Suckers.

I'm terrified that this ignorance and stupidity is going to spread.

|11.2.05 @ 9:57AM|#

I'm disappointed by the Referendum C result (although it does appear Referendum D was defeated), but Denver voters did decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana: http://www.denverpost.com/localpolitics/ci_3173687

|11.2.05 @ 9:58AM|#

52-48, huh? It looks like the Golden State arrivistes are making their presence felt.

|11.2.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Heard it on the radio this morning.

Swell.


Evidently, not even Western pragmatism can make up for Daddy letting you stick your hand in the cookie jar.

|11.2.05 @ 10:21AM|#

SR,

Your URL appears to be broken. I do remember reading about this, though. It sounded to me like the vote was going to be pretty close.

|11.2.05 @ 10:29AM|#

sage, cut-and-paste the URL into the address bar on your browser and it should work fine.

|11.2.05 @ 10:33AM|#

SR/sage:

What are the particulars on that initiative? Is this contingent on medical use?

All of a sudden, my contempt towards the Col. voters has taken a breather..

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

The municipal legalization of under an ounce of pot in Denver is complete and unqualified, but it is probably meaningless since municipal cops regularly enforce state laws and the state laws on pot have not changed.

|11.2.05 @ 10:53AM|#

fyoder:

I think this is a great moral victory, though. Denver is obviously a major city. I've read that Oakland, too, has taken a big step towards decriminalization.

It's happening all around. A few years ago, my boy Bob Ehrlich passed a bill to effectively decriminalize medical use. And he's a Republican.

I'm a little concerned about the tactics in Denver, though. Those SAFER people may be correct in their assertions, but they are striking me as being a bit looney. MJ isn't goofy and harmless like cotten candy. There should be a strong and sober emphasis on responsible use.

|11.2.05 @ 10:54AM|#

Ha ha.

People who actually live under a "starve the beast" form of government don't like it very much.

Who woulda thunk it? I mean, besides me.

Dave W.|11.2.05 @ 11:03AM|#

I love federalism. If the higher taxes work, then the state will thrive and we will all come live with F. Otherwise, the state will do worse and people will go to other states.

No need for predictions or argument. Just another irrational rational-actor in the market for regional governance schemes. She will reap as she sows and we will all learn from her harvest, such as it may turn out to be.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 11:03AM|#

So joe, do you always think the way the majority votes proves what is right, or only when it's convenient?

|11.2.05 @ 11:09AM|#

fyodor,

Did the concept of "right" get added to my post somehow without my knowing it?

|11.2.05 @ 11:11AM|#

Fortunately for us here in Utah, our goofy liquor laws keep a lot of Californians out, so they go to Colorado instead.

Suckers.

MP|11.2.05 @ 11:20AM|#

The "starve the beast" concept deals with deficit spending. This was not the issue in CO.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 11:21AM|#

joe,

So, "I mean, besides me" wasn't meant to mean that you were right about the consequences of a "starve the beast" approach to government? While the rest of us here were wrong? Seems you're either you're splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree or being disengenuous. Or both.

|11.2.05 @ 11:22AM|#

At bottom, MP, the "starve the beast" theory deals with erecting a system that makes it impossible for enough money to flow into the general budget to do the things conservatives don't like.

That was exactly the issue in Colorado.

Achieving this result via sadding the govenrment with a huge "mortgage" payment is only one tack. Hard limits on budgets or tax levies is another.

|11.2.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Fortunately for us here in China, our goofy freedom laws keep a lot of freedom lovers out, so they go to the USA instead. :p

The "starve the beast" approach always seemed to me a cheap way of getting support from fiscal conservatives in the short term without actually changing anything in the long run. Kind of like CA's "fiscal responsibility" propositions, which make lots of noise aligning the usual supects along the typical poitical lines, but actually do nothing but provide job security for lawyers.

fyodor|11.2.05 @ 11:39AM|#

MP,

My understanding of the "starve the beast" idea is that by lowering taxes you limit the government's spending options, thereby shrinking the government. Therefore it's potentially fair, if overly simplistic, to characterize the support for the TABOR amendment in such a way.

That said, the beast wasn't so much starved in Colorado but squealing over its imminent starvation. How bad that starvation would have been is still very much an open question, and I would say the political dynamics of the situation weren't very much different than they are in any other situation in which voters weigh the pros and cons of less versus more taxes.

|11.2.05 @ 12:03PM|#

I swear. We've had something on the ballot asking to ignore TABOR "just this once" since they friggin' passed TABOR. I can't believe people finally fell for it.

|11.2.05 @ 12:16PM|#

joe- That isn't exactly the issue here in Colorado. Mandated constitutional spending has eaten up the majority of the budget leaving less for other various subsidies. The Colorado budget has never once decreased during our 'starve the beast' TABOR years. The portion of the budget that the legislature can do with as they please has decreased. To keep the pieces of the pie devoted to mandates happy, other pieces suffer. Is this bad? Depends on who you talk to I guess.

|11.2.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Ehn, I'm all for it. Let Coloradans throw their money at their government in some sort of sacrifice to the good-economy spirits.

I don't live in Colorado, after all.

R C Dean|11.2.05 @ 3:02PM|#

There was little concrete evidence that CO couldn't have ridden through the storm.

Yeah, it always amazes me when levels of spending that were fine just a few years ago suddenly become catastrophically inadequate.

|11.2.05 @ 6:12PM|#

This one hurt. I worked to defeat Ref C quite a bit, mostly by calling talk radio. I was kinda optimistic-all for not.

Republican Governor Bill Owens and a "conservative" coalition prove essential to getting the measure passed.


Owens' turn-coat support was essential in eeking out the 52%-48% win. The majority of the GOP members in the state house opposed the rip off. The measure was authored primarily by the ultra big spending Democrat Speaker of the House, Romanoff.

|11.2.05 @ 6:51PM|#

I worked to defeat Ref C quite a bit, mostly by calling talk radio.

uhhhh..... not gonna say anything...

|11.3.05 @ 1:19AM|#

crimethink,

Yeah, that occurred to me when I wrote it. :) Kinda left myself open on that one, huh? If I thought my calls actually lost us votes, I'd probably kill myself.