Another reason to support TABOR (not just the refunds). Counterpoint to my contention that wolverines will be used as an environmental "lever". Thoughtless policy results in costs and consequences.
Yet another reason for you to like TABOR (and our balanced budget amendment) -- it's doing exactly what it ought to. And, no, I'm not talking refunds.
When a bill is up for committee in the legislature, the first thing that happens is that the bill's sponsor(s) take the mic and tell the committee about the bill and advocate for it.
I was waiting my turn to testify against the bill linked first below (yet another progressive attempt at controlling the appliances you can put in your home), and I heard something interesting during this phase of the hearing.
I can't remember the exact language but the upshot was that this bill might fail, even if it were to pass its committee hearings (which it did). The reason was that the bill requires money and our state isn't as flush with cash as it was before.
That is, when the bill hit appropriations (the committee that any bill that requires money to implement ends up in), it might fail because the Democrats want to put their money to other uses. The sponsors were talking with the committee members about amendments that they hoped would lower the price tag for the bill so it could pass.
Our legislature is gearing up right now to start debating and working on perhaps the most important bill of any legislative year: the state's budget.
And it seems that our state is short on money. To wit, a quote from the article linked second below:
"Facing a potential $170 million shortfall at the start of the week, lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee dipped deeply into various state cash funds in order to balance the budget, pulling money out of a number of programs to cover the spending gap."
Further down, you get a glimpse as to why:
"For months, Polis and top lawmakers had been warning that the state would face a tight budget year as federal stimulus funding runs out and economic growth slows. But state revenue forecasts released in March left the Joint Budget Committee with even less money to spend than expected."
That is, with the Feds no longer helicoptering in giant sacks of cash, and with tax revenues declining (or at least slowing from the rapid increase of the immediate post-COVID years), the state has a shortfall and the lawmakers were left scrambling to fill the hole.
You'll pardon me, but I couldn't be happier.
Despite the TABOR cap growing, (there is a formula that shows how to calculate the cap based on population and inflation), lawmakers still face an upper limit that wasn't as big as they wanted. It not only won't fund all their dreams this session, some things that were funded in the past might be left out.
Oh, and with our state's balanced budget requirement, they can't just borrow like the Feds.**
Voters' earlier sound decision making, reaffirmed more than once at the ballot box, has made it clear that we want limits on the size of government and do not want politicians to mortgage the future of our children to fund (and continue to fund) their pet projects.
I am thankful because this earlier sound decision making is taking the place of sound political decision making in a state where one party rule has led to a distinct lack of same. That is, bills like HB24-1352 might not be able to make it into law, not because there is no political will, but because there's no money.
This is part of the reason why I make such a big to-do about the importance of TABOR and governmental fiscal responsibility. It's why you should to. If you are not familiar, educate yourself. If you are, educate someone else.
We are a small series of votes going the wrong away from having absolutely NO restraint on the progressive interests that want to see the hand of government in every single aspect of your life.
**Undaunted, however, the plucky legislators at the capitol still managed some trickery. They borrowed from the state's reserves to pay for some things and then "refilled' the reserves by saying some buildings they owned can be sold if need be. This is despite questions about how quickly and at what price these assets would sell.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1352
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/22/colorado-jbc-budget-proposal-2024-2025/
Related:
Lest you think I'm overselling in the post above, I'd like to point out a couple things. First, from the Sun article I reference above (here copied for convenience):
"State workers would get 3% across-the-board raises under the proposal, plus additional pay bumps as government agencies implement a new pay plan under the state’s collective bargaining agreement."
And second, I present you the second link below where you can read about some of the progressive lawmakers' joy at "finding" money so that they can add more environmental justice pollution inspectors to CDPHE per Polis' request.
They'd had to turn him down earlier you see because they thought they didn't have the money.
Put these together. What you will see is that it truly is a lack of money that is putting the brakes on these folks. Absent that, well, ...
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/22/colorado-jbc-budget-proposal-2024-2025/
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/11/colorado-environmental-justice-inspectors-polis/
Some counterpoint to my contention that wolverines will be something environmentalists can use as a lever.
I have made the contention more than once that wildlife policy that seeks to either protect certain animals and/or to reintroduce others can be (regardless of the intent of protection or reintroduction) used as a lever for environmentalists to help accomplish their goals or limiting economic activity they don't like. For an example of what I mean, I linked one of my older posts below.
A bipartisan bill to reintroduce wolverines in this state (currently a threatened species) is linked below and, below that, you'll find a CPR story for some context.
The bill recently cleared its first committee hearing and is headed out to the full senate. I'll leave it to you to read up as much as you'd like on the topic, here what I want to emphasize is some counterpoint to my concerns from the sponsor of the bill. It never hurts to hear from other voices.
Quoting the CPR article:
"Brittany Dennison, membership and program coordinator for the Colorado Livestock Association, raised another concern. She said members of the association worry bringing a threatened species to the state could have unintended consequences for ranchers who might be subject to Endangered Species Act requirements."
“'We are also concerned about unintentional takings with the reintroduction becoming a noose to hang the industry with, thus infringing on private property rights of farmers and ranchers alike,' Dennison said."
"Roberts said the legislation would require a special waiver from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that relates to 'nonessential experimental populations.' A 10J waiver allows for certain incidental harm to endangered species that were introduced to new areas as a means of protecting landowners operating in places where new species are being reintroduced, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service."
“'We have put in several appropriate guardrails into this legislation. So, per the bill, as long as the wolverine remains on the list of threatened or endangered species pursuant to federal law, CPW will not reintroduce species into Colorado — will not reintroduce wolverines into Colorado — until we have received a 10J waiver from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.' Roberts said."
Perhaps its my skeptical nature, but I can't help but wonder just how strong and appropriate those guardrails are. I can't help wonder too whether this bit of the law could be modified later. That is, if this bill lays the track, gets us all used to the idea and gets opponents to not be worried, maybe we'll just adjust things later.
Time will tell. You at least know the counterargument to mine now.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coloradoaccountabilityproject/p/polis-wildlife-priorities-join-me?r=15ij6n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-171
https://www.cpr.org/2024/03/21/bill-to-bring-wolverines-to-colorado-forwarded-by-committee-concerns-ski-resorts-ranchers/
Thoughtless policy results in costs and consequences.
The two Sun articles linked below are thematically related if not exactly topically related.
The first details how the Joint Budget Committee turned down a request by Gov Polis for money to hire lawyers. He wants the lawyers so that we can help pursue Federal gun charges against Coloradans who shouldn't be able to buy guns because they're felons.
Why not just bring state charges? Well, a few years back (see the bill linked third below) lawmakers had a fit of conscience over who and how many people got locked up and changed the law around felonies and misdemeanors.
This law, and here I want to stress that this was a law signed by Polis himself, now makes it such that there is no state prohibition on these former felons owning guns.
Let me repeat that, Polis wanted to spend your money to hire lawyers to take Coloradans who shouldn't have guns to Federal court because of a bill his party supported and he signed which allows them to have guns.
The second article, not related to gun control but still an example of passing laws to make statements rather than to make sound policy, details how a pharmaceutical (Enbrel) company is suing the state for what they say is an overreach.
Back in 2021, see the bill linked fourth below, the legislature passed, and again Gov Polis signed, a law to create a state board that could set drug price maximums on drugs they find to be "unaffordable". Amgen is the first company that this board intends to start setting after the board indicated an interest in setting the price on its rheumatoid arthritis drug Enbrel.**
If either is of interest or a passion, please read up on the bills and the stories below.
The point for us right now is the fact that we have in these two laws examples of policy made to be emotionally appealing (and appeasing) to some segment of society without considering the views of other and/or the impacts this would have on them.
When you make policy that ignores and alienates the interests and needs of some so that others can be uplifted, you are bound to have problems like this: the governor trying to spend our money to hire lawyers to fix a problem he helped make and then complaining about it, and a drug maker saying that letting an unelected state level board determine prices on a drugs interferes in a whole series of federal laws and regulations.
I can't hardly wait to fast forward another year or two so we can all see what kinds of similar efforts passed in the last year or even as I write this that we taxpayers will get to pay to defend.
**In case you were wondering at the timing here, my guess at the reason it took so long to sue this board is because you often have to wait until there's some "injury" and the board has not yet moved to regulate anyone. That is, this is the first suit because it's the first time there was a need.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/26/colorado-gun-laws-federal-prosecution-budget-request/
https://coloradosun.com/2024/03/25/amgen-lawsuit-enbrel-pdab/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-271
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-175