Letters - Wednesday

TABOR RATTLING
State limited in what it can do when economy goes downhill

I suspect by now people are pretty confused by TABOR and all the discussion at the state level concerning our budget and the needed cuts. To be part of this debate, however, you need to understand the four major components of TABOR in our Constitution.

First, TABOR imposed a revenue limit and any money collected over that limit must be returned to the taxpayers. Each year government's revenue can only grow by the combined rate of population growth and inflation. So, if Colorado's population grows by 3 percent and inflation by 4 percent, government revenues can grow by 7 percent. That means if we collected $100 in taxes and fees last year, we can collect $107 this year. If government collects $120, it must return $13 to the taxpayers. Referendum C gave us a time-out from just this provision of TABOR through June 30, 2011.

Second, TABOR imposed spending limits. At the state level we have interpreted this to mean that our statutory 6 percent general fund spending allocation formula is actually a limit.

This means Colorado's spending on things such as health care, prisons, courts, human services, public schools and higher education can grow by only 6 percent each year, regardless of what is happening in the economy nationally or in Colorado. If we collect and keep $120 under Referendum C, we can spend only $106 on these general fund items. The remaining money must be spent on roads and construction.

Third, TABOR required a vote of the people to increase taxes.

Finally, TABOR outlawed any new or increased real-estate transfer taxes.

Returning to my example, for this current fiscal year we projected we would only receive $106.30. We planned to spend $106 in the general fund and 30 cents for roads and nothing on construction. Today we realize that the national economic crisis has had a more profound impact on Colorado's economy and we now project we will receive $97, meaning we must cut $9.30 from this year's budget (in real numbers this is about $600 million to be cut from our general fund and $175 million cut from spending on roads).

Part of the frustration is that $97 becomes our new spending base so, even as the economy recovers, we cannot make up this spending. If the economy recovers next year and our revenue goes back to $106.30, or more, we can still only spend $102.80 ($97 x 1.06) on our general fund instead of the $112.30 we would have been able to spend without this limit dictated by TABOR.

TABOR creates a vicious cycle of forcing the health care, prisons, courts, human services, public schools and higher education parts of the government to get smaller and smaller relative to the economy as a whole. I am not sure that is what the voters intended.

John Morse, Colorado state senator, District 11, Colorado Springs

A little research would clear up confusion over tax law provisions

As I read the letter by Martha Wood, I thought she would have many people agree that she is confused ("TABOR unwisely restricts our ability to save for rainy day," Letters, Jan. 22). She can cure the problem with a little work. She should read the Jan. 17 column by Mark Hillman. Hillman served as state treasurer and knows TABOR well.

She should go The Gazette offices and read what the politicians said they would spend $4 billion-plus on and then review where they actually spent the money when the state was asking voters to suspend TABOR limits for five years.

When she takes the time to become informed, she will see confusion melt away like snow in July.

When the city and state take from us more money than the law allows, it does not create a "surplus." It simply creates a violation of law, and the law forces the government to give it back.

The letter implies the money belongs to the government and if taxpayers would let them keep all they collected, the government would wisely save it. The facts show this is not true. The government does not fund a list of needs and save any excess. It simply creates more needs.

The outright dishonesty of the current state leaders is appalling. Thank you, voters, for approving TABOR.

J. Curtis Coombs, Colorado Springs

SECURITY ISSUE
Housing Gitmo detainees in state could be boon for veterans

Colorado Veterans Alliance, the state's largest post-9/11 veterans and military group, supports Gov. Bill Ritter's suggestion to house the Guantanamo detainees at the federal Supermax prison in Florence.

This is good for our troops and veterans in two ways.

First, it helps get rid of the largest motivation that draws foreign fighters and extremists to Iraq where they kill our troops, surely among them some of the 192 Fort Carson soldiers killed in Iraq.

Second, if the Supermax is the chosen site, federal money and jobs will flow to Florence, which is home to a high concentration of veterans who could work at the federal prison.

Every day Rep. Doug Lamborn obstructs this process he is contributing to increased danger to American troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rick Duncan, President, Colorado Veterans Alliance Colorado Springs

PAYBACK TIME
President wastes no time handing out favors for support

During his short time as president, Barack Obama has moved swiftly to enact new policies which he views as critical to the health of the United States. One example was to authorize spending millions of taxpayer dollars annually to fund abortion outside the U.S.

Apparently, there just aren't enough babies to abort in the U.S. alone, and we must move aggressively to help other countries increase their use of abortion as a form of family planning.

This issue was considered to be of such urgency that our new leader addressed it in the first 100 hours of his presidency. The fact that Obama authorized the funding behind closed doors and avoided any press attention made me wonder if there was some other motivation driving the decision such as payback to the special interest groups (NARAL and Planned Parenthood) that helped him get elected.

No, I'm just being paranoid; if his ethical standards were that low, we would see a trend of him paying back other campaign contributors. Yes, if that were the case, he would have done something really blatant, such as appointing a pro-union secretary of labor as we bail out the automotive industry to the tune of billions of dollars.

What's the next critical item on the agenda? Rumor has it that we may need to implement immediate tax cuts for members of the Screen Actors Guild.

David Gardner, Colorado Springs

PUBLIC PRAYER
Constitution forbids government from interfering in prayers

Barb Ferrill Van Hoy is right that many may be offended by prayer at a government-sponsored event. She is right that we should respect each other's feelings. But her remedy is wrong: to forego public prayer.

Van Hoy needs to recognize that the Constitution forbids the government from taking any action to curtail offensive speech. Neither is the remedy to water down the prayer, as some urge, by avoiding potentially offensive references to the speaker's personal convictions, such as "in Jesus' name."

No, the remedy is for the speaker to state up front, "I am praying out my personal conviction, exercising the constitutionally protected right to do so, not under any government compulsion and not representing any government position or endorsement."

Then the speaker should pray boldly with full conviction. The remedy is also for those in attendance to join with the speaker in celebrating this constitutional protection of public prayer and our national ability to thrive on diversity rather than conformity.

Any offense is in the ear of the hearer and derives from the hearer's wrong belief that others should compromise or hide their beliefs, and that the government should make them do so.

Duncan Bremer, Monument