DENVER | Transportation Thread - Page 42

Octavian · #**821** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 4:47 PM**

Just so that we're clear, TABOR is a revenue limit, not a spending limit. Although fees do not need voter approval, revenue generated by fees does count against the TABOR revenue limit. So because this is a down year for the economy, and revenue collection fell, the legislature can raise fees without hitting the revenue limit. But if last year had been a good year, and revenue was up, the legislature could not raise fees without cutting taxes elsewhere.

If road funding is a problem, I would prefer a statewide ballot initiative for a dedicated funding source like Fastracks with a sunset clause for road funding. This 250 million/year won't scratch the surface.

For the record, I think TABOR is one of the best things about our state. Just check out the state of California, and certainly won't support an extension of Ref C.

wong21fr · #**822** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 5:07 PM**

TABOR will still exist, but the 6% growth limit on the general fund will not, fiscal discipline is maintained while the "ratchet" effect goes away on the general fund. It's funny to see how the original authors of the amendment, Arveschoug-Bird, admit that they pulled the 6% figure out of the ass. One of them, Bird I believe, know admits that the growth limit did not play out as intended.

I also like the intent behind TABOR in regards to fiscal responsibility and the issue of taxation. I don't like the more sinister intent of it's author's (Bruce) goal of killing government.

The Dirt · #**823** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 5:33 PM**

At the risk of continuing the TABOR talk, I think that it was/is devastating to higher education, so there should have been some sort of caveat for that. I support the intent of TABOR, but as we all know, good intentions don't necessarily equal good policy.

Octavian · #**824** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 6:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

At the risk of continuing the TABOR talk, I think that it was/is devastating to higher education, so there should have been some sort of caveat for that. I support the intent of TABOR, but as we all know, good intentions don't necessarily equal good policy.

There are several ways to deal with this within the context of TABOR. You could ask for a tax increase for higher education. I think voters are much more likely to approve a tax increase if it is for a specific purpose (Fastracks) than if it is just for the general fund.

Imagine a sales tax increase dedicated to state university endowments instead of operations. This would grow college endowments within the state far faster than is possible by seeking private donations, and with time, better establish the independence of these institutions. If you're concerned about college affordability, you could stipulate that a certain amount of their endowment payout go to means tested scholarships for in-state students in exchange for giving the school's control over tuition increases.

The Dirt · #**825** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 6:32 PM**

Hmm. It sounds like CU opted for the 1,000,000,000% tuition increase instead. I would be curious to see what exactly was going on with that at the time. Luckily, I graduated right before that went into effect, however my fiance was screwed.

The CU system is very similar to the UC (California) system as in they both offer some of the best education in their states, but are also overly bureaucratic and corrupt.

wong21fr · #**826** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 6:37 PM**

Don't get me started on higher education in CO. It's a crock the way the funding scheme is designed.

diablo234 · #**827** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 7:22 PM**

Honestly you guys are lucky to have competant leadership in regards to transit policy. In Atlanta for instance even though they have a fairly decent heavy rail system, they can't expand it because the dimwits in the surrounding counties refuse to pay a 1% sales tax to support transit, even though the city ranks in the top ten for traffic congestion. Almost the same exact senario with Houston with folks like Tom Delay denying Houston federal funds to expand light rail.

The Dirt · #**828** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 7:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by diablo234

Honestly you guys are lucky to have competant leadership in regards to transit policy. In Atlanta for instance even though they have a fairly decent heavy rail system, they can't expand it because the dimwits in the surrounding counties refuse to pay a 1% sales tax to support transit, even though the city ranks in the top ten for traffic congestion. Same exact senario with Houston with folks like Tom Delay denying Houston federal funds to expand light rail.

Well, of course. Mass transit is for bums. [sarcasm]

bcp · #**829** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 8:23 PM**

a fee is a tax buntie...quit acting like it aint...

if i choose not to pay the fee (for the privelage of owning a car...) then yes, i will get in trouble with gov't. it's no different that choosing to pay or not pay a sales tax by not purchasing.

worst of all - the people paying the fee don't get to vote on HOW the money is used...i'd wager that a lot people would want the money to go someplace other than roads. anyhoo, have a great day everybody!

wong21fr · #**830** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

a fee is a tax buntie...quit acting like it aint...

if i choose not to pay the fee (for the privelage of owning a car...) then yes, i will get in trouble with gov't. it's no different that choosing to pay or not pay a sales tax by not purchasing.

worst of all - the people paying the fee don't get to vote on HOW the money is used...i'd wager that a lot people would want the money to go someplace other than roads. anyhoo, have a great day everybody!

You evil conservative, you....

Don't you know that our elected officials always have our best interests in mind?

bcp · #**831** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 8:48 PM**

i know it's all in good fun...

but i'm curious - what is 'conservative' in what i wrote?

wong21fr · #**832** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 9:25 PM**

Nothing really, maybe the desire to see voter's determine where the funding goes.

But 'evil conservative' seemed more fitting than 'godless liberal'.

bcp · #**833** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 9:45 PM**

ok ok..not to get too off topic here...

but if part of being 'liberal' means that you no longer want to vote on where your money goes...then yikes...thats scarier than nancy pelosi's sweater on monday.

it's time to start the "evilly conservative godless liberal" party i believe.

SnyderBock · #**834** Posted **Feb 26, 2009, 10:28 PM**

The new $265 million transportation-funding bill ooks good, but one real oddity stands out under what FAILED:

Quote:

* Require state roads contractors to verify that employees are not illegal immigrants.

With e-verify, verifying employees are eligible to work here is made quick and easy. To think the government wouldn't want to make it required that any contractor they hire to do work being paid for my tax paying citizens, be done by people legal by law to be working here--especially in a time we need jobs more than ever--this is absurd. Are these people nuts? e-verify was set up by the government to make this simple and it is proven to be highly effective. Why would they not make this required? Do they simply want these stimulus jobs going to under-cutting illegal immigrants instead of legal US workers? What other agenda could possibly be influencing them in this dirrection?

It is Federal law not to employ illegal residents. If you or I break Federal law, we are labeled felons and have unalienable constitutional rights stricken from us (some are stricken forever) and are either thrown in prison or put on probation. yet big contractors and state governments conspire to create loopholes for allowing the violation of Federal law to continue (without enforcement) and if they do get caught, all they have to do is say, "my bad, I didn't know they were illegal!"

bunt_q · #**835** Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

ok ok..not to get too off topic here...

but if part of being 'liberal' means that you no longer want to vote on where your money goes...then yikes...thats scarier than nancy pelosi's sweater on monday.

it's time to start the "evilly conservative godless liberal" party i believe.

You do have a say in where you money goes - through your vote for your elected officials.

wong21fr · #**836** Posted **Feb 27, 2009, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You do have a say in where you money goes - through your vote for your elected officials.

Listen to him, BCP, he's currently instructing godless heathens on the finer points of democracy and city management.

Or he's sitting in a tiny office in the middle of the desert thumbing through old issues of Stars and Stripes with a tiny heater trying to stay warm.

bunt_q · #**837** Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 12:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Listen to him, BCP, he's currently instructing godless heathens on the finer points of democracy and city management.

Or he's sitting in a tiny office in the middle of the desert thumbing through old issues of Stars and Stripes with a tiny heater trying to stay warm.

I'd kill for Stars and Stripes... we don't even have that out here. I can find Army times, but that's like reading Cosmo for green-suiters...

diablo234 · #**838** Posted **Feb 28, 2009, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Listen to him, BCP, he's currently instructing godless heathens on the finer points of democracy and city management.

Or he's sitting in a tiny office in the middle of the desert thumbing through old issues of Stars and Stripes with a tiny heater trying to stay warm.

Democrats = party of no ideas
Republicans = party of bad ideas

Bottomline, a republican says he has a bad idea and then a democrat says he can make it shittier.

wong21fr · #**839** Posted **Mar 1, 2009, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'd kill for Stars and Stripes... we don't even have that out here. I can find Army times, but that's like reading Cosmo for green-suiters...

Ever try online? You'd be amazed what you can find on the PAO's site.

I guarantee that this 'green-suiter' has slit far more throats than you.

bunt_q · #**840** Posted **Mar 1, 2009, 7:37 AM**

Online... eh, I'm on vacation here at Warhorse... the internet isn't nearly so easy out east. I'll leave the throat-slitting to you fellas... I'm a weenie diplomat

Quote:

Originally Posted by diablo234

Democrats = party of no ideas
Republicans = party of bad ideas

Bottomline, a republican says he has a bad idea and then a democrat says he can make it shittier.

Hang on, which one am I? All I said was you get a vote in your "tax" (fee) spending...

...only a real independent would find voting to be a bad idea (or no idea at all)... I thought after 8 years we'd realized that there actually is a difference between the two parties. Don't tell me you're still living with the circa-1999 Rage Against the Machine we-don't-have-a-real-choice teenage angst.