< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Out here in the wilds of the third district, it's hard to tell that there's any race for a congressional seat. There's an occasional yard sign for Scott McInnis, the Republican incumbent, and absolutely nothing for Al Gurule, the Democratic challenger.
I asked the local Democratic activists, who said there's a simple answer: Gurule doesn't have any money.
But there's probably more to it than that. Start with Sen. Ben Campbell, the fellow who was elected as a Democrat in 1992 and then underwent a party-change operation to emerge as a leader among Republican hog-riders, a growing segment of the GOP.
From all manner of sources, I've heard that Campbell doesn't plan to run again in 1998. He and McInnis are good friends, and if Campbell isn't running, it stands to reason he'd do everything he could to secure McInnis the Republican nomination for the senate.
This would make for an open house seat in the Third District in 1998, and since McInnis looks unbeatable this year, the Democrats figure on biding their time in 1996.
Such speculation is fun. It's also fun to speculate about how Tom Strickland should be running his campaign for the U.S. Senate.
He keeps letting Wayne Allard define him as Lobbyist
Tom Strickland.
If I were Strickland, I think I'd respond by saying
Damn right I've been a lobbyist, and a good one. Our
constitution grants us the right to petition the government
for redress of grievances, and that's what lobbyists do. If
you've got a problem with that, I want to hear you support
the repeal of the First Amendment.
And besides, if I'm that powerful a lobbyist,
wouldn't you like to have me on your side, promoting your
issues and needs?
Instead, Strickland tries to paint Allard as a
lobbyist for Newt Gingrich,
which makes no sense.
Apparently it was a strategy to head off the lobbyist
charges -- the idea being that if they're both
lobbyists,
then voters would move on to other
issues.
What other issues? A Colorado senator actually has a clearly defined job -- protect and enlarge grazing subsidies, mining subsidies, logging subsidies, water-project subsidies, military bases, highway subsidies, airport subsidies, national parks and monuments, etc.
A senator of either party will do that. The question is
who will do it better, and it seems like a lobbyist
might have an edge in that regard. But Strickland doesn't
seem willing to use it.
And then there's Amendment 11 on the home front, which would require churches and other non-profits to pay property taxes.
That's been a troublesome issue in this county. There are religious camps west of Buena Vista which the county tried to tax about 20 years ago.
The county argued that the camps were pretty much the same as dude ranches, and needed county services -- roads, law-enforcement, ambulance, etc. The camps argued that they were religious facilities.
The case went to the state supreme court. The county lost. The Buena Vista school district had to refund a lot of money, which wasn't easy.
On the other hand, I can't see taxing a religious
sanctuary. If the power to tax is the power to
destroy,
and we have separation of church and
state,
then the tax exemption protects our religious
institutions from interference by the state.
Tough call, so I did some research. I found this, from
George Wallace campaigning for president in 1972: ...
the churches own businesses, shopping centers, hotels,
skyscrapers, all competing with private enterprise. A fair
tax on this two hundred billion dollars in untaxed wealth
would bring in twelve billion dollars to the treasury.
We've got to close up these loopholes on those who've
escaped paying their fair share so we can lower taxes for
the average citizen...
And this, from President U.S. Grant in 1875: I would
suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether
church or corporation.
Grant called the acquisition
of vast amounts of untaxed church property
an evil,
which if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great
trouble in our land.
The reasonable approach might be to separate the sanctuary aspects of a church from its other operations, and levy property taxes on the latter.
The demands placed on this county's resources by a church-operated camp are about the same as those placed by a private camp, so why are all county taxpayers expected to pick up the slack for one camp, but not the other?
The issue is worth some thoughtful consideration; there ought to be a way to be fair to taxpayers without impinging on the religious aspects of a church.
Unfortunately, Amendment 11 doesn't seem all that thoughtful. I hope it's defeated, but by a very narrow margin, so that our legislature might feel compelled to craft a policy that's more fair than the current blanket exemption.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >