< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The latest polls, for what they're worth, show majority support remains for Amendment 21 in Colorado, but the margin has been dropping.
Amendment 21 is another product from Douglas Bruce, who pushed through TABOR (TAxpayer's Bill of Rights) Amendment in 1992.
While I agree with the general principle of TABOR -- no tax increases without the informed consent of the public -- I can't say that it's done me much good.
Local governments don't just govern -- they provide
services. TABOR allows the service entities to become
enterprise funds,
which must be largely
self-supporting in that only 10 percent of their revenue
can come from sources other than fees.
And so the Chaffee County government adopted tip fees for the landfill, which used to be funded out of general county revenues. Thus our trash rates went up, and more people accumulate rodent-nest litter on their property. But I haven't noticed any tax decrease.
Similarly, the City of Salida turned the water and sewer system into an enterprise fund, and the rates are supposed to cover the costs. The city gets most of its money from sales taxes, but it can't use that money to subsidize water rates -- which, of course, keep going up, even though there hasn't been a cut in sales taxes.
So I'm a little skeptical about the improvements that Bruce promises with Amendment 21. It mandates a reduction of $25 a year, every year, on certain tax bills. For instance, if you now pay $700 in property taxes for local schools, then Amendment 21 would cut that to $675, then $650, $625, etc.
Suppose, however, you pay $35 a year in property taxes to support the local library district. That goes down to $10 if Amendment 21 passes, and then after that, no more library tax.
Cool. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, and never mind that if the local library closed, I'd have to spend a lot more than $35 to provide its services to myself.
According to Doug Bruce, though, the library wouldn't close. The state would be required to make up the revenues that the library used to get from property taxes.
Or so he says, although there is no specific language in Amendment 21 requiring the legislature to make such appropriations.
But let's take Bruce at his word. No consider our Republican family-values legislature. Would it just send $199,000 a year (perhaps adjusted for inflation and population growth) to the Salida Regional Library, to be spent as the Library Board determines?
Or would our legislature decide that certain books and
magazines were off-limits, being as some family-friendly
library
outfit had contributed heavily to various
campaigns? And would the legislature decree that the
library, rather than setting its own policies for Internet
access, should follow a one-size-fits-all state policy?
And might the legislature determine that the library is
open too many hours a week, being as a library in a bigger
town isn't open that long, and that isn't fair, and make
appropriate adjustments in funding?
Multiply that opportunity for meddlesome politicking by all the hundreds of taxing districts in Colorado, and you can see one good reason to oppose Amendment 21 -- that is, unless you think some aspiring Ayatollah in the General Assembly, rather than a local board, should control your library.
Here's a related problem, assuming that the measure passes and Bruce is correct that the legislature will dole out money.
At the moment, Salida spends about five times as much per capita on fire protection as people in similar towns. This is a decision made by elected officials in Salida who are responsible to Salida voters, who pay the bills.
For better or worse, that's self-government. If we want a gold-plated fire department, and we're willing to pay for it, then sobeit.
Why should the residents of Alamosa or Leadville or Denver pay for Salida's fire department -- which they'd be doing if the state had to pick up the funding? Why should Salida residents be concerned with the Phillips County sheriff's office budget -- but we would be, if state tax money were used to make up for what was once collected in local taxes.
The inevitable result would be a loss of local control over local institutions, and a great expansion in the power of the legislature.
Even if our legislature always had good intentions, it couldn't be as familiar with local needs and issues as local governments that are responsible to local voters. And if the legislature is in charge of the money, it will take control of the entities that receive the funds.
It's an old rule: He who pays the piper calls the
tune,
and if Douglas Bruce had figured out a way to
repeal that, I think we've had heard about it by now.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >