Published by CTBC Director on 24 Apr 2009
Appearing as the guest speaker at the next Lincoln Club luncheon on Wednesday April 29th at the Denver Athletic Club, Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold will discuss the grassroots movement to vote “NO” on retaining the four Colorado Supreme Court justices facing voters in 2010…
Published by CTBC Director on 23 Apr 2009
That “key restraint”, otherwise known as the Arveshoug-Bird provision, limits growth in the state’s general fund to 6% per year. Any funds collected in excess of that limit are allocated to transportation and other construction or maintenance needs. Arveschoug-Bird is statutory law - CRS 24-75-201.1(a)(II) through (VII) - which would normally leave it open to modification or outright revocation by the legislature (which clearly doesn’t like limits on its ability to spend, spend, spend). Ritter, also no fan of spending restraint, welcomed the deal to eliminate “restrictive fiscal handcuffs” on the state budget.
HOWEVER - the passage of TABOR (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) in 1992 “constitutionalized” existing spending limits (including Arveschoug-Bird), explicitly incorporating them into the state constitution:
Article X, Section 20(1) of the Colorado Constitution explicitly states that “Other limits on district revenue, spending, and debt may be weakened only by future voter approval” and “Its preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government.” This directive is clear: weakening spending limits must be submitted to a vote of the people.
Despite recent attempts led by notoriously partisan ex-justice Jean Dubofsky to take a “new look” at the Arveschoug-Bird limits (with the attempt of undermining or circumventing the clear letter of the law), the “constitutionalization” of the limit under TABOR has been a long-established legal interpretation. In fact, a November 2004 Memorandum from the General Assembly’s own non-partisan Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) laid out the “general rules” for interpreting the application of Arveschoug-Bird and incorporation under TABOR, and found that it IS a limit on spending:
Question #9. Is the Arveschoug-Bird limit a limit “on district revenue, spending, [or] debt” which is referred to in [TABOR]?
Answer: Technically, the Arveschoug-Bird limit is a limit on increases in general fund appropriations, not on revenue or spending. However, a court would probably conclude that, for purposes of [TABOR], the Arveschoug-Bird limit is a limit on spending for the following reasons:
- Spending and appropriations are closely related concepts. Agencies normally cannot make expenditures unless they have an appropriation, and placing limits on appropriations indirectly limits spending.
- The General Assembly defined “expenditure” in S.B. 93-74 as “the appropriation or disbursement of any state general fund or cash fund moneys for any expense incurred by the state”. Section 24-77-102 (4), C.R.S.
- The proponent of [TABOR] stated, prior to the 1992 election, that the statutory 7% limit then in effect was the kind of limit that could not be weakened except with voter approval.
- Courts will construe constitutional language to give it a natural and obvious significance, as opposed to a narrow, literal, or technical meaning.
Question 10. Would a modification of the Arveschoug-Bird limit “weaken” the limit, thus requiring submission to the voters?
Yes. The plain meaning of the verb “to weaken” is to lessen the strength of something, or to reduce it in intensity or effectiveness. Therefore, while we have certainly not foreseen all the possible ways of modifying the Arveschoug-Bird limit, an amendment to Arveschoug-Bird which permits greater expenditures of funds than would have been allowed under the current limit appears to weaken the limit.
Gov. Bill Ritter and his accomplices in the legislature (including Don Marostica, R-Loveland) are trying to pull a fast one on the citizens of Colorado, flouting their duty to the people and to the people’s law, the Colorado Constitution. Ritter, Marostica, and their ilk are clearly counting on the current majority on the Colorado Supreme Court to back their play, as they did by upholding Ritter’s Mill Levy Tax Freeze.
Don’t allow this court to continue to be accomplices after the fact in taking away more of your rights. Vote “NO” on retaining the 4 unjust justices - Mullarkey, Bender, Martinez, and Rice - in power in 2010.
Published by CTBC Director on 21 Apr 2009
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold appeared on Rocky Mountain Alliance BlogTalk Radio - 21 April 2009 (from 8:45 - 9:15 PM). Listen to the podcast to hear Matt explain why it’s time to restore accountability to our out-of-control Colorado Supreme Court…
Published by CTBC Director on 20 Apr 2009
As noted in a previous posting, the state legislature moved swiftly to add new taxes - adding a proposal literally within hours of receiving a briefing that advised the Joint Budget Committee that it was within their power, thanks to language in the decision upholding the Mill Levy Tax Freeze. That proposal became the latest bill attempting to bypass TABOR, “exploiting a partisan Colorado Supreme Court overreach to violate the state constitution and repeal tax credits without a vote of the people.”
“This Tuesday, HB-1342 (PDF) will be voted on in the House Finance Committee. It will be the first of perhaps many bills that for the first time will remove sales tax waivers without a vote of the people - a direct violation of both the letter and spirit of TABOR. Some existing tax waivers cover the essentials of life that people rely on like food, gasoline, and other credits that have been on the books for as long as 80 years. If HB-1342 passes, they could use it as a template to remove up to $1.5 billion per year in all sorts of tax waivers and credits - clearly net tax increases -without going to a vote of the people.”
This bill is almost certainly only the first of many to propose new taxes on the already overburdened citizenry of Colorado - taxes made possible only by the outrageous Colorado Supreme Court ruling upholding Governor Ritter’s Mill Levy Tax Freeze.
View the listing of potential new taxes enabled by this rogue Supreme Court - then take the survey to see how many new taxes might be imposed upon you as a result. Stop them before they take more of your rights - vote “NO” on retaining these unjust justices on the bench in 2010.
Published by CTBC Director on 17 Apr 2009
Broadcast on the Face The State radio minute, 17 April 2009:
Is it time to shake up the composition of Colorado’s Supreme Court?
More on that in a moment on the Face The State Radio Minute.
“Everyone remembers how they voted for president last year. But how about judges? Can you even remember who was on the ballot?
Don’t be embarrassed if you don’t know the answer - the vast majority of Colorado voters pay little or no attention to judicial retention elections. Every few years, the public gets an up-or-down vote on every local and appellate judge, including the 7 justices of the state supreme court.
And that’s where things are getting interesting. There’s an effort to promote a “no” vote on four sitting justices on the 2010 ballot. Taxpayer advocates and business owners are among those upset over a number of high profile cases decided in direct conflict with the constitution. They’re lobbying for a big shakeup on the court - if voters will pay attention.
For FaceTheState.com, I’m Brad Jones.”
Published by CTBC Director on 15 Apr 2009
Clear The Bench Colorado was at the (April 15th) Denver Tea Party rally against the excesses of government.
Director Matt Arnold spoke at the rally:
For more on the April 15th Tax Day Tea Party rallies (in Denver, across Colorado and around the nation) visit these superb sites:
Peoples Press Collective (OUTSTANDING commentary and photo-essays on the Denver rally and other rallies nationwide)
Slapstick Politics (Video clips of all of the speakers at the Denver Tax Day Tea Party rally, and other great commentary)
Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on retaining the four unjust justices of the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOURapproval to continue taking away your rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from seizure by rapacious governments, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, not rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”
Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado! Vote “NO” on unjust justices in 2010!
Published by CTBC Director on 14 Apr 2009
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold interviewed on the Amy Oliver show…
Update: Listen to the podcast of the interview…
Published by CTBC Director on 12 Apr 2009
Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold gave an interview to Face The State’s Brad Jones on the grassroots movement to oust 4 current Colorado Supreme Court justices who must receive voter approval in 2010 to retain their position on the bench.
DON’T GIVE IT TO THEM! Vote NO on retaining these rogue justices on the Supreme Court!
(Listen to the broadcast) or (updated)… (Listen to the extended interview)
Published by CTBC Director on 09 Apr 2009
The Colorado Supreme Court’s recent ruling to sanction Governor Bill Ritter’s backdoor tax increase on the people of Colorado (the so-called Mill Levy Tax “Freeze”) - overturning both the trial court who had found the tax increase unconstitutional and the will of the people, as previously expressed by rejecting a nearly-identical measure to freeze Colorado’s mill levy tax rates (Amendment 32) - was bad enough, costing Colorado taxpayers over $117 million this year alone.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE: additional language buried deep “in the middle of the 45-page opinion” opens the door to millions more - up to $2 Billion more - in additional taxes, without asking voters for their permission, as required by TABOR.
State Legislature staff lawyer Sharon Eubanks briefed the Joint Budget Committee “with her shocking analysis of [the] recent state Supreme Court decision, which she says gives legislators the right to raise taxes without a vote of the people.”
John Ziegler, staff director of the Joint Budget Committee, then provided legislators a list of several tax credits that were now “fair game” under the interpretation - totalling almost $2 Billion in potential “new” tax revenue. (Just for fun - review the list and see how many new taxes YOU might get to pay once the legislature puts them into effect (take the survey and/or post comments below). I tallied up 6-9 additional taxes I would have to pay, depending on how I spend my week - but I’m not a smoker (although I DO buy groceries, gas, use the internet, a cellphone, etc.).
Of course, if you are a smoker, it didn’t take long to become the first target for new taxes. Within a few short hours after hearing the legal analysis,
Outraged yet? You’re not alone. House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, issued a “harshly worded statement” condemning the ruling:
Vince Carroll of the Denver Post editorial board weighed in with a scathing essay (Blowing the Lid Off TABOR) slamming the court:
Forgive them, for they know not what they do? Not so much. Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, indicates that the Supremes (particularly ueber-partisan Chief Justice Mullarkey, who wrote the opinion) knew exactly what they were doing:
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, expressed similar sentiments:
The Supreme Court will back the Legislature if it wants to repeal tax credits…
What lawyer would recommend us to go through (with a lawsuit) when you’ve got a Supreme Court that is willing to redefine words to defeat TABOR?
Instead of spending money for lawsuits, it might be better to spend the money on efforts to remake the court.
‘At some point, something’s got to be done to bring the courts back into line with the law. I’m not sure what it is,’ Caldara said.
Indeed - something’s got to be done.
Vote NO on retaining the four rogue Supreme Court justices - Mullarkey, Bender, Martinez, and Rice - in 2010.
Published by CTBC Director on 09 Apr 2009
By Mark Hillman, April 3 2009
Seventeen years ago, Colorado voters frustrated by the excesses of an unresponsive government passed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutional amendment designed to limit government spending and give voters to final word on tax hikes.
Initially, government officials largely adhered to TABOR’s strictures, ever mindful that the voters had spoken and expected those they elected to play by the rules.
Last month’s Orwellian decision by the Colorado Supreme Court signaled that no longer will the executive, legislative nor judicial branches of state government - all dominated by liberals - abide by a constitutional amendment that crimps their big-spender style.
Governing powers wager than most voters have forgotten why TABOR passed, much less what it was intended to do. That’s a dangerous gamble because TABOR’s primary tenets - subjecting tax increases to a public vote and limiting government spending - still elicit strong public support.
Last year, a constitutional amendment that would have rolled back the requirement that surplus tax revenues be refunded to taxpayers lost 55% to 45%, despite a $2.5 million campaign and only token opposition.
Instead of living within TABOR’s easily-defined guardrails, Democrats have adopted a strategy of making it irrelevant through subversive interpretations and raising unprecedented revenue through “fees” - indistinguishable from taxes to anyone but a lawyer.
Last year, Gov. Bill Ritter first proposed a $100 increase in the annual vehicle registration fee - distinguished from the registration tax only by the quarter-inch that separates the two on your car’s registration papers.
When KOA radio’s Mike Rosen suggested that Ritter was merely side-stepping TABOR because it didn’t apply to fees, the governor explained that this $500 million measure was legitimately a fee because “there really is a direct relationship between highway usage and infrastructure.”
He didn’t bother to explain how that was different from the fuel tax, since there is obviously a “direct relationship” between gasoline and transportation.
This year, Democrat legislators gave Ritter a $250 million vehicle fee increase. Can a fuel “fee” increase be far behind?
Ritter and his Democrat spending machine have also devised a new fee on hospitals, calculated to raise $600 million a year, while claiming to do so without raising costs on consumers. Magically, hospitals and state government rake in more money, but conveniently nobody pays more. Right.
Which brings us to the courts, unelected because the justices are expected to apply the law regardless of whether doing so is convenient or popular.
When the courts ruled that no “tax policy change” occurred even though Ritter and the legislature amended state law - what is law if not “policy”? - to force school districts to raise more property tax revenues, liberals were emboldened to short-circuit another TABOR provision that puts voters in charge.
The “weakening” clause reserves to voters the ability to ease existing limits on revenue, spending or debt. But Democrats, taking another page from Orwell, declared that the state’s general fund spending limit - that’s what state law calls it - is not a limit but “an allocation strategy.”
“TABOR is silent on allocation strategies,” declares Democrat Sen. John Morse, endorsing yet another slap in the face to taxpayers.
It’s difficult to imagine why Democrats lawmakers would present voters with an outright tax increase ever again, so long as they can find legal lapdogs who will apply weasel words to change tax increases and spending limits into something else.
What tax issues, then, will voters be asked to consider? Mostly local government taxes or state matters in which the legislature or a special interest thinks it can fund a warm-fuzzy government program by taxing an unpopular target.
TABOR’s most significant remaining limit, a cap on total state spending, was modified and temporarily suspended by Referendum C. Under those terms it returns in 2011, whereupon the cult of big government will undoubtedly devise a scheme to render it meaningless, too.
Won’t it be ironic if, by inventing so many loopholes through which taxpayers can be soaked, overreaching Democrats sew the seeds of the next taxpayer revolt?
The author can be reached at mh80807@yahoo.com
(Cross-posted by permission of the author, Mark Hillman)