Printed on 1/12/12
Representative, House District 49
4/29/04
As of this writing, as the 2004 General Session winds down the big issue still looming is how to deal with the constitutional and statutory rules that seem to be driving us to future funding problems. The limits on government revenue and spending created by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights are crashing into the automatic pilot spending increases of Amendment 23, Medicaid and prisons.
Conventional wisdom says the cure is more taxes. We can't seem to find the wherewithal to cure this problem without demanding the people give up more of their hard earned money.
Draining more money away from the private sector is not good economic policy. Ultimately we are best served by a healthy and vibrant economy. Additional government consumption does not build that strong economy. It may temporarily prop up a sector here and there, but it is a long-term drag on real productivity and sustained prosperity.
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights is the solution, not the problem. TABOR has served us well and will continue to do so if we do not compromise it into oblivion. Let us not abandon the solution just to find a short-term fix.
The real problems are the unsustainable cost drivers. Medical costs, education funding, prison growth: these are the problems we must continue to wrestle with. We cannot sustain these programs, as they now exist, without abandoning the principle theme of The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
I am still enough of an optimist to believe we can do the right thing. Before we find the political will, it may take the reality of a rejection by the people of all proposed Constitutional changes, but I still have faith in the people of Colorado and the solutions that will reinvent limited government, rather than grow more government.
Medicaid needs a fundamental change. Utilizing free market dynamics can rebuild this system into the safety net it was originally intended to be. By empowering the individual recipient with greater authority to determine how to meet their individual needs and at the same time holding them personally responsible with a graduated entry program that includes cost sharing for the more financially capable Medicaid recipients would make a significant difference.
Education must be focused on cost effective delivery systems. There are three basic modalities for k-12 education: public, private and home. It is in the best interest of our state to not just tolerate private schools and home schools; we need public policy which encourages nonpublic education systems.
Prison population is currently growing by 1,000 additional prisoners each year. This sobering statistic tells us that something or things are radically wrong. Are we falling apart as a culture, are we criminalizing too much, are we not doing the right things to our prison population, or is it all of the above? We should not rest until Corrections costs grow at least no faster than the overall economy. For reasons far more important than the economic impact we should do no less.
I will not support any measure that just covers over the problems with more financial band-aids. To do anything less is to invite an inevitable slide into socialism.
Back to Top
Representative, House District 49
8/28/03
Do we pay enough taxes today? Do we pay too much? When are taxes too high?
When my wife and I married 22 years ago, our first rent payment was about what we pay in property taxes today. Granted, inflation has more than doubled the cost of everything since then and housing costs have risen even more dramatically, but property taxes have become a significant burden which is driving the overall cost of housing even higher. In addition, the Gallager Amendment to the state constitution has protected residential rates at the expense of business property rates so much that business assessments are more than four times that of residential rates. Property taxes are too high.
Taxes on personal income can easily take a fourth of your income, or in many cases much more. These taxes include federal and state income taxes, as well as social security and medicare taxes. It is true that there are deductions allowed for some essential living expenses from income taxed with federal and state income taxes, but just about every dollar earned is subject to the social security and medicare taxes.
The significant bite the government takes out of our income is particularly telling on a family's second income. Several years ago I figured what our income tax would be with and without a small income my wife had made that year. Our total income was below $30,000. Her income had been $4,400. The difference in our tax bill because of her $4,400 was over $1800! Income taxes are too high.
In Colorado every time you fill up your car with gas you pay over 40 cents in tax for each gallon of gas. Depending of the price of gas, this amounts to a 25-40% tax on driving. Gas taxes are too high.
Sales taxes are a curious taxing system. Local sales are subject to all applicable sales taxes. Sales from out of state are not always fully taxed. Some would argue that we should always be required to pay every possible sales tax, regardless of the location of the retailer. Others maintain that the tax should only apply to those retailers who are local and use the local government services that those sales taxes support. In addition sales tax rates vary dramatically as taxing authorities are many and overlapping. One thing is certain: high sales taxes discourage sales. Raising local sales taxes even higher will discourage local sales even more. Sales taxes are too high, and might be going higher in Larimer County.
Taxes are too high. If you add them all up, many families spend over half of their income on taxes. This high tax rate drives many families to rely on both mom and dad's full-time income to make ends meet. Healthy families need time to be a family, not 80-hour work weeks.
High taxes drag our economy down. The government is less efficient than the private sector (we the people) in using these dollars to build a strong economy. There are essential services that government must provide and taxes are the only way to fund those programs, but we have gone far beyond that essential role and I can find no justification for additional taxes to fuel even more government growth.
When someone proposes an additional tax they are, in essence, saying that the government cannot accomplish its responsibilities without more money and we the people must accomplish ours on that much less. This always happens in little steps, but when we look back, we see how far we have come down this road of taxation and increased government spending.
In Larimer County, the County Commission is proposing doubling the county sales tax and eliminating the sunset date we have on that tax. This is one more step down this long dismal road.
My goal as a member of the Colorado General Assembly is to empower the people, not the government. We the people are better served when we control our own money. It is hard to imagine that the founders of this country were up in arms because of the "exorbitant" tax burden they faced, which was less than 5%, imposed on a limited number of products. What would they think if they knew how much taxation their great-great-grandchildren were facing?
As a State Representative I will continue to pursue tax reductions, not tax increases.
Back to Top
Representative, House District 49
3/27/03
As the state's economy continues to languish and state government revenues continue to slide, the legislature is wrestling with ever-deeper budget cuts. At the time I write this, the state's revenue estimate for this fiscal year is over a billion dollars less than the original projections. Some say the TABOR amendment is a part of this problem, and their solution is to remove, or at least weaken, the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). I say that the TABOR amendment to the state constitution is not a part of the problem, it is a part of the solution. In fact, the TABOR amendment has been the fiscal discipline which has kept our state's budget from growing to even more unrealistic levels. If we had not had these limitations the current economic realities would be creating a catastrophic effect on our state's civil government.
This amendment is based on the principle of limited government. A free society can flourish only if the ever-encroaching growth of civil government is strictly controlled and limited. This can only be accomplished by limits on how much of the people's money the government has access to. The TABOR amendment has accomplished this to a greater extent than any other constitutional mechanism we have.
Among the arguments usually presented against TABOR is that we cannot save the excess funds collected in the good times for use during poorer economic conditions. In addition, it is said that TABOR begins to hold back the government from growing at the same pace as the rest of the state's economic activity as it begins to rev up again. This is commonly referred to as a "ratcheting down" effect.
Before examining these particulars, let us first return to the main principle. A free society can only flourish if the ever encroaching control of government is strictly limited. TABOR is the fiscal discipline which allows this principle to survive the political pressures of day-to-day legislative process.
After my brief time here in the legislature, I can see that it is an almost impossible task to really limit the growth of government without a constitutional mandate to do so. The genius of TABOR is it comprehensively deals with the revenue and expense sides of the issue. It also allows for exceptions for local governmental entities and tax increases through a vote of the people.
Concerning saving the extra funds from the surplus years: I have never seen a civil government that was capable of saving. The real result is always more spending, and more government growth. Ultimately, this leads to even more severe budget cuts when the economy takes a downturn. It must also be noted that to "save the funds" means to withhold them from the people. Except in rare exceptions, civil government should always defer to the interests of the individual, not the other way around.
Concerning the government growth restrictions TABOR places during economic upswings: This discipline is absolutely necessary to keep civil government focused on the priorities of proper governance. This is a key point to the principle of limited government. For a healthy and prosperous society our long-term goal should be more individual liberty and responsibility. If civil government has a natural tendency to grow beyond its appropriate jurisdiction, there must be constitutional mandates to bring it back into its proper size and authority.
There are some constitutional and Federal mandates that force a certain level of spending and/or spending growth. These requirements force the budget to expand and are counterproductive to the principle of limited government. Proponents for growth in civil government often link these issues with the TABOR amendment and call for a reevaluation of all of them together.
Beware of this logic, for it will lead to a compromise of the principles of freedom. If our children are to continue to enjoy the fruits of liberty, we must maintain a strict limit on the growth of civil government. The Tax Payers' Bill of Rights is a key element in maintaining this ideal for the people of Colorado.
Back to Top
Representative, House District 49
3/4/03
This year, the overwhelming issue at the legislature has been the budget. Revenues have been falling, with each new estimate showing lower numbers than before. This problem is a reflection of the state's overall economy. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for just about everyone. Our state government's budget is no exception.
The problem is obvious, but what are the solutions we chose in the legislature? For the most part it was the path of least resistance. A smart business would use this time to reevaluate and prepare for a rebound when the economy recovers. In the political world under the Capitol Dome, it takes a herculean effort to move against the tide of accommodation. Making decisions based strictly on sound economic principles is all but impossible.
To put it in differnt terms, little discussion was given to big-picture priorities: Is medical coverage a right or a privilege? Does the state have an obligation to preemptively protect its citizens from a wide range of potential dangers through excessive regulation, licencing, and inspections? Is it the state's obligation to provide higher-education opportunities for all of its citizens? Should the budget assumptions always grow the General Fund at the maximun rate?
I do not propose the answers to all of these questions, but it is certainly the approriate time for discussing the basic priority issues in state government. It is always an important discussion, but during times of economic change, we as a state should proactively respond with substantive solutions that position us for long-term success.
To the credit of our Republican leadership, during these difficult economic times, higher taxes have not been the topic of discussion. We have drained cash funds, raised user fees and trimmed back on some programs, but the obvious big-government solution has not been put on the table.
Had the leadership believed in big-government solutions, the call would inevitably have been for higher taxes. Here in Colorado we can only raise taxes with a vote of the people, so it would take some time to implement, but the discussion and ultimate additional taxes would be a greater burden and inevitable drag on the recovering economy, and ultimately a permanent drag on the culture.
Developing the budget has been a long and difficult process. It has taken a great amount of time and effort and I applaud the dilligent work so many talented people have devoted to the preparation of the state government's budget. I applaud their efforts even if I do not appreciate how the process always bends toward the path of least resistance.
As of this writing, I still have a late bill pending which is designed to reduce the allowable growth of the General Fund from six percent to five percent, with the difference being put in a rainy-day fund. This fund is intended to be used in years when the revenue falls short of meeting the five percent allowable growth.
In future years I will continue to work for appropriate limits on how the process is directed, for that is the best way I see that we the people can maintain some control over the outcome. The Tax Payers Bill of Rights amendment to the state constitution is the most notable limit that continues to serve us well in insuring some direction in the big-picture issues.
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
Economic
Home / The Issues / Archives
- Untangling Colorado's Budget Problems
- Do We Pay Enough Taxes?
- TABOR Amendment: Problem or Solution?
- The State Budget
Untangling Colorado's Budget Problems
by Kevin LundbergRepresentative, House District 49
4/29/04
As of this writing, as the 2004 General Session winds down the big issue still looming is how to deal with the constitutional and statutory rules that seem to be driving us to future funding problems. The limits on government revenue and spending created by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights are crashing into the automatic pilot spending increases of Amendment 23, Medicaid and prisons.
Conventional wisdom says the cure is more taxes. We can't seem to find the wherewithal to cure this problem without demanding the people give up more of their hard earned money.
Draining more money away from the private sector is not good economic policy. Ultimately we are best served by a healthy and vibrant economy. Additional government consumption does not build that strong economy. It may temporarily prop up a sector here and there, but it is a long-term drag on real productivity and sustained prosperity.
The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights is the solution, not the problem. TABOR has served us well and will continue to do so if we do not compromise it into oblivion. Let us not abandon the solution just to find a short-term fix.
The real problems are the unsustainable cost drivers. Medical costs, education funding, prison growth: these are the problems we must continue to wrestle with. We cannot sustain these programs, as they now exist, without abandoning the principle theme of The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.
I am still enough of an optimist to believe we can do the right thing. Before we find the political will, it may take the reality of a rejection by the people of all proposed Constitutional changes, but I still have faith in the people of Colorado and the solutions that will reinvent limited government, rather than grow more government.
Medicaid needs a fundamental change. Utilizing free market dynamics can rebuild this system into the safety net it was originally intended to be. By empowering the individual recipient with greater authority to determine how to meet their individual needs and at the same time holding them personally responsible with a graduated entry program that includes cost sharing for the more financially capable Medicaid recipients would make a significant difference.
Education must be focused on cost effective delivery systems. There are three basic modalities for k-12 education: public, private and home. It is in the best interest of our state to not just tolerate private schools and home schools; we need public policy which encourages nonpublic education systems.
Prison population is currently growing by 1,000 additional prisoners each year. This sobering statistic tells us that something or things are radically wrong. Are we falling apart as a culture, are we criminalizing too much, are we not doing the right things to our prison population, or is it all of the above? We should not rest until Corrections costs grow at least no faster than the overall economy. For reasons far more important than the economic impact we should do no less.
I will not support any measure that just covers over the problems with more financial band-aids. To do anything less is to invite an inevitable slide into socialism.
Back to Top
Do We Pay Enough Taxes?
by Kevin LundbergRepresentative, House District 49
8/28/03
Do we pay enough taxes today? Do we pay too much? When are taxes too high?
When my wife and I married 22 years ago, our first rent payment was about what we pay in property taxes today. Granted, inflation has more than doubled the cost of everything since then and housing costs have risen even more dramatically, but property taxes have become a significant burden which is driving the overall cost of housing even higher. In addition, the Gallager Amendment to the state constitution has protected residential rates at the expense of business property rates so much that business assessments are more than four times that of residential rates. Property taxes are too high.
Taxes on personal income can easily take a fourth of your income, or in many cases much more. These taxes include federal and state income taxes, as well as social security and medicare taxes. It is true that there are deductions allowed for some essential living expenses from income taxed with federal and state income taxes, but just about every dollar earned is subject to the social security and medicare taxes.
The significant bite the government takes out of our income is particularly telling on a family's second income. Several years ago I figured what our income tax would be with and without a small income my wife had made that year. Our total income was below $30,000. Her income had been $4,400. The difference in our tax bill because of her $4,400 was over $1800! Income taxes are too high.
In Colorado every time you fill up your car with gas you pay over 40 cents in tax for each gallon of gas. Depending of the price of gas, this amounts to a 25-40% tax on driving. Gas taxes are too high.
Sales taxes are a curious taxing system. Local sales are subject to all applicable sales taxes. Sales from out of state are not always fully taxed. Some would argue that we should always be required to pay every possible sales tax, regardless of the location of the retailer. Others maintain that the tax should only apply to those retailers who are local and use the local government services that those sales taxes support. In addition sales tax rates vary dramatically as taxing authorities are many and overlapping. One thing is certain: high sales taxes discourage sales. Raising local sales taxes even higher will discourage local sales even more. Sales taxes are too high, and might be going higher in Larimer County.
Taxes are too high. If you add them all up, many families spend over half of their income on taxes. This high tax rate drives many families to rely on both mom and dad's full-time income to make ends meet. Healthy families need time to be a family, not 80-hour work weeks.
High taxes drag our economy down. The government is less efficient than the private sector (we the people) in using these dollars to build a strong economy. There are essential services that government must provide and taxes are the only way to fund those programs, but we have gone far beyond that essential role and I can find no justification for additional taxes to fuel even more government growth.
When someone proposes an additional tax they are, in essence, saying that the government cannot accomplish its responsibilities without more money and we the people must accomplish ours on that much less. This always happens in little steps, but when we look back, we see how far we have come down this road of taxation and increased government spending.
In Larimer County, the County Commission is proposing doubling the county sales tax and eliminating the sunset date we have on that tax. This is one more step down this long dismal road.
My goal as a member of the Colorado General Assembly is to empower the people, not the government. We the people are better served when we control our own money. It is hard to imagine that the founders of this country were up in arms because of the "exorbitant" tax burden they faced, which was less than 5%, imposed on a limited number of products. What would they think if they knew how much taxation their great-great-grandchildren were facing?
As a State Representative I will continue to pursue tax reductions, not tax increases.
Back to Top
TABOR Amendment: Problem or Solution?
by Kevin LundbergRepresentative, House District 49
3/27/03
As the state's economy continues to languish and state government revenues continue to slide, the legislature is wrestling with ever-deeper budget cuts. At the time I write this, the state's revenue estimate for this fiscal year is over a billion dollars less than the original projections. Some say the TABOR amendment is a part of this problem, and their solution is to remove, or at least weaken, the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). I say that the TABOR amendment to the state constitution is not a part of the problem, it is a part of the solution. In fact, the TABOR amendment has been the fiscal discipline which has kept our state's budget from growing to even more unrealistic levels. If we had not had these limitations the current economic realities would be creating a catastrophic effect on our state's civil government.
This amendment is based on the principle of limited government. A free society can flourish only if the ever-encroaching growth of civil government is strictly controlled and limited. This can only be accomplished by limits on how much of the people's money the government has access to. The TABOR amendment has accomplished this to a greater extent than any other constitutional mechanism we have.
Among the arguments usually presented against TABOR is that we cannot save the excess funds collected in the good times for use during poorer economic conditions. In addition, it is said that TABOR begins to hold back the government from growing at the same pace as the rest of the state's economic activity as it begins to rev up again. This is commonly referred to as a "ratcheting down" effect.
Before examining these particulars, let us first return to the main principle. A free society can only flourish if the ever encroaching control of government is strictly limited. TABOR is the fiscal discipline which allows this principle to survive the political pressures of day-to-day legislative process.
After my brief time here in the legislature, I can see that it is an almost impossible task to really limit the growth of government without a constitutional mandate to do so. The genius of TABOR is it comprehensively deals with the revenue and expense sides of the issue. It also allows for exceptions for local governmental entities and tax increases through a vote of the people.
Concerning saving the extra funds from the surplus years: I have never seen a civil government that was capable of saving. The real result is always more spending, and more government growth. Ultimately, this leads to even more severe budget cuts when the economy takes a downturn. It must also be noted that to "save the funds" means to withhold them from the people. Except in rare exceptions, civil government should always defer to the interests of the individual, not the other way around.
Concerning the government growth restrictions TABOR places during economic upswings: This discipline is absolutely necessary to keep civil government focused on the priorities of proper governance. This is a key point to the principle of limited government. For a healthy and prosperous society our long-term goal should be more individual liberty and responsibility. If civil government has a natural tendency to grow beyond its appropriate jurisdiction, there must be constitutional mandates to bring it back into its proper size and authority.
There are some constitutional and Federal mandates that force a certain level of spending and/or spending growth. These requirements force the budget to expand and are counterproductive to the principle of limited government. Proponents for growth in civil government often link these issues with the TABOR amendment and call for a reevaluation of all of them together.
Beware of this logic, for it will lead to a compromise of the principles of freedom. If our children are to continue to enjoy the fruits of liberty, we must maintain a strict limit on the growth of civil government. The Tax Payers' Bill of Rights is a key element in maintaining this ideal for the people of Colorado.
Back to Top
The State Budget
by Kevin LundbergRepresentative, House District 49
3/4/03
This year, the overwhelming issue at the legislature has been the budget. Revenues have been falling, with each new estimate showing lower numbers than before. This problem is a reflection of the state's overall economy. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for just about everyone. Our state government's budget is no exception.
The problem is obvious, but what are the solutions we chose in the legislature? For the most part it was the path of least resistance. A smart business would use this time to reevaluate and prepare for a rebound when the economy recovers. In the political world under the Capitol Dome, it takes a herculean effort to move against the tide of accommodation. Making decisions based strictly on sound economic principles is all but impossible.
To put it in differnt terms, little discussion was given to big-picture priorities: Is medical coverage a right or a privilege? Does the state have an obligation to preemptively protect its citizens from a wide range of potential dangers through excessive regulation, licencing, and inspections? Is it the state's obligation to provide higher-education opportunities for all of its citizens? Should the budget assumptions always grow the General Fund at the maximun rate?
I do not propose the answers to all of these questions, but it is certainly the approriate time for discussing the basic priority issues in state government. It is always an important discussion, but during times of economic change, we as a state should proactively respond with substantive solutions that position us for long-term success.
To the credit of our Republican leadership, during these difficult economic times, higher taxes have not been the topic of discussion. We have drained cash funds, raised user fees and trimmed back on some programs, but the obvious big-government solution has not been put on the table.
Had the leadership believed in big-government solutions, the call would inevitably have been for higher taxes. Here in Colorado we can only raise taxes with a vote of the people, so it would take some time to implement, but the discussion and ultimate additional taxes would be a greater burden and inevitable drag on the recovering economy, and ultimately a permanent drag on the culture.
Developing the budget has been a long and difficult process. It has taken a great amount of time and effort and I applaud the dilligent work so many talented people have devoted to the preparation of the state government's budget. I applaud their efforts even if I do not appreciate how the process always bends toward the path of least resistance.
As of this writing, I still have a late bill pending which is designed to reduce the allowable growth of the General Fund from six percent to five percent, with the difference being put in a rainy-day fund. This fund is intended to be used in years when the revenue falls short of meeting the five percent allowable growth.
In future years I will continue to work for appropriate limits on how the process is directed, for that is the best way I see that we the people can maintain some control over the outcome. The Tax Payers Bill of Rights amendment to the state constitution is the most notable limit that continues to serve us well in insuring some direction in the big-picture issues.
Back to Top
< Back to Archives
