School tax hikes OK for now, court says

Well this story's off to a good start. "School tax hikes OK." What tax hikes? Nobody's taxes are going up. In school districts where voters decided the district should keep the revenue it gets from its existing tax rate, district will keep the revenue. In fact, while no one's tax rate is going up, in some districts the tax rate is going down.

The headline is more like a political sound bite than the start of a news story.

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News, Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

A law that funnels more tax money to schools is still in force for now, allowing local school districts to raise taxes in 2009, the state Supreme Court said Friday.

What district is raising taxes? In a lot of districts taxes won't to down, but not cutting taxes isn't the same as raising them. And in each case the voters in the district voted to let the district keep the money.

But the court refused to say whether the law is constitutional, and it gave no hint when that decision will come.

The 2007 law would raise an estimated $1.7 billion for schools over 11 years by blocking a scheduled decline in property taxes.

Opponents filed suit, saying it's an unconstitutional tax increase because it wasn't approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Except that it was approved by voters under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. And it only applies to districts where voters approved it. If the Rocky really doesn't understand this, I with it would explain why it doesn't apply to districts where voters didn't approve a TABOR exemption.

In a two-page order, the judges lifted an injunction by Denver District Judge Christina Habas, who held the law unconstitutional. The unsigned Supreme Court order allows the 178 school districts to set tax rates, which are due at the state education department by Dec. 15.

The education department earlier this week asked the court to rule in the case by Friday so the school districts could meet the deadline. The court heard oral arguments in September.

The law is backed by Gov. Bill Ritter and most Democrats in the legislature.

Most Republican lawmakers oppose it.

Both sides warned against viewing the Friday order as hinting at which way the court will rule.

Evan Dreyer, Ritter's spokesman, said, "This is a very specific, very narrow order.

"We're not reading the tea leaves at all," said Education Department spokesman Mark Stevens.

Richard Westfall, the attorney for groups and individuals who brought the suit, said that if the judges had wanted to rule on the constitutional issue, they would have done so.

"It seems to me they have not yet decided it," Westfall said.

This is possible. I misunderstood where the Court was in the process. I thought the Court was very close to issuing its opinion, but just hadn't finished the formal document. In that case, it would make sense to let the districts certify their mill levies one way or the other - either using the formula under the new rule (if the law is constitutional) or under the old rule (if it's unconstitutional).

If the court is actually a long way from handing down its opinion, then I guess it could let the school districts certify their mill levies either way and sort everything out later.

The order itself says the court, in lifting the lower court injunction, intended to "preserve the status quo as it existed under (the 2007 law) until this court issues its final decision in this matter."

But several lawmakers read the order as upholding the law.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said the court wouldn't tell school districts to set tax rates one way, then tell them to do something different in a few weeks.

I didn't say they wouldn't do that, I said I didn't think they would do that. Notwithstanding my last comment, it does seem like there would be better alternatives than having districts certify a mill levy that's not going to stand. Maybe the court could have pushed back the certification date.

"It just seems like an odd thing to do," he said. Pommer was the main House sponsor of the 2007 law.

Pommer, the vice chairman of the Joint Budget Committee, said the order makes it likely the Legislature will have more money to work with next year.

When districts get less money from local taxes, the state has to give them more money from state coffers. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, the state will probably have to give more money to schools. That means less money for other state services. I guess the like is accurate, but it's sort of the reverse of what I said.

The reporter asked me if we were cutting money out of the budget so we could give it to districts if the Court ruled against the 2007 law. I said "no," because we almost always work according to current law. The 2007 law is current, since the Court hasn't ruled it unconstitutional.

We work according to current law because it's the the most practical thing to do. A lot of people sue the state for a lot of reasons. We would have a hard time doing anything if we acted as though all of those people were doing to win in court.

But, he added, "It's not like it's a total relief. It could be a cruel joke."

Sen. Josh Penry, R-Fruita, a vocal opponent of the 2007 law, said the order demonstrates the court's partisan bias.

"I've always assumed that this court would place its loyalty to the Democratic governor ahead of its fidelity to the constitution," Penry said. "This Supreme Court is the most partisan branch of government in Colorado."

Or maybe the Court hasn't decided. Or maybe the law is just constitutional. Keep in mind, conservatives spend most of their time calling courts "activist." They usually say that when courts overturn something the legislative branch has approved. Or approve something the legislative branch has denied. Conservatives call that "activist" because the court is putting its opinion in place of the "will of the people" as expressed by representatives they elected to the legislature (or Congress).

In this case, if the Court rules the law is constitutional, it will be letting the will of the people, as expressed by their elected representatives, stand. If the Court rules the law unconstitutional, it will be "activist" by "legislating from the bench" and replacing a duly passed law with its own opinion.

That puts conservatives in an awkward spot. If they win this case, they'll have to applaud the court for being activist. It they lose, they'll have to attack the court for failing to be activist.

If you had a job, we'd tell you where to buy your holiday gifts

These two stories are from the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Focus on the Family eliminating 202 jobs

BILL REED
THE GAZETTE

Because of a weak economy and cash-strapped donors, Focus on the Family said it is eliminating 202 jobs, the deepest cuts in the 32-year history of the Colorado Springs-based Christian nonprofit.

Focus expects this holiday season - normally the most lucrative time of the year for nonprofits - to be even more painful to the bottom line.

But for those who still have a job and will be buying holiday presents, the Dobson gang is going to tell you where to spend your money.

Focus puts retailers on a naughty and nice list for Christmas

MARK BARNA
THE GAZETTE

Focus on the Family wants shoppers to know which retailers are naughty and which ones are nice - at least when it comes to holiday lingo.

On Thursday the Colorado Springs-based ministry's political action arm launched its second-annual holiday campaign by posting an online shoppers guide with three categories: "Christmas-friendly" retailers, "Christmas-negligent" retailers and "Christmas-offensive" retailers.

The "friendly" retailers are so designated because they prominently use "Merry Christmas" and other Christmas-specific references in their catalogs and in-store promotions. Those on the Christmas-offensive list use secular phrases such as "happy holidays" and have "apparently abandoned" the use of the word "Christmas," Focus said. Christmas-negligent companies "marginalize" their message by using "Christmas" in some cases and "holidays" in others.

The Focus shopping guide is another weapon in the growing battle against what social conservatives several years ago labeled the "War on Christmas" - the notion that Christmas is being secularized, in part by retailers trying not to offend non-Christians by using terms like "holiday season," "winter season," "shopping season" and "holiday trees."

A group that considers the holiday season "the most lucrative time of the year" would, of course, assume that retailers define Christmas.

Some of the tactics have paid off.

In 2005, Sears, Kmart, Walmart and Target received threats of a boycott from Christian groups for their "holiday season" advertising. The companies soon adopted the Christmas-friendly language.

Governor's small-biz initiative questioned

By Tim Hoover
The Denver Post

Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday announced initiatives intended to help Colorado businesses weather hard times, but one proposal left lawmakers scratching their heads.

Addressing the legislature's Joint Budget Committee, Ritter said he wanted to spend $12 million on economic-development proposals, though $7 million of that would not be available until July 2010 — and only if the governor's revenue projections are accurate.

Ritter said the recession has taken a toll on states across the country, with 24 reporting budget shortfalls in the current fiscal year. Colorado is facing a $100 million shortfall in the current budget year, which ends in June.

"States are cutting their budgets, laying off employees and reducing public services," Ritter said. "Fortunately, Colorado seems to be weathering the storm better than many other states."

Ritter's proposed budget, while not giving state employees performance increases, still requests $42.9 million for cost-of-living pay increases, representing a 2.5 percent average pay hike. It also calls for hiring 900 new employees, the bulk of whom are needed for growth in prisons and social services, according to Ritter's staff.

Of the nearly $5 million available for economic development before 2010, Ritter proposed using about $2.5 million for an "access to capital" program for small businesses. He said the money might be put into a loan program.

That explanation brought questions from skeptical members of the Joint Budget Committee.

Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said the money would not be of much help to businesses and questioned whether it could be better spent elsewhere.

"For $2.5 million, that's like one company, possibly," said Tapia, who owns an engineering business. "We have bridges that are falling apart, we have roads that need to be repaired, people on the disability waiting lists.

"There's a lot of things we need in our state that we're not getting to."

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, agreed, saying, "I just find it incredulous that $2.5 million is going to solve anything."

"Incredulous" is a little harsh, but I really can't see how $2.5 million is going to guarantee a significant number of bank loans or otherwise free up credit. I wouldn't care, except that the state government has an important role in maintaining the state's economy -- by doing things like supporting education and building and maintaining the infrastructure -- and proposals like this district us from what we should be doing.

Don Elliman, executive director of the Colorado Office of Economic Development, admitted officials didn't have specific details
on how the money might be spent. He said administration officials needed several weeks to come up with more information but were looking at a program to educate small businesses on how to access more capital, such as via government programs.

Despite Ritter's remarks, Elliman said the money would not be going "to a loan pool somewhere."

"We're not talking about trying to bail out a bunch of banks," Elliman said. "If we can't touch a far greater universe than 150 or 200 companies, then we shouldn't spend a dime of that money in that behalf."

Tony Gagliardi, Colorado director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the organization welcomed the Ritter plan.

"Our feeling is the governor is recognizing that small business is the economic engine (of the state)," he said.

But House Republicans said the state would be better served by Ritter easing regulations on the oil and gas industry. House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, mocked Ritter's small-business proposal.

"I think they (Ritter's office) are just trying to make it look like they're doing something," he said. "It's $2.5 million in PR for the governor. It's not going to do a single thing to create a new job."

State's economic decline creates roadblock for lawmakers pushing to pass Jessica's Law

By MIKE SACCONE
Saturday, November 15, 2008

Low revenue forecasts and the state’s economic decline could hamstring a push by Western Slope Republican politicians to institute tougher minimum sentences and more oversight of sex offenders.

Lawmakers on the Joint Budget Committee said legislation supported by incoming Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and other Republican lawmakers to implement mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters from Jessica’s Law probably will command a steep price tag.

Sen.-elect Al White, R-Hayden, said the merits of implementing Jessica’s Law aside, the measure’s sponsors can expect a “hugely expensive” price tag to accompany their legislation.

White said any bill that increases mandatory prison sentences is sure to drive a multimillion-dollar price tag for the costs of building new prison beds as well as the ongoing expenses of housing and guarding inmates.

Under state law, anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a child could face anywhere from two years up to life in prison.

Under Jessica’s Law, someone convicted of sexually assaulting a child 16 years old or younger would have a mandatory minimum 25-year prison term, according to the Colorado Legislative Council.

Penry and Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, pushed during the 2007 legislative session to implement mandatory 15-year minimum sentences for sex offenders, but the bill failed to clear the House Judiciary Committee.

McNulty said the bill’s price tag of more than $13 million in its first year contributed to the bill’s defeat.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, said he likes the idea of cracking down on sex offenders, but the lawmakers behind bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado need to figure out a way to fund their proposal.

“A lot of people have great ideas for spending money, but they don’t come up with ideas for what you cut,” said Pommer, who sits on the budget panel. “I hope if somebody is going to pitch this, they come and say, ‘This is what we want to cut.’ ”

He said lawmakers finding a funding stream is especially important with the economic downturn sapping the state’s tax revenue.

Colorado is one of eight states, including Wyoming, that have not implemented some form of Jessica’s Law.

Penry said if he and his colleagues encounter a fiscal stumbling block, they plan to push to implement Jessica’s Law, even if it takes more than one session.

“The fight to enact Jessica’s Law will be a marathon and not a sprint. … I don’t have any illusion that it will happen quickly or immediately,” Penry said. “It will probably be a multiyear fight to get it enacted, but it’s an issue we have to keep pushing because it’s the right thing to do.”

Penry said having public sentiment on the side of enacting tougher sanctions for sex offenders will help.

Rep.-elect Laura Bradford, R-Collbran, who made bringing Jessica’s Law to Colorado an issue during her campaign this year, said she plans to support the coalition in any way she can.

State budget constrained by the faltering economy

editorial

The governor's proposed economic stimulus package is a mere $12 million, but we're glad to see more focus on a green economy.

By The Denver Post

Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 07:26:14 PM MST

Colorado's upcoming budget is sure to be lean, and even Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to stimulate the state economy underscore how few options the state really has.

Ritter presented his budget request for the fiscal year that begins July 1 to the legislature's Joint Budget Committee on Thursday. He showcased a $12 million economic stimulus package that totaled a mere 0.15 percent of the $7.9 billion in proposed general fund
spending.

We commented on Ritter's overall budget last Sunday. In focusing today on the economic stimulus portion, we're happy to see $2.5 million targeted to "establishing New Energy Economy job-training programs that would be run by community colleges and private
businesses."

Such efforts focus on Colorado's strength in attracting new energy jobs, based on both its abundance of wind and sunshine as well
as the fertile minds of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden. As a current example, the governor cited Vestas working closely with the community college in Pueblo to train skilled workers for its advanced wind power manufacturing.

Ritter's second high-priority program — $2.5 million to "create an 'access to capital' initiative to enhance the availability of credit for small businesses" encountered more skepticism from the budget panel. Both Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, and Sen.-elect Al White, R-Winter Park, questioned whether so modest a sum would add anything to the $700 billion federal bailout designed to revitalize the
nation's credit markets.

For his part, Ritter noted that the proposal was still being drafted and promised much more detail before the legislature would actually be asked to authorize such funds. We share the skepticism voiced by White and Pommer but note that federal programs are often surrounded by a blizzard of paperwork. If the targeted $2.5 million can seed community college programs to help small businesses navigate that bureaucratic maze, it would be well spent.

Meanwhile, we're happy to see the job creation efforts. That includes a round of seven regional job fairs, an open house Thursday at
the state's 63 Colorado Workforce Centers and a Ritter-led trade mission that will depart for China and Japan Saturday.

Beyond such ongoing efforts, it's clear that any hopes for a major job-creation effort depend on Congress' willingness to finance an
expansion of transportation projects, water supplies, sewage treatment and other infrastructure needs, as we discussed in an Oct. 25
editorial. Ritter noted the state has identified a number of projects that already have passed environmental reviews and can go to bid if and when extra federal funds arrive. Given Colorado's tight revenue picture and constitutional requirement for a balanced budget, being poised to capitalize on any new federal grants is a wise move.