The state constitution requires the state to produce a voter information booklet, commonly known as the “Blue Book,” on every legislatively referred and citizen-initiated measure to appear on the statewide election ballot. The booklet, prepared by Legislative Council Staff (LCS), must provide fair and impartial analysis of each measure. LCS solicits public comments on both drafts it produces for each measure.
Independence Institute’s Fiscal Policy Center reviewed the first draft of the Proposition NN draft analysis and submitted comments for review. LCS will review all public comments on the first draft and decide how to incorporate them into a second draft, at which point they will provide for a second round of public comments.
Independence Institute submitted the following comments on the first draft to LCS.
Page 1 starting at line 1 – The Title for Proposition NN currently reads: Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Children’s Programs
- I believe this title is misleading because it focuses only on a temporary aspect of the measure. The lasting impact of Prop NN is that it permanently and fundamentally changes the TABOR limit. Because Prop NN must be assumed to be a permanent change to TABOR, the education requirement will only become less relevant with time. In 100 years, for example, only a portion of the retained revenue will ever have been required to go to K-12 Education and Children’s Programs; meanwhile, the increase to the TABOR cap and change to how TABOR is calculated remain permanent long after the 10-year requirement.
Suggested language: Proposition NN: Permanently Increase TABOR limit based on New Formula
Page 1 starting at line 11 – This sentence currently reads: The retained revenue may be spent on K-12 education, programs that support children, and, after ten years, other state programs.
Suggested language: The retained revenue may be spent on K-12 education, programs that support children, and, after ten years, any other state program.
Page 1 starting at line 24 – This sentence currently reads: The new limit is based on the amount spent on public education.
- While this sentence explains, at a basic level, what the new limit is based on, I think it is important for voters to understand that this new limit allows the legislature to directly influence a key part of the state’s fiscal guardrails. Inflation is driven by federal monetary policy, and population tends to follow national and global trends. Therefore, the new limit places a segment of the legislature’s fiscal guardrails under the legislature’s own control. This reduces the independence and “impartiality” of TABOR’s constraints. It is crucial that this is made clear to voters.
Page 5 starting at line 8 – This section currently reads: Proposition NN does not raise new taxes or ask Coloradans to pay more. It redirects money the state already collects into a dedicated, protected funding stream for our kids and classrooms, ensuring that dollars already in the public’s hands are actually put to work for the public good.
- This statement is misleading because increased funding comes from somewhere, namely taxpayers. So the claim that Prop NN does not ask Coloradans to pay more is false. If the General Assembly were not asking voters to pay more, they would not need to ask voters to pass Prop NN. The only reason the legislature is presenting Prop NN to voters is because TABOR requires it when asking voters for money that would otherwise be returned to taxpayers (even if the tax rate is not increasing).
- The next sentence is also misleading. The suggestion that, simply because this money is money the state already collects, the General Assembly is entitled to it is incorrect. This is comparable to a cashier suggesting they keep the change because it is money they already collected during a transaction. Coloradans are entitled to their money under TABOR, just as a customer who overpaid their cashier is.
Page 6 starting at Arguments Against Proposition NN
- Similar to an earlier comment, I think it is crucial for voters to understand that this is not simply another increase in the TABOR limit. While it is easy to focus on the refund side of why voters support TABOR, the most important aspect is that TABOR was passed by voters to reasonably restrain most the growth of government. Governments will rarely restrain themselves. Allowing the legislature to directly influence its own spending limits permanently erodes the fiscal constraints that make TABOR effective.
- It should also be noted that school enrollment has been declining in Colorado. With declining enrollment and continually increasing budgets, this raises questions about where the excess money is going if not to classrooms. Rather than simply increasing funding, the legislature should first ensure the efficient use of education funding, as the arguments against Prop NN note.
