Lowdown on Amendment 66

[Baaahb]

So, Coloradoans (and those of mostly a liberal bent) what's the lowdown? State voters resoundly reject tax hike to reform and improve state education system. Americans say they care about improving education but I guess they want to do so for free. What say you?

[Danno]

It was a huge tax hike, and asking voters to approve taxes is (mostly) a losing proposition. As I posted elsewhere last night, this is still the state that passed TABOR, and that's what causes this whole problem. Want to point fingers? Blame Douglas Bruce and all the people who voted for the crap he put out. It's just REALLY REALLY hard to get people to vote for tax increases, let alone really big ones. And we shouldn't be voting on such things, it's really the province of the legislature to make these decisions. But Bruce and the idiots who voted for TABOR in 1992 (I moved to the state about 10 days after this vote so thankfully bear no blame) took such decisions out of the legislature's hands and put it in the people's hands. And sorry, but even if you think people are not idiots as a general rule (a very debatable position), they should not be voting on what amounts to complex fiscal policy.

In other words, the way to effect real change in Colorado is to quit dicking around with tax increases and work towards getting TABOR out of the Constitution.

[James]

Danno, I think you are overstating it a bit. I think it was poor timing. Maybe it is more of a local level thing but down here in Douglas county we have had a few tax increases for schools that have passed easlly but they all passed before 2008. Since then not many have faired very well. This is not the best climate to ask for a tax increase.

Bob, this is just like the national level entitlement pols. Everyone wants to cut spending but would prefer to see entitlement benefits increase.

[Danno]

Danno, I think you are overstating it a bit. I think it was poor timing. Maybe it is more of a local level thing but down here in Douglas county we have had a few tax increases for schools that have passed easlly but they all passed before 2008. Since then not many have faired very well. This is not the best climate to ask for a tax increase.

Bob, this is just like the national level entitlement pols. Everyone wants to cut spending but would prefer to see entitlement benefits increase.

James, I do not deny that tax increases can get passed; Boulder has passed many. But statewide tax increases are a much harder sell to begin with; at least local tax increases are assured of being spent locally, and as government gets bigger and more distant, people become more wary. And big tax increases are an even harder sell. As for the "climate" for tax increases, I agree that mediocre economic conditions make it even harder. However, I think complex economic decisions such as fiscal policy should not be left to the electorate. We have a representative system of government for a reason. Because the voters are (often) unable to look beyond the overall sluggish economy and make decisions that may benefit them in the long run*.

* Note: while I did vote for Amendment 66, I am not saying that it is the "solution"; I'm just saying that sometimes long term investment is needed, and voters are particularly poor at doing that, especially in statewide elections.

[SteveK]

If only someone posting on this thread was a mod, they could move it to WOT where it belongs.

[James]

I think complex economic decisions such as fiscal policy should not be left to the electorate. We have a representative system of government for a reason. Because the voters are (often) unable to look beyond the overall sluggish economy and make decisions that may benefit them in the long run.

I somewhat agree with this but all you have to do is look at states like Illinois or California and a few others to see what politicians can do regarding fiscal policy. I might even challenge you to show me a politician at the higher levels with a concern about fiscal policy over the long run.

What Steve K said.

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

If only someone posting on this thread was a mod, they could move it to WOT where it belongs.

done- no political posts here folks (at least not ones skiing related)

[Dostie]

I might even challenge you to show me a politician at the higher levels with a concern about fiscal policy over the long run.

Not might, I DO challenge anyone to find a politician who makes fiscal policy decisions with the electorate in mind, not his/her sponsoring corporation/bankster/political party in mind. The sheeple aren't much smarter, but their own self preservation will make the right decision PROVIDED they are armed with good information. The latter requirement is the real problem in Amerika these days. Good (reliable/truthful) info is out there, but it is NOT on the lamestream media channels.

[Baaahb]

Good one SteveK!

However, my understanding is that Dostie is comfortable with all threads starting here (err, there), in the main forum, and then, especially as they drop off the first page, being moved to subforums.

Also, as to its on-topic-ness, please think about the children. It is unrealistic to think that the children will all be exposed to the beauty and joy of backcountry skiing without a good education. It is hard to succeed as a liftie without first dropping out of some higher education. This thread may not be about skiing today, but it is about the future of the sport.

And, anyway, the goal is to have a well-mannered forum where people can discuss things at something higher than a third grade level. [Damn! Another relevance to the main forum!]

On this thread, so far, so good.

Danno (or anyone), apart from the tax increase, the initiative also contained certain reforms of the system. I'm not familiar with it. It is hard to legislate either competence or efficiency, but was the wisdom of the reforms also an issue?

[climbhoser]

Glad this is moved.

As for 66, I'm not surprised it didn't pass but pretty bummed. The remarks against revolved from "They're just going to pay teachers more" to "They already have enough money and need to do better with what they have."

Just ridiculous dogma. I don't think they understand that higher paid positions attract top talent (which, by the way, isn't how the money was earmarked to be spent). I think conservative Coloradans are making it obvious they don't value education.

Douglas County is in a hot seat right now, and the school board election is precedent setting throughout the country. If anything, I'm vastly more disappointed, albeit not surprised, at the outcome of this. This group, two of whom already held seats, have been moving to increase class sizes for a while now, and to defund schools. There is a fervor amongst neighbors that they are trying to motivate wealthier county residents to push for a private school or even a privatization of a charter school in the district. Right now we are sorely lacking for private schools, and generally speaking are as a State as well. Especially in contrast to the East Coast.

There is certainly enough money here for a private school to fit. Regis Jesuit HS and Mullen reject applicants every year.

Regardless, this is very strong philosophical conservatism at play, and I don't feel comfortable with it. I think education is something that needs to be equal for all, like policing. I see it almost as a right that we, as a society, need to ensure availability of to all children. I'm disgusted by the notion that my neighbors in this county would prefer a system that enables the privileged better access to education.

I also think the pay-for-performance system is complete crap, which, again, is a major leg of the platform the conservative school board members won on. I think it pushes teachers to educated to standardized testing and not to cognitive maturation and development. Standardized education has been shown in many ways to be inferior, which is also what we see with the Chinese education system. It enforces memorization over cognition and problem solving. Are you surpised that my children are Montessori students?

Yes, I think this is a big step backwards for Colorado education and I have much at stake here, personally and professionally as an employee of Douglas County Schools!

[BillyFromTheHills]

Yeah, we had a referendum in Idaho on the pay-for-performance system. The voters rejected it. Most of the teachers felt it didn't work and complained about the "teach-to-the-test" dynamic that the system spawned.

I'm with Danno on this one (although I'm pretty libertarian): tax policy is best left to the legislators...the unwashed masses are too short-sighted. But there needs to be a check on the legislators, too. Not sure how to do that...

[Baaahb]

pay-for-performance is a great idea but unfortunately in government it seems indelibly wedded to judge-performance-based-on-objective-criteria-that-are-a-poor-substitute-for-intelligent-management.

Sure, there are problems with management -- but when you give responsibility and flexibility to good managers you get by far the best system results.

[Danno]

I somewhat agree with this but all you have to do is look at states like Illinois or California and a few others to see what politicians can do regarding fiscal policy. I might even challenge you to show me a politician at the higher levels with a concern about fiscal policy over the long run.

Not might, I DO challenge anyone to find a politician who makes fiscal policy decisions with the electorate in mind, not his/her sponsoring corporation/bankster/political party in mind. The sheeple aren't much smarter, but their own self preservation will make the right decision PROVIDED they are armed with good information. The latter requirement is the real problem in Amerika these days. Good (reliable/truthful) info is out there, but it is NOT on the lamestream media channels.

I no doubt agree that leaving these things to the legislatures will still lead to problems, and I also no doubt believe that some legislators are not concerned with fiscal policy. But I do not share the cynical view expressed here. I share the sentiment in the famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried". And that means representative democracy, IMO, because you simply cannot put everything to a vote. And I firmly believe that as screwed up as our system in Washington is, we'd be far worse if these decisions were left to the "sheeple". The more complex the issue, the better suited it is for the legislature. And fiscal policy is about as complex as it gets. So, letting the legislature decide these things is the worst way to make these decisions, except for all the other ways we could make these decisions.

And if you truly believe that there aren't MANY politicians doing their best, as best they can, for the good of the country and their constituents, then not only are you incredibly jaded but you have absolutely zero clue as to how difficult it is to make decisions in a pluralistic, democratic, capitalist society such as ours. Does that mean every decision is as principled as I'd like? Not even close. Does that mean I don't believe the system can corrupt people? No, of course it does. But ultimately, for most legislators the primary concern is still doing a good job, which often makes their first concern getting re-elected. I don't believe their primary concern is lining their corrupt little pocketses. We'd be in far worse shape if it were.

[BillyFromTheHills]

And if you truly believe that there aren't MANY politicians doing their best, as best they can, for the good of the country and their constituents, then not only are you incredibly jaded but you have absolutely zero clue as to how difficult it is to make decisions in a pluralistic, democratic, capitalist society such as ours. Does that mean every decision is as principled as I'd like? Not even close. Does that mean I don't believe the system can corrupt people? No, of course it does. But ultimately, for most legislators the primary concern is still doing a good job, which often makes their first concern getting re-elected. I don't believe their primary concern is lining their corrupt little pocketses. We'd be in far worse shape if it were.

Totally agree! Well said...ignorant and over-simplified to say otherwise.

[climbhoser]

My brother is putting the finishing touches on a thesis that takes an in-depth look at representative motivation. The drive toward re-election looks, from the empirical data, like it governs nearly every discernable action/decision by elected representatives. I say "nearly" because there are odd-men out, either decisions or representatives, but they don't last.

I think luck would have it that some smart, passionate people pay attention. It isn't about lining pockets, but more studies show that raising money is essential to winning elections. Some smart, passionate people aggregate dollars so that they might have an ongoing concern in decision making, otherwise the poor special interest groups wouldn't have a voice at all.

It's not about being jaded, but about being objective as to what the rules of the game are.

Though I do tend to agree that it is, in many ways, too complicated for most people to be voting on. However, that's a slippery slope...do you trust them to decide on the right individual to vote for? That is also a very complicated issue, albeit more philosophically. I tend to come at it from the other angle: how can we better educate the public on the issues and allow them to take educated control over their communities?