<\/p>\n
With the defeat of Proposition CC, voters ensured taxpayer refunds and the periodic legislative exercise in avoiding them are here to stay.<\/p>\n
The 2020 budget cycle is shaping up to be no exception. The legislative session is still weeks away, and Colorado budget writers already face a daunting list of requests.<\/p>\n
Two federal health care programs \u2013 the Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program and a supplemental funding program for hospitals \u2014 are scheduled to reduce their payments to Colorado by nearly $70 million next year.<\/p>\n
Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, has asked again for $69 million he was denied last session to expand the state preschool program, provide paid family leave to state employees and stash money in the rainy day fund.<\/p>\n
Democratic lawmakers, who control both legislative chambers, have spending ambitions of their own, like a family leave program for private sector workers.<\/p>\n
And the Joint Budget Committee still has to find a way to pay for $80 million to $100 million worth of legislation that passed in 2019 \u2013\u2013 all while doling out $428 million in taxpayer refunds through various mechanisms, with more refunds likely on the way next budget year.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re in a really tough place,\u201d state Sen. Dominick Moreno, a Democratic budget writer from Commerce City, told The Colorado Sun in an interview. \u201cAnd I think it\u2019s going to mean that there\u2019s a lot more scrutiny on how we proceed, on what kind of policy changes we consider.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prop. CC, the measure to permanently eliminate the state revenue cap, along with the refunds owed under the Taxpayer\u2019s Bill of Rights, would have alleviated much of the budget pressure, providing lawmakers as much as $1 billion in new revenue to spend over the next two years under some estimates. But voters resoundingly rejected the TABOR overhaul in the low-turnout contest earlier this month.<\/p>\n
Now, Democrats will have to choose between sacrificing parts of their ambitious agenda, or finding creative \u2013 and politically risky \u2013 ways to pay for it. That could include strategies that have worked in the past, like raising new fees to fund public programs or exempting existing fees from the TABOR cap.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s even preliminary talk of a more ambitious move: exempting the $660 million gas tax from the state\u2019s revenue limits.<\/p>\n
As of now, budget writers say, everything\u2019s up for consideration. But some things, of course, are more likely than others. Here\u2019s four options Democrats are discussing in the wake of Prop. CC\u2019s defeat.<\/p>\n
Under TABOR, using fees to raise revenue is the most direct way to generate money without asking voters for permission to increase taxes, as required by the constitution. It also risks political backlash, because it hits voters\u2019 wallets directly.<\/p>\n
One proposal that\u2019s sure to resurface from a year ago is a family medical leave program, which would be financed like insurance, through employee and employer payroll deductions. The proposal was rejected last year with the legislature opting instead to commission a study on the issue. An earlier version would have raised more than $900 million in annual premiums to fund the program.<\/p>\n
In the past, lawmakers have also relied on fees to fund more traditional public services, like highways, bridges and parks. In an election year, though, even lawmakers who believe new fees are justified may be hesitant to pull the trigger.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think some members are very comfortable with it, some are less comfortable and we\u2019re just going to have to see if we can craft something that will work broadly across the (General) Assembly,\u201d said Rep. Chris Hansen, a Denver Democrat who also serves on the Joint Budget Committee.<\/p>\n
But because the state is over the TABOR cap, there\u2019s a flip side to that coin: Not all fees will create new revenue that can actually be spent on public services.<\/p>\n
The governor\u2019s office, for instance, has requested ramping up air pollution enforcement to bring the Denver metro area into compliance with federal ozone standards. In many years, the 19 employees needed to enforce new permitting and compliance efforts would pay for themselves by generating as much as $2.4 million in new fees. But these particular fees aren\u2019t exempt from the TABOR cap. And any new money the state brings in next year that isn\u2019t TABOR-exempt will trigger an equal amount of taxpayer refunds, reducing the money that can be spent out of the general fund on other public services.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat might as well be a general fund expenditure because we\u2019re just not in a place where we have the luxury of bringing in new revenue,\u201d Moreno said.<\/p>\n
Another option is to convert existing revenue to enterprise funds, much like the legislature did a few years ago when it reclassified a state hospital fee in order to clear out more room to spend revenue under the TABOR cap.<\/p>\n
The sheer size of the fee \u2013 around $600 million at the time \u2013 made it a high impact target for lawmakers seeking to create new spending capacity. Budget writers told The Sun there aren\u2019t other fees currently subject to TABOR that would generate that much money. But Moreno said they are exploring whether they could convert something else to a TABOR-exempt enterprise fund: the 22 cent state gas tax, which generates around $660 million annually.<\/p>\n
Legally, that\u2019s a murkier proposition than converting the hospital fee, because the gas tax has long been labeled a tax, not a fee. But the line between tax and fee is blurry. Colorado\u2019s hospital fee, for instance, is defined as a \u201cbed tax\u201d in many states.<\/p>\n
And the state Supreme Court has historically given lawmakers a lot of leeway in making that distinction, as long as the money it generates is earmarked for a related purpose. Much like some of Colorado\u2019s TABOR-exempt car registration fees, Colorado gas tax revenue funds highway construction.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s too early to say whether this will emerge as a legislative push next session, though. \u201cIt\u2019s pretty early on\u201d in the discussion, Moreno said.<\/p>\n
Another possibility is to raise the TABOR cap to where it was before lawmakers struck a deal to lower it by $200 million in 2017. This idea first surfaced last year, but never got off the ground.<\/p>\n
Legally, this one might be an easier sell than a gas tax overhaul. The thinking is, if lawmakers voluntarily lowered the cap, they should theoretically be able to reverse course without asking voters for permission.<\/p>\n
But politically, this one might be even less likely to happen. It was already fraught, requiring Democrats to renege on a deal struck with Republicans just a few years ago. And now, they\u2019d be attempting it just months after voters sent a clear message in Prop. CC that they wanted to keep their taxpayer refunds.<\/p>\n
This one is certain to happen sooner or later. The only question is what will be asked of voters \u2013\u2013 and how much more receptive the 2020 electorate will be than those who cast ballots in the low-turnout affair of November 2019.<\/p>\n
Outside groups are evaluating a variety of TABOR reforms, including outright repeal and more targeted changes, like a progressive income tax. Moreno says past legislative bills may resurface as well, like a Republican-led plan that would have asked voters to tie the TABOR growth formula to personal income rather than inflation.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t expect much support from Republicans against the backdrop of a presidential election year. To victorious conservatives, the message from voters in November was clear: leave TABOR alone. But to Democrats, Prop. CC\u2019s defeat wasn\u2019t a sign that they should stop trying to loosen its grip on state government.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe voters who showed up in what was a very low turnout election said they wanted to keep their refund checks,\u201d Hansen said. \u201cThat\u2019s fine; that\u2019s a data point. But I don\u2019t take some broader philosophical conclusion from it. \u2026 I don\u2019t think it takes away from the options that we\u2019re looking at.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Democrats in the Colorado legislature will sacrifice parts of their agenda or find politically risky ways to pay for it<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":65502,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[394,21,28,29],"naviga_topic":[],"class_list":["post-65501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-colorado-legislature","tag-cortez","tag-headlines","tag-newsletter"],"acf":[],"author_name":"dh_admin","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65501\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65501"},{"taxonomy":"naviga_topic","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/naviga_topic?post=65501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}