 |
|
|
|
|
| 10/4/2008 6:00:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | 'No' on 50, 51, 54
As is more often the case than not with Colorado ballot initiatives, proponents of Amendments 50, 51 and 54 are attempting to codify their issues in the state constitution. Given each of these measure's specificity and detail, it is not necessary to burden what should be a foundational document with these three amendments.
Voters should reject Amendments 50, 51 and 54.
Amendment 50 would allow residents of the gaming communities of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek to vote to increase the maximum bets, casino hours and types of games offered to patrons. The majority of the extra revenue generated would fund community colleges as well as the cities and counties where the revenue was earned. That money would also be exempted from state and local spending limits. Amendment 50 would also require statewide approval for any increase in the gaming tax rate in those communities. While there is certainly a need for an increased revenue stream for community colleges, and residents of the cities in which gaming takes place should have a voice in how the activity is conducted, it is not necessary to place language allowing such in the state's constitution.
The constitutional change that is warranted would be to take regulatory language about gambling our of the Constitution and give that authority to the legislature. That is where such power belongs.
Amendment 51 addresses another legitimate need in the wrong way. Proposing to raise the state sales tax by two-tenths of a percent over the next two years to fund programs for Coloradans with developmental disabilities, the amendment results from the current inadequacy of those services - as evidenced by a waiting list of 9,700 people with various disabilities such as autism, cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. That imbalance should be corrected, but not by writing tax and spending policy into the state Constitution.
While it does not address fiscal policy, Amendment 54 is similarly inappropriate for the Constitution. The proposal would limit the ability of contractors working for government agencies to contribute to political parties or candidates during the contract and for two years afterward, and would prohibit contributors to ballot initiatives from winning some government contracts that relate to the issue. The prohibitions would extend to unions that have collective bargaining agreements with government agencies, as well as businesses that have no-bid government contracts. The amendment aims to ensure that contributions do not lead to contracts - a worthy goal, to be sure, but one that can be reached with careful contractual language and transparent awarding processes.
Billed as a clean government effort, this would in reality provide a tool to stifle political participation. It does not belong in the state constitution.
Vote "no" on Amendments 50, 51, and 54.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
