Practicing economics without a license

re "State needs referendums to aid recovery" (The Fort Collins Coloradoan, 9/29/05) To the Editors: If an economist performed surgery on a patient, he would go to jail for practicing medicine without a license. Yet voters tolerate doctors (or veterinarians) practicing economics without a clue. And while the fake doctor can certainly hurt a patient, legislators hurt millions of Coloradoans at once. State Senator Steve Johnson gives us a perfect example with his misdiagnosis of the state as “in trouble”. By what standard are we in trouble? Colorado is in the top few states in technology job creation, above the national average in increase in standard of living (only since TABOR passed), and has had an increased state budget every year, including during the recession. Senator Johnson intentionally misleads voters by talking only about the General Fund which did decline, but which was more than made up for by other state government revenues, leading to higher government spending every year. To follow up calling this very health patient sick, he then prescribes poison in the form of the massive and permanent tax increase contained in Referendum C. The reason Colorado is doing well is precisely because we have avoided the huge increases in taxation and the size of government that have bedeviled states like California. You wouldn’t allow an economist to prescribe arsenic to a healthy person, and you shouldn’t allow Senator Johnson to prescribe taxes to a healthy economy. I will be debating Senator Johnson about Referenda C and D at the Larimer County Republican breakfast club on Monday, October 3rd. The club meets from 7 AM to 8:30 AM at the Cottonwood Club, 6831 S. College Ave. I encourage all interested parties to attend. Ross G Kaminsky is a Regional Coordinator for the Colorado Club for Growth
  • realist
    Comment from: realist
    10/01/05 @ 06:09:36 am

    colorado is in trouble, but i don't see how raising taxes will help the situation. colorado has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, and those foreclosures are increasing. remember the r.t.c. days?

  • ImJustAvg
    Comment from: ImJustAvg
    10/12/05 @ 09:11:28 am

    With all the for and against ads on TV, people are really getting confused. The Fors: 1. Say it is not a tax increase (but if the money was to be refunded to the tax payers, isn't it the same thing)! 2. A former senator says there will be no money in the general fund for higher education in the next decade (doesn't ref C last five years, not ten?). 3. All the for ads say the blue book says this or says that, but no where do they say WHERE the taxpayer can get a blue book. 4. The elderly are targeted for decreased spending if Ref C does not pass, but we have had Tabor since 1992, so why is it just now that it is an issue. 5. An ad says that a report will be written once a year on how the money was SPENT, not how it will be spent in the coming year! 6. And so many more discrepancies. The AGAINST: 1. Some of their ads are rediculous - they act like their target is the three year old child. 2. They say $3,200, the fors say $419 - neither side really convinves me on the correct number. While at this point I do not support Ref C (who likes tax increases), and I hope it does not pass, I would support a compromise on this. Why not let the government put the excess in an interest bearing account for three years and then start refunding the principal a year at a time? While it would not be the three billion the government wants, it would be an additional source of income that could go to the general fund.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    10/12/05 @ 07:58:32 pm

    While I oppose any increase in the size of government, as a political realist I probably would have to go along with some sort of compromise, but it would have to include substantial changes to Amendment 23 at the same time as any tweaking of TABOR. If you read Governor Owens' State of the State address from 2004, he said the exact same thing...yet here we are with him supporting the biggest tax increase in the state's history. On the purely political side of all this, a lot of confusion probably hurts Referendum C's chance of passing so if lots of people are confused, I guess I can't be too unhappy about it.