After the shellacking proponents of billion dollar tax increase Amendment 66 received in 2013, it’s surprising that the teachers union and their allies would come back for another bite at the apple. But, here we are. According to a Colorado Statesman article, the backers of Amendment 66, like Great Education Colorado, aim to “de-Bruce” education spending. While that’s an adorable use of a disliked former elected official, the truth is that a top reason Colorado is a desirable alternative to California is because we have managed to keep taxes low.
Great Education Colorado is flanked on this political-career-ending effort by Democratic Sen. Morgan Carroll, and Reps. Rhonda Fields, Jovan Melton, and Su Ryden.
At the head of this effort is Lisa Weil, who offered this hilariously not-so-self-aware quote to the Statesman:
“There’s just a sense that we can’t let 2016 go by without giving the voters the opportunity to make a statement about where the state should go and what type of future we want….”
Apparently, the loud and clear vote – nearly two-to-one – by Coloradans in 2013 did not count as their opportunity to make a statement about where the state should go. Like some kind of papal conclave, the education establishment will continue to vote until a tax increase passes, despite the clear disinterest on the part of Coloradans to raise taxes on a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy.
And, then, Weil basically insinuates that voters have a problem delaying gratification:
“She conceded that it’s probably easier to sell voters on the immediate benefit of keeping their tax money than it is to sell them on the longer-term benefits they might enjoy by giving over that tax money for education.”
Wrong. Voters don’t have a delayed gratification issue. Taxpayers take issue with the education establishment blowing their hard-earned money. If Weil doesn’t inherently understand that, this ballot initiative is DOA, just like the last two that went down in flames.
Of course, the real question here is just how many ballot initiatives can Democrats run in 2016 without totally blowing up their chances in the state for presidential and Senate campaigns?