Loveland Representative Don Marostica decided that Colorado government should no longer have a spending limit. According to Marostica, fiscal conservatives are "losers" and "has-beens." The Rocky reports:
Rep. Don Marostica shot back, however, that legislative leaders are being influenced by "has- beens" and "losers" within the party and that he is going ahead with his efforts.
Marostica, R-Loveland, will introduce a measure today to remove the 6 percent general-fund spending limit, known as Arveschoug-Bird, that has been in place since 1991. He will sponsor it with Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs.
Not only is the constitutionality of a mere statute repealing Arveschoug-Bird dubious at best (as opposed to a TABOR election), but it is poor public policy. As for his attitude, he pretends to be a fiscal conservative just like the alleged "losers" and "has-beens" he criticized. Representative Don Marostica's web page states the following.
Don Marostica would never be mistaken for a fiscal conservative in real life. His Colorado Union of Taxpayers 2007 rating was 43.48. In 2008, he became even more fiscally liberal, earning a 22.22 rating. His actually sponsored legislation is rather bland, but he did sponsor legislation requiring licensing for motorsports and car sales (thus increasing the regulatory burdens to enter the market), as well as legislation for the lend-lease construction of the new state justice center (as if a 30-year old building is completely obsolete for the Supreme Court).
Ben DeGrow proudly accepts the "[ loveable ] loser" label. Amy Oliver thinks that Marostica is "off the reservation and has been for a while." She details some slimy tactics that Marostica used to derail government transparency legislation, including bullying other Republicans.
Regardless of the merits of the bill's sponsor, the policy of removing government growth limits is terrible. TABOR and the spending limits are the reason why our economy is not nearly as bad as other states. California's budget deficit is 29 percent of its budget. Colorado's is around $600 million dollars. However, only $250 million in cuts from last years expenditures are required (as the rest was just the 6 percent budgeted increase for 2009).
Philosophically, when the economy grows at 2-3 percent per year, why should the government grow at 6 percent? Of course, if the general fund grows at 6 percent, the legislature should set aside 3 percent or more for the "rainy day fund" to smooth the effects of an economic downturn. However, similarly to the "The Ant and the Grasshopper" fable, big government Democrats and Republicans (such as Don Marostica) wish to spend every permitted cent of taxpayer money for their pet projects during the boom years. However, winter always comes, and economic downturns occur. However, unlike the grasshopper who starved, the government will always find new ways to tax and increase fees to fund itself.
by Civil Sense
Comments