As it gets closer to election-day, we must focus not only on national issues but also on our local issues. Especially with listening to this whole tax issues tax cuts and the whole “spreading the wealth” issue. Well here in Colorado we have our own tax issues; these are the amendments that are on the ballot. The most controversy tax issues are amendments 60, 61 and proposition 101.
Amendment 60
Summary: Amendment 60 reduces the amount of property tax paid by individuals and businesses to school districts, counties, cities and towns. By reducing the property tax over ten years it would require taxes to be replaced by state funding.
Amendment 61
Summary: Amendment 61 puts restraints on government borrowing to build like roads, public buildings, and airports etc. This would reduce tax
Proposition 101
Summary: This proposition would cut taxes and fees in car registration fees which would eliminate founding towards roads and bridge construction across the state. This will cut a quarter of CDOT’s annual revenue.
Although this would be a big tax cut for the average Coloradoan, the impact on the state would be big as well. For example not being able to borrow money to build would buildings, would cause a big loss of jobs for construction workers. With amendment 60 the money that was going to the schools in the community would be cut in half and the state has to pay the other half. With amendment 61 the state would not be able to borrow money and therefore would not be able to build stuff such as roads buildings and tourist places (such as stadiums). With proposition 101 our taxes would be cut as well therefore Colorado would have no money to repay the other half that it’s supposed to pay towards the school.
Being a full time college student this would make an even higher increase in tuition. School is expensive as it is but without the help of the tax payers it will literally be almost impossible for a low income student to go to school. Or probably graduate with debt up your throat. As a college student I think that these should not passed and that people should vote NO. However at the end of the day the thing that matters is that people go out there and vote.
UCD on Election 2010 
tryingtositstill
October 6, 2010
I agree with a lot of what you are saying in this. Those two amendments and one proposition will put Colorado in an even tighter spot. However, there is one piece of analysis that you didn’t include. It is the strategy behind these proposed changes. Knowledge is power. The more educated a person is the more able they are to help their family and community. Therefore, it is important to educate the “right” kind of people. If you are a white elitist it is not in your best interest to help a Latino minority lift themselves and in turn their family out of poverty. That would only add to the decreasing number of minorities that are submissive to the systemic abuse that capitalism imposes. In the past two decades we have seen a huge increase in minorities and females attending college. Thus, dragging down what was the norm. The only way to maintain and correct the imbalance of power to is make education less accessible. I truly believe that Colorado citizens will see through this ploy and vote no. However, it is important to not underestimate the motivated few that want to take away education.
ebailey
October 10, 2010
Interesting post, but biased enough to be straight out of a political advertisement. Your bottom line for each amend and prop was decidedly negative, I think a pro & con for each would have been more balanced and informative.
Tony Robinson
October 11, 2010
Elvia: You have usefully commented on the three most important issues Coloradans will vote on this year (in terms of local effects). These three initiatives will certainly impact the state more than whether Hick or Maes wins, I think. Your links to additional info on the initiatives are very useful–though I do think a wider range of sources would have been useful, as most of the links direct to the same website. Erin asks for a pro and con analysis, and that might have been good–but it’s okay to write from a single perspective, but a wider range of supportive materials would have still been useful. There’s so much powerful information out there on these initiatives, that it would have been good to embed more of it directly into your post.
Finally, it might have been useful to add a bit of detail about the history and source of these initiatives (who sponsored them? How did they get on the ballot?) and about their electoral prospects (some comments on how even most of the business community and much of the GOP is resisting these initiatives would have been informative).