Proposition 103 (Denver: sales, movies, school districts)

[Mike from back east]

I don't like political threads, they usually turn bitter and nasty. Fact is, there are elements of truth to be found in whatever side of an argument a person wants to take, i.e., no absolute right or wrong answer or position, only a weighting to one side or another.

That being said, Colorado Proposition 103 seeks a 5-year increase in the state income and sales taxes for the benefit of public education. Here is a link to the Colorado Blue Book on this matter. Copies are now appearing in people's mailboxes for the election on 01 Nov.

I've created a poll, which I hope ONLY residents of Colorado will use to show their preference. It's a private poll, no one will know who you voted for.

Whatever discussion ensues, please keep it civil.

Thank you.

[proveick]

With the economy far from recovery this is a bad joke. RP

[ndk]

I'm always impressed with how well those booklets frame the issues. It's too bad so few ever take time to read them.

I work near higher education, so I'm obviously very biased, but I think the State of Colorado reaps amazing benefits from its colleges and universities, having built and attracted an extremely educated population and the high-quality jobs that result. This, even with our extremely low funding of our school system, could be taken as an indication of efficiency, or a warning of dryrot setting in.

Having gotten close to the innards of some of the higher educational institutions, I think it's more of the latter. The staff they have for basic university functions is often a third of the staff at similar-sized organizations in the Great Plains and Midwest.

The advantages we can offer in terms of quality of life go down as population and prices go up, e.g. Californication, so we can't always just rely on great teachers wanting to live in Colorado for Colorado. Investment in education has also plunged in California, and I wouldn't describe the situation or trajectory of California as good. Let's not follow the example.

[cowboyxjon]

I'm a "no" vote on this one.

[Idunn]

I voted 'no' for this proposed school tax, for several reasons.

Although first acknowledging someone with a good argument, and more knowledge than I have on the matter, might sway me otherwise.

But for now, no, because:

• When was the last time any 'temporary' tax not evolving into permanent? Yes, it does happen. But my feeling the odds on my side in being skeptical.

• While all for a decent education for every child (and seemingly the remedial need for many adults), I question how this is approached sometimes. Teachers, for one, are surely not paid enough, or valued sufficiently in this society. BUT, and I do not know exactly about schools, if CDOT and other road crews are anything to go by, then there is a LOT of waste to be accounted for before we consider increasing budgets. When it comes to roads: I - am - not - kidding.

There is an article in the current issue of 'USA Today' about how some school districts are adopting the Apple iPad for a variety of uses, and providing every single student with one. While that might seem an excessive perk, considering these personal computers the students can also watch movies on, or otherwise goof off, also many valid uses. The article mentions how it saves teachers time in a number of ways, allowing more actual learning in the classroom. Something also alluded to in this article, but not emphasized, was how a single iPad in each young hand could eliminate the need for most, if not all, textbooks. That could be critical in poor school districts where some students cannot afford, or do not end up with the needed books. It also, not coincidentally, could save a deal of money and time in even the richer districts, and states, such as Colorado.

So, maybe Colorado's schools really do need this extra money badly. But I'll need some convincing -- not to mention an itemized reason why.

[Josseppie]

I voted yes because I feel that Colorado does not spend enough money on our education system even though universities are the "economic engine" that drives the states economy. I was not sure I was going to vote this year but now I there is a 100% chance I will........

[Skifreak189]

This is a loaded issue, especially in this state considering the low tax burden and the current economy. On one hand education is vital to maintaining a healthy and robust economy, I myself as a college student know this well. However, to spend this money only on education would also be detrimental as there are many other state departments hurting for money, roads being first among them and CDOT needs more funding period. So my vote is no, not because the schools couldn't use more money, but because such a narrow focus increasing the funding.

[Amphian]

I voted "no". I would have voted "yes" if they had made it property taxes instead of income taxes and if they had more concrete plans for the money - merit raises for teachers, upgrading technology in schools, gifted student programs, etc. - rather than just "We'll use this for education somehow".

[Count David]

I vote no too.

Throwing money at problems don't make them go away. This is how we ultimately end up with states like California and Michigan.

[jim9251]

As a fairly new resident of Colorado, I had to vote no. Throwing more money into a problem isn't necessarily the answer. Burdening tax payers even more when people are struggling, certainly isn't the answer. A temporary tax can easily turn into a not so temporary tax. And here's a thought, PARENTS take some responsibility for your kids education. Get involved with their life. Anyway, if the suits in Denver ran this state like a business instead of throwing money into goofy pet projects, there would be money for education.