No. 2: Regarding ‘State Amendments on Nov. Ballot Would Sharply Cut Services’ in Feb. 15 Edition of The Watch
by Debbie Schum
Mar 03, 2010 | 1045 views | 1 1 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Your “story” attacking the three citizen petitions on the November state ballot was a disguised editorial, not a truthful news report.

First, you interviewed no petition supporter. Each reform got 140,000 voter signatures, yet 
you gave all your space to three dishonest, but loud, opponents touting their self-serving 
Big Government agenda of higher taxes.

Second, you did not provide the websites for the petitions, so readers could see for themselves that the critics were smearing the petitions. Please print here the central web address, Volunteers are welcome. 

Third, the hysterical tone of the attack was amusing, though untrue. No petition “destroys hope” or abolishes any government. Amendment 60 does say unelected local boards can no longer
impose property taxes. That's just the rallying cry of 1776 – “No taxation without representation!”
 All those boardmembers have to do is run for office in 2011, so we can vote on those who tax us.

Gov. Ritter opposes the petition that reverses his illegal car tax last year, which doubled 
registration taxes without voter approval. Their “fees” are not used to register cars, but go to the bureaucracy to be spent as taxes. Proposition 101 makes car registration $10 for everyone –
closer to the true cost of processing annual registration. Now that's fair!

Your library director also obviously didn't read the text. He said proposition 101 would “eliminate”
car ownership taxes in one year. The text plainly states a phased-in reduction over four years.

I regret that someone paid by taxpayers would intentionally give false information to voters.

The Prop. 101 website analysis of vehicle ownership tax relief shows that effect after four years slows
total state and local government revenue only 0.8 percent. That's less than one penny on a dollar, and that's
after four years. That is not a cut. Only a few taxes are targeted; the others grow without limit. There is
no net effect on school district revenue because 100 percent state aid replacement is already required by law.

In the future, please try to be fair and balanced.

Debbie Schum, Cedaredge
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Richard Harding
March 13, 2010
Dear Debbie:

I contacted the Proponents of Proposition 101 and they have chosen to hide under a rock! Any time you want to publicly debate these issues, let me know!