advertisement
Looking for something on the site? Search for it here! Also see Clark's Greatest Hits

Jul 22, 2009 -- California vs. Colorado in the state tax debate

CLARKONOMICS: Every dollar we want government to spend on something is a dollar that interferes with the potential for economic growth in the hands of the free market.

States have taken a variety of stances on how to deal with the budget question now that their tax collections have declined dramatically. At one extreme, you have California, which spends on seemingly everything and anything. And on the other extreme, you have Colorado, which tightly controls spending.

The People's Republic of California was once the world's sixth largest economy if it were considered as a standalone country. Today it's eight or tenth, depending on which stats you believe. The state's dysfunctional government has caused entrepreneurs to flee and take the jobs with them.

Chief Executive magazine reports on a study that found 1 in 5 of the top income-generators have left the state. They're overwhelmed by the "tax the rich" mentality. Those 5,000 people who left paid $8 billion in state income tax -- a full one-third of the Golden State's current budget deficit. California has a total population of 37 million.

You can tax people to the point that they throw their hands up in the air and modify how they earn money, or don't work as hard or just simply go elsewhere.

Yet there is another way. Colorado reformed its spendaholic ways with TABOR (Taxpayers' Bill of Rights) back in 1992. The idea behind TABOR is that state spending must be capped at the rate of population growth plus the rate of inflation. It effectively puts a vice grip on state spending. The citizens of Colorado have since voted to weaken TABOR, but they kept its basic premise in place.

The challenge for the other 48 states is choosing between the California and the Colorado models. Do you follow California with the budget deficits projected to run into the future or do you strictly limit government spending like Colorado?

If we want future wealth, we must control the size and shape of government. Yes, everything in a local budget helps somebody, but the cuts have to come at some point. People get addicted to the dole. But that's not what America was built on.

Unfortunately, Clark won't be able to answer any questions submitted via commenting. If you have a question, please try posting it to our message boards.

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Clark's Confused Economics
    I just don't understand Clark. He seems to think that crazy spending by States is bad, but crazy spending by the Feds is good. Just a few weeks ago he was promoting a law where the fed gov't buys up perfectly good "junker" cars, and destroys them. If this isn't crazy gov't spending, then I don't know what is. The fact is, Clark likes crazy gov't spending if it can be assigned some "green" purpose. Clark is a big time tree hugger and will spend our tax money in a minute on just about any "green" scheme that comes along. Clark does not deserve the penny-pincher label. He is all for government spending and government controls for which he deems some environmental benefit.
  • Obscene California
    In the 'easy money' days of 2003-2004, a California state legislator was bashing the Governor and state budget office over an 'obscene surplus' in the state coffers. Apparently 'obscene deficits' are preferable.
  • Tax and Spend
    to Over Clark: I hardly think Clark's expounding on just how the laws of economics affect California when the actions taken by that State are analyzed is any kind of political statement. Perhaps that is the real problem - many of the actions taken by governments today are taken in complete disregard of the laws, principals and experience of economics. Is THAT political? I think not!
  • RE: Political Reporting
    To 'Over Clark': Clearly you haven't listened to Clark very long. He has been a consistent advocate of the free market and limited government over the 15 years I've been listening to him. Also, I noticed your pronouncements come without any examples or explanation.

    I believe he is the finest consumer advocate I've ever encountered for these reasons:

    1) He doesn't accept any money for endorsements to make sure his advice is as unbiased as possible.
    2) He regularly gets involved in listeners' consumer issues on the air if he believes it will have a significantly positive impact on overall consumer experience with a particular company. Again, he does this without compensation.
    3) He established, maintains, and funds the Consumer Action Center that provides free advice to consumers.
    4) He consistently reports on errors/mistakes he has made and even has a 'Clark Stinks' segment on his show & website and receives criticism with tremendous grace and humility.

    I'm grateful to Clark and can personally point to numerous financial practices I've employed based on his advice.
  • Political Reporting
    I wish Clark would get back to reporting on savings at Costco and Sams and leave the political reporting to someone else. He is a mediocre consumer advocate but an awful political reporter
  • California Budget
    Unfortunately here in California it doesnt make a bit of difference how we vote. We have a TAX and SPEND mentality that is controlled by the left wing. What California really needs is to do away with Polosi, Feinstein, and Boxer PLUS other left wingers, concentrate of the elimination of illegal aliens which drains the tax payers and move on.
  • TABOR is still alive, but barely
    I'm a small business owner who moved to Colorado in 2002. One of the reasons I picked CO was the tax structure and TABOR which put a constitutional limit of government spending. Politicians of both stripes hate TABOR, but Democrats hate it with a religious fervor, and they have tried every trick in the book to remove it from the constitution. Their latest ploy is demographic, they are packing the area around Denver with as many illegals and "Kolyfonia" refugees as they can recruit, knowing these people will eventually vote for an amendment remove TABOR. Their attitude is "to heck with the rest of the state, they're just hicks".

    Well this hick sees the handwriting on the wall and where this whole thing is headed. I've got a five year plan to exit, stage left, before the idiots in the legislature completely wreck what was once a shining example of fiscal responsibility. They will loose the benefits of my payroll, and the taxes I pay, but Juanita and Birkenstock Bill (the balding guy with the gray pony tail) will be happy.
  • Bleeding the taxpayer
    My state of NC has become a laughing stock for mismanagement and corruption. We have a state gov't that refuses to make the necessary cuts to spending and now are pushing a minimum of a 1 billion dollar tax increase onto its taxpayers, and they wonder why we are in the top 10 nationally in unemployment
  • The end of the rebublic
    “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
  • TABOR
    I'm an Oregon resident (where I listen to Clark on KPAM). I didn't know much about TABOR so I read the wikipedia article on it. Based on this article, it doesn't sound like Coloradons want to do it the Colorado way anymore:

    "In 2000, an amendment known as Amendment 23 was passed. This required education spending to increase at a certain rate regardless of revenue, and lead to a greater portion of revenue devoted to education. TABOR and Amendment 23 together required that other cuts in spending be made to offset education increases, and many of these cuts were unpopular. Many Coloradans began calling for "TABOR reform".

    In November 2004, both houses of Colorado's legislature became controlled by Democrats, and Democrats were elected to the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, replacing Republicans. Many saw this as a reaction against TABOR[citation needed], and days after the election, Republican governor Bill Owens announced a plan to reform TABOR. In November 2005, Coloradans approved a ballot measure that loosened many of TABOR's restrictions. One of these changes allows the state to spend an amount equal to the highest amount of the last five years, not necessarily the last one year."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TABOR
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
THIS WEEK'S POLL
advertisement