After meeting with proponents and opponents of Proposition 103, we were left with more questions than answers. The two sides are so far apart on the proposition’s structure, its effect on the economy, and the basic mathematics of its impact, need and costs, that our education reporter is now working on a fact check story.
But here is what we and most everyone agree on: The state has struggled the past several years to balance the budget and has been forced to make significant cuts in higher education funding and core government services. Good schools serve as an economic driver for the state that attracts well-paying jobs, and companies are attracted by a well-educated workforce, trained in the skills they require.
Many economic development groups and the Democratic governor have decided to sit on the sidelines regarding this issue, which is perhaps a message that the state has relied too often on one-time solutions, federal government stimulus money and referendums that sunset, to balance the budget. Furthermore, we have read and support the University of Denver study that depicts the future as a “State Budget Tsunami” with a projected annual $3.45 billion deficit by the year 2025.
We favor increased funding for K-12 and higher education. But is it fair to increase taxes to only benefit this goal? What about child protection services, youth corrections, state crime labs and other core government services that also have faced significant cuts the past few years? And where are the long-term solutions? Proponents of Proposition 103 are not naïve on this issue, and say that passing Proposition 103 allows schools some breathing room, while long-term solutions are worked out before 103 sunsets in five years.
We don’t completely agree and, therefore, we urge voters to vote no on Proposition 103. Instead we want education to sit tight and help to work toward solutions. Furthermore we want to credit school districts, such as Jeffco Schools, which took a proactive stance by building reserves over the past few years to help weather the current climate, and it has done a good job planning for the next few years as well.
We trust the University of Denver study, and the heat needs to stay on legislators and the governor to find a long-term solution to the state’s budget woes. Proposition 103 is a temporary fix, and it only benefits schools. School funding proponents are the most vocal at the state Capitol, and we need to keep them engaged to help force legislators and the governor to put partisan fights aside to find the best solution overall. So, vote no, not as a vote against increased school funding, but a vote that maintains the pressure, for a long-term, comprehensive solution to the state’s budget tsunami.