<$BlogRSDUrl$>

My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.

2005-01-15

RMA With The Governor

As has been mentioned before, one of the features of the State of the State speech was that five members of the RMA got to sit down with the Governor for 30 minutes afterwards.

I found the Governor to be very engaging, and very interested in talking policy. In fact, I was surprised how little politicking he did, in favor of concentrating on issues. Very wonkish, while still personable.

Richard opened up by asking the simple question: where were the cuts going to come from in the state budget. This prompted the Governor into a thorough discussion of TABOR, Amendment 23, and politics. He even had a chart, though not one as colorful as Ross Perot's were. The bottom line was that, due to A 23 and Medicare, the two largest burdens on state government have both seen steady increases in expenditures over the past five years, while state revenue--and thus, expenditures--have been below 2000 levels every year in those five. So the Governor is hoping to manage this year's shortfall by using some of the tobacco settlement money, and securitizing the money from this years' tobacco tax increase (as I understand it), creating an instant revenue stream which will settle things for this year. Then for next year he's asking the legislature to approve a ballot initiative which will ask the taxpayers to let the government keep and spend some of the monies effected by TABOR (3-4% of the 6% revenue increase, as opposed to the 1.5% limited by TABOR. Those monies will help somewhat to deal with next year. However, neither of these solve all of the problem, for either of the next two years or long-run. Which is where politics come in--he's ready and will to negotiate with the legislature, though--as noted before--he's not willing to compromise on principals. It was a thorough answer, and one I'm sure he's had to give on numerous occasions before (see later post on "Ten Word Answers").

I asked him if, in his mind, any give and take on TABOR was predicated on the Dems' willingness to give and take on Amendment 23. Of course, the answer was "Of course, but. . ." Even last year with a relatively friendly legislature the Governor could not get the 2/3 vote required to get a ballot issue to alter Amendment 23, so he's not exactly optimistic that he can get that through. He also pointed out during this discussion that substantive changes to TABOR would also require that 2/3 vote (if I understand this right--maybe one of my friends can help me out here); that's what makes the ballot initiative attractive: it only requires a majority in the legislature.

Clay took the opportunity to ask about the last election, and what direction the state GOP is headed in. The Governor was quick to take responsibility for the loss, but pointed out a "perfect storm" set of circumstances that contributed, chief among these being the withdrawal of Ben Nighthorse Campbell in March, followed by Scott McInnis. This led to a protracted primary and a huge drain on GOP resources. (ed. Understand, Campbell had six years to raise money--Coors/Schaffer had six months, raising from a GOP base that had already given). He also mentioned the infusion of big money on the Dem side (pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of their complaints about big money--but only when it's on the other side), and how that caught the GOP off guard. He also assured us that he has taken steps to make sure that we're not surprised next time around.

His last points were about making sure that the achievements of the last six years are not turned around, especially on education and tort reform.

It was a serious and substantive discussion of issues, one which seemed pretty free-flowing. The governor did not seem contained by the presence of a reporter from 5280, though I wouldn't know, this being my first interview with Owens. His opponents will never be able to attack him for a lack of understanding of the issues or an inability to articulate his views, that's for sure. They will, and have, dispute his facts and his conservative view of the world--but I suspect they would never welcome a one-on-one open debate.
Posted by: Michael / 1/15/2005 01:57:00 PM

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?