Colorado’s statewide Propositions LL and MM are ominous preludes to the so-called ‘progressive’ income tax proposition working its way towards next year’s ballot. But by rejecting LL and MM, voters can send a clear message to the legislature that Coloradans still believe in basic tax fairness and holding state government accountable.
As I previously explained, Propositions LL and MM were created to allow the legislature to skirt accountability for the flawed Healthy School Meals for All (HSMA) program.
Whether intentionally or not, the state grossly misrepresented the costs of the HSMA program when it asked voters to pass Proposition FF in 2022.
Projected to cost between $71.4 million and $101.4 million once fully operational, the program instead cost $162 million in fiscal year 2023-24, running a budget deficit of $56 million which the legislature scrambled to fill.
According to a Common Sense Institute analysis, the deficit could continue to grow to $72.4 million by 2033.
Apparently, it was a giant surprise that a program explicitly intended to provide fully subsidized school lunches “for all” would see more parents opt their children into free stuff regardless of their capacity to provide lunch for their own children.
LL & MM birthed
The logical, and apolitical response to the challenges of the HSMA program would be to return to the more modest, and means-tested, free and reduced lunch program Colorado provided before the COVID-19 pandemic.
This means that kids from families eligible under federal guidelines would continue to receive subsidized lunch, while students whose parents can afford to pay for their lunches would do so.
Instead, LL and MM will increase taxes by almost double the initial forecasts for the program’s cost.
Colorado’s politicians continue to overpromise services that the state cannot afford, using emotional appeals and catchphrases to pass measures like LL and MM, as these are flashier than engaging in fiscal responsibility.
Therein lies the Colorado progressive playbook:
- Make political promises that the state cannot reasonably (nor should) fulfill at current revenue levels. (Free lunches for all!)
- Create a new special interest group that will now be reliant on government for a taxpayer-subsidized service that was previously outside the state’s purview. (Parents couldn’t possibly be responsible for their own kids’ meals, right?)
- Use the foot-in-the-door technique to convince voters to accept a “little more” taxation, and this time we will fulfill our initial promise. (This becomes easier when using envy to pit voters against each other, e.g., always claiming that the rich do not pay their fair share!)
The ‘progressive’ income tax
As disrespectful to the voters’ intelligence as LL and MM are, they are only a prelude to the effort to implement a progressive income tax in Colorado.
If they follow the same plan they used for LL and MM and successfully create a gradual income tax, it will only be a matter of time before income taxes are increased for yet more Coloradans.
Remember, when the post-16th Amendment federal income tax was introduced, it applied to less than one percent of the US population and only at a rate of one percent of net income.
Using the same foot-in-the-door technique, the federal government has increasingly taken a larger share of citizens’ earnings, despite an ever-expanding tax base.
Rejecting LL and MM sends a powerful message in favor of accountability and tax fairness, and against the legislature’s money-grabbing schemes.
Nash Herman is a fiscal policy analyst at Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.
