Colorado received a little national attention for last night's monumental rejection of Proposition 103, a statewide sales and income tax increase sold as a revenue generator for K-12, preschool and higher education. Across the board, Coloradans loudly expressed that they are feeling the economic hurt and that "Public Sector, Inc.," (not the website) should not be exempt from the pain at their expense. One of the interesting, under-reported side stories pertaining to 103 has been the inconsistent behavior of the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers union.
Back in the summertime, when a lone liberal Democrat state legislator funded by a local oilman was pushing to bring his tax hike proposal to the ballot, a teachers union member's question was published in the CEA Journal (the union's official "rag"):
From the union staff's official reply:
By the middle of August, with the measure qualifying for the ballot as Proposition 103, CEA threw its support into the ring. Mind you, no hopeful polling data was ever released. No grand bipartisan coalition emerged. In fact, our state's Democratic governor John Hickenlooper and many of Senator Heath's fellow Democratic legislators shied away from embracing the measure. And nowhere near "$5-7 million" was raised to pass 103.
CEA ended up chipping in about $75,000 in member funds to support the tax hike. A small amount of change compared to the more than $525,000 contributed to a 2008 issue committee opposed to Amendment 49, which would have prevented governments from serving as automatic union dues collector. All told, the National Education Association and its affiliates from around the country chipped in more than $4.6 million to that campaign. (Full disclosure: The Independence Institute where I work provided the educational effort to support 49.)
I wonder if the union did any internal polling of their own members on the issue. Because one has to wonder, when 64 percent of the electorate rejected the proposal, just what share of union members filled in the "No" bubble on their mail-in ballots? Almost certainly it was a smaller percentage than the general population. Yet that doesn't even get to the point of how the union's own 103 supporters might feel about CEA throwing money at a ballot issue that, by their own lights, was a lost cause. A terrible bet, really. Sure, $75,000 is rather small political potatoes at 1500 Grant Street, across the street from our State Capitol, but you have to watch out for bad habits and nip them in the bud.
Last night CEA released an official statement (prepared how far in advance?) in response to the news of Prop 103's demise:
Talk about making lemonade out of a sour batch of lemons. But that doesn't even address the question of how many of the 140,000 voters who signed the Prop 103 petitions realized they were supporting a tax hike. (Kind of like many members whose dues are automatically collected and used for various political campaigns without really knowing much about it.) Proponents did their best to downplay its true nature, and even so lost by an overwhelming margin.
I'm left wondering two things: 1) How much would the Prop 103 electoral outcome have changed if CEA had followed its better judgment and stayed on the sidelines?; and 2) If the union is encouraged that more than 300,000 voters in our state "want to invest in Colorado students," shouldn't their logic dictate trumpeting the fact that nearly 900,000 Colorado voters in 2008 wanted government unions like CEA to collect their own dues?
Sounds to me like some positive news to build on...
Are we supporting the tax increase that Senator Rollie Heath from Boulder is trying to get on the ballot?
From the union staff's official reply:
CEA is not supporting nor opposing this initiative....
The initiative does not measure up on our criteria for supporting ballot issues. It lacks the support of a bipartisan, statewide coalition which we believe is integral to any effort to increase taxes. It lacks polling data and research to show that it has a chance of passing five months from now. The initiative effort lacks sufficient funding to convince voters to support a Yes vote (our estimate is $5-7 million as it is much harder to get voters to say yes, than to say no), and the proposal will not produce a sustainable revenue increase for K-12 education.
By the middle of August, with the measure qualifying for the ballot as Proposition 103, CEA threw its support into the ring. Mind you, no hopeful polling data was ever released. No grand bipartisan coalition emerged. In fact, our state's Democratic governor John Hickenlooper and many of Senator Heath's fellow Democratic legislators shied away from embracing the measure. And nowhere near "$5-7 million" was raised to pass 103.
CEA ended up chipping in about $75,000 in member funds to support the tax hike. A small amount of change compared to the more than $525,000 contributed to a 2008 issue committee opposed to Amendment 49, which would have prevented governments from serving as automatic union dues collector. All told, the National Education Association and its affiliates from around the country chipped in more than $4.6 million to that campaign. (Full disclosure: The Independence Institute where I work provided the educational effort to support 49.)
I wonder if the union did any internal polling of their own members on the issue. Because one has to wonder, when 64 percent of the electorate rejected the proposal, just what share of union members filled in the "No" bubble on their mail-in ballots? Almost certainly it was a smaller percentage than the general population. Yet that doesn't even get to the point of how the union's own 103 supporters might feel about CEA throwing money at a ballot issue that, by their own lights, was a lost cause. A terrible bet, really. Sure, $75,000 is rather small political potatoes at 1500 Grant Street, across the street from our State Capitol, but you have to watch out for bad habits and nip them in the bud.
Last night CEA released an official statement (prepared how far in advance?) in response to the news of Prop 103's demise:
"More than 300,000 Colorado residents want to invest in Colorado students. They recognize that years of cuts to our schools have dealt a critical blow to preparing our kids for college, the workforce and their adult lives," said [CEA president Bev] Ingle. "This show of voter support to put more dollars to work for student growth gives our 40,000 members and all those who care about education in the state something to build on for the future."
CEA was similarly encouraged by more than 140,000 voters across the state who signed petitions to put Proposition 103 on the election ballot, and thousands more who joined the grassroots coalition led by State Senator Rollie Heath. The momentum created by this energy and awareness to find new ways to increase public education funding will be Proposition 103's lasting legacy. [emphases added]
Talk about making lemonade out of a sour batch of lemons. But that doesn't even address the question of how many of the 140,000 voters who signed the Prop 103 petitions realized they were supporting a tax hike. (Kind of like many members whose dues are automatically collected and used for various political campaigns without really knowing much about it.) Proponents did their best to downplay its true nature, and even so lost by an overwhelming margin.
I'm left wondering two things: 1) How much would the Prop 103 electoral outcome have changed if CEA had followed its better judgment and stayed on the sidelines?; and 2) If the union is encouraged that more than 300,000 voters in our state "want to invest in Colorado students," shouldn't their logic dictate trumpeting the fact that nearly 900,000 Colorado voters in 2008 wanted government unions like CEA to collect their own dues?
Sounds to me like some positive news to build on...
Join the conversation