What now for the education lobby’s Iron Triangle?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008Written by: Ben DeGrow
By now, the people who frequent this site are all likely familiar with the Believe in a Better Colorado (BBC) campaign. CEA, CASE, and CASB-the Education Lobby’s sometimes Iron Triangle-decided to all play together on the same team for this one. They have worked to educate school employees and taxpaying citizens at large into believing that our state has drastically underfunded K-12 schools and that we need a new liberal “tax reform” in 2011 to put the pieces back together.
And I know that because I’m at least highly skeptical of this agenda, there are some readers who are persuaded that I actually believe in a “worse Colorado”. So be it. For now, I’ll set aside BBC’s distorted characterizations of various constitutional measures and deceptively selective use of statistics that are used to make its case. (You can quibble with me in the comment section, but rest assured that I’ve already been tagged as one of the leading and most virulent “anti-public education individuals” in our fair state.)
The purpose of this post is more clinical and pragmatic. On the main BBC page it reads:
Two initiatives on this November’s ballot - Amendment 59/SAFE and Referendum O - are the first major steps toward reaching the goal of Believe in a Better Colorado: to adopt a new tax system before 2011.
We’re asking members of CASB, CASE and CEA to urge voters to say “yes” to Amendment 59/SAFE and Referendum O.
BBC even created a thorough and sophisticated tool kit (PDF) to mobilize their supporters to communicate the Amendment 59 and Referendum O message to the public. But 59 and O both lost at the ballot box.
The twin defeats were made more stunning by the ratio of campaign spending on its behalf. More than $2.5 million was raised for the issue committee that backed 59: Savings Account for Education. On the other side, the opponents-Strike a Better Balance and Taxpayers Against Amendment 59-combined to raise $11,000. That’s a difference of more than 220-to-1. (The campaign for Referendum O, Citizens for Constitutional Common Sense, raised about $250,000. I’m not sure of any organized opposition to O, but am willing to stand corrected.)
So quite simply, my question is: If 59 and O are “the first major steps toward reaching the goal” of “a new tax system before 2011,” where does BBC go from here? How crucial were those “first major steps”? Is there a Plan B, or maybe a Referendum P?
I’ve already made my opinions on the topic fairly clear. And while I doubt much attention will be given to the cynic’s curiosity, it would be interesting to know what the Iron Triangle’s contingency plan is for 2010. What will they take from the voters’ message? What are their next steps? Are they willing to concede to the need for greater financial transparency? Are they willing to take a second look at some education reforms they may have overlooked before?
