Tag Archives: Transparency

Let’s Put the IRS Checkbook Online

June 30, 2013 9:14 am / 1 Comment /

The IRS shorted us $10 billion.

According to the New York Times, “…for every dollar in funds, the I.R.S. brings in $200 in revenue.”

According to USA Today, the IRS spent $50 million on conferences.

Just doing basic math, if they had used that money for collections and not conferences, they would have brought in an extra $10 billion.

That doesn’t sound very efficient.  And earlier this year, President Obama asked for an additional $1 billion for the IRS budget.

Here’s an idea.  Since the IRS asks taxpayers for details of how we spend our money, how about we require the IRS to provide details of how they spend our money?  That seems only fair.  And if they had the IRS checkbook online, maybe it wouldn’t have taken 5 years to surface the lavish conferences.  Sound easy?

Posted in: Blog / Tagged: ,

More Ballot Language Shenanigans

April 30, 2013 8:45 am / 1 Comment /

Earlier this year, Colorado Springs’ former City Council placed an initiative on the ballot that would have increased their pay from $6,250 to $48,000.  That measure was soundly defeated, with 80% of voters rejecting it.  I wrote a blog in March, detailing why I thought the ballot language was intentionally deceptive.  The creators of the ballot language did their best to hide from voters the fact that there would be such a huge jump in pay.

Now the politicians are at it again, this time in Salida, CO.  In this case, the Salida Hospital Board is asking the voters to remove their term limits.  They are currently able to serve two four-year terms in this special district.  They are then able to run again after being off the board for 8 years.  If the voters determine it is best for their community to eliminate term limits altogether, that is their choice.  What I object to, again, is the ballot language.

I’m not sure who precisely drafted the ballot language, but the Salida Hospital Board had to approve it.  And this language serves the interest of the board members.

I won’t go as far as calling the Salida ballot language intentionally deceptive, but I will call it intentionally manipulative.  The ballot language states:

“So that the voters of the Salida Hospital District may decide who will best serve them on the Board of Directors, shall the term limits imposed by Article XVIII, Section II, of the Colorado Constitution, be eliminated for the directors of the Salida Hospital District?”

You can see for yourself by looking at the sample ballot.   The real ballot question should be everything after the first comma, starting with the word “shall”.  Everything before the first comma intends to manipulate the voter into eliminating term limits.  First, they are implying that the only way for voters to decide who will best serve them is to eliminate term limits.  Second, they are leading the voter to a yes vote.  Who wouldn’t want to decide who would best serve them on the Hospital Board?  This is clearly a manipulation.

Is there a reason the board had to add editorial commentary to the ballot language?  They act as if they know better than the voter which way this issue should be decided.

If you want more details about the ballot issue, read this informative opinion piece by a Salida resident.

Elected officials, the voters are not uneducated peasants.  You serve us, not the other way around.  Please stop trying to trick us.  We are getting tired of it.

Posted in: Blog / Tagged: ,

Ballot Language Intends to Deceive Voters

March 10, 2013 9:01 am / 6 Comments /

Ballot Language Intends to Deceive Voters

Those who follow politics in Colorado Springs remember the controversy during the 2010 election about deceptive ballot language.  This language was on the question of increasing the term limits of El Paso County Commissioners from two to three terms. But the ballot language used the phrase:

“Shall persons elected to the office of county commissioner be limited to three (3) consecutive terms, a modification of the current limits permitted by Article XVIII, Section 11 of the Colorado constitution?”

What voters want in ballot language is to be completely transparent as to what a ‘yes’ vote actually means.  In the case of the El Paso County Commissioners, if you didn’t already know they were limited to two terms, you would think that a ‘yes’ vote meant you were limiting their term further than where it currently was. Voters were so incensed, that the Commissioners were forced to place the question back on the ballot in 2012 with clear wording.

Now the ballots are out in the City of Colorado Springs and whoever was in charge of the wording did it again.  Issue 2 addresses a City Council Pay increase.  This was brought to the ballot by a slim City Council majority to raise the pay of City Council members from $6,250 to $48,000 per year.  Most voters, who are struggling in this economy, would not be in favor of increasing the pay of government employees by that margin.  In fact, a taxpayer advocate, Paul Kleinschmidt, believes, based on an informal poll his group conducted, that as many as 80% of voters would be against this increase.  Unless you have deceptive ballot language:

“Shall article XIII, section 13-20(B) of the Charter of the City of Colorado Springs, be amended to read:  All Councilmembers shall receive an annual stipend of $6,250 payable pursuant to ordinance; provided, however, that commencing May 1, 2015, all persons holding the office of Councilmember shall receive an annual salary equal to fifty percent (50%) of the Mayor’s salary as authorized in article XIII, section 13-20(A), above, payable pursuant to ordinance, in lieu of an annual stipend.  The City of Colorado Springs shall provide employee benefits to Councilmembers in the same manner as provided to full-time City employees?”

If you are just a normal voter, going through your life working and raising your family, do you know how much the Mayor makes?  Wouldn’t it have been more transparent to say “raise Councilmember pay from $6,250 to $48,000”?

I won’t get into why I believe a raise of their pay is a bad idea.  That isn’t the point.  The point is this language intends to deceive voters.  Colorado Springs residents were outraged about deceptive ballot language in 2010, and I urge them not to be fooled again.

Posted in: Blog / Tagged: , ,