Proposition 103 on the statewide ballot would increase Colorado income and sales taxes by an estimated $2.9 billion over five years, with all the money earmarked for preschool, K-12 and higher education. This is on top of the $4.3 billion of state education spending in the current fiscal year, over and above local property taxes.

This proposal should more aptly be named "Son of Amendment 23," a creation of the teacher unions passed in 2000 that put K-12 school spending in Colorado on autopilot for years, squeezing out spending in a tight economy for most everything else in the state budget. With the expiration of Amendment 23, they're back for more with Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, carrying the ball this time.

---

Complaints that public education spending in Colorado has been slashed in recent years conveniently ignore the big picture. Ben DeGrow at the Independence Institute reports that total annual expenditures on K-12, adjusted for inflation, from 1999 to 2010 have increased by $3.2 billion or 46 percent. Per pupil spending is up 24 percent. There's little to show for it in the way of results.

Eighty-five percent of a typical school district's operating budget goes toward employee compensation, including lavish retirement benefits. That ratio won't change under Prop. 103. It'll just mean more money for teachers and others workers, which is why the unions will spend plenty to get it passed. If it fails, threatened layoffs are unnecessary. To avoid that, the teacher unions can simply agree to suspend automatic seniority step increases or spread small pay cuts across the board to keep all current teachers on the job. Private-sector workers have made similar sacrifices in this economy. School administrators can chip in, too. After all, "it's for the children."

The worst element of Prop. 103 is the earmarking of funds. Forty-one percent of state spending already goes for K-12 education. The University of Denver's Center for Colorado's Economic Future projected that on our current course, in 12 years K-12 and Medicare alone will consume all state revenues. It's the legislature's job to prioritize spending within a finite budget. No special interest should be on autopilot -- even for five years.

Initiative 300 on the Denver ballot is a government mandate that employers of 10 or more people provide at least nine paid sick or "safe" days a year for full-time employees. This is a nationwide project of a progressive feminist outfit called 9to5, National Association of Working Women. Men are included in this mandate only as a prop. If nine sick days a year strikes you as a lot, it's because it also includes "safe" days for women (and, theoretically, men) with domestic difficulties. Initiative 300 specifies that no "unreasonable" documentation shall be required of workers to justify their days off and that employers may not penalize workers who take the maximum number. This is an invitation for abuse by slackers.

Employers will incur the expenses of adding redundant employees to make up for the lost time with no increase in productivity, along with the cost of paperwork and red tape. Since the mandate applies only to Denver, it will drive businesses and jobs to the suburbs. While already cutting services to balance its budget, Denver government will now be forced to add bureaucratic staff and dollars to manage the Initiative 300 mandate.

Campaign for a Healthy Denver, a 9to5 front, pretends this is about making our food safer by keeping sick food-industry workers home. But Initiative 300 doesn't prohibit them from coming to work and people can spread contagion well before their symptoms are apparent. Even the Colorado Hospital Association opposes it, as does Mayor Michael Hancock, Gov. John Hickenlooper and a majority of Denver City Council members. Both of these ballot questions are bad ideas at any time, but especially so during a down economy.

Freelance columnist Mike Rosen's radio show airs weekdays from 9 a.m. to noon on 850-KOA.

Read more: Rosen: Two bad ideas on your ballot - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_19150682#ixzz1bSDmd2la
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

Proposition 103 is a laudable effort to raise money for public education in Colorado, but the stopgap measure has the potential to derail efforts to more fully address the state's financial problems.

It is with little satisfaction that we recommend a "no" vote on the measure.

One trouble, as we see it, is that voters who support the modest -- and temporary -- increases in income and sales taxes might not be inclined to step up again when broader and more permanent fixes are proposed.

Changes that would unravel incompatible fiscal directives in the state constitution are desperately needed, as are long-term, stable revenue sources that would support core state missions, most certainly including education.

This measure includes neither long-term revenues nor structural fixes.

To be sure, we think state Sen. Rollie Heath's heart is in the right place in coming up with Proposition 103. For quite a while, the Boulder Democrat stood alone in supporting the tax increases. We thank him for his commitment to the issue, which has gathered some steam as the Nov. 1 election approaches.

He makes a compelling argument when he says that kids who are going through the K-12 and higher education systems now cannot wait for broader reforms.

Both of those pieces of the state budget have taken big hits in recent years as the economy and tax revenues have tanked.

The state budget, contrary to what you'll hear from some, is a spartan document that was pared of any "fat" long ago. When revenues don't meet projections, as they have so frequently, that means budget cuts. And in Colorado, the lion's share of those come out of education.

That's the case because, in part, education is such a big part of the state budget that you can't cut enough from other areas to close such large gaps.

In addition, a study by University of Denver economists recently made the case that the structural imbalance is going to get worse, much worse. The study found the state will face a recurring budget gap of as much as $3.1 billion by 2023.

We find the sheer width and breadth of the impending gap to be very troubling. We are worried that voters who support Heath's measure will figure they've already supported a fix.

Proposition 103 would increase the state's income tax for five years from 4.63 percent to its 1999 level of 5 percent. It would also raise the state sales tax rate for five years from 2.9 percent to 3 percent, which is where it was in 2000.

These are not unreasonable increases, and the $3 billion raised would go toward K-12 education and higher education. But they come at a time when even modest hikes could damage too many businesses and individuals whose financial situation is precarious.

The big problem with Proposition 103 is that it falls woefully short in addressing the state's financial troubles and finding a long-term solution to education funding.