Crumbling Bridges

The average quality of bridges in the U.S. is falling slightly, but only about a third as many bridges in very bad condition as in 1990 (interestingly coinciding with falling crime rates as well). 

On the other hand, the fact that even 1% of bridges in the U.S. are in critical condition or worse, even if this is only a third of the number of bridges that were in this state in 1990, is still very concerning. At the current rate of improvement, it will take the U.S. until about the year 2050 or so to get all of its bridges out of a critical condition state.

Yes, transportation infrastructure officials have had their priorities straight, but there is still an underinvestment in infrastructure in the U.S.

The author of the blog that is the source of these charts notes that:

Since bridges are both getting older and handling more traffic, we might expect their condition to get worse as they accumulate more wear and tear. We do see a very slight decline in the average rating of deck, substructure, and superstructure since the mid-aughts (prior to that, average rating was increasing over time). Note the vertical axis here: this decline is VERY slight.

A rating of between 6 and 7 corresponds to the average bridge being somewhere between 'good' and 'satisfactory', more or less in-line with the ASCE's rating of "C" for our bridges in the most recent infrastructure report card.

For comparison purposes, here are some crime rate statistics trends (from prior posts here and here):

Good Government Colorado's State and Local Government Reforms

Alcohol Regulation

* It is absurd to regulate beer, wine, and liquor differently.

Construction Regulation

* The construction trades should be regulated at the state level rather than at the local level as they are now. This may have made sense when construction markets were local. Colorado currently has 273 active municipalities (comprising 198 towns, 73 cities, two consolidated city and county governments), and 62 unconsolidated counties, for a total of 335 different bodies licensing the construction trades. Most of these professionals should not exclude people with felony records unrelated to the construction trades.

* Each of these jurisdictions also has its own building code, based upon privately promulgated building codes that aren't even available for free which is unconscionable for binding laws. There should be a single state building code, that is a matter of public record. If localities want to deviate from it, they should have to seek permission from a state body to do so, and the local modifications ought to be a matter of public record on a state website. Aesthetic building code requirements should be tightly limited.

TABOR Elections And Taxes

* Elections over retaining growth in revenue not derived from new taxes should be abolished.

* Excess TABOR revenue should, by default, placed in a rainy day fund, rather than refunded. A supermajority would be required to touch a rainy day fund in excess of declines in revenue from the previous peak revenue year.

* The state 2.9% sales tax would be repealed and replaced with a revenue neutral income tax increase. Only local sales taxes would remain. But, all local sales taxes would be collected by the state and would be required to use the uniform state definition of taxable sales.

* School districts should be funded by state taxes and not by property taxes. As a result, there would no longer be elections for local property tax levies and bond issues for school districts.

* Higher educational institutions would have tax funding solely by state taxes, not local taxes.

Election Administration

* Elections should be administered by non-partisan civil servants, under the supervision of a partisan balanced board or boards. This task should be severed from the partisan elected offices of state secretary of state and county clerk, and from the non-partisan elected office of city clerk.

Elected Offices

* City clerks should not be elected.

* Statutory cities and towns have a city manager with the mayor elected by the city or town council as its chair, and do not have a have separately elected mayor or auditor.  Charter cities can do what they want.

* County coroners should not be elected and the institution should be replaced with a state medical examiner's office.

* County surveyors should not be elected.

* County treasurers should not be elected.

* County assessors should not be elected.

* County clerks should not be elected.

* County sheriff should be a non-partisan office. It is desirable not to give the local administration of criminal justice system a partisan tinge. This is less alienating between elections to the losing party members. Counties are often often politically homogeneous areas where intra-party competition is really more important the partisan competition anyway. This gives minority party members in a county more say in the outcome.

* County commissioner should be a non-partisan office. It handles local government issues like municipalities do. Counties are often politically homogeneous areas where intra-party competition is really more important the partisan competition anyway. This gives minority party members in a county more say in the outcome. In large counties there would be five seats elected from single member districts, all at once, for four year terms. In small counties, county commissioners would serve for six year terms with one elected every two years.

* District attorney should be a non-partisan office. It is desirable not to give the local administration of criminal justice system a partisan tinge. This is less alienating between elections to the losing party members.

* The state treasurer should not be elected.

* The state secretary of state should not be elected.

* The state attorney-general should not be elected.

* Uncontested elected offices should not appear on the ballot unless there is a declared write-in candidate before ballots are printed.

* School boards should be elected by the parents, except possibly by the students instead, in the case of high school students.

* The state school board should be appointed.

* The University of Colorado Board of Regent should not be elected by the general public. It would be better for these positions to be elected by alumni. The state still controls the purse strings, but this would strengthen academic freedom and ease the burden on the voters.

* Any other currently elected higher education district boards should be elected by alumni or appointed.

State And Local Judges And Courts

* Judges should be required to be lawyers with at least five years of experience. The four non-lawyer rural county court judges currently in office in Colorado should be grandfathered for their current terms, but not retained.

* The county courts should be consolidated to have a single limited jurisdiction division of the district court in each judicial district called the county court division of the district court, with a court house in each county and should be staffed with full time judges only.

* Judicial retention for judges not on the state supreme court should be decided by a vote of the judges at the next higher level, not the voters. So, county court division judicial retention should be decided by district court judges, district court judicial retention should be decided by court of appeals judges, and court of appeals judicial retention should be decided by state supreme court justices. These are the people best qualified to evaluate the performance of lower court judges.

* State supreme court justices should be limited to a single fourteen-year term of office, with one new justice appointed in the current process every two years in the absence of vacancies. 

* Vacancies in the state supreme court should be filled for the remainder of the term of the vacating justice (without prejudice to a further appointed term) by a court of appeals judge elected from the sitting judges of the court of appeals.

* The judicial discipline process should be more transparent.

* Court facilities and budgets, district attorneys offices, and public defender's offices should be financed at the state level, not the county level, to keep the judicial branch and district attorney's office independent from municipal and county government.

* Municipal courts should be abolished, with the ordinance violations previously in their jurisdiction prosecuted by city attorneys in the county court division of the district court before state appointed judges.

* County court appeals should be to a single judge of the court of appeals, not to a single district court judge otherwise on the same basis as under current law. There would be no municipal court appeals because there would no longer be any municipal courts.

* Colorado Appellate Rule 21 petitions (i.e. discretionary requests for extraordinary relief granted only when no other adequate remedy, including relief available by appeal or under C.R.C.P. 106, including petitions in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, habeas corpus, quo warranto, injunction, prohibition and other forms of writs cognizable under the common law) should be made to a designated panel of seven judges of the court of appeals (rotated annually) rather than to the state supreme court.

* The number of judges on the court of appeals should be doubled to allow it to process appeals more swiftly.

* Review of attorney regulation disciplinary hearings should be made to the court of appeals rather than to the state supreme court.

Remaining Elections

Candidate Elections

* There would be one election every November on election day, and a primary election (in parties and districts with contested races) in every even numbered year for state and federal offices. A partisan caucus would precede each primary election every even numbered year. Ballot issues would be restricted to November elections except for local recall elections and emergency local tax and bond measures.

* There would be one non-partisan local election in November in each odd numbered year. 

* In the year following the Governor's election there would be statutory municipal elections (with all municipal offices elected at once), and district attorney elections (and county commissioner elections in small counties) for a total of one or two offices plus city council races for each voter in statutory cities and towns. 

* In the odd numbered year two years after that there would be elections for county commissioner, sheriff and special district elections in the other (usually two or three races per voter). 

* Charter cities do what they want, but limited to odd numbered year elections except for recalls and for emergency ballot issues for referred tax matters or legally required referred charter amendments held when needed.

* There would be partisan caucuses and primaries (with unaffiliated voters allowed to participate in a primary of their choice, but not caucuses) in each even numbered year followed by a partisan general elections in November for state house, state senate, U.S. House, U.S. Senate, the Governor-Lieutenant Governor, and the President. The Governor-Lieutenant Governor election would be two years after the Presidential election. No election would have less than three or more than five offices to vote upon at a time, unless there was a U.S. Senate vacancy to be filled at the time, in which case there would be four to six offices. 

* Write-in candidates would not be allowed in primary elections and uncontested primary elections would not appear on the ballot. 

* All elected offices except the U.S. House and state house with two year terms, and the U.S. Senate with six year terms, would be for four year terms.

* All single member elected office races would require a majority to be elected, with a runoff of the top two candidates otherwise.

* City councils would fill municipal office vacancies. County commissions would fill county commissioner and sheriff vacancies. Special district boards would fill vacancies on their boards. State legislature vacancies would be filled by partisan vacancy committees. Governor vacancies would be filled by the Lieutenant Governor. Lieutenant Governor vacancies would be filled by the Governor (unilaterally). The law would provide for Governor's succession in other cases. The Governor would fill U.S. Senate vacancies until the next even numbered general election at which time a vacancy election for any remaining part of the vacant seat's term would be held.  U.S. House vacancies would be filled in special elections as under current law.

* Recall elections of particular local elected officials (city elected officials, county commissioners, sheriff, special district, district attorney), held promptly in the time frames allowed by law.  Vacancies created by recall elections would be filled like any other vacancy. Do not allow the recall of state legislators or the Governor, although the state legislature could impeach the Governor in a mirror of the federal process.

Ballot Issues

* Referred municipal or special district tax increase or bond issue ballot issues (during municipal or special district elections as the case may be, unless an emergency is declared by a supermajority of the city council or board, two-thirds unless there are just three members in which case it must be unanimous).

* Referred county tax increase or bond issue ballot issues (during county elections only, unless an emergency is declared by a supermajority of the county commission - unanimous if there are three members, four out of five if there are five members).

* Referred local charter amendment ballot issues (during municipal or special district elections). Legally required charter amendments would be adopted by the city council or special district board by majority vote.

* Local charter or legislation citizen initiatives (during municipal elections only for municipal measures, and during county elections only for county measures).

* State ballot tax increase ballot issues (referred only, during even numbered year elections in November only).

* State ballot issues on the state constitution or state legislation referred by the state legislature (during even numbered year elections in November only).

* Citizen initiated state constitution and legislative ballot issues (not impacting taxes, during even numbered year elections in November only).

* Newly passed state legislation would not be subject to referendums.

Unsolved Murders

There are about 10,000 unsolved murders in the United States every year. They are disproportionately Hispanic and even more disproportionately black victims, who disproportionately live in poverty-stricken, "disorganized" neighborhoods.

I suspect, but do not know, that most of these murders involve young men in gangs as both perpetrators and victims, with an occasional bystander killed in a gang shooting as well. These murders are predominantly, but not entirely, carried out with guns.

The proportion of murders that are unsolved has grown to record highs, but some of this is due to the falling number of total murders, with the unsolved part remaining relatively steady, while the more easily "solvable" murders have grown far less common.

Still, one quite plausible, potentially effective national crime strategy could be to devote far more resources to solving murders and other unsolved serious violent crimes. Incarcerating violent offenders for long periods of time (up to a point) definitely works to reduce crime.

The examples of very high clearance rates of mass shootings and for murders of law enforcement officers, and isolated case studies of communities reorganizing and changing the funding of their police departments also suggests that it is indeed possible to increase clearance rates for murders relative to the status quo, even in the "hard" cases that are going unsolved now.

It might be expensive to do this, but the returns from an investment in solving more murders with a very modest percentage of the defense budget could be quite impressive.

Also, since deterrence is driven more by the likelihood of being caught than by the severity of the sentence imposed, a modest increase in clearance rates for murders could lead to a virtuous circle of positive reinforcement, reducing the likelihood that crimes will be committed, in a way that tougher sentencing, or greater use of the death penalty, would not. Indeed, the return on shortening the longest sentences for violent offenders and using the money saved by doing so to increase the number of violent crimes that are solved, would itself probably provide positive returns.

Steps short of gun control, like mandating traceable bullets with serial numbers that can be linked to people who bought and sold that ammunition, which would increase the likelihood that murders are solved, could also help. Incidentally, this would also help in distinguishing whether law enforcement or criminals caused deaths in complicated shootouts, with after the fact forensics that are often inconclusive on that point.

What A Problematic National Debt Looks Like

In Nigeria debt service, mostly domestic, took up a staggering 96% of government revenues last year.

From here. This said, Nigeria's debt is only about 38% of the GPD. But it pays higher interest rates than the U.S. does and collects less government revenue as a percentage of GDP.

Apparently, in Nigeria (according to the source for the quote): "Part of the problem is that the government has collected little money from oil recently due to rampant oil theft, low production and the cost of fuel subsidies, which are deducted before oil proceeds reach the treasury."

By comparison, the U.S. federal government spends 13% of total federal spending as of April 2023 (about $460 billion per year) on debt service for the U.S., federal government's debt. The U.S. national debt is about 120% of the nation's GDP.

The biggest issue in the U.S. is that the interest rates that the U.S. government pays on the national debt are very low and if they increase significantly, the debt service costs could increase greatly.

Colorado State Ballot Issue Results In 2022

There were 11 statewide ballot measures in Colorado in 2022. Seven passed, three failed, and one is leaning towards passing, but too close to call.

How does this compare to my endorsements? (Also note, that these were not predictions, just my opinion on what was and was not good policy).

Voters agreed with five of my endorsements, disagreed with five of my endorsements, and one is still too close to call but leaning toward concurring with my endorsement.

I endorsed passage of nine measures, five of which passed (split judicial district staffing, school lunches for all, impact tables for income tax measures, decriminalize magic mushrooms, and create an affordable housing fund), one of which is too close to call (selling wine in grocery stores), and three of which failed (charitable gambling regulation easing, allowing larger liquor store chains, and delivery of alcohol).

I strong opposed one (lowering state incomes taxes), and weakly opposed another (property tax breaks for Gold Star families), both of which passed. 

Obviously, I'm pleased by the five ballot issue results that went my way, and I am hoping for the one still in the balance (wine in grocery stores) to pass.

What Matters, What Doesn't?

Not all of the ballot measure results were equally important.

The worse result, by far, in significance was the reduction of the state income tax from 4.55% to 4.40% which will significantly squeeze the state budget with consequences that are more severe than many voters realized. But it does send a message that Colorado voters feel squeezed.

Amendment FF for school lunches for all, and Proposition 123 creating an affordable housing fund, both of which I supported and both of which passed, were medium sized wins, funding desirable modest sized programs in desirable ways that moderately strength the social safety net.

Amendment 122 which decriminalized magic mushrooms at the state level (they are still illegal at the federal level and can't be prescribed as medicines despite proven preliminary positive effects as fact acting anti-depressants), which I endorsed and which passed, was likewise a medium sized win in the ongoing effort to roll back the war on drugs and advance better mental health treatment. What did it do? The Denver Post explains:

The measure legalizes psilocybin and psilocin, two compounds found in “magic mushrooms,” for use in therapeutic settings and paves the way for the establishment of “healing centers” where adults 21 years old and up can use the substances under the supervision of licensed professionals.

Additionally, Proposition 122 decriminalizes the personal growing, use and sharing of psilocybin and psilocin, as well as ibogaine, mescaline and dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, for adults.

Colorado follows Oregon, which legalized psilocybin in 2020. 

The other two measures that I supported that passed were uncontroversial housekeeping measures (Amendment D re allowing judicial reassignments in a split district and Proposition GG re the information going out in ballot packages on future income tax measures). 

The defeat of relaxed charitable gambling rules (Amendment F), the defeat of a measure to allow larger liquor store chains (Proposition 124), and the passage of property tax breaks for Gold Star families (Amendment E), while they didn't go my way, aren't really that big of a deal in the larger picture. Amendments E and F had very tiny overall impacts. Proposition 124 was basically a fight between small liquor stores and big ones that doesn't affect the average person all that much.

Wine in grocery stores will be nice if it passes, but since almost every grocery store that I shop at already had wine or has a liquor store virtually next door to it, this isn't a huge deal either.

The defeat of liberalizing open container alcohol delivery (Proposition 126) is a bigger bummer in terms of long term convenience, access for the disabled, and reducing drunken driving, but again not that big of a deal. Restaurants and bars can still provide this service for two more years and the state legislature can act without voter approval in that time frame if it wants to do so. 

The narrow fail of Proposition 126 is somewhat of a surprise, however, as I had perceived the legalization of open container alcohol delivery during the pandemic as very popular. 

Realistically, all three of the alcohol measures struggled and were close to 50-50 due to a combination of concerns of left leaning vice liberalizing Colorado voters over protecting small businesses against big businesses together with concerns of conservatives with prohibitionist leanings who distrust anything that might increase access to alcohol.

The Results

Amendment D (staffing of split judicial district) 

My endorsement: Yes. Results: 67% yes (passes).

Amendment E (property tax break for survivors of certain vets). 

My endorsement: Weak no. Results: 88% yes (passes).

Amendment F (less regulation of charitable gambling)

My endorsement: Yes. Results: 60% no (fails)

Proposition FF (school lunches for all)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 55% yes (passes).

Proposition GG (require impact table for income tax changes)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 71% yes (passes).

Proposition 121 (cut income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%)

My endorsement: No. Result: 66% yes (passes).

Proposition 122 (decriminalize magic mushrooms)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 52% yes (passes)

Proposition 123 (affordable housing fund)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 51% yes (passes).

Proposition 124 (allow larger liquor store chains)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 62% no (fails)

Proposition 125 (allow wine sales in grocery stores)

My endorsement: Yes. Result: 50.09% yes (pass if it holds, too close to call)

Leads by 4,016 votes out of 2,226,444 votes reported statewide to date.

Proposition 126 (non-package liquor delivery via non-bars)

My endorsement: Yes. Results: 52% no (fails)

Colorado State Ballot Issues In 2022

Here are some recommendations on the eleven state ballot measures in Colorado. A separate post will address Denver's many ballot issues.

This year's ballot has more good proposals and fewer awful proposals proportionately than usual, and is part of Colorado's usual far too long ballot.

Quick Summary

Vote NO on Proposition 121 and Amendment E. The opposition to Proposition 121 is a strong no. The opposition to Amendment E is a weak no.

Vote YES on Propositions 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, FF and GG, and on Amendments D and F.

Analysis

• Prop 121 (lower state income tax rate): NO. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

It would permanently lower Colorado's normal flat state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%, although due to TABOR refunds the actual state income tax rate in 2022 to 2024 will be 4.50% due to high tax collections during an economic boom. But while the state income tax rate can automatically return to 4.55% to stabilize state revenues if there is a recession in the status quo, if this measure passes, raising state income tax rates to maintain the state's ability to fund itself in a recession would require another ballot initiative. 

This would reduce state revenues in the 2023-2024 fiscal year by an estimated $382.3 million dollars which is a 3.3% reduction in state income tax revenue. Colorado's state budget is already too tightly constrained to buy all the government services that the state needs (like education, higher education, Medicaid funding, and transportation). As a result Colorado has some of the least well paid teachers relative to cost of living of any state in the United States.

Income taxes are the best way to raise state revenue. It is administratively efficient since to rides on the coattails of the federal income tax system with which everyone in Colorado must already comply. It taxes with respect to ability to pay. It is more a stable revenue stream and less regressive than sales tax and does less to distort economic decision making than the state sales tax.

Colorado would be better off cutting sales tax and relying less heavily on property taxes to fund schools, and replacing that lost revenue with higher state income taxes that are more fair and impose less of a state level administrative burden.

For most Coloradans, the tax break is very modest, less than $63 a year for more than three-quarters of people in Colorado, but it is a break of an average of $6,647 a year for the less than 1% of people in Colorado with than $1,000,000 a year of income, and even more to large corporations (mostly publicly held big businesses) that do business in Colorado.

• Prop 122 (psychedelics as medicine): YES. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

Like Colorado's legalization of marijuana, it wouldn't change federal laws that make psychedelics illegal Schedule I controlled substances that can only be prescribed under extremely narrow FDA trial regulations, just like marijuana under federal law.

Prohibition doesn't work. Regulated access to drugs that have potential mental health benefits (in this case, particularly to treat major depression in a fast acting but long lasting way) does.

These drugs aren't a cause of major societal malaise and state level legalization would reduce the societal harm caused by their prohibition itself and weaken organized crime.

• Prop 123 (fund affordable housing): YES. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

The estimated $145 million a year (up to 0.1% of state taxable income at most) comes from TABOR refund excesses associated with existing state income tax revenues, and would be used for an affordable housing fund. 

The fund would make grants to non-profit land banks that buy property with an aim to make affordable housing available, funding for affordable rental properties that allow tenants to build some savings for a future down payment from their rent expense, favorable financing for affordable housing construction, down payment assistance to first time home buyers, rental assistance and rental vouchers and eviction defense for homeless people or people imminently at risk of becoming homeless, and grants to local land use agencies to facilitate their ability to be more affordable housing friendly.

Homelessness and lack of affordable housing is a huge problem in much of Colorado and this measure finds ways to spend money to throw the kitchen sink at leveraged ways to minimize the problem. The amount of money is modest compared to the scope of the overall problem which is certainly doesn't completely solve, but it would make a dent in the problem with "found money" that would otherwise go towards TABOR tax breaks or refunds of some kind.

• Prop 124 (increase liquor license count per retailer): YES. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

Propositions 124, 125 and 126 are about ceasing to use alcohol regulation laws to mandate economic regulation of business firm structures in ways unrelated to public health and safety (or enhancing public safety) without meaningfully changing the 2022 status quo of access to alcohol.

There is no virtue in limiting liquor stores to small family owned chains rather than medium sized chains. Internal alcohol industry firm economics should be left to the marketplace.

Currently liquor store owners can have 3 locations and liquor licensed drugstores (basically grocery stores with associated liquor stores and pharmacies like Target in Glendale) can have 8 locations. 

In the status quo, liquor stores can have 4 locations in 2027 and liquor licensed drug stores can have 13, and the measure would allow liquor stores to have 13 locations. 

In the status quo, liquor stores can have 4 locations in 2032 and liquor licensed drug stores can have 20, and the measure would allow liquor stores to have 20 locations. 

In the status quo, liquor stores can have 4 locations in 2037 and liquor licensed drug stores can have unlimited numbers of locations, and the measure would allow liquor stores to have unlimited numbers of locations. 

• Prop 125 (allow grocery beer license holders to sell wine): YES. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

Propositions 124, 125 and 126 are about ceasing to use alcohol regulation laws to mandate economic regulation of business firm structures in ways unrelated to public health and safety (or enhancing public safety) without meaningfully changing the 2022 status quo of access to alcohol.

This is already legal for full strength beer under 1,819 licenses statewide, and grocery stores with one of the 26 existing drug store licenses can sell wine at up to eight locations already (13 each in 2027, 20 each in 2032, and unlimited in 2037). Grocery stores that sell wine are not a menace to the public and are the norm in many other states and internationally. 

There is no rational reason to treat legal permission to sell wine differently than legal permission to sell beer.

There is no limit on the number of locations per firm that sells beer and there are 1,819 current beer sale licenses. There are currently 1,582 liquor store licenses in Colorado, each of which can have 3 locations (4 starting in 2027), which could be expanded is Prop 124 passes.

• Prop 126 (allow 3rd party liquor delivery): YES. 

This was proposed by a citizen's petition drive to amend a state statute related and requires majority support in the election to pass.

Propositions 124, 125 and 126 are about ceasing to use alcohol regulation laws to mandate economic regulation of business firm structures in ways unrelated to public health and safety (or enhancing public safety) without meaningfully changing the 2022 status quo of access to alcohol.

Currently bars and restaurants can deliver alcohol with their own employees who are bar tender certified and subject to the same rules as bar tenders. This would allow third-party delivery firms with bar tender certified deliver people subject to the same regulations as bars to deliver alcohol in the same way. Also, alcohol delivery of this kind currently sunsets in July of 2025, while this would make it permanent.

This reduces unnecessary economic regulation of firm structure in connection with a popular service that already exists. It also would, by making this permanent, reducing drunk driving to get bar and restaurant style drinks and making bar and restaurant style drinks available to people who mobility limitations like home bound disabled people.

• Prop FF (school lunches): YES. 

This was proposed by the state legislature to amend a state statute related to fiscal matters with bipartisan support and requires majority support in the election to pass. Legislature crafted measures are usually better crafted and are less likely to have serious drafting flaws that impair the quality of the measure than citizen initiatives drafted by a small group of sponsors working without public input into the drafting process.

This would fund free school breakfast and lunch for all public school students in Colorado. 

This is something that is currently available only to low income students (incomes of under $36,075 a year for a family of four that fills out lots of paperwork, with reduced price meals for families with incomes under $51,338 for a family of four that fills out lots of paperwork) and is predominantly funded with federal grants. 

Essentially, it converts a means tested welfare program (like TANF) that requires lots of paperwork from low income families and school administrators into a categorical benefit program (like Social Security or the educational part of public K-12 education) for far more students with far less paperwork that makes eating school meals simply part of the overall scope of what public schools do. 

This is something that schools in many countries and many U.S. private schools already do as a matter of course. It is also something that some schools with very high proportions of low income students already do on a pilot program basis.

It means that no child is denied meals because they can't pay for school breakfast or lunch. Many children in the current system don't get all the food that they should despite the free and reduced lunch program because their low income families who don't have their act together enough to fill out the necessary paperwork by the relevant deadlines and are really struggling for basic food needs for children. It reduces the sigma and family paperwork burden faced by students who are in the current means-tested school lunch program.

It would also create state grants for school lunch programs to buy Colorado sourced food and to train them about how to do this, and to pay low paid school lunch cooks and servers or volunteer school lunch cooks and servers stipends or increased wages. 

This change lowers the amount of state income tax deductions that can be claimed by taxpayers with more than $300,000 of annual income (roughly the top 5% of income earners in the state). 

For someone claiming only the standard deduction, this is a tax increase of about $450. But many people with this taxable income claim more state income tax deductions that would be limited resulting in an average tax increase of $813 for taxpayers with incomes of $300,000 to $499,999, of $823 for taxpayers with incomes of $500,000 to $999,999, and of $1,166 for taxpayers with incomes of $1,000,000 or more. So, the funding would make Colorado's income tax slightly progressive (and since many state tax deductions have a regressive distributional effect, it really just makes the state income tax closer to flat). This is estimated to raise $100.7 million of additional tax revenue in the 2023-2024 fiscal year. It would also increase the amount of federal school lunch funding that Colorado schools would be eligible for statewide.

Also, this measure is an expense cut, economically equivalent to a progressive tax cut, to families with children in public schools, many of whom are middle class even if they don't qualify for free or reduced lunch programs, who are a lower average income population than Colorado as a whole.

• Prop GG (initiative financials): YES. 

This was proposed by the state legislature to amend a state statute related to fiscal matters with bipartisan support and requires majority support in the election to pass. Legislature crafted measures are usually better crafted and are less likely to have serious drafting flaws that impair the quality of the measure than citizen initiatives drafted by a small group of sponsors working without public input into the drafting process.

This proposition would require fiscal charts to accompany all initiatives that change state income tax rates. It would promote more informed voting on these measures. 

Many people don't understand how disproportionately income tax rate changes impact the rich relative to the general public, and this would make this information more widely known at the moment that it counts.

• Amendment D (new judicial district judges): YES. 

This was proposed by the state legislature to amend the state constitution with bipartisan support and requires 55% support in the election to pass. Legislature crafted measures are usually better crafted and are less likely to have serious drafting flaws that impair the quality of the measure than citizen initiatives drafted by a small group of sponsors working without public input into the drafting process.

This is a one-off change to allow existing judges in the new 23rd judicial district to be assigned to either of the new districts rather than having all new 23rd judicial district judges have to reapply to the jobs  that they were doing pre-split from scratch. 

Essentially, this is a housekeeping measure that fixes clumsy wording as applied to a situation unforeseen by the people who wrote it. 

Ideally, the change wouldn't have been specific to the 23rd judicial district and apply to any future judicial district split, but since this issue comes up so infrequently, this minor flaw isn't a big deal and doesn't detract from the desirability of this change.

• Amendment E (property tax homestead exemption): NO. 

This was proposed by the state legislature to amend the state constitution with bipartisan support and requires 55% support in the election to pass. Legislature crafted measures are usually better crafted and are less likely to have serious drafting flaws that impair the quality of the measure than citizen initiatives drafted by a small group of sponsors working without public input into the drafting process.

The tax break is a 50% reduction in the first $200,000 of actual value of the residence for property tax valuation purposes, so the full benefit which is worth an average of $630 per residence, is available to almost every homeowner who qualifies for the tax break. 

If this measure passes, it will be available to about 490 surviving spouses who live in their late spouse's home, of veterans who are killed in action, and of 100% disabled veterans who currently qualify for this property tax break who die of service related injuries. This tax break is currently available to 100% disabled veterans (about 8,900 households currently qualify on this basis) and to home owners age 65 and over who have owned their homes for at least ten years (about 250,000 households currently qualify on this basis). Current law provides $156.5 million of property tax breaks for people age 65 and over who have owned their homes for at least 10 years and $5.6 million of property tax breaks to 100% disabled veterans.

While I favor voting "no" on  this measure, it isn't a "strong no." The only redeeming virtue of this measure is that it only affects about 490 surviving spouses at a total annual cost of the measure statewide is about $288,000 a year in a state with more than 5 million people, an increase of about 0.2% in the total cost of the property tax homestead exemption program. 

In other word, it is a drop in the bucket fiscally, and honestly, not even that big of a break for the people who are entitled to it that would require a moderate amount of paperwork to claim. In most cases, the lifetime benefit to the recipient Gold Star widow/widower homeowners would be less than $6,000 each before they are entitled to the tax break in their own right.

But we don't need to clutter the state constitution with tiny bullet shot sized tax privileges to especially worthy people. 

It is the federal government's job to adequately support veterans and their widows and widowers, not local taxpayers. 

Also, on the merits, this group of 490 people does not direly need another government subsidy.

This population has a much higher net worth and a much lower poverty rate than the average person in Colorado. It benefits non-disabled people under age 65 who no longer have a disabled spouse, and people over age 65 who no longer have a disabled spouse who have owned a home for less than ten years (until they have owned it for ten years). All of them already have some significant veteran's widow's benefits in addition to their own earnings from employment, Social Security benefits, or retirement benefits.

The language of the measure is ambiguous on the question of whether a surviving spouse who remarries continues to qualify, and a surviving spouse who relocates to a different home definitely doesn't qualify so their freedom to decide where they live after their spouse dies is restricted.

If it isn't construed to apply to remarried surviving spouses of deceased veterans, it also creates a small economic disincentive for widows of disabled veteran's to remarry, as opposed to merely cohabiting with a new partner, which isn't particularly socially desirable. If it doesn't, then the beneficiaries include remarried widows and widowers who need a modest property tax break even less than those who do not have a new domestic partner.

• Amendment F (charitable gaming): YES. 

This was proposed by the state legislature to amend the state constitution with bipartisan support and requires 55% support in the election to pass. Legislature crafted measures are usually better crafted and are less likely to have serious drafting flaws that impair the quality of the measure than citizen initiatives drafted by a small group of sponsors working without public input into the drafting process.

Historically tight legal limitations on gambling have rightfully been eroding for years, continuing the trend of regulation rather than prohibition of vice in Colorado. Charitable bingo and raffles co-exist with far more commercially run state lottery games, casino gambling in limited locations in the state, and sports betting that is even available from your phone. Against this background, slightly easing regulation of charitable bingo games and raffles doesn't meaningfully contribute to the influence of gambling in daily life in the state.

This would make it slightly easier to for charities to sponsor bingo games and raffles in the short run, and reduce state constitutional regulation of charitable bingo games and raffles in the medium to long term.

Charities would have to have been in existence for only three years rather than five years to qualify to sponsor these games for the first three years of the measure, and starting in 2025 this issue would be regulated by state statutes rathe than the state constitution.

Until July 1, 2024 (for the first two years of the measure), it would allow charitable bingo and raffle operations workers, who are now required to be volunteers, to be paid up to the minimum wage. Restrictions on what charitable bingo and raffle operations workers can be paid would be removed from the state constitution after that point.

Since regulation of charitable gaming is already in the state constitution, changes to these regulations need to be constitutional amendments too, but this reduces the amount of state constitutional regulation of charitable bingos and raffles in the long run.

Observations About IQ, Education, Financial Aid, And Student Loans

Some observations:

* IQ is real and isn't just a sexist or racist construct (and neither are standardized tests). It isn't the only thing about a person that matters or influences their success in life, but one thing that it is particularly closely aligned with is ability to succeed in conventional academic studies. 

* Individual differences in IQ among people are heavily influenced by genetics outside conditions of serious environmental deprivation, which prevent people from reaching their genetic potential, and conditions of extreme environmental favorability which can foster academic ability and realized IQ development that someone with a given level of genetic endowment otherwise wouldn't be able to reach. 

The level of environmental deprivation necessary to seriously damp IQ corresponds to a level a little bit in excess of the poverty, or worse - maybe 20% of the U.S. population. For example, when I evaluated data about school in Denver when my kids were starting to reach various school choice threshold ages, I noticed that even students who were identified as gifted and talented in elementary school in the Denver Public Schools, who attended West High School, the "worst" regular high school in the district at the time, were not certain to even graduate from high school and were very unlikely to go to college without needing remedial work before taking regular classes.

The level of environmental favorability that can allow someone to exceed "par for the course" performance is even smaller, perhaps 5% of the U.S. population are in those circumstances, and those extremely favorable circumstances are predominantly present in families that are very affluent and where at least one parent has very high IQ. 

In the other 75% or so of the U.S. population that has reasonably livable and consistent day to day circumstances and attends schools that are within the normal range, individual differences in IQ are predominantly driven by genetics, which is to say that parental IQ is a powerful predictor of child IQ, with much of the rest of the variation driven by random variation in which genes a child inherits from the child's parents.

Since IQ is a significant factor in socio-economic success, and since extreme environmental favorability is predominantly found in affluent families with intelligent parents anyway, IQ and academic performance are quite strongly correlated with socio-economic status. No amount of education funding will change that disparity which is already strong visible in the correlation of socio-economic status and academic performance of students by 3rd grade if not earlier.

There are some indications that most critical time period of environmental deprivation that can cause a child to not reach their genetic potential of IQ is in utero and prior to about age six, although this evidence isn't unequivocal.

Differences in IQ between a group of people and their descendants, between different ethnic groups, and between different countries, however, are mostly driven not by genetic endowments (although that is a factor, for example, in the case of descendants of immigrants who were pre-selected for high IQ) but by environmental factors. The most striking recent and well documented example of this is the link between lead exposure and IQ.

* Ameliorating the environmental deprivations that prevent people from attaining their genetic potential IQ is an extremely fruitful place to invest public spending.

* The main factors that distinguish between people who graduate from high school and those who don't are anti-social behavior (especially in boys), pregnancy before graduating, and disruption in your personal life (e.g. homelessness). Notably, more than three-quarters of Colorado prison inmates are high school dropouts.

For example, most males who pass the GED exam, rather than graduating from high school, do so because their anti-social behavior caused them to be suspended or expelled from school and to be incarcerated for anti-social behavior, and earn their GED while or shortly after being incarcerated. Yet, a passing score on the GED requires greater IQ than the IQ of the average high school graduate.

A GED is far inferior to a high school diploma as a credential for use by employers, educational institutions, and military recruiters because it is so strongly correlated with a history of anti-social behavior, even though not all people take the GED for that reason.

Still, the factors that drive people to drop out of high school aren't entirely uncorrelated to academic ability, because anti-social behavior and pregnancy before graduating are often driven in part by students not getting much out of their studies because they have fairly low IQs. Low IQ is definitely strongly correlated with anti-social behavior, a factor also illustrated by the correlation between criminal offenses and lead exposure through the mediating variable of decreased IQ when one is exposed to lead.

Also, even when anti-social tendencies including mental health issues like substance abuse aren't closely tie to IQ, they are often heavily influenced by genetics and by cultural environment, and hence hereditary in practice, even when they aren't a function of low IQ.

* An extremely large share of students who start community college drop out, often after a single semester, without receiving a certificate or associate's degree, and without transferring to a four year college. A large share of students who start a four year college, especially for profit colleges and public colleges with open admissions or not terribly selective admissions standards, drop out, often within the first year or two.

* The likelihood that someone will drop out of college is closely related to academic preparation and IQ. Students who need remedial work to attain the college level when they finish high school, students who haven't completed a college preparatory high school curriculum, students with poor grades in high school, and students with poor test scores in high school are disproportionately likely to drop out.

Figuring out where to draw the college admissions line is difficult but not impossible. 

There is a certain level of academic ability above which students only drop out due to rare (for them) circumstances in the personal lives of such students (e.g. illness, pregnancy, physical injury, mental health breakdown, family crisis that needs to be attended to or impacts an ability to attend, conscription, criminal victimization, and committing a crime).

There is also a certain level of lack of academic preparation below which students graduate only through miracle-like perseverance and support from others.

But there is a big middle ground in which there is a non-negligible risk of dropping out, but it is hardly a certainty, with the likelihood of success being closely correlated with academic preparation. Even at moderately selective colleges and universities, six year retention rates as low as 60%-80% are not uncommon, and students who do not graduate within six years are disproportionately, but not entirely, at the bottom of the academic ability pool of incoming students.

Figuring out where to draw the line, and who should bear the economic risks that a student in the gray area will fail, in a way that isn't economically regressive, is a challenging policy decision that doesn't have an easy answer. 

Most Western societies have erred in being too open in admissions with significant public subsidies in a way that is wasteful, detracts from the quality of the higher educational enterprise, and does the students who predictably fail no favors. 

On the other hand, letting students attempt college, while bearing the economic costs through student loans, when the institutions admitting them and facilitating the loans know better than the students who take out those loans do that those students are likely to fail and receive little benefit from their expensive educations, also feels like fraud.

It isn't obvious that allowing students to take out student loans with no ability to have them discharged if the educational efforts aren't successful economically serves any valid purpose.

Keep in mind that students who receive government subsidized educations without loans will still end up paying the government back through taxes on their increased incomes and property values and taxed consumption anyway, which fairly reflects the benefits actually received by particular individuals from their educations.

* Tests measuring the academic and intellectual value added from college attendance show that students who are least academically prepared for college also receive the least benefit academically from attending college, even if they graduate. But, there is also solid statistical evidence that being admitted to college at all, and completing a degree, afford significant economic benefits to students who do so, due to sorting and signaling effects in the eyes of employers, and this benefit is greatest for the students who were only admitted and only graduated by the skin of their teeth without actually learning all that much in the process.

* It is a waste of money to encourage students to apply to publicly subsidized higher educational programs at which they are highly likely to fail.

* We as a society are doing no favors to students who are admitted to community college or four year colleges with little chance of success. They are not receiving value added from the experience, they are merely getting a sorting credential (often a "some college" sorting credential from being admitted and then dropping out) comes at the cost as dramatically demonstrating to them that they are academic failures.

* It isn't that high school graduates who are academically ready for college shouldn't be supported by the government and have a decent life path for themselves, and our society does a very poor job of laying out alternative paths for students for whom their weak academic ability as a result of not high enough IQ makes that a poor choice. But pushing them into a college track which is not what they need or even really want is not the right solution.

* On the other hand, the gender gap in college attainment is an area where pushing more boys to go to college (boys and girls on average have about the same IQs) might be wise.

* Moreover, the push to attend and if possible complete college as the only accepted mainstream route to a decent life also encourages employers to engage in degree inflation in job requirements imposing educational requirements that aren't really necessary for the jobs in question to sort out dysfunctional people generally, and unreasonably delays adult life, including getting married and having children (see also here), for far too many people. 

* People are much less likely to continue and complete their educations when they have children, especially, but not only by any means, women. This also impacts career paths since educated women who have kids are less likely to get high returns from their educations. Most often in societies with more education this means birthrates fall. It isn't clear how much this is necessarily true, and intrinsic to the task of trying to balance parenting and studying which is harder than studying without having other responsibilities, and how much this is just a matter of tradition and custom. See also here on marriage, divorce and education.

* In the case of graduates, part of the issue is that the sorting and signaling effect of a college degree for employers represents not just selection on intellectual ability and knowledge, but also selection on an ability to consistently function in a structured environment without much close supervision for enough years to earn a degree, and to be socialized as a member of college educated class to not engage in conduct that members of that class would consider anti-social.

* The high and moderately predictable dropout rate from college in the U.S. suggests that we have too many community college, college and university slots in our system. 

* But some colleges do a better job of graduating students in the gray area than others and this needs to be replicated widely to target students in this middling range of academic preparation.

* There is another huge factor in who gets college degrees in addition to academic preparation and a certain level of ability to consistently function in a structure environment (what one professor has called the W factor for "work ethic"). This is family finances.

Controlling for academic ability, a student from a non-affluent family is highly likely to not attend college and to not graduate if they do attend college, while a student from an affluent family is highly likely to attend college and graduate thanks to strong financial resources and support resources that family facilitates and to a lesser extent a lack of cultural hurdles, even if they are academically well below the level of someone who usually managed to graduate by the skin of their teeth.

Low income students don't go to college, or don't finish college, not just because they can't secure enough financial aid, but also because they don't want to take on student loans which many of their less academically able peers were unable to repay creating a burden on them and their families.

Probably the single biggest step we could take to make our society meritocratic would be to guarantee 100% grant based financial aid for the full extent of their financial needs broadly defined, for lower income students with high enough academic performance to have a good chance of graduating. And, since socio-economic class is strongly correlated with academic performance, this group of students, while very significant in number, also isn't a huge percentage of all students.

The benefit of financially backing academically able lower income students in their pursuit of higher education isn't just a matter of social equity. Unlike academically unprepared students, the value added from the educational experience to academically well prepared students is great and this translates into great increases in lifetime productivity (at least when the educated people live in places with healthy urban economies) that make our economy as a whole more productive. See also here.

* Most states subsidize all in state college students with significantly lower tuitions than out of state college students. This is a bad policy. 

It doesn't reflect the future benefit that students could provide to the economic of the states where the college is located if they stay after they graduate. Students going to college and leaving college are at one of their most geographically mobile times. But from the perspective of a state's economy, it is in the interest of a state to lure as many people likely to graduate from college to their state as possible with favorable financial terms for obtaining a college education. 

It subsidizes students in open admissions or only weakly selective admissions institutions even when they aren't academically prepared for college and are likely to drop out with little value added, thereby wasting a lot of the money used to subsidize these students. 

It subsidizes affluent students who make up a large share of college students and don't need public subsidies to finish college debt free, in a regressive use of public funds.

Need based subsidies restricted to students who are academically well prepared for college is a much better use of public funds, providing more benefits for the money spent without being regressive in spending on people who don't need to economic help.

* Higher education has grown much more expensive. Some of this is a result of decreased state support for higher education per student. Some of this is a result of sticker prices for tuition, room, board, books and health care being inflated in order to allow a de facto sliding scale based upon ability to pay. Some of this is due to government guaranteed student loans and grants increasing the ability of students to pay. 

But, separate and apart from this, the actual cost of providing higher education has grown.

In general, technological advances and increased productivity and international trade have tended to reduce the cost and increase the quality of goods much more than services, especially services that are not easily offshored to cheaper labor markets, like higher education, since cheaper labor markets typically give rise to more compromises in quality than producing goods in those markets. And, many kinds of higher education beyond introductory courses can't be efficiently provided in large classes without individualized attention to students with a low student to teacher ratio.

Also, colleges and universities have seen administrative expenses crowd out payroll for instructors. This is a truly huge and widespread issue that needs to be addressed.

Finally, at some institutions, a large share of costs are for research rather than instruction, which is also an appropriate function of a higher educational institution, but which shouldn't unduly burden students paying to be educated and instead should be financed by other means.

* Loan based financial aid falls mostly on middle income families. Students from very affluent families who make up a surprisingly large share of college students who ultimately graduate don't need student loans. Students from low income families tend to receive a larger share of grant aid in their financial aid packages than students from middle income families. But, at many institutions (especially for pre-professional degrees in law, medicine, business and the like) most students who are not from very affluent families graduate with substantial student loans. The aggregate amount of student loan debt outstanding has soared and seriously impaired the ability of young managerial-professional workers starting their careers to build wealth, own homes, save for retirement, marry, and have children.

* Student loans are almost impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, despite the fact that they are almost never debt incurred wrongfully. There is reasons for this, since new graduates have lots of debt intended to be paid over time perhaps a decade or so, can't be made to surrender the human capital that they received in exchange for the funds spend, and have few assets. But the current system goes to too far of an extreme in making this difficult even when the human capital purchased turns out to be not worth very much (often through no fault of the students other than being gullible about their prospects, a known cognitive bias), or when other hardships or reasonable life choices make repayment very difficult.

* Student loans that are actually in default tend to be smaller loans (a median of about $11,000) owed by students who attended low quality programs or programs for which they were ill prepared and shouldn't have been admitted, often at for profit colleges. Often these students predictably dropped out, or weren't able to get the occupational license necessary to use their degree if they secured one, depriving them of the economic benefit that the spending on their eduction was supposed to provide, and as noted above, often they had little valued added learning from classes they took before dropping out because they weren't academically prepared enough to receive that knowledge and benefit from it.

* There are quite a few tax expenditures that subsidize higher education and student loan interest. But they don't very coherently distinguish between situations where this is money well-spent on an academically well prepared student or not, only dimly address actual financial need.

Ideally, the tax code would seek to end the status quo strong preference for capital in the form of property over human capital. In part, this is because the macroeconomic theories driving tax policy making have failed to adequately recognize the importance of investments in human capital.