Palin Opposes Colo. Amendment That Would Benefit Special Needs Kids

Once again, Gov. Sarah Palin talks out of both sides of her mouth. On CNN today, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Drew Griffin. I heard a portion driving home. She told Griffin that as Vice-President, McCain's roles for her will be (1) government reform (2) energy independence -- her "forte as governor" she said and (3) special needs children.

In Colorado yesterday, Palin told 9News she opposes Amendment 51 on our ballot that would provide services to special needs children through a one cent sales tax increase on every $10 spent for the next two years.

Amendment 51 provides thousands of children and adults with Autism, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, and Mental Retardation with critically needed care, through a modest, phased-in sales tax of 2/10 of 1%.

Amendment 51 provides new funding for much-needed services that people with developmental disabilities and their families need now and in the future, such as constant supervision, help with daily tasks, a place to live, job training or nursing services. When fully implemented, it will raise $186 million.

Even our Republican former First Lady, Frances Owen, supports the Amendment.

If they cannot get services that will help them get into the workforce then they are relegated to staying at home and they will never prosper in their own lives," said Owens in an interview the day after Palin spoke. "So, I think it's more of a human rights issue that we're just trying to help people that can't always help themselves."

9 News reports we have a waiting list of 12,000 for these services:

The money would go to help the roughly 12,000 kids and adults in Colorado who currently are on a wait list to receive state services such as home nursing care and job training. They suffer from autism, Down syndrome and mental retardation. Palin's son has Down syndrome and she has campaigned as an advocate for special needs families.

Here's broken record Palin on why she opposes it:

"There's got to be an alternative to raising taxes....It's a matter of prioritizing the dollars that are already there in government. What I did as governor in Alaska is prioritize for a great increase in funding for students with special needs up there and I think Colorado can do that also.

"It doesn't necessarily mean increasing taxes to meet those needs. It's all a matter of prioritization."

How should we prioritize?

Supporters of the amendment have said there is no "extra money" sitting around state government to help people who deserve it. [Former First Lady]Owens says compassionate conservatives should support helping people with developmental disabilities because it's a moral issue as much as it is a fiscal one.

Amendment 51 would:

  • increase the state sales and use tax from 2.9 percent to 3.0 percent on July 1, 2009, and from 3.0 percent to 3.1 percent on July 1, 2010;
  • direct that the new money be used to pay for services for people with developmental disabilities and to help eliminate the waiting lists for services;
  • prohibit the legislature from reducing the current level of state funding for services for people with developmental disabilities; and
  • exempt the new money from state spending limits.

Palin as champion of special needs kids? Hardly.

< Pew Research Poll: Growing Doubts About John McCain | Palin to Give TrooperGate Deposition Friday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    why would this surprise you? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by white n az on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    she's completely behind more services for special needs children as long as no money goes toward providing these services.

    she's against abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

    she's against funding for evidence collection kits for rape and favors charging the victims.

    It's the next level of compassionate conservatism.

    Amendment 51 is NOT regressive (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by vern1 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23:26 PM EST
    I dislike sales tax increases as well because they are usually regressive.

    But the folks behind Amendment 51 have clearly thought this through because Amendment 51 would increase the sales tax by 2/10 of 1%, or 2 cents for every 10 dollars spent, EXCEPT for groceries, gas, utilities, and prescription drugs.

    So 51 exempts many of the necessities in life that the less fortunate spend most of their income on.

    I have a son with Down syndrome and I wholeheartedly support this amendment.  We families of children with special needs struggle because our children have a disability--and that's tough enough--but then we have to fight against a system that clearly doesn't value our children because there's never enough money to help them get the services they need.

    Sarah Palin has betrayed her son with Down syndrome by coming out against Amendment 51.  A "friend in Washington to those with special needs?"

    If you believe that, I've got a Bridge to Nowhere to sell you.

    Question (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
    In MA there is no sales tax on groceries.  Ever.  Is that just this state or all states?

    that's state by state (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    synopsis here

    While I understand your passion... (none / 0) (#7)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    ...on this issue, I don't understand your troll rating of the comment above.  

    I too am going to vote against this initiative.  Great cause, bad way to get at it.  Are you going to troll rate me too?  

    My concern is where does it end--or does it.  Will we have every special interest group pushing for a sales tax increase for the causes that they support?  

    What about the physically challenged or the mentally ill?  Those with MS or ESKD?  Do they not deserve additional funding too?


    I opposed it too (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by rdandrea on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    I opposed it enough to vote against it. and I am nowhere near Palin ideologically.

    I thought it was a good cause.  But the proposed solution was a sales tax.  I detest sales taxes.  Sales taxes are regressive.  I generally don't vote in favor of sales tax increases, no matter what the reason.

    My hatred of sales taxes aside, the economy is in the crapper.  Everything costs more.  And I'm making less.  I'm not going to vote for any measure that makes things cost even more right now.

    Imagine if we gave every good cause in Colorado its own sliver of sales tax.  Pretty soon going to the store would become downright ugly.

    Good cause, bad solution.  I voted "No."

    I hope the people who worked to get this onto the ballot go back to the drawing board and come up with a less offensive way to fund their project.

    I hope everyone else feels the same way.

    Here's a sales tax I will vote for (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    in a local referendum here -- for my very poor city's parks and other services used a lot by burbanites outside my city.  We in the city have to pay for all that through our property taxes, which are breaking us and causing the schools to suffer (as well as a lot of elderly who can't stay in their homes with the taxes, and working class who can't afford to buy homes tied to the high taxes).

    I talked to a burbanite who comes into the city to use our parks all the time, and he sputtered about me not paying for his town's one park, 30 miles away, where I never would go, anyway.  And he said they just charge admission.  Now, my city's legendarily lovely and historic park system (designed by Olmsted of Central Park in NYC fame) comprises thousands of acres, and we're supposed to just fence 'em all and charge at gates?

    I generally don't like sales taxes, either, but I'm all for user fees -- and in this case, the sales tax is the best way we can accomplish it.  Especially because all those burban SUVS suck so much gas to get here that they will have to fill up in the city to escape it again to get home.  And I hope they buy lots of other stuff at the gas station/convenience stores here to do so.:-)


    It's easy to prioritize ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    ... when your state is flush with oil $ and federal $ spent on bridges to nowhere.

    Maybe she opposes regressive taxation? (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19:36 PM EST

    Amendment 51 (none / 0) (#11)
    by 51voteno on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 11:03:49 PM EST
    Throwing more money at a broken system will not fix it, it will only delay needed reforms. As a parent and provider I see first hand the waste and inefficiency of the current system. Although I would probably benefit from this, I cannot in good conscience support it. Although the cause is nobel and the need is great, Amendment 51 is not a good solution. Learn more at Learn More Here