DENVER - There is no issue that riles up today's conservative base like the issue of government spending, perceived to be out of control after last year's $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and on the verge of a health care reform bill that, if passed, could cost close to $1 trillion over the next decade.
In such a context, it's no surprise that Republican candidates are talking, on the eve of this fall's midterm elections, about how Democrats have overspent and how they will, if elected, rein in such expenditures.
It's also no surprise that Jane Norton, a Republican running for U.S. Senate in Colorado, is already airing television commercials to that effect.
And given that Norton may be the front-runner in the race, out in front of both Democratic contenders and the two Republicans challenging her for the party's nomination, it's no surprise that her record on spending is coming under heavy scrutiny -- and heavy fire -- from both sides.
Norton, who has also been criticized of late for avoiding the mainstream media's attention, spoke to FOX31 last week about her conservative record.
"It's fashionable right now to talk about being a fiscal conservative and talk about limited government," said Norton, who, under former Gov. Bill Owens, served as director of Colorado's Dept. of Public Health and Environment and later as Lieutenant Governor.
"The fact of the matter is I did cut budgets and my general fund was less. The general fund allotment I had when I left the department of Public Health was less when I left than when I started, about $6.4 million less."
The Democrats and Republicans parsing Norton's spending record from her tenure at CDPHE accept that the department's annual general fund appropriation did wind up being 28 percent less in her final year as director than it was in her first.
But, they also point out what Norton does not -- that money from the state's general fund is but one piece of the department's budget, which also includes money from cash funds and the federal government.
"She didn't say in her ad that her general fund went down," said Bobby Clark, executive director of ProgressNow Action, a Denver-based, liberal organizing group.
"She said she cut spending -- and it's just not true. Spending -- her department budget went up every year."
During Norton's tenure at CDPHE, the department's overall budget did rise from $226.5 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 to a high of $280 million three years later, before the post- 9/11 recession led to across-the-board cuts and slight drop in the department's overall 2002-03 budget, which was $269.5 million.
"A budget going up every year doesn't equate to cutting spending," Clark said. "Jane Norton saying she cut spending is like Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house. It's disingenuous and it's just not true."
But, in Norton's view, she only had control over the money her department received from the state.
"In the budget, you have federal funds, cash funds and general funds -- and general funds are what the executive director actually has control over," Norton said.
Asked to explain why her general fund allotment increased 36 percent from $23.7 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 to $32.4 million in 2000-01, Norton pointed to the legislature's decision to consolidate three youth programs in CDPHE, adding $8.7 million to the department's general fund appropriation.
"You can't take credit for the drop in funding and then blame the spike on the legislature," said Carol Hedges, a senior policy analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute.
"Ultimately, the director submits a budget and the legislature approves it," Hedges said. "So you could argue the legislature is responsible for all increases and decreases in general fund spending. And, if you want to say the director is responsible, they'd be equally responsible for cash fund increases and decreases. It's not only the general fund money they oversee."
Democrats aren't the only ones scrutinizing Norton's record.
In such a context, it's no surprise that Republican candidates are talking, on the eve of this fall's midterm elections, about how Democrats have overspent and how they will, if elected, rein in such expenditures.
It's also no surprise that Jane Norton, a Republican running for U.S. Senate in Colorado, is already airing television commercials to that effect.
And given that Norton may be the front-runner in the race, out in front of both Democratic contenders and the two Republicans challenging her for the party's nomination, it's no surprise that her record on spending is coming under heavy scrutiny -- and heavy fire -- from both sides.
Norton, who has also been criticized of late for avoiding the mainstream media's attention, spoke to FOX31 last week about her conservative record.
"It's fashionable right now to talk about being a fiscal conservative and talk about limited government," said Norton, who, under former Gov. Bill Owens, served as director of Colorado's Dept. of Public Health and Environment and later as Lieutenant Governor.
"The fact of the matter is I did cut budgets and my general fund was less. The general fund allotment I had when I left the department of Public Health was less when I left than when I started, about $6.4 million less."
The Democrats and Republicans parsing Norton's spending record from her tenure at CDPHE accept that the department's annual general fund appropriation did wind up being 28 percent less in her final year as director than it was in her first.
But, they also point out what Norton does not -- that money from the state's general fund is but one piece of the department's budget, which also includes money from cash funds and the federal government.
"She didn't say in her ad that her general fund went down," said Bobby Clark, executive director of ProgressNow Action, a Denver-based, liberal organizing group.
"She said she cut spending -- and it's just not true. Spending -- her department budget went up every year."
During Norton's tenure at CDPHE, the department's overall budget did rise from $226.5 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 to a high of $280 million three years later, before the post- 9/11 recession led to across-the-board cuts and slight drop in the department's overall 2002-03 budget, which was $269.5 million.
"A budget going up every year doesn't equate to cutting spending," Clark said. "Jane Norton saying she cut spending is like Sarah Palin saying she could see Russia from her house. It's disingenuous and it's just not true."
But, in Norton's view, she only had control over the money her department received from the state.
"In the budget, you have federal funds, cash funds and general funds -- and general funds are what the executive director actually has control over," Norton said.
Asked to explain why her general fund allotment increased 36 percent from $23.7 million in fiscal year 1999-2000 to $32.4 million in 2000-01, Norton pointed to the legislature's decision to consolidate three youth programs in CDPHE, adding $8.7 million to the department's general fund appropriation.
"You can't take credit for the drop in funding and then blame the spike on the legislature," said Carol Hedges, a senior policy analyst at the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute.
"Ultimately, the director submits a budget and the legislature approves it," Hedges said. "So you could argue the legislature is responsible for all increases and decreases in general fund spending. And, if you want to say the director is responsible, they'd be equally responsible for cash fund increases and decreases. It's not only the general fund money they oversee."
Democrats aren't the only ones scrutinizing Norton's record.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
