Three years ago California was called a failed state. They were virtually chortling in the conservative venues. The people themselves through the initiative [the Proposition 30 tax increase of $7 billion] actually broke a decade of dysfunction and laid the foundation for a government that works.

One place following his lead is Colorado, where tomorrow voters decide the fate of a $1 billion tax increase — adjusted for population, about the same amount as Prop. 30. Amendment 66 was put on the ballot by Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Brown clone.

As in California, the tax increase is being touted as going to education. But Hickenlooper recently admitted that the money actually could end up not going to classrooms, but to the state pension fund, called PERA, for Public Employees Retirement Association.

Same thing in California. After Prop. 30 passed a year ago and taxes went up $7 billion a year, in December 2012 the California Teachers’ Retirement Association announced it needed $4.5 billion a more a year from the general fund to stay solvent. That money was not included in the fiscal 2013-14 state budget that Brown signed last June. But the money still has to be paid — and is accumulating interest.

I’m just guessing, but I think the tax will lose in Colorado. Although a lot of Californians have escaped our high taxes to move there, ironically they have pushed the Rocky Mountain State to the Left. But this isn’t 2012, when President Obama and the national Democratic machine sent so many more people to the polls. It’s an off-year election, when older, more conservative voters hold more sway because others don’t bother to vote.

Damage

Also, numerous studies show the tax increase would hurt Colorado’s economy. According to an analysis by the Tax Foundation:

There is very good evidence that taxes and economic growth are negatively related, contrary to arguments claiming that higher taxes will not be a detriment to state economies.[14] We recently completed a literature review encompassing 26 academic studies related to economic growth and taxation—23 of those found that higher taxes were associated with lower growth.[15] There may not be a unanimous consensus on the taxes versus economic growth debate, but the claim that taxes in general have “little influence” on state economies is false.[16] Tax increases leave less money in the pockets of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and consumers—money that could be invested back into the Colorado economy, further propelling the state’s economic recovery forward, or that can cover basic expenses for low-income households.

Even proponents of Amendment 66 argue that “[w]hen Colorado’s income growth drops, it’s because there is a national recession.”[17] Though the recession officially ended at the close of 2009,[18] Americans are still feeling the effects. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in early September found that “a majority of Americans (63 percent) say the nation’s economic system is no more secure today than it was before the 2008 market crash.”[19]

And a key factor is that Prop. 30 mainly taxed “millionaires” — which in California lingo means anyone making $250,000 or more a year. But Amendment 66 would tax everybody hard:

Amendment 66 increases taxes on all Colorado taxpayers—including the poor and the middle class. While some taxpayers in higher-income ranges will see a 27 percent increase in maximum rate, even the lowest-income Coloradans will see a tax rate increase of 8 percent. In particular, individuals with incomes below $75,000 would face a 5.0 percent rate, rather than the current 4.63 percent (an 8 percent increase).

The Air Force Academy might be located in Colorado Springs, but it’s unlikely Coloradans will follow Gov. Moonboom in sending tax rates into the stratosphere.

By Chris Reed

Sunday’s U-T San Diego editorial wraps up a three-part series on fracking with some theories on how Gov. Jerry Brown might sell it to the millions of Californians who are unaware — because of our pathetic state media — that fracking is considered just another manageable heavy industry by the Obama administration:

“First, he needs to counter the anti-fracking disinformation campaign by noting the position of the Obama administration over and over and bringing in credible surrogates like [former Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed] Rendell and [current Democratic Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

“And after that message sinks in, the governor should offer specifics about how billions in new state revenue from our 21st-century oil boom could be used.

“We suspect that rolling back community college, CSU and UC tuition to 1990 levels might excite a lot of young voters and their parents.

“We suspect that guaranteeing a big infusion of new money for the K-12 school system would excite educators, social justice activists and millions of people in disadvantaged communities.

“We suspect that using the oil revenue gusher to shore up a pension system for teachers that is horribly underfunded would excite teachers and their unions – and the worried families of aging teachers.

“We suspect that fixing up our aging roads, freeways, ports and airports would please the business community and anyone who leaves the house.

“And we are 100 percent certain that lower state sales and income taxes would be hugely popular.”

So far, at least, Jerry Brown seems to be resisting the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council disinformation campaign. The fracking regulations his administration put out in December were relatively straightforward.

Will pathetic media finally notice Obama stand on fracking?

But in coming months, we will see many interesting angles play out:

Will Brown be the pro-jobs pragmatist he claims to be?

Will the pathetic media finally get out of the green tank and admit that fracking is dirty but not extremely so and thus manageable, as the Obama administration believes?

Will California’s leaders and media continue to ignore the brown energy revolution in favor of the increasingly loony idea that our devotion to cleaner-but-costlier fuel is inspiring the world?

It’s going to be fun.

The over-under on honest George Skelton columns on energy issues in 2013 is 0.5.

I’ll take the under.