VOTE NO ON PROP LL & MM

Prop MM-

1. Tax Increase in Disguise

   • Reduces deductions for high-income earners — a direct tax hike on success.

   • Violates the spirit of Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and limited-government principles.

2. Government Overreach

   • Turns feeding children from a family duty into a state function.

   • Expands bureaucracy and centralizes control over local school operations.

3. Broken Promise & Fiscal Irresponsibility

   • The 2022 Proposition FF already promised to fund school meals; MM moves the goalposts.

   • The state should audit and manage costs before raising more revenue.

4. Slippery Slope Toward Bigger Government

   • Each “just this once” exception to TABOR opens the door for permanent tax growth.

   • Future ballot measures could use MM as precedent for more spending.

5. Universal Programs Breed Dependency

   • Means-tested aid helps those in need; universal meals subsidize those who can pay.

   • Weakens family accountability and personal responsibility.

Limited Conservative Pros (If Any)

• Maintains stability for schools already dependent on the program.

• Keeps voter consent (it’s on the ballot rather than legislated).

However, these do not outweigh the long-term risks to fiscal restraint and limited government.

Bottom Line for Voters

Vote NO on Proposition MMPreserve TABOR, uphold fiscal responsibility, and keep government focused on its proper role.Charity and community — not the state — should feed Colorado’s children.PROP LL: Proposition LL asks voters to let the State of Colorado keep and spend excess revenue collected under 2022’s Proposition FF (“Healthy School Meals for All”), instead of refunding it under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR).If passed, the measure would allow the state to retain roughly $12 million beyond the original limit to continue funding the free school-meal program.

Conservative Position Overview

General Stance: Oppose Proposition LLCore Reason: It weakens taxpayer protections, expands government responsibility, and undermines fiscal transparency.

Key Conservative Arguments (Cons)

1. Erodes TABOR Protections

   • TABOR requires that excess taxes be refunded to taxpayers.

   • LL would set a precedent for keeping over-collected funds, eroding a core constitutional check on government growth.

2. Changes the Deal After the Fact

   • Voters were told in 2022 that Proposition FF would cost a specific amount.

   • LL moves the goalposts, letting the state spend beyond what voters originally approved.

3. Expands Government’s Role

   • Turns a family or local community responsibility—feeding children—into a statewide entitlement.

   • Extends welfare programs even to families who can already afford meals.

4. Encourages Waste and Bureaucracy

   • The program should be audited and made efficient before adding more money.

   • LL rewards government overspending instead of promoting accountability.

5. Slippery Slope Toward Bigger Government

   • Once voters approve “keeping the extra” revenue here, similar requests will follow in future years.

   • This is how permanent government expansion begins—one “exception” at a time.

Limited Conservative Pros (If Any)

• Avoids short-term disruption in an existing program.

• Lets voters—not politicians—decide whether to keep the funds.

However, these points do not justify weakening TABOR or enlarging state control.

Bottom Line for Voters

Vote NO on Proposition LLProtect TABOR. Defend taxpayer rights. Keep government spending in check.Colorado families—not state bureaucracy—should be responsible for feeding children. Key FactsColorado schools serve about 650,000 meals daily through this program.Every student, even those from high-income households, receives taxpayer-funded meals.Families already have food support programs such as SNAP, WIC, and local food banks.Many schools still rely on pre-packaged, processed items, and food-waste studies estimate up to 30–40 % of served food is thrown away.

Conservative Perspective

1. Parental Responsibility:Feeding children is a family duty, not a government function. SNAP and WIC already provide resources so parents can send nutritious food from home.

2. Government Overreach:Expanding schools into full-service welfare providers moves education away from its mission and grows permanent government bureaucracy.

3. Duplication & Waste:Universal meals duplicate existing aid programs and create inefficiency. Tax dollars should be targeted to children truly in need, not to feed every student—including those from well-off families.

4. Fiscal Accountability:With rising costs and food waste, taxpayers deserve to know why new state taxes are needed for a program that overlaps with existing federal nutrition benefits.

5. Local Control:Local school boards and counties should decide whether to participate, not be bound by a statewide one-size-fits-all mandate.

Bottom Line

Conservative Position: Support feeding hungry children through targeted, efficient programs. Oppose turning public schools into universal meal providers funded by broad new taxes.Proposition LL is a well-intentioned but unnecessary expansion of government—Colorado families and communities are capable of caring for their own.