Date Published: October 2, 2005
Colorado conservatives squabble over Tabor
By GEORGE F. WILL
DENVER — This autumn’s angriest
political controversy is reaching a roiling boil in this
state. Conservatives, especially, are arguing, with their
characteristic internecine fury, about whether a change in
fiscal facts should cause Colorado to change its mind about a
rule restricting government spending. Come November, there
will be a referendum on a temporary relaxation of the state’s
taxpayer bill of rights (Tabor).
Adopted by referendum
in 1992, it is the nation’s most stringent limit on a state
legislature’s freedom to tax and spend. It says that spending
in a given year cannot increase faster than population growth
plus inflation — if both are 2 percent, spending can increase
only 4 percent. Furthermore, revenue exceeding permissible
spending must be rebated to taxpayers, who also must approve
any tax increase.
Tabor has been spectacularly
successful. Per capita spending has increased slower than in
almost all other states, and Colorado ranks 50th in state
taxes collected per $1,000 of personal income. Even though —
actually, because — Gov. Bill Owens has cut taxes 41 times,
revenues have surged, and in six of the last nine years
taxpayers have received refunds, a total of $3.2 billion,
about $3,000 per household.
But two events have given
Tabor an unexpectedly ferocious bite. These events have
revealed an unanticipated wrinkle in Tabor’s
mechanism.
The first came in 2000, when Colorado
voters, in an episode of cognitive dissonance encouraged by
the teachers unions and the rest of the public education
lobby, passed an initiative discordant with Tabor. It requires
spending on education in grades K through 12 to grow
significantly faster than overall spending. This, combined
with the growth of federally mandated Medicaid spending, means
not only that the portion of the budget devoted to elementary
and secondary education must steadily grow relative to the
rest of the budget, but also that all spending cuts must come
from less than one-third of the state’s budget — basically,
from higher education, corrections and human services. Those
who favor leaving Tabor as it is and cutting $300 million to
$400 million from the $2 billion of controllable spending are
notably reticent about what they would cut.
The second
event was the intersection of the recession of 2001 after the
bursting of the high-tech bubble (Colorado ranks first among
the states in high-tech workers per 1,000 private-sector
workers) with a drought and 13,000 forest fires that hurt
Colorado’s tourism. This caused a collapse of revenues — a 16
percent decline over two years — unprecedented in recent
history and unanticipated by Tabor’s authors.
This
confronted Colorado with Tabor’s “downward ratchet”: the
budget’s baseline of permissible spending was reduced to the
recession-year level. This lowered spending for all subsequent
years because it restricted the spending of revenues produced
by economic recovery.
Owens, who has traveled to 15
states advocating enactment of Tabors, believes Colorado’s
Tabor will be repealed in two years unless the November
referendum prevents politically unpopular budget cuts. The
referendum, of a sort that Tabor explicitly allows, would not
raise any tax rate, but would suspend the rebates of surpluses
— $3.7 billion — for five years. This would enable spending to
return to the pre-recession trend line.
For
conservatives and other sensible people, it is doubt-inducing,
not to mention excruciatingly unpleasant, to be on the same
side of an argument with public employees unions, whose
ravenous appetite for government growth is constant and
self-aggrandizing. Explaining his temporary alliance with
those unions, Owens points to a clock on his office wall. He
says it comes from a Soviet submarine and that it is broken,
but even it is right twice a day.
Owens resisted the
Legislature’s demand to gut Tabor by indexing the growth of
government spending to the growth of personal income rather
than to population growth and inflation. Still, by advocating
passage of the Tabor referendum, he has infuriated some
conservatives. This in spite of his record of promoting school
choice, cutting taxes, opposing other governors’ attempt to
grab revenues by imposing Internet taxation, and using the
line-item veto to cut 50 times more spending in his first five
years than other Colorado governors cut in the preceding 24
years. He vetoed 47 bills this year, half of which, he says,
promoted organized labor’s agenda.
Those now calling
Owens an apostate from the church of conservatism need to
answer two questions. Is one deviation from doctrinal purity
sufficient grounds for excommunication? Is a political creed
that is so monomaniacal about taxation that it allows no
latitude for tacking with shifting fiscal winds a philosophy
of governance or an ideological fetish?
|

|
|

|
|