OPINION: A weakening of TABOR law

On a ballot littered with confusing initiatives and referenda, Coloradans will be asked whether they want to fundamentally change the size and scope of state government. A "yes" vote on Amendment 59 would permanently eliminate constitutional revenue restrictions for state government, and would also relieve state politicians of a requirement that makes education funding a priority. A "no" vote would maintain state revenue and spending restrictions imposed by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, and guarantee that public education is funded at a level that at least keeps pace with inflation, and inflation plus 1 percent through 2011. Either vote would maintain the right of voters to approve tax increases, though a "yes" vote could incentivize politicians to increase fees, such as the cost of car registration, state park permits and various licenses, because those new revenues would not have to be returned to citizens.

When Colorado voters approved the Taxpayer'sf Bill of Rights in November 1992, they changed the state constitution to limit the ability of governments to raise taxes and spending without a vote of the people. This amendment has served Colorado well by allowing voters to determine how large and invasive government should be.

Yes, economic times are tough in Colorado. Since 1992, however, Colorado has fared better economically than most other states, and some economists credit that fact, at least in part, to TABOR's role in keeping money in the hands of consumers, entrepreneurs and small business owners who use it for trade, production and to employ consumers. Today, while the national unemployment rate exceeds 6 percent, Colorado's is 5.4 percent.

Consumer prices have also remained consistently lower in Colorado, in part because those doing business here are burdened by relatively low tax overhead.

A majority of Coloradans continue to value TABOR's requirement that taxing decisions be left to the public and 59 would not change that. That's not in question. Less clear, however, is whether Coloradans support the government spending limits imposed by TABOR. The constitution requires that state government rebate to citizens those revenues that exceed legal spending limits. In 2005, voters decided to forgo the rebates for five years in part to fund higher education. In 2000, Colorado voters enacted Amendment 23 to guarantee better funding of preschool through 12th grade public education.

Amendment 23 requires the state to fund public education at a level to keep pace with inflation, and for the first 10 years it must fund at a level that exceeds inflation by 1 percent.

The combination of TABOR and Amefndment 23 result in a reduction of revenues the state can spend on noneducational services. For state leaders to maintain the constitutionally required increases in education funding, they must continue cutting into revenues that otherwise would fund transportation, prisons, higher education, public health and safety, social services, etc.

Amendment 59 would eliminate the spending requirements of Amendment 23. It would also eliminate forever the TABOR rebates that return to voters all revenues that exceed expenditures. Instead, those revenues would be transferred to the state education fund, which would include a savings account for education spending. Legislators would be able to spend from the savings account with a simple majority vote of the Legislature. During good economic times, when personal income has grown by 6 percent between the two previous calendar years, a two-thirds majority vote would be required to spend from the account.

Amendment 59 is mostly the inspiration of Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, a bright and amicable politician with a promising future. He exudes a sincere belief that a better-funded state government could improve the lives of Coloradans. He has worked tirelessly to untangle a state constitution that he believes is tied up in knots, limiting revenue and spending while requiring ever more spending on education.

But don't be confused about the genuine effect of Amendment 59. While it might resolve some troublesome conflicts in our constitution, the cost could be worse than the cure. It would gut a major provision of TABOR that's designed to maintain state government as a minor player in the lives of Coloradans. It would eliminate our guarantee that public education gets funding priority. Nothing is more important to the future economic vitality of Colorado than the education level of its workforce.

Amendment 59 has been marketed as a mechanism to fund public education (proponents call it "SAFE," or Savings Account for Education.) Unfortunately, it's a plan that could jeopardize education funding while freeing up money to be spent at the discretion of politicians. Romanoff has been honest, saying that Coloradans will have to trust their legislators to adequately fund education if Amendment 59 passes. He correctly points out that voters can refuse to re-elect their leaders if they're not happy with the Legislature's treatment of public education. Fair enough.

But a vote for 59 is not a vote to guarantee even the current levels of education funding, let alone increases. It's a vote to throw the metaphorical dice, and to trust politicians with more money and greater discretion to spend than they've enjoyed since 1992.

Voters who want a return to something much more similar to the old system, therefore, should vote "yes" on Amendment 59 - greatly reducing the authority of TABOR. We hope Coloradans still want a limited state government, required by law to maintain education as a priority. If they do, they'll vote "no" on Amendment 59.