Let's Loudly Limit The "Limitless"!

Author: Brad  |  Category: Boardman Views, Conservatism, Education, General, Politics

Now that November is close at hand Washingtonians have begun again to endure the barrage of TV and radio ads that have become part and parcel of the election season.

One of the most prominent series of ads rails against Initiative 1033 which

“would limit growth of certain state, county and city revenue to annual inflation and population growth, not including voter-approved revenue increases. Revenue collected above the limit would reduce property tax levies.

The incumbent liberal establishment is obviously running scared when it comes to perpetuating their ability to tax and spend us into oblivion.  Every ad begins by attributing the initiative to sponsor Tim Eyman, Washington’s anti-tax crusader and defender of property owners.  The ads then devolve into sniveling about which program or people group will suffer catastrophe should the initiative pass.

In case you missed it, the following is an article that illustrates how I-1033’s nasty approach has actually worked in Colorado.  Consider this.

By Barry Poulson

Opponents of Washington’s Initiative 1033 are woefully uninformed about the Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed by voters in 1992. Critics of Washington’s ballot measure say I-1033 is similar to our TABOR, which they claim is a disaster for our state. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The best way to appreciate the positive impact of TABOR in Colorado is to contrast our experience with California’s. The Golden State’s GANN Amendment, a precursor of TABOR, limited the growth of state revenue and spending to the sum of inflation and population growth. In the late 1980s, under pressure from the education employee lobby, the California legislature abandoned the GANN Amendment. The rest is history.

Over the last two decades without GANN, state spending in California increased much more rapidly than personal income. To sustain the higher level of spending, taxes were increased to one of the highest levels in the country. Despite the higher tax burden, the state incurred a structural deficit that required even higher levels of debt. California created one of the worst business tax environments in the country. Business investment and jobs left the state for other states with better tax climates. Population left the state for other states with lower tax burdens. In short, California has experienced retardation in economic growth over the last 20 years.

Shortly after California abandoned the GANN Amendment, Colorado voters passed TABOR. It also limits the rate of growth of state revenue and spending to the sum of inflation and population growth. Surplus revenue above the TABOR limit must be rebated to taxpayers. From 1997 to 2000 state revenue grew in excess of the TABOR limit, and the state rebated about $3.25 billion in surplus revenue to taxpayers.

The TABOR Amendment has worked much the way it was intended, allowing Colorado citizens to decide how much government they want and are willing to pay for. If any jurisdiction wants to spend surplus revenue, or increase taxes or debt, it must have voter approval.

Many statewide ballot measures have been presented to Colorado voters since TABOR was enacted. Two of the six ballot measures seeking approval to spend surplus revenue were passed, and four were defeated. Eight ballot measures proposing tax increases were introduced, but only one of these measures passed. Of the four property tax measures introduced, two providing property tax relief to specific groups passed; two measures proposing property tax increases were defeated.

At the local level, however, many more spending or tax increases have been approved, usually because they were tied to specific local government programs to which the voters decided to give extra funds.

Critics often argue that TABOR forced the state to cut spending. The empirical record for state spending in Colorado refutes this claim. In contrast to California, state spending in Colorado has grown at roughly the rate in the private economy. From 1993 to 2007 real per capita state spending grew 28 percent, while per capita GDP grew 30 percent.

With an effective tax and spending limit in place Colorado has been able to lower tax burdens, creating one of the best business tax climates in the country. Colorado has attracted more business investment and jobs than most other states. Over the period since TABOR was passed Colorado has experienced one of the highest rates of economic growth in the nation, while California has experienced retardation in economic growth.

As California citizens and businesses leave for other states, such as Colorado, the evidence is clear. States that impose an effective tax and spending limit, and that pursue prudent fiscal policies, create a better business tax climate compared to states that pursue profligate fiscal policies in the absence of effective tax and spending limits. Critics who argue that state spending should not be constrained by tax and spending limits are really arguing that government should grow more rapidly than the private sector.

Polls reveal that Colorado citizens support the TABOR Amendment by a greater majority today than when it was enacted. Citizens support each of the TABOR provisions by a large majority: the cap on the growth of revenue and spending; the requirement for voter approval to spend surplus revenue; and the requirement for voter approval to increase taxes and debt.

Despite this success, politicians and special interest groups routinely attack TABOR because it doesn’t give them carte blanche authority to tax and spend. Washington residents would be lucky to have our TABOR amendment. It strengthens fiscal rules and policies conducive to economic growth and prosperity, and prevents the kind of fiscal debacle occurring in California.

This article originally appeared in The Bellingham Herald, September 26th, 2009.

If tax-payers had placed limits on the government long ago, we wouldn’t be in our current financial straits!  If our legislators would actually listen and do what the tax-payers tell them, we wouldn’t feel the desperate need to reign them in!

You’re in Boardman Country!

Make yourself at home,

Brad

Be Sociable, Share!

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Let's Loudly Limit The "Limitless"!”

  1. Judy Says:

    Hi Brad…Welcome back…Missed you tremendously!!! Hope all is well with you!

  2. Linda Says:

    So Brad, I get the impression that the weather was clear enough for you to see Russia from your house!

Email
Print