My favorite part of Pawlenty’s announcement was his pronouncement that he “believe[s] it will make the budget forecasting process more stable and predictable and reliable.” If he wanted a more stable budget forecasting process, he wouldn’t have vetoed a responsible forecasting law that would have required budget forecasts to take inflation into account. Every biennium, Pawlenty pretends that our budget situation is about a billion dollars rosier than it really is — how’s that for a “stable” budget forecasting process?
The funny thing about Pawlenty’s timing with this proposal is that it comes right on the heels of an election in which voters from two different states — Washington and Maine — rejected similar proposals to cap state spending and property taxes. These so-called “Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” (TABOR) laws have done a lot of damage to states that have passed them, and voters have realized that these policies are not in their best interests.
Colorado is just one example. After adopting TABOR in 1992, Colorado citizens voted to suspend in for five years in 2005 because of the damage it was doing to the state. Pawlenty apparently has not heeded these Lessons from Colorado:
TABOR Has Contributed to Declines in Colorado K-12 Education Funding
- Under TABOR, Colorado declined from 35th to 49th in the nation in K-12 spending as a percentage of personal income.
- Colorado’s average per-pupil funding fell by more than $400 relative to the national average.
- Colorado’s average teacher salary compared to average pay in other occupations declined from 30th to 50th in the nation.
TABOR Has Played a Major Role in the Significant Cuts Made in Higher Education Funding
- Under TABOR, higher education funding per resident student dropped by 31 percent after adjusting for inflation.
- College and university funding as a share of personal income declined from 35th to 48th in the nation.
- Tuitions have risen as a result. In the last four years, system-wide resident tuition increased by 21 percent (adjusting for inflation).
TABOR Has Led to Drops in Funding for Public Health Programs
- Under TABOR, Colorado declined from 23rd to 48th in the nation in the percentage of pregnant women receiving adequate access to prenatal care, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- Colorado plummeted from 24th to 50th in the nation in the share of children receiving their full vaccinations. Only by investing additional funds in immunization programs was Colorado able to improve its ranking to 43rd in 2004.
- At one point, from April 2001 to October 2002, funding got so low that the state suspended its requirement that school children be fully vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) because Colorado, unlike other states, could not afford to buy the vaccine.
TABOR Has Hindered Colorado’s Ability to Address the Lack of Medical Insurance Coverage for Many Children and Adults in the State
- Under TABOR, the share of low-income children lacking health insurance has doubled in Colorado, even as it has fallen in the nation as a whole. Colorado now ranks last among the 50 states on this measure.
- TABOR has also affected healthcare for adults. Colorado has fallen from 20th to 48th for the percentage of low-income non-elderly adults covered under health insurance.
- In 2002, Colorado ranked 49th in the nation in the percentage of both low-income non-elderly adults and low-income children covered by Medicaid.
Colorado Business and Community Leaders View TABOR as Deeply Flawed
A wide range of Coloradoans — business leaders, higher education officials, children’s advocates, legislators of both parties, and Governor Bill Owens (R), among others — recognize that TABOR has limited the state’s ability to fund critical services.
- “Coloradoans were told in 1992 … that [TABOR] guaranteed them a right to vote on any and all tax increases… . What the public didn’t realize was that it would contain the strictest tax and spending limitation of any state in the country, and long-term would hobble us economically.” — Tom Clark, Executive Vice President, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation
- “The [TABOR] formula … has an insidious effect where it shrinks government every year, year after year after year after year; it’s never small enough… . That is not the best way to form public policy.” — Brad Young, former Colorado state representative (R) and Chair of the Joint Budget Committee
- “[Business leaders] have figured out that no business would survive if it were run like the TABOR faithful say Colorado should be run — with withering tax support for college and universities, underfunded public schools and a future of crumbling roads and bridges.” — Neil Westergaard, Editor of the Denver Business Journal
Read even more from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Is that really what we want for Minnesota?
The more I think about this, the more I dislike it. It would dislike if the Democrats tried to put a constitutional spending floor in place. I would dislike it if the Republicans put a constitutional spending cap in place.
To the victor go the spoils. If you are elected and have a majority to pass the budget you want, along with the commensurate tax increases or cuts, that is what you get to do.
I would, however, like an amendment saying that we, by law, have to measure new legislation to ensure it meets the promises that were made when it was proposed. I think that is just good management. Call it a "5 year review" rule. If you pass a new program or spending inititiative, it has to be reviewed by the state's equivalent of the CBO 5 years hence. If at that point, it is missing the mark of what it was supposed to do, it has to come up on the legislative agenda as "old business" for re-review, adjustment, and possible discontinuation.
You could put a materiality threshold in so you aren't doing this for $20,000 projects. Why 5 years? It most likely would be reviewed by a fresh legislature and possibly a new governor. And if a program doesn't do what it is supposed to in 5 years, we've given it enough time.
My issue isn't with government spending. The healthy tension of democrats vs. independents vs. republicans will always keep that in relative check. My issue is that once a bill is passed, nobody generally re-examines it to see if it actually worked. We just keep funding it.