TABOR -- A Taxpayer “Bill of Restirictions”

The Myth of TABOR

• This “Bill of Wrongs” will waste our investments of taxpayer money.   It will decimate education, health care, parks, highways and the very infrastructure of state government.
• The political purpose of TABOR is to hold a Referendum on Taxes during an election year
• The policy purpose of TABOR is to distract citizen anger away from demanding a fairer tax system
• The passage of TABOR would make real tax justice for working families even more impossible by preserving current special interest tax breaks
• TABOR will eventually cripple vital public services, education and infrastructure provided by all levels of government

TABOR Is Bad for Local Government

• TABOR would tie the hands of lawmakers and city officials.
• TABOR would translate into direct and very severe impacts on city services.
• TABOR will encourage more state aid cuts and unfunded mandates.
• Cities need more, not less, tools to serve residents and deal with challenges
• TABOR is a solution in search of a problem: Contrary to what proponents say, government spending is actually going down – in Minnesota during 2003, spending was 15.1 percent of personal income, down from 17.5 percent in 1996

TABOR Is Reckless:   It Avoids Responsible Decision-Making

• The state budget is complex, and TABOR would circumvent thoughtful consideration of tough policy decisions.
• It distracts from the responsibility that our democratic system places in elected officials to govern wisely, and it allows them to abandon their responsibility.
• Our governing system includes elected bodies that are to carefully analyze, debate and decide on public policy issues, including taxation, after input from citizens and based on the real needs of the people.
• It creates disincentives to efficiency by mandating return of surplus funds, so agencies will spend everything if they have no opportunity to channel funds to areas of unmet needs.
• If approved, this change to the state constitution would remove almost all the tools officials need to provide flexible response to changing needs
• This is not governing responsibly, as evidenced by TABOR in Colorado

TABOR hurt Education in Colorado

• Per pupil funding in Colorado is still $700 below the national average.
• By 2000, Colorado had fallen to 50th in K-12 spending, making the state dead last in the percentage of state wealth devoted to public schools.
• The Colorado Children's Campaign reported the state ranks last in sending disadvantaged kids to college.
• Colorado ranks near last among states in high school graduation rates

TABOR hurt Health Care In Colorado

• Colorado spent less than most other states on public health
• Colorado was below the national average in immunization rates
• Colorado was at the bottom in prenatal care
• Colorado had the highest rate of uninsured low-income children in the nation

TABOR hurt Economic Development In Colorado

• Colorado had a growing list of highway projects that had not been funded
• Colorado has lost more jobs in this recession than any but 3 other states. 
• In 2002, the per-capita income in Colorado fell faster than in any other state. 
• Unemployment in Colorado has more than doubled since 2000. (The annual unemployment rate in Colorado was 2.8% in 2000 and went up each year to reach 6.0% in 2003.)
• Even since the start of the recovery, only 4 states have lost a larger share of employment than Colorado, which lost 18,000 jobs in 2003 alone.

TABOR hurt Colorado

• The Bill resulted in a downgrade of Colorado bond rating, and analysts specifically blame TABOR for making the fiscal crisis worse.
• In a pair of studies in 1999, Governing Magazine ranked Colorado's finances as among the worst managed in the country, again due to TABOR.
• Colorado ranked almost last in state investment in the arts
• Colorado's 38 state parks in a bind, exemplifying how spending restrictions in TABOR harm state services in visible, physical ways.

The State Constitution is Not the Place for TABOR

• The state constitution is not the appropriate mechanism for rigid budget formulas
• As evidenced by Colorado, which has had TABOR in place for over 10 years, unintended consequences will be difficult or impossible to fix once rigid formulas are enacted in the state constitution.
• “This year's solution becomes next year's problem to be fixed”
• TABOR will Make Issues like Medicaid Impossible to Solve, because it fails to Consider complexities like the Impact of Baby Boom Generation on Medicaid.  
• It would make it very difficult to plan or provide basis for economic development.

TABOR Promotes Minority Rule

• The requirement that an emergency tax increase be passed with a two-thirds vote in the Legislature gives a minority of the legislators immense power.
• It would subject fiscal policy to the tyranny of the minority, a sure formula for paralysis in this polarized environment where a determined band of ideologues could sabotage revenue policy on behalf of unrelated culture war agendas.
• They can defy the will of the majority and paralyze government at a time of public need. This is contrary to our democratic system.

TABOR Is Good for Special Interests

• Through the referendum process outlined in TABOR, key decisions will be made by wealthy special corporate interests that have a big stake in the status quo
• Corporate interests can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy the airwaves and dominate the debate with simplified sound bites to defeat any referendum.
• Deliberation and honest debate would be out the window and the deepest pockets would have the distinct advantage.
• TABOR closes the door on tax justice and essentially enshrines all inequities and special breaks granted over the years.

TABOR is Sold as a Silly Silver Bullet Tax Distraction

• TABOR does nothing to make our tax system fairer, and will preserve current special interest tax breaks
• The rich continue to pocket a greater percentage of their income than the middle to lower income working families.
• In Wisconsin in 2002, the richest one percent of taxpayers paid only 8.1 percent of their income in state and local taxes, and only 5.9 percent after deducting from their federal taxes.
• By contrast, the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers paid 10.2 percent in state and local taxes in 2003, and middle-income taxpayers paid the most, 11.9 percent or 11.3 percent after the federal offset, which is almost twice what the rich pay
• It is not fair to tax middle-wage earners more than rich investors.

home | login | my profile | join our network | about us | contact us | forums | site map