TABOR or not TABOR; that is the question By Warren Bluhm News-Chronicle It turns out some conservatives are also happy the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" didn't go anywhere last week in the state Legislature. Saddled with a Republican primary opponent because of her resistance to scheduling a vote on TABOR (which still sounds to me like a character out of a 1950s science-fiction movie), Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer suddenly scheduled a vote. Lawmakers diddled around with the idea for a couple of days and then gave up, scuttling the proposal for another year. What was scuttled was a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit local and state governments from increasing spending by a greater percentage than the increase in the state's personal income as measured by some objective source. I have some concerns about TABOR, chief among them that the idea makes the assumption that local and state government are now spending at acceptable levels so it's OK for them to keep spending that much, with a little extra for inflation. I also see how the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act has had some "unintended" consequences, such as the attempt to use the act to keep Michael Moore from advertising his "Fahrenheit 9/11" screed or prevent Russ Darrow from advertising cars for sale during the election season. In other words, I am skeptical about politicians who introduce bills that would force them to do the right thing, like keep taxes and spending under control. Maybe we should just elect people who would do the right thing in the first place. But it turns out that last week's special session of the state Legislature on TABOR was even more of a shadow play than it appeared on the surface. State Rep. Frank Lasee testified against the bill - yep, Lasee, who has championed the concept of TABOR, fought the version that was snuck onto the floor last week, which was substantially different from what he introduced. Here's what Lasee wrote while the debate was still in progress: "I didn't really expect to get a vote on my version, and it was quickly clear that I wouldn't. Instead, we were going to push through something that was put together in less than two days. That's not why I opposed it, though. "A real Taxpayer Bill of Rights will protect the taxpayer. The draft we talked about yesterday won't. "It had no protection for local governments: The state will be able to cut local aids just to pad its own budget. Local governments will raise our taxes to make up the difference, because this draft doesn't require a referendum on tax increases. "It also had no protection against mandates: The state will simply shift programs and spending onto local governments. "It allows the Legislature to exempt certain funds and spending. For example, the Legislature could move more than $4 billion in federal monies off budget - redefine it so it doesn't count toward the spending limit - but the state's spending authority would remain the same. The state could spend $4 billion more, but appear to be spending the same amount. We could then raise our taxes to bring the budget back up to the spending limit. The state has dozens of funds and revenue sources; this game could be played with all of them. "Local governments will take advantage of a similar loophole by creating new tax and fee districts, like drainage districts, storm water runoff utilities, mosquito districts, etc. They'll shift spending to these new districts, which aren't subject to the limits, then raise taxes to bring their spending back up to the limits. They'll keep the spending they've always had, and still get more money to spend on other things. "It allows governments to 'bank' any unused spending authority for future years, which will result in dramatic single-year tax and spending increases. "The state government will be able to transfer this unused spending authority to other governments, who will then raise taxes to spend it. "This constitutional amendment is full of loopholes. It will not protect the taxpayer. Government will be open for business as usual." So it turns out to be a blessing that TABOR didn't go anywhere last week, because the concept had been watered down beyond recognition. Despite the howls about how the bill would bankrupt government and ruin children's educations, it was nothing more than another promise of government accountability with so many loopholes you could drive a tank through them. Remember when the Gramm-Rudman bill balanced the federal budget for now and forever in 1990? After a while it becomes clear that almost no one really wants to bring taxes and spending under control, except for those who have to pay the taxes. Since that's pretty much all of us, you gotta wonder who's steering this ship anyway? Warren Bluhm is editor of the Door County Advocate. Contact him at [email protected] or 743-3321.