This TABOR too much, too early
Oklahoman Editorial
March 5, 2006
OPPONENTS of the taxpayer bill of rights (TABOR) initiative are as politically diverse as possible, but they are united in a belief that this growth-limiting measure is the wrong approach at the wrong time.
Today we join them in that belief.
When talk of an Oklahoma TABOR surfaced two years ago, we were intrigued by an experiment in Colorado to limit growth of state government spending and to return excess tax revenue to the people. This was based in part on the irresponsible run-up in state spending in the 1990s.
Initially, opponents of TABOR were what we fondly term "the usual suspects" -- tax-consuming special-interest groups and their allies who remain bitter about State Question 640, the 1992 measure that makes it tough to raise taxes.
State Question 726, as TABOR will be styled if it reaches the ballot, could be seen as the next logical step after 640. Instead of restraining tax increases, TABOR would limit state government's ability to increase spending.
Debate has raged in Colorado over the benefits from its TABOR versus the harm it is said to have caused. Voters in that state last year agreed to suspend TABOR's key provisions for five years. That was a blow to the group circulating petitions for the Oklahoma TABOR.
An even bigger blow came in late February when prominent business leaders of many political stripes joined "the usual suspects" in challenging not only the validity of the petitions but the constitutionality of the wording. When the chairman of The State Chamber adopts a position consistent with that of labor unions, something weighty this way comes.
We were critical of efforts by public employee unions and others to harass petition circulators. This included teachers who were providing a poor role model for students learning about the democratic process. And we've been put off by the tactic to demonize SQ 726 by comparing it to Colorado's TABOR. One opponent termed the two as carbon copies. That's not true and it's a lousy substitute for an argument.
The reason to oppose TABOR is not because it's similar to the original or because it differs. The reason to oppose this TABOR is because Oklahoma is different from Colorado.
This is a much poorer state that has some catching up to do in education, infrastructure, health care, corrections, social services and other functions. That's not an argument for a tax increase, but it does suggest that constitutional limits on spending growth should wait a while longer.
Oklahomans are already shielded from tax increases imposed by lawmakers on a simple majority vote. The state has a Rainy Day Fund that citizens have wisely retooled, to curtail its use for non-emergencies.
Ultimately, TABOR's fate may not turn on arguments advanced by supporters and opponents. It may turn on how well state government is managed in coming months. A demonstrated maturity and responsibility in spending decisions might help convince citizens that TABOR's time hasn't yet come.
