The Post today published an overview of Governor Owens' tenure in office. The article notes that he is a rising star in the Republican party and is even mentioned as posible presidential candidate in some future election. He's been praised by the National Review as the best governor in the country, and (not mentioned in the Post article) the Cato Institute gave him their highest rating among governors. Both of those organizations credit him as a fiscal conservative, cutting taxes and controlling spending. But that's not the whole story.
Colorado has this thing called the TABOR amendment to the state constitution. It's probably the strictest spending control of any state in the Union. The state cannot increase spending or taxes without a vote of the people. Any excess taxation, that is, taxes which cannot be spent within the TABOR limits, have to be refunded to the taxpayers. Naturally, TABOR is very unpopular with the political class.
The tax cuts Owens supported were to get rid of taxes which were only being refunded to taxpayers in the first place. At no time has the state voluntarily cut spending, or spent less than the limits imposed by TABOR. In summary, no politician, including Gov. Owens, can take credit for limiting the size of the state government. No matter who the governor might be, the state cannot spend any more than it does.
The Post article hints that Owens isn't happy with the spending limits:
One of the biggest tests for the governor and legislators will be to determine if and how to change Colorado's constitutional requirements for tax limitations and education funding.
Owens said he is working behind the scenes with legislators on ways to do that.
Would Owens ditch TABOR, if given the chance?
Owens and the rest have already started the ditching of TABOR by defining a decade as 19 years, thus allowing the accountants to have way too much fun in deciding when there really is excess spending.
As a lot of people said back in 2002 when Owens was up for election, the only reason Owens was winning was because of Doug Bruce. if Owens makes it to DC he will have only Bruce to thank, and oddly, Bruce hates Owens.
Posted by: Matthew at January 4, 2004 01:37 PMI bet you will be shocked, shocked, utterly shocked, at the news that I think TABOR is kinda flawed. Thanks, though, for reminding me to write about it Real Soon Now.
;-)
Your holiday meal sounded yummy, though. And, try as I might, I can't connect those two thoughts.
Posted by: Gary Farber at January 4, 2004 02:54 PMBoth papers have been on a jihad against Tabor, as well as the state treasurer. I have called both my rep and senator and gave them the same message:
Support changing TABOR and you start off a nagative one in the re-election vote column.
(These guys can't seem to understand: Spend less.
We don't care.)
I think Owens uses TABOR as a crutch to avoid porposing tax increases.
And I agree with Gary, TABOR doesn't go nearly far enough. Um, that is what you were saying, no? ;-)
Posted by: Walter at January 4, 2004 09:13 PMSo I take it you all are not in favor of ditching the "ratchet" effect?
Posted by: A Curious Stranger at January 6, 2004 02:47 PMThe more appropriate question might be: How do you propose resolving the conflict between TABOR, Gallagher and Amendment 23?
Posted by: A Curious Stranger at January 6, 2004 02:49 PMNo I like the ratchet effect. It's a wonder to me that the folks who complain when governments shrinks have no complaint when government grows. Is there anything inherently bad when government shrinks?
My solution fro reconciling the three amendments is to repeal Gallagher and 23.
Posted by: Walter at January 6, 2004 10:48 PM