The consensus of the political class is that current spending rates for all levels of government are not only necessary but possibly too low. Outsiders taking a more sober view might not see it that way, I know I don't.
Count Denver Post columnist Bob Ewegen on the pro-spending side of the argument. I've met him and once participated in a lengthy conversation with him, and he seemed reasonable and sympathetic to the libertarian view of government. However, his recent writings about the TABOR amendment show that he has a very different world view from us. A portion of today's column:
But Bridges is a political realist who knows how hard it would be to win approval of that initiative in the face of the fierce campaign that Republican conservatives, led by Owens, are already waging against it. That's why he visited the Capitol Tuesday to urge Democrats to compromise - even if that meant abandoning the personal income plan in favor of a bill that merely released TABOR's notorious ratchet.
That ratchet stems from a provision that always bases next year's spending limit on this year's limit or this year's actual collections - whichever is lower. That means if you're entitled to $100 this year, and your population grows by 1 percent while the consumer price index rises 2 percent, you'd be entitled to $103 next year. But if the recession cut your actual revenue to $50 this year, you'd be limited to $51.50 next year - and could never regain the lost revenue base.
For us limited government types the ratchet effect is one of the most attractive aspects of TABOR. Actual cuts in government spending are rare as hens' teeth in American politics, so this one opportunity to shrink spending is precious.
Rhetoric is one thing, but when it comes down to cutting the budget even most of the Republicans in the state lege get gun shy. So when Ewegen and others mention the ratchet effect they assume that reasonable people will want to eliminate it. (Note that in his example spending is cut by half in one shot. That's never happened and likely never will.)
Meanwhile those of us who think the state overspends by billions will try to keep TABOR and strengthen it if possible. It's still the best spending limit in any of the 50 States.
Posted by Walter at May 8, 2004 08:31 AM“That means if you're entitled to $100 this year, and your population grows by 1 percent while the consumer price index rises 2 percent, you'd be entitled to $103 next year”
Anyone who ever uses the word entitled when discussing money and government immediately loses my vote. The government is “entitled” to exactly 0 dollars of my money. Now if they provide a service I desire I will pay them willingly for that service (like I do with my water bill). Of course I have a problem also with them providing services that could be provided by the free market, while outlawing competition for themselves (like the water bill).