Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Cillizza bumbles - No explicit Palin endorsement request
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Posted in:
* Maine voters overwhelmingly rejected a TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) referendum this week. Here are some details…
* growth in annual expenditures of the General Fund, the Highway Fund and Other Special Revenue Funds are limited according to increases in population and inflation
* revenues exceeding the expenditure limitation must be distributed by directing 20% of that excess to a budget stabilization fund and 80% of that excess to a tax relief fund […]
* a state tax increase would require a majority vote of each House of the Legislature and majority approval of the voters
This is the third time that Maine voters have turned thumbs-down on TABOR in the past five years.
* The Question: Let’s change the final provision to make a tax hike receive a three-fifths majority in both legislative chambers and no direct voter approval. Could you support this idea? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Cillizza bumbles - No explicit Palin endorsement request
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No.
Even though I am a fiscal conservative, I do not want to hamstring the General Assembly. We have to stop trying to put up fences and roadblocks to make up for good government, responsible fiscal policies needs within Illinois.
The people currently in office are irresponsible. They have to go. Putting them into a constitutional jar to keep them from damaging the Illinois economy is as bad an idea as term limits.
We cannot have self-cleaning government. We gotta vote out the bums. That is our job and shunning it is one of the reasons we are in the fiscal disaster we have been in since 2000.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:44 pm
No… absolutely not. TABOR has been devastating in Colorado, and would be devastating in IL.
And the super-majority for new revenue has completely hamstrung California, and has played a large role in creating the mess that is California’s budget.
Comment by dave Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:50 pm
No. the initiative referendum mindset of California has added costs to government. this one would take away control in the opposite way. government is the business of managing public assets. we elect people to do that. at least we have more control than in corporations that are public stock based. it’s rare that shareholders can chose their leaders. the reality of
government is that the public has more control than private
business which can affect our lives. elect good people.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:56 pm
How’s the supermajority requirement to raise taxes in California working?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 12:58 pm
No. The bias in government is already toward increasing spending and decreasing taxes, which is a big part of the reason for many states’ current budget crises. Why add to the problem by making it even harder to raise taxes compared to raising spending? I don’t think being conservative means favoring lower taxes, except for the notion that cutting taxes will “starve the beast” and therefore keep government small. However, that theory doesn’t seem to work.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:00 pm
No. I do like the 2/3 majority for a tax increase with voter approval though. Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians let us have an initiative and referendum process like Maine’s?
Comment by TaxThePoor? Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:01 pm
Can we make the vote requirement needed to enact new spending programs 100% too. Most of these Magoos are happy to vote for new spending, but not new revenue. They ought to go hand in hand.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:06 pm
Carl, some would say its working great in California at forcing them to finally make realistic priorities with how they spend the money. Now they have to focus on using government resources to help those in need, instead of trying to help everyone including a lot of people that don’t need it.
Comment by TaxThePoor? Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:07 pm
Let’s stick to the question, please.
Also, don’t forget about the spending limits based on population growth and CPI. This question is not just about the tax hike votes.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:09 pm
I can live with it, I think there is some merit in treating tax hikes different then other issues. This requires the government taking money from it’s citizens. It probably means tax hikes would provide a more direct benifit to the citizens. I think this should be the same for fee hikes and fund sweeps as well.
Please note, I’m not against taxes, I am however am against waisteful spending which I realize is subjective.
Comment by ahoy Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:14 pm
Yes. If I understand Rich’s summary correctly, this applies to expenditures, not just revenues, making less probable the low tax/higher spending scenario that others here envision. Those who are concerned with the rising share of (health care expenditures)/(GDP) ought to be similarly concerned with (public spending)/(GDP).
I’d also point out that opponents who constantly point to California as an example of initiative-run-amok ought to examine the many other states with similar systems that function just fine. My home state of Oregon has had enormous success with an initiative-heavy system. I could just as easily point to a counter-example (Illinois) as a failure of non-direct democracy. One failure that happens to share a characteristic common to many successes doesn’t indict that characteristic.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:15 pm
The 3/5’s majority in California is different, voters can approve increased spending with no revenue to pay for it by a ballot initiative.
Comment by ahoy Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:16 pm
the other big issue in maine was the failure of gay marriage. 0-31 on statewide referenda.
Comment by shore Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:16 pm
This couldn’t be a worse idea. State services should be delivered according to demand, not according to the federal rate of inflation (itself a famously poor measure of cost increases).
Try this simple thought experiment: Currently, demand for basic state services like Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANF and child protection are through the roof - as a result of the recession.
However, inflation is at or below zero - also a result of the recession.
Dumb ideas like TABOR would handcuff the state’s ability to meet demand just when services are needed most.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 1:27 pm
An absolutely dreadful idea. Majority rules for all non-constitutional issues. Even the part year supermajority rules we have in Illinois are a disaster, allowing craven politicians to hide behind deadlines. The expenditure limits are also completely pernicious and arbitrary, failing to consider whether public needs for certain categories of spending change and also failing to account for sectors that rise faster than the general inflation rate due to things like shortages of resources — most dramatic example of this being construction.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:04 pm
No way. One of the worst ideas ever. This kind of approach worked so well in Colorado that its voters several years ago had to scrap TABOR temporarily to climb out of the ditch. In a few short years, TABOR had eviscerated their funding for education and health care, all in the name of “holding the line on spending.”
Here are details of the Colorado horror story, from the nationally renowned Center on Budget & Policy Priorities in D.C.:
http://www.cbpp.org/files/10-19-05sfp.pdf
Let this be a lesson to us in Illinois.
Comment by Linus Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:21 pm
No…I wish there was some way citizens could pass a law that would make elected officials ethical, responsible, and competent. Unfortunately, it can’t be done and that’s why we have elections. We live in a representative democracy which requires informed and motivated citizens. The bottom line is we get the kind of government we deserve.
Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:26 pm
I’m for a modified TABOR. I lived in Colorado while it was in effect, and it had good and bad points. The best thing was that it set a baseline in spending that was difficult for the legislature to overcome without the public noticing. If you contrast that with Illinois where the budget kept increasing with little public awareness, you can see the virtue of TABOR.
The biggest problem with TABOR is the lack of a suitable benchmark for a proper increase in spending. The CPI + popluation growth rate calculation is flawed. It fails to take into account real economic growth and eventually leads to a smaller government as compared to the overall size of the economy. There is an argument to be made for reducing the size of government, but that wasn’t the reason for TABOR.
For those of you complaining that TABOR doesn’t allow a state to meet all the services demanded by the people, that is actually the reason for its existence. There are always good programs that need funding, but the amount of available money is finite. TABOR forces prioritization. If the TABOR spending level doesn’t meet the needs of the people, they can choose to suspend or abolish it at any time. TABOR just prevents the legislature from doing it on their own.
Comment by Pelon Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 2:56 pm
If done properly and it’s stringent, it works. It worked in Colorado. But I agree with the idea that the CPI may not be the right measure. Keep in mind the CPI has been criticized in many other respects in recent years.
In CO the money was returned to the taxpayers as rebates. That was helpful. But you could also lock down monies in a reserve fund which is what a few other states do. This gives you tax dollars when times turn tough.
Also, keep in mind that in Maine the pro-TABOR forces are greatly out spent by the public employee unions. In fact, most of the money this time came from Washington, DC. On an equal footing TABOR in Maine would do much better.
Both in Maine and in Illinois it would take a Governor to make it happen, politically.
Given the current economic and fiscal climate in Illinois — now would probably not be the time to implement it. The state is going to have to a lot of cutting to get us above water. Once the situation is at least stabilized… then yeah, have a serious discussion of TABOR.
Comment by Greg B. Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 3:10 pm
The state is going to have to a lot of cutting to get us above water.
You think we can cut $12 billion from the budget? Where do you propose that come from? Be specific.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 3:19 pm
Absolutely! I think there should also be mechanisms in place to restrain the biggest problem in government, increases in staff salaries and benefits beyond increases in revenues and CPI, by creating an “escape clause” prohibiting raises and increased bene’s in contracts exceeding new revenues.
The problem is that we need to find a way to force the pols to act responsibly, otherwise we’re on even a steeper drop to the bottom than Colorado experienced.
Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to have “Doomsday” budget provisions enacted that would prohibit new spending programs and entitlements when revenues drop, and require legislatures to have voter approval BEFORE borrowing and selling bonds.
I’ve been around Illinois politics too long to believe we’ll ever see the state legislature act consistently in the public interest. They all operate by the Golden Rule; whoever has the gold makes the rules!
It’s really a moot point, however. The “Chicago Way” will never allow the people to have a say in how much food the government can take off families’ tables and which connected cronies will be allowed to plunder the public treasure.
Comment by PalosParkBob Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 3:24 pm
I agree that this would hamstring the GA. I also think Reality Check makes a good point about tying expenditures to inflation.
That said, Shore, what is the point of your statement? Do you have some sort of problem that forces you to bring up irrelevant subjects without answering the question Rich asks at all? I’m surprised you didn’t try to work a statement about Kirk in here as well.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 4:07 pm
No, I don’t want to go down that California road.
I believe in representative democracy. I also don’t believe our government is dominated by misanthropic demons (although I imagine there’s a caucus).
We’re citizens, and so are they. We’re not that different. We get the government we deserve.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 4:37 pm
I’m sorry, “Reality Check.” The question of the day didn’t ask for specific budget cuts. It just asked whether I could support TABOR and to explain my answer. I said yes but the timing may be bad.
I wasn’t asked to offer my budget blue print.
Comment by Greg B. Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 4:40 pm
Not sure the source of your confusion. No, Rich did not ask you where you to cut $12 billion. I did. I look forward to your answer.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 4:53 pm
==Louis Howe is correct. We get the government we deserve.==
Artificial constraints like term limits or TABOR won’t work. We need to elect candidates to office who are honest, driven and intelligent and stop electing party hacks and dim lightweights.
Citizens need to take voting seriously and find out who the candidates really are and what they really stand for. This requires much more than watching the 10pm news and election commercials. And remember, the time to get new people and fresh ideas into elective office is in the PRIMARY [which should be moved from FEB to May or June].
The quality of our Gov’t will not improve until the quality of the voters improves.
Comment by jaded voter Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 6:01 pm
I’m not willing to trust anything Maine does after their horrible vote yesterday on other issues that were on the ballot.
Comment by Its Just Me Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 9:39 pm
Illinois’ General Revenue Fund does not grow with the cost of living. When costs go up 1%, GRF increases 0.8%. The only way TABOR would have any effect is if it held revenue growth to LESS than the cost of living.
Comment by Smitty Irving Thursday, Nov 5, 09 @ 10:25 pm
Greg B, your silence is deafening. Still looking forward to the $12 billion in cuts you support. Or let us know if you prefer a tax increase.
Comment by Reality Check Friday, Nov 6, 09 @ 4:31 pm