« Early Gates Factoids | Main | Brave New World »
November 08, 2006
The End of TABOR?
One more data point discrediting this election as some sort of victory for conservatism: In all three states where TABOR-style spending caps were placed on the ballot, they were defeated. Just a couple years ago, TABOR initiatives -- which are slightly-odd acronyms for "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" -- were all the rage among the Grover Norquist crowd. They cap revenue growth at the rate of inflation plus population and demand spending beyond such limits be directly approved by voters. In doing, they vastly limit legislature flexibility and tear apart public services. Seeing the fiscal devastation, voters in recent years have repealed TABORs across the country, notably in Colorado, where the first one was enacted in 1992. Yesterday, the three new attempts to institute the rules were flatly rejected. Some victory for fiscal conservatism.
November 8, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
They cap revenue growth at the rate of inflation plus population and demand spending beyond such limits be directly approved by voters
They also give a transitory one-day majority of 50% +1 (required to pass the initiative in ME) more power than an endless string of 67% -1 almost-supermajorities. (In ME, a 2/3rds supermajority would have been required for any increases beyond the formula).
Vote once, retire to the couch and the remote, having screwed up state and local government, and never have to get up your ass and vote again... What's not to like?
If there's a principle that a present legislature cannot bind the hands of a future one, why ought that not apply to the voters, acting as legislators in the case of referenda?
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Nov 8, 2006 2:45:40 PM
Ezra, I commend your efforts to correct the spin coming out of the election, but it's notable that you feel compelled to spend a lot of ink countering the notion that a Democratic landslide was a victory for conservatism--an absurd notion on its face. Democrats won yesterday but I guess it'll be a long while before the Left kills the Right's ability, with the help of the MSM, to sell stories.
When will the Left be able to spend more time selling its own stories and less time countering the Right's lies?
Posted by: david mizner | Nov 8, 2006 3:16:37 PM
The subtext, whether Mr. Klein admits it or not, is that these days "Democrat" really means "Eisenhower Republican". I grant, these days I miss Ike and sometimes even Nixon, but there is no question that "the Left" in the US is long dead.
The only parties left are center-right and just-left-of-fascist.
Posted by: wcw | Nov 8, 2006 3:24:25 PM
I see dead people. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead ...
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 8, 2006 4:03:14 PM
the problem is not the right- the problem is that the left believes what the right tells us about America. Even when we win, we still think in the back of their minds "could they be right?" remember the lead up to this momentous win? I remember some people becoming more pessistic than reality should have suggested they should be.
Posted by: akaison | Nov 8, 2006 4:17:30 PM
Two thoughts:
- Why (oh, why) should some filthy rich guy (like NY's Howard Rich) be able to dump huge amounts of money into states where he neither lives nor does business to get these TABOR (and other right-wing j/o fantasy) measures on the ballot - forcing the good people of that state to spend scarce cash to counter the lies and distortions Rich's campaigns spew? Why shouldn't this be illegal?
- Why (oh why) is the US seemingly distinct in fearing the socialist or liberal or progressive left to the point where there is no viable parties or prominent people who will represent this political position, but we will embrace the totalitarian, semi-or-full-fashioned fascist right - and call it conservatism or Republicanism? I've no problem that parties that advocate totalitarian control by government over society should be driven from the political marketplace, and whether it's communism, or fascism which leads to the same totalitarian methods - they should be pushed down. So why (oh why) do we react to eliminate the far left, but welcome the far right into our homes, schools, churches, and government halls?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 8, 2006 5:34:04 PM
On issues of public management Americans are frequently to the left: environmental laws, minimum wage, securities and market regulation and a broad belief in public education but differences of opinion on how it should be funded and managed. On what can be described as social or personal issues they are more conservative: pro-life or pro-choice but with restrictions that many activists find egregious, anti-gay marriage and pro-religious freedom. They believe all these things and they want their taxes low at the same time.
Democrats have not been fighting for the former adequately until recently and the Republicans have been hammering the latter incessantly. Democrats also have not been making strong arguments for their positions for a long time, they have dancing around too much.
From what I understand TABOR still exists in CO they just got rid of the ratchet down effect that was going to precipitate a funding crisis in a few years.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Nov 8, 2006 5:41:14 PM
Why (oh why) is the US seemingly distinct in fearing the socialist or liberal or progressive left to the point where there is no viable parties or prominent people who will represent this political position, but we will embrace the totalitarian, semi-or-full-fashioned fascist right - and call it conservatism or Republicanism?
Because in reality Republicans are about as totalitarian as Democrats are communist.
Why (oh, why) should some filthy rich guy (like NY's Howard Rich) be able to dump huge amounts of money into states where he neither lives nor does business to get these TABOR (and other right-wing j/o fantasy) measures on the ballot - forcing the good people of that state to spend scarce cash to counter the lies and distortions Rich's campaigns spew? Why shouldn't this be illegal?
Yeah, speaking of totalitarianaism. You're a lawyer. You know about the First Amendment, unpleasant as it is in some of its effects.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 8, 2006 5:58:28 PM
in reality Republicans are about as totalitarian as Democrats are communist.
Bush can lock you away in Guantanamo and throw away the key and never have to answer to anyone. Do I really have to spell it out for you?
Posted by: scarshapedstar | Nov 8, 2006 7:20:09 PM
Why (oh, why) should some filthy rich guy (like NY's Howard Rich) be able to dump huge amounts of money into states where he neither lives nor does business...
I must have missed your harangue about George Soros...
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 8, 2006 11:29:15 PM
Bush can lock you away in Guantanamo and throw away the key and never have to answer to anyone.
Well, not exactly. But, in any case, the government can also take from people according to their means and give to people according to their needs. Yet I don't live in terror of either a totalitarian state or a communist one. Go figure.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 8, 2006 11:57:54 PM
Anytime we see Grover Norquist get dealt a defeat it is a good day for the American people.
Posted by: jbou | Nov 9, 2006 5:53:24 AM
The problem with those laws, like in Colorado, was that the voters passed other spending measures from the ballot box. They passed laws mandating X percent of the budget to education and other voter favorites, leaving the legislature with almost no room for cuts. It's like trying to cut the federal budget in any meaningful way when you say education, defense, SS, Medicare, and welfare are off the table. Anti-tax measures and anti-spending measures aren't dead, but anti-tax and anti-spending measures combined with forced spending is dead. As well it should be.
Posted by: Matt | Nov 9, 2006 8:59:15 AM
Bush can lock you away in Guantanamo and throw away the key and never have to answer to anyone.
Well, not exactly. But, in any case, the government can also take from people according to their means and give to people according to their needs.
Sanpete, he certainly says he can. Take the arguments he presented in the case of Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil, denied the opportunity to meet with lawyers for over a year, and locked up without charges until it became apparent that the courts were about to rule against Bush's theory that he could lock him away in a military prison without ever answering to courts.
I also remind you of the claim by John Yoo -- a presidential advisor -- that the President can legally crush a child's testicles if he deems it necessary ("I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that").
Redistribution is done in accord with due process and the rule of law. On the Republicans' theories, the "war on terror" makes it OK for them to bypass due process and the laws enacted by Congress. Big difference.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Nov 9, 2006 9:32:52 AM
"Some victory for fiscal conservatism."
It's anti-tax-nutjobism, not fiscal conservatism. Unless you conflate the two, which isn't unreasonable. :)
Posted by: dbt | Nov 9, 2006 11:52:18 AM
until it became apparent that the courts were about to rule against Bush's theory that he could lock him away in a military prison without ever answering to courts.
Exactly.
Redistribution is done in accord with due process and the rule of law. On the Republicans' theories, the "war on terror" makes it OK for them to bypass due process and the laws enacted by Congress. Big difference.
Redistribution in a communist system is also done in accord with the rule of law. You're comparing to Republican theories, as you call them, while what I said was about what is actually legal here.
The point of my original remark, if it isn't clear, was that we're very far from being in either a totalitarian or communist system. Some people exaggerate.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 11:58:22 AM
Unfortunately, a stealth TABOR governor won re-election in SC. Sanford's site discusses his desire to keep limit spending to inflation + population growth. He talks about giving $380 million in tax rebates back to everyone, but that works out to about $90 a head. Keep the money & spend it to improve the roads, the schools, care for the elderly, etc. etc.
Posted by: Seanly | Nov 9, 2006 1:44:39 PM
"Unfortunately, a stealth TABOR governor won re-election in SC"
Dixie is welcome to just screw itself. And I live there.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 9, 2006 2:20:45 PM
Bob, you're in Dixie, but not of Dixie.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 9, 2006 2:26:59 PM
To those of you debating whether we are tending toward socialism or toward totalitartianism, please read "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich A. Hayek. You will see that the former evolves into the latter despite the best of intentions.
Posted by: Philip | Nov 9, 2006 6:19:03 PM
They also give a transitory one-day majority of 50% +1 (required to pass the initiative in ME) more power than an endless string of 67% -1 almost-supermajorities. (In ME, a 2/3rds supermajority would have been required for any increases beyond the formula).
A transitory one-day majority of 50% +1 can remove the initiative at the very next election.
Perhaps you complaint is that they give the voters more power than the politicians...which seems like a fine thing to me.
Posted by: TJIC | Nov 10, 2006 7:25:13 AM
"In doing, they vastly limit legislature flexibility and tear apart public services."
That doesn't make any sense. Placing limits on the growth of spending without mandating any cuts (relative to inflation + population growth) leaves public services unchanged; it doesn't tear them apart.
Unless you're speaking of public services that grow in cost faster than inflation + population growth, but then public services that fit that description probably aren't the best things to keep around over the long term.
Posted by: Ken | Nov 10, 2006 1:55:34 PM
Ken, just about all public services grow in cost faster than inflation + population growth, because the single biggest cost factor is personnel, and health care costs for employees are growing much faster than inflation. This is yet another reason why it astonishes me that both public and private sector employers aren't screaming for a switch to universal health care, away from the current employment-based system.
Posted by: Grant | Nov 11, 2006 9:27:51 PM
the lucky manmelissa doll
porn week com
www porn week com
lexpov com
hard core gangstas
www the lucky man com
pantyhose face
lay the kat com
shemale fuck guy
Posted by: theluckyman | Jul 29, 2007 4:00:38 AM
.
Posted by: Heel | Aug 21, 2007 2:18:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
