Tabor supporters believe this is their year
Robust opposition planned from several groups
Following a failed attempt at passing a taxpayer bill of rights in 2006, organizers of the "TABOR II" question on the November ballot believe this is their year.
David Crocker, a Portland attorney and state chair of TABOR Now, also known as Tabor II, said growing public outrage over state budget shortfalls and federal deficits will finally tip the scales in their favor.
"We had to educate people back in 2006 about what was happening in the state government as far as overspending," Crocker said recently. "Now, that's not a problem. People get it this time at a visceral level."
Tabor II, listed as Question 4 on the November 3 ballot, would prevent state and local governments from increasing spending year-to-year above the rate of inflation and overall population growth. Voter approval would be required to spend more than the rate of inflation or for most tax increases. Certain spending, such as local education spending, would be exempt from these limits.
"This doesn't cut anything. Governments can increase spending and increase taxes within limitations, but it will force governments at all levels to prioritize what's necessary and what's not," Crockett said.
As in 2006, when Tabor received 46 percent of the vote, a host of groups including the Maine Municipal Association, the Maine Education Association and the League of Young Voters, have lined up to fight the measure.
Christopher St. John, executive director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy [MECEP], says there are a number of problems with Tabor II.
He argues the measure would take local control away from municipalities that already have the ability to enact spending caps if they wish. And because growth often outpaces inflation during good years, he said governments wouldn't be allowed to spend that additional money for capital improvements or other projects put off during the recession.
While local education spending caps are not built into the proposal, St. John said caps on state spending could still have an impact by changing state funding formulas to school districts.
Opponents also say Tabor's rules allowing spending to go up with overall population growth don't account for changing demographics or disparate costs among certain demographic groups. Kurt Wise, the former budget analyst for MECEP now working in Massachusetts, said services for the young and the old cost more and that Tabor doesn't "account for that at all."
Wise also said that much of the goods and services purchased by the state rise much faster than the consumer price index, which would be used to determine how much government could increase spending year to year.
Colorado is the only state to pass a Tabor, doing so in 1992 with help from businesses groups. In 2005, many of the same groups that helped pass it led a successful five-year Tabor "time out."
Steve Johnson, a former Colorado state representative speaking in Maine earlier this month, told the Bangor Daily News that Tabor "did a tremendous amount of damage that none of us anticipated."
Crockett, whose daughter attends college in Colorado, disagrees with claims Tabor left that state's infrastructure and education in shambles. "It is a prosperous place. I'd like to see that prosperity in Maine."
Martin Sheehan, communications director for the Portland-based Maine Heritage Policy Center, which wrote the legislation for Tabor II, said the measure "lets people decide instead of politicians."
"If you look at inflation, from 2000 to now, its up about 25 percent total, but state spending is up about 45 percent. You cannot keep spending more than the people who are paying the taxes make," he said.
Opponents say those stats are misleading and fail to differentiate between state spending raised from taxes and state spending raised from federal dollars, including the stimulus.
The Portand City Council will take an official position on Tabor II at its Sept. 21 meeting. In 2006, the city council came out against Tabor I.
