June/July 2006

Shaping the Post-TABOR Discussion

by John Keckhaver

Late in the evening on May 4, the state Senate served Wisconsinites well by finally - and decisively - voting down the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Several Republican senators joined with all of the Senate Democrats in voting against two different versions of the proposal. Their vote followed earlier Assembly action in which representatives voted down, by a two to one margin, the more stringent version of TABOR, which would have placed arbitrary limits on state and local revenue in the state Constitution. After several hours of closed-door caucusing, Assembly Republicans eventually did approve, on a vote of 50-48, a watered-down version that would have capped state revenue only.

Having spent the better part of two years analyzing, discussing and organizing others against TABOR, the victory was a satisfying one for WCCF. The impact of this win, however, on future legislative action and public opinion regarding the role of government and taxes is largely yet to be determined. For their part, TABOR proponents immediately went to work spinning their significant loss as a victory, in that this was the first time constitutional revenue limits were voted on in Wisconsin. There is an opportunity now - and a need - for those opposed to TABOR and similar efforts to shrink government to speak out about the real lessons to be learned from its defeat.

There are three main points we've been focusing on regarding the TABOR campaign and what its defeat really says about how people in Wisconsin feel about their local and state government and the critical services they provide:

1. The more that people - both legislators and the public alike - found out about TABOR (and arbitrary constitutional spending or revenue caps in general) and what it specifically would mean for us in Wisconsin, the less they liked it.

TABOR proponents worked very hard to keep the debate around their proposal superficial. They knew they had to avoid in-depth discussion of the specific impacts TABOR would have on residents if they were going to convince the public and their legislative colleagues that it was a good idea. As more information was shared regarding those inevitable impacts, and as the Colorado example became more widely understood (Coloradoans have lived with TABOR since 1992), public and legislative support dwindled.

2. The underlying assumptions to TABOR were shown to be incorrect or highly exaggerated.

TABOR proponents used funny math and ignored the facts in their effort to place revenue limits in the state Constitution. Wisconsin state and local government is not large, in fact we rank 34th in the nation in the number of government employees per capita. State and local spending is higher than the national average here, with Wisconsin ranking 16th in the nation, but is not so high as to warrant the rhetoric offered by TABOR proponents. And when it comes to taxes, businesses here are not suffering; in fact, the tax burden on businesses in Wisconsin is lower than in 35 other states, and is considerably lower than the national average.

In a way, TABOR has proven to be a blessing in disguise in that it provided a forum in which to highlight the faulty assumptions and arguments used by the small but vocal shrink-government-at-any-cost crowd.

3. The defeat of TABOR represents a win for public involvement and input.

Despite the fact that very few public hearings were held (and in fact, for some of the versions that were voted on, no public hearings were held) the public came out in force on this issue. Thousands of phone calls, emails, and postcards were sent to legislators over several months in which they voiced their concerns and opposition to TABOR. Citizens asked serious questions, gave their input, and were heard.

There are many serious issues children and families in Wisconsin face today, with our poverty rate growing faster than that of any other state, employers not able to find enough skilled workers, and families struggling in low-paying jobs and unable to afford health insurance. Any time spent on TABOR or similar proposals in the future is indeed wasted time. But if the true lessons of its defeat are not widely understood, it is likely that similar proposals will be offered again. If TABOR proponents are allowed to exclusively shape the post-TABOR discussion, it is likely that more long defensive campaigns are ahead of us.