Bryson's bill, or at least what I have seen of it, in the past has relied on CPI-U for its limitation, rather than per-capita income (as on this).. I take it that has changed then?

Also, some other numbers on Colorado's state of affairs since the TEL legislation in 1992, for the benefit of your readers:

After 12 years of TABOR, Colorado has among the nation’s poorest-funded — and poorest-performing — public services. For example, Colorado ranks 47th in K-12 education funding as a share of state income. The ratio of teacher salaries to average private-sector earnings is lower in Colorado than any other state. Child immunization rates are also lowest in the nation. More poor children lack health insurance in Colorado than in all but five other states, and three-quarters of Colorado pediatricians won’t treat Medicaid patients because reimbursement rates are so low. High school graduation rates, support for public colleges and universities, and access to prenatal care all have fallen since 1992.

Just since 2001, as a result of the formula (combined with the ratchet effect described in the box on the previous page), Colorado policymakers have been forced to make $1 billion in spending cuts. Unlike in other states, TABOR’s limit will not allow those services to be restored; in fiscal year 2006 Colorado is scheduled to refund $459 million to taxpayers while being required to cut an additional $263 million out of its budget.

Source: CBPP

Chris, Bryson is changing it to per capita income, which will allow for a higher growth rate. Also, his bill will address the ratchet issue.

By the way, I'm always suspicious of those rankings of state spending on various programs. The Goldwater Institute recently found that no less than 12 states claim to be 49th in education funding.

But one thing we do know is Tennessee is first in spending on providing free healthcare to its citizens, especially to children.

All a TABOR cap does is set some limits on how fast spending can grow, forcing legislators to work harder on prioritizing and cutting waste.

And Bryson's plan to have surplus revenue saved in a large rainy day fund makes great fiscal sense. Having a large reserve fund would mean tax increases would be less likely during economic slowdowns when revenue doesn't grow as fast.

And raising taxes during a recession is the worst time to do it - worst for the economy and worst for the people.

Most everything liberals don't like about Colorado's TABOR are not in Bryson's proposed TABOR for Tennessee.

Colorado's applies to local governments, Bryson's would not. Colorado's covers growth in municipal debt, Bryson's would not. Colorado's allows the people to vote on tax increases, Bryson's would not.

I'm a fan of Colorado's TABOR - as are most Coloradans - but I know it would never get through the legislature here and we don't have the initiative/referendum process to bypass the legislature like Coloradoans do.

Given that, Bryson's proposal is probably the best we're going to get here, and isn't much of a threat to the liberal dream of larger and larger and larger government and higher and higher and higher taxes.

In fact, by restraining spending growth, the economy will grow faster and government will have more money to spend, not less. That has been the case in Colorado.

The proof of that is Colorado's per-capita tax collections rose just as fast as Tennessee's from 1993-2003, yet they cut taxes while Tennessee raised taxes.

Per capita income soared in Colorado since 1993, when TABOR went into effect, growing 8 percentage points faster than in Tennessee over the same period.

THe result is that, in 1993, Coloradans made $2,770 more than Tennesseans, per capita, but by 2003 they made $6,058 more per capita.

Higher per capita income means more tax revenue.

And under Bryson's measure, tying spending growth to per capita income growth would mean Tennessee would be allowed to spend that additional revenue.

Restraining taxes and spending boosts the economy, which boosts revenue.

liberals who oppose TABOR are for higher taxes, period. Because if you don't restrain the growth of spending to the rate of growth of per capita income, tax increases are inevitable.

I remember being shocked to read in an issue of Imprimis that countries that have implemented supply-side economic policies ALWAYS have ballooning spending on social services--in sum, the Laffer Curve enables gov'ts to spend lavishly. The Left just has a problem with placing a high value on property rights and TABoR simply codifies the principle that "it's our money."

Bill, I too had an enjoyable time on Saturday, but I must say you're talking apples and oranges by comparing Colorado to Tennessee.

Colorado is a Mountain state with an income tax and a much better education system (which while being weakened by TABOR is still superior to Tennessee's). Tennessee of course is a Southern state without an income tax and a severely underfunded school system. To try and compare the growth between the two and use that as evidence of TABOR's success is just plain bad analysis.

A more accurate and honest analysis would compare Colorado to other Mountain states with similar economies. By that measure, Colorado has not done better since TABOR, they have done worse.

In the 12 years prior to TABOR, job growth in Colorado matched other Mountain states at 2.1%. In the 12 years after TABOR, job growth in Colorado lagged behind other Mountain states... 2.5% vs. 2.7%. Since 2001 things have gotten even worse with Colorado now the only Mountain state to actually lose jobs.

Clearly, with an honest assessments (comparing Colorado to other Mountain states), there is no evidence that TABOR has made Colorado's economy stronger. If anything, the evidence points in the other direction.

Brian, I never said TABOR made Colorado's economy stronger than its neighbors. I simply pointed out that, since adopting TABOR, Colorado's economy has vastly outperformed Tennessee's, which began exceeding its own constitutional spending cap at about the same time. And while Colorado restrained taxes and spending, and gave out more than $3 billion in tax cuts, its per-capita tax collections actually grew at virtually the same rate as per-capita tax collections in Tennessee, which was busy RAISING tax rates and growing spending faster than its growth cap at the same time. Ironically, by about $3 billion.

Now, how could Colorado cut taxes and yet see its revenue per capita RISE the same as Tennessee's even though Tennessee was raising taxes? Their economy grew faster than Tennessee's.

Simple enough concept to understand.

Bottom line is, Colorado's economy grew faster with an effective tax/spending cap than Tennessee's grew without one.

Also, your assertion that Colorado isn't a fair comparison because they have an income tax is, well, silly. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights is neutral on the question of what kind of tax code we should have, and works with any tax code.

Also, one area I still need to explore is local tax rates. You have to remember that the $3 billion in tax cuts in Colorado under TABOR is just the STATE LEVEL tax reductions. Their TABOR also governs local and county governments, many of which also have had to return surpluses (effectively, a tax cut), over the years. An interesting dynamic that an economist should explore is just how much added economic growth and state revenue was generated by all those tax reductions at the local level.

Also, you can't argue from facts that TABOR is weakening Colorado's education system. Amendment 23 essentially exempted K-12 from TABOR, and increased funding for K-12 by $11 billion over 10 years.