“Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that person behind the tree,” was a refrain used often by the late Louisiana U.S. Sen. Russell Long, the bygone powerful chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. It reflects a political principle which has been part of many tax policy debates both in Congress and under our gold dome in Denver. I’m not sure it needs to be this way.

I think it is timely to generate some conversation on state fiscal policy.

Government provides many services that we all use, like street repairs, public safety and parks. Taxes provide an important, though not the only, source of revenue to offset the costs.

Elected leaders are responsible for explaining these services and how they are financed. At the local level, this conversation occurs regularly, and may well explain the success cities, towns and other local governments have had in getting voters to pass bond issues, approve tax increases, and allow revenues exceeding TABOR limits to be retained rather than refunded. At the state government level, it has not always been so successful.

To remedy this, I propose the General Assembly meet every other year (this would take a change to the state Constitution), and in the year there is no formal session, I’d like to see all 100 lawmakers travel extensively talking with citizens about state services and the budget. State agencies and the governor also should participate.

Adopting a budget is the most important action any government takes, whether it is the Town of Ophir, Douglas County, Academy 20 School District, the City of Cortez, South Metro Fire Protection District, or the legislature. A budget, beyond simply allocating revenues, serves as a statement of principles and values as to what government will provide for its citizens. It behooves us to insist on a regular statewide dialogue regarding the state budget. This would have the added benefit of becoming a wonderful civics lesson for all involved. Local high school social studies classes or city youth commissions could help organize the meetings locally.

I would also like to see a state level tax commission formalized in statute consisting of individuals appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. These individuals should represent a variety of viewpoints. This commission would be tasked with examining numerous tax policy issues and provide regular reports and findings. It would be staffed by people from the state budget office, the legislature and leading academicians from our colleges and universities. This commission could jump-start a very substantive discussion on many complex issues. Local government leaders and their membership associations should be directly involved with this commission, because so many tax policy decisions being made locally are not independent of state policies. They are interconnected; a fact not always well understood.

Now, to discuss TABOR and its relationship to this puzzle.

Many people think TABOR only deals with requiring a vote on new taxes, and this is not so. It covers a myriad of problematic financial issues. My priority list of TABOR changes are the following:

• Eliminate the express prohibition on real estate transfer taxes. Virtually every tax under the sun can be voted on within TABOR; however, there are some limited exceptions, and this tax is one of them. This could be a significant revenue source for affordable housing. Give local citizens the option to vote on such a tax.
• Tie the state spending limit to personal income growth, a better gauge of economic activity, and eliminate the formula which factors in population growth and inflation.
• Allow local voters to either eliminate or modify any aspect of TABOR applicable to their local government. The state constitution allows local voters to do this with term limits, for example, so why not with spending and other arbitrary TABOR limits?
• Replace convoluted TABOR language addressing how local governments can cease to implement state programs delegated to them with a true constitutional prohibition on state imposed unfunded mandates upon local governments.
• Rewrite the provisions in TABOR directing how spending occurs during an emergency. As an example, TABOR defines an emergency in the negative; it is silent on whether a natural disaster is an emergency. This was a significant problem during the state’s catastrophic September 2013 flooding event. And, it comes up when a local government emergency responder, like a fire protection district, is involved with fighting a wildfire. When dealing with an emergency, TABOR is its own disaster.

All this will take a great deal of education and leadership to start the conversation. I hope that happens.

Sam Mamet served for 40 years on the staff of the Colorado Municipal League. He retired as its executive director in March of 2019. Contact him at: smamet@comcast.net.