We in Colorado also have our budget issues, especially a projected $850 million shortfall in the state budget this year, but overall we were among the best at restraining the growth in state government spending. We did it by passing a ballot initiative about 10 years ago called TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights). This applies to all levels of government in the state. It is known as Amendment 1 to the state constitution.

TABOR restricts the budget from growing faster than the sum of population growth plus inflation. In the years when revenue collections exceeded the limit, the government had to either refund the money or hold an election to ask to keep it. In addition, taxpayers had to approve tax increases at the ballot.

Before TABOR passes (on the 2nd or 3rd try), we were told about the horrors it would inflict like massive cuts in schools, roads, and law enforcement. None of that happened, of course, but perhaps the "horrors" were best summed up by a bumper sticker I saw on a woman's car that read "Life was more fun before Amendment 1." I guess her idea of fun was spending ever increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars on her pet interests. Boo Freaking Hoo that she isn't having so much "fun."

When TABOR went into effect, an interesting thing happened at the state legislature. For the first time, politicians didn't automatically approach every legislative session with the idea of new spending programs and new taxes to pay for them. Instead, for every new program they wanted, they had to ask hard questions like "How are we going to pay for this if we can't raise taxes?" and "What are we willing to give up in order to pay for this new program?"

As a result, spending at all levels of government in the state grew much slower during the good times than most other states. This means that during the hard times, our shortfalls, while still there, are much less than they would've been without government restraints.

Since TABOR was passed, there have been quite a few elections (primarily at the local and county levels) asking the taxpayers to allow the government to keep revenue surpluses. Some have passed and many were rejected. Some of the governments have played a cynical game of funding lower priority items from the budget then asking to fund high priority items with the surplus revenues. Many of the voters have seen through this practice and aren't falling for it anymore. The governments are being forced to fund the higher priorities from their budget, then they can ask if the taxpayers want to pay for lower priorities with the surpluses. Sometimes the voters approve of this, sometimes they don't, and that's fine by me.