TURNER – The issue of local control was front and center Tuesday at Leavitt Area High School at a sparsely attended debate on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights question facing Maine voters Nov. 7.

Proponent of the referendum William Becker said there is ample local control of spending in the Maine initiative, in fact, it is increased “by requiring two-thirds of the voters to approve spending beyond established limits.” Becker is currently executive director of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, formerly treasurer of Republican Peter Cianchette’s losing bid to be governor of Maine.

Opponent of the measure was Geoff Herman, legislative policy director for the Maine Municipal Association, who cited the two-thirds requirement as “undemocratic, and in direct contradiction of Maine town meeting’s principle of one-man, one vote.” Herman further saw the initiative as “Moving all power, and ability to change, to Augusta, where the Legislature wouldn’t even have to abide by it.”

Limiting all levels of government spending was seen as the intention of the referendum by both men, but Herman argued that with the word “notwithstanding” in the act, the Legislature could, and probably would, exempt itself from any or all provisions of the law.

Becker disputed that, citing the Legislature’s not tampering with the referendum-approved term limits bill. Several in the audience made up principally of municipal officials, expressed concern that approval of the referendum would impose definite limits on municipal, county and school-district expenses, but might not affect state spending at all.

Becker cited the success of a TABOR initiative in Colorado, saying it attracted “thousands of new residents, hundreds of new businesses and jobs, and lowered taxes.” He said the successful citizen initiative in Colorado “has that state in the situation where it is managing its growth, while Maine’s excessive tax burden has this state managing its demise.”

Herman disputed the Colorado results, citing the fact that the citizens repealed a key portion of it and saying, “Colorado’s TABOR was a constitutional provision, subject to change only by the people. Maine’s is a legislative initiative, subject to change by the Legislature.”

Herman added that there are many important differences between the initiative passed in Colorado and the one proposed here in Maine, and a key one is that “Colorado’s imposed limitations from the top down; its principal target was state government spending. Maine’s proposed statute will affect municipalities, schools, counties and utility districts. But because it does not amend our state Constitution, the Legislature can ignore or repeal any or all of the TABOR controls on state spending.”

Becker argued that Maine needs TABOR because of its “propensity to tax and spend. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That’s exactly what’s happening here in Maine,” he said, “to the point where the state now has one of the highest tax burdens in the country.”