The intricacies of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights have been debated for more than a year. TABOR would place tight restrictions on both government spending and revenue collection.

TABOR uses several formulas to set the limits on government. For the state, the formula is change in population plus the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation. For local governments, the formula is change in population plus inflation or the change in assessed value, whichever is smaller. For schools, the formula uses change in enrollment and inflation for Community School Districts and School Administrative Districts; otherwise, schools fall under local government.

The limits can be overridden with a two-step process. First, the governing body (board of selectmen, town meeting, Legislature) must approve the override by a two-thirds majority. Second, the override must be approved in referendum by voters.

Here are some of the arguments for and against the legislation, provided by the respective campaigns, which will appear as Question 1 on November’s ballot.

Yes

• Requires government to explain spending decisions – and get approval – from voters.

• Increases voter power with referendum requirement while undermining the power of the “spending lobby,” groups that rely upon government spending to exist.

• Increases government accountability.

• Will, over time, lower Maine’s per capita tax burden. TABOR’s authors estimate it will take until 2021 for Maine to reach the national average for tax burden with the proposal.

• It “puts politicians on a budget and puts more money in your pocket.” It requires policy makers to set priorities for funding.

• Minor problems with TABOR can be fixed by the Legislature after voters approve it.

• TABOR will help grow the economy by making Maine more business friendly.

• Undermines local control and majority rule because it requires a two-thirds majority vote of the governing body before a referendum can be ordered. A minority of lawmakers can block any tax or spending increase, even a small one. And the two-step override is burdensome and overly bureaucratic.

• Inflation measures like the CPI do not accurately gauge the things that government typically buys, such as health care, road construction and public safety, making the one-size-fits all formula unworkable.

• The spending allowed by TABOR will not keep up with the cost of providing important services, forcing governments to eliminate programs.

• TABOR will make it more difficult for lawmakers to adopt comprehensive tax reform.

• It would limit the state’s ability to make investments in research and development, economic development and higher education.

• The Legislature is reluctant to “fix” problems with legislation passed by voters; any problems with TABOR could remain in the final law.

• State aid for K-12 education and community colleges and universities would suffer.

Disputed

• TABOR’s opponents contend it will require cuts in some municipal and school budgets based on the formula in the proposal. Proponents say no budget cuts are required and the worst that can happen is that government would be flat funded from year to year.

• To date, Colorado is the only state to enact TABOR. In 2005, the state suspended it for five years with a referendum. Both sides use the suspension as evidence that TABOR works. It’s difficult – if not impossible – to isolate TABOR’s effects on the state’s overall economy and growth, although particular reductions in some taxes and funding for particular programs can be identified.

Agreed

• Both sides agree that, ultimately, many of the arguments over TABOR will be decided in court after legal challenges.

• Because TABOR is not a constitutional amendment, the Legislature is not necessarily bound by the law’s provisions, but local and county governments would be. But both sides seem to agree that the Legislature would be reluctant to ignore the will of the people.