It's been suggested that I / we / somebody elaborate a little on what the heck TABOR is (not to be confused with
Horace Tabor of Baby Doe fame).
TABOR, is the TAxpayer's Bill Of Rights, is an amendment to the state constitution which was passed in 1992 and which limits revenue growth in the state. The basic principle is that next year's revenue will be limited to this year's revenue plus an alowance for inflation and population growth. If state revenues surpass that limit, those surpluses have to be rebated to the taxpayers through a variety of different means. The idea is to keep the government from growing too fast, and to force some fiscal responsibility on politicians. During the 90's when the economy was growing like a weed, things were OK, the legislature had to be very careful about how they were spending money but the government was allowed to expand at a measured pace. Given these results, a number of other states are considering similar legislation.
However our version has a glitch AKA as the "ratchet effect" which is not included in legislation pending in other states. The ratchet effect links this years revenue to last years. When we entered the recession a few years ago, Colorado (like most states) saw total state revenue drop. The ratchet effect used those lower revenue levels as the basis for determining allowable revenue for the following year putting a lid on the amount of total revenue that Colorado is allowed to keep. Any revenue above these new, lower, limits would have to be rebated. In other states, the additional revenue that is now coming in from the expanding economy can be used to offset cuts that had to be made during the Recession. However the ratchet effect keeps Colorado's revenue at recessionary levels.
I've been looking into this crap today, and I'm starting to think that this may be the critical distinction here. TABOR doesn't say anything about how the money is
spent, but rather how much money is
available. It appears that TABOR exempt refers to the
source of money used, not how it's spent. Given that, the bi-state agreement would not be exempt from TABOR, it's a line item using state money (not federal) and therefore subject to the whims of the legislators who have to decide how to allocate the available funds in an equitable manner.
Referendum C allows for a 5 year "time-out" from TABOR which would allow the state to recover some of the cuts made during the recession. Referendum D allows the state to issue bonds against the higher revenue limits that would be allowed should C pass for use in a variety of backlogged transporation projects.
The bean counters are predicting that the state will collect around $400M more than the current TABOR limit which would have to be rebated to taxpayers if Ref. C fails; and which would otherwise be available to the Legislature for bacon, pork, and maybe the C&TS if C passes.
Assuming my take on the TABOR focus on revenue is accurate; and assuming that C fails, I very seriously doubt that the legislature would appropriate much - if any - money to the C&TS. It would certainly be worth having the AG rule on things though, but I'm skeptical that it would help.
Don
