By Paul Jacob The idea behind measures like term limits and TABOR and Stop OverSpending is born from a practical realization. Let’s start with small steps in the right direction and prove to people the direction is indeed the right one. That’s what spending growth limitation measures do. In a context of current out-of-control spending, where programs are almost never abandoned even after proven ineffectiveness, and where taxes and commitments almost always go up, that’s when nearly everyone should be able to agree on a program of controls. So why don’t those on the left embrace such measures? They would not be forced to take each next step, towards actually reducing the size or scope of government. Those steps would have to be proven anew each turn. They say they fear that voters will be misled by simple arguments. (You hear this a lot; and their distrust for the people is quite amazing . . . and perhaps even more stark when one considers that one popular feature of TABOR and Stop OverSpending were provisions to allow a vote of the people to set aside the growth limits, in separate votes.) Or that basic services will get cut. (Not so, of course: that would only happen when politicians prioritize in favor of less-than-basic services). But the truth is more likely this: They fear that citizens will get used to demanding less from government. Could that be it? Could they fear what I hope for — mounting evidence that society works better with less government, cascading support for cutting back on government? Read more...

Labels: Paul Jacob TABOR

Posted at 10/15/2007 07:03:00 PM