Debate over the proposed Taxpayer Protection Amendment lasted late into Thursday night, as state lawmakers rejected one version of TPA and considered several others.

Assembly Democrats decried Thursday's late-night session, which was interrupted by a number of strategic partisan caucus breaks, as a colossal waste of time.

Assembly Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Jon Richards, D-Milwaukee, said lawmakers should be focusing on more important issues like health care.

"[Wisconsin government] is not set up for politicians in Madison to come in and change the Constitution in order to score points for the next election," Richards said, questioning Republicans' motives behind TPA.

Assembly Minority Leader Rep. Jim Kreuser, D-Kenosha, agreed, calling TPA a "gimmick in our Constitution" that "ignores the real priorities in the state."

But TPA proponents said the constitutional amendment to limit government spending would address one of the state's most fundamental priorities by delivering much-needed tax relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.

While other Republican lawmakers echoed similar sentiments and maintained the importance of cutting taxes, they added TPA in its current form does not go far enough in its efforts.

According to those legislators, recent compromises made to TPA in an effort to appease opponents have destroyed the resolution's real purpose.

One such representative to deliver harsh criticism of the altered TPA was original TABOR founder Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, who stirred up floor debate with his proposed amendment that he said would make the recently weakened TPA more closely resemble the taxpayer-protection measure he envisioned more than eight years ago. The substitute amendment failed in a 66-32 vote.

"I, in fact, considered leaving the Legislature like many people do when we find out … how the state actually runs," he said. "And then I came up with this funny idea with empowering people … and I thought, 'Wow, this is a great idea.'"

Lasee added his version of TPA gives the people the authority they deserve by requiring a popular vote to authorize increases in government revenue that surpass the rate of inflation. Lasee's version would, however, provide inflationary funding increases to government entities, like the University of Wisconsin System, with a guarantee that such funding can only be denied if given back to the taxpayers.

"I know it's hard to limit our ability to take more from people without asking," he said. "But I think it's important that we do this for the citizens of our state, for the future of our state."

As taxpayer amendment supporters continued to argue its benefits, opponents pointed to its effects in Colorado, as well as the resolution's ever-changing language, as evidence of its undeniable impracticality.

"This bill has had more makeovers … and workovers than Liz Taylor," Kreuser said. "Why the changes? Are you trying to appease the 80 groups opposed? No, they're still opposed."

TPA proponents, however, said the state's citizens have demonstrated an overwhelming support for a constitutional amendment limiting revenue.

After voting down Lasee's proposed measure, legislators broke into private partisan caucuses that lasted past midnight to discuss strategy on other versions of TPA.

With debate far from over, Lasee said constitutional limits on spending will continue to prove an issue if the Assembly failed to take action.

"I'm here to tell you that if this fails, I think that it's plain silly to think that this is going to go out of our public consciousness," he said.

If TPA is passed by the Assembly before session ends next week, it still must pass the next legislative session and a voter referendum before becoming law.

As of press time, the Assembly had not yet voted on a second version of TPA.