A new effort to limit government spending intensified debate Wednesday between the University of Wisconsin and the state.

A proposed constitutional amendment to cut revenue, the controversial Taxpayer Protection Amendment, lost support from original TABOR founder Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue. Ongoing alterations to the TPA proposal prompted Lasee to withdraw and propose his own version of the tax amendment.

In a press conference Wednesday, Lasee, along with a handful of Republican colleagues, introduced a new measure that proponents believe would constitutionally provide strict limits on revenue, while also keeping tuition increases down — as TPA opponents worried TPA would fail to do.

Lasee's spokesman Lance Burri said the new proposal would close the problematic loopholes created in TPA as a result of compromises made between its opponents and supporters.

"[Lasee's plan] provides some true cost control," said Mike Mikalsen, spokesman for proposal supporter Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater. "It reinforces the concept that we want to make sure that we protect property taxpayers from increases."

Mikalson added the new proposal would prevent tuition hikes by providing the UW System with inflationary revenue increases that, if revoked, could not be allocated to other entities.

But UW System Board of Regents President David Walsh, who expressed his opposition to TPA, said the new proposal still fails to address the fundamental problem of accessibility.

"Our biggest challenge is to make education at the university system more affordable," he said. "And that's going to require more investment by the state."

According to Walsh, the new proposal — as well as TPA and any other tax relief plan aiming to amend the Constitution — denies the UW System the funding necessary to improve access to Wisconsin schools.

"[A]ny restriction on flexibility — and by flexibility, I mean the ability to invest in initiatives such as increasing access to our university, helping us attract star faculty and providing for those who can't afford it — requires more funding than the cost of inflation," Walsh said.

While Walsh pointed to the new proposal's inadequacies, Mikalsen accused the UW System of gross financial mismanagement, adding taxpayers cannot afford to further fund the university.

"Other than, frankly, an open checkbook for the poor management … that goes on at the UW System, I don't know what else would make Regent Walsh happy," Mikalsen said.

While the UW System and supporters of spending limits have failed to find any common ground, even the supporters themselves have faced difficulties agreeing on which proposal is better.

Both backers of TPA and of the new proposal expressed disagreement on how many compromises can be made without defeating the resolution's original purpose.

However, they did agree a constitutional amendment is necessary to provide meaningful tax relief.

"The problem with [not amending the Constitution] is that the state can simply ignore statutes," Burri said.

Democrats and UW System representatives, however, said amending the state's Constitution to limit revenue would cause more harm than protection, as cuts to vital social programs would force a severely decreased quality of living.

But Mikalsen argued constitutional limits on revenue provide more flexibility than opponents allege, as the people have the option to exceed spending limits through public referendums.

As Mikalsen and others continued to tout the merits of constitutional amendments, Walsh said referendums are not an adequate form of recourse.

"I would oppose anything that substitutes government by referendum for legislative discretion," he said. "With all due respect, that's unfair to the legislators that are elected by the people to make these decisions. If they want to do that, then they should stop being fulltime legislators."

Both the new proposal and TPA are expected to be debated in legislative session today.