Normally, I espouse a rather conservative economic ideology — one that endorses low taxes, frugal government spending and limited regulation. However, the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, introduced this year in the state Legislature, does not fit into that line of thinking.

Modeled after a law Colorado enacted in the early '90s (although with certain changes), the TPA would impose revenue limits on all levels of the government in the state.

That is, the state and local governments, along with school districts, would not be able to raise taxes over what they were the previous year. Just inflation, population or enrollment growth and, in the case of local governments, 60 percent of new construction would account for all increases in tax revenue.

Otherwise, tax levies could only be increased by a public referendum. The amendment would, however, establish a rainy day fund for excess tax collections that could be used if revenue falls short in future years. The TPA would not apply to other forms of government income, such as bond revenue or federal aid.

The amendment would seemingly accomplish my goals of low taxes and low spending. But the TPA is a classic case of the means not justifying the ends — especially when those ends are far from certain.

Case in point: Colorado. Their version of the bill, dubbed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), led to a burdensome 'ratchet effect' on the Rocky Mountain state's revenue. If tax collections dropped due to a downturn in the economy one year, spending the next year would automatically be subjected to a new, lower cap. Over the course of a few years, revenue naturally 'ratcheted' downward, leaving the state in a bind. Even if economic fortunes, and hence, tax collections, went up, the state had to adhere to the previous year's spending cap.

The situation got so bad that Colorado residents last year voted to repeal TABOR for five years.

Although the TPA is an improved version of TABOR — particularly for its inclusion of the rainy day fund — Wisconsin would likely suffer a similar fate to that of Colorado. Add soaring health care costs prevalent today to the mix, and various state agencies could very well be crippled — including the University of Wisconsin.

According to UW professor Andrew Reschovsky, the university would have received $200 million less in state funding last year if the TPA had been in effect throughout the last 10 years.

Granted, that's only one study, but Colorado's results seem to lend it credence.

Ardent supporters of measures like TABOR or the TPA like to point out that voters' rejection of TABOR in Colorado proved, in actuality, that the amendment worked as it was supposed to. The state's citizens grew concerned over diminishing government services and voted through referendum to lift the spending cap, as allowed by the TABOR apparatus.

Fair enough. But voters already have the ability to act when they don't like the way a state's finances are being handled. It's called an election. For representatives, it happens once every two years; for senators, once every four.

The bill's two chief authors, Rep. Jeff Wood, R-Chippewa Falls, and Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, are essentially admitting that they, along with their colleagues, are incompetent — that the only way legislators can make sound fiscal decisions is to take that power out of their hands altogether.

But there's a reason we don't do that. Times change. Problems creep up. We could turn to a referendum every time the government has to make a decision, but it's a whole lot more effective to elect representatives to make most of those choices for us.

Besides, does a state already set to pass a measure that does not belong in the state Constitution (regardless of merit, the gay marriage ban is not the type of law that should be found in a constitution) need a proposal that would write economic policy into it as well?

The answer, of course, is a resounding 'no.' And while the TPA does have some redeeming qualities — it would force the state to fund initiatives imposing costs on local governments, thus ending unfunded mandates — that's hardly enough to redeem the amendment.

So instead of peddling the TPA, I suggest Messrs. Wood and Grothman devote their time to careful scrutiny of spending bills in the Legislature, making sure the state is not spending recklessly. For someone like Mr. Grothman, who gained his seat in the Senate by out-conservating a fellow Republican, that should be in his skill set.

Call this bill whatever you will. TABOR or TPA; it doesn't matter.

It's still just bad public policy.

Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and economics.