In a recent editorial on Oklahoma's proposed Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), the Phoenix argues that TABOR is a bad idea because Oklahoma's economy "is prone to broad swings. If not enough funds are set aside in good years to offset poor years, then the state will find itself in trouble."

You're correct about the economy being prone to broad swings, but this is an argument in favor of TABOR, not against it. The problem currently is that legislators often don't set aside enough money in the good years. And when they do, they have been known to then spend this rainy day money on such "emergencies" as the "construction of new golf courses," as former state treasurer Robert Butkin once lamented. By establishing a true emergency fund and a budget stabilization fund, TABOR forces politicians to be more responsible with our money.

You also say that "TABOR also doesn't take into account rapid population increases," but that is incorrect. Population growth plus inflation is the very measure used by TABOR to determine how much money politicians can spend in a given year.

Even though the Phoenix "can't find many reasons to support it," most Oklahomans can. A survey conducted in August by Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates found 66 percent of Oklahomans favor the idea of a Taxpayer Bill of Rights; only 19 percent oppose it. Interestingly enough, Oklahoma Democrats support it 62 percent to 23 percent.

Bottom line: The constant struggle is between taxpayers with families to feed and state legislators hungry for bigger government. TABOR is a simple mechanism whereby the people decide how much the politicians can spend, and the politicians decide how to spend it. It's no different from putting your children on an allowance: You decide how much they get, and they decide how to spend it.

Here's hoping the Phoenix will take a closer look at TABOR. You might just like what you see. 
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051009/OPINION/510090319/1014/OPINION