By Barry Poulson, Ph.D., and Brandon Dutcher

In "Rocky stop; Colorado blocks rebate repeal try" (Our Views, Aug. 10), The Oklahoman extolled Colorado's "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" (TABOR) and said Oklahoma needs one, too. We agree.

Oklahoma's business leaders worked hard to get right to work and are working hard for tort reform and workers' compensation reform. But if we want to turbocharge the state's economy, an Oklahoma TABOR would be as good or better.

Colorado's TABOR Amendment is widely regarded as the most effective tax and spending limit in the country. Since TABOR was passed in 1992, state government in Colorado has grown less rapidly than state income. More than $3 billion in surplus revenue has been returned to taxpayers through rebates and tax cuts. Over much of the past decade, economic growth in Colorado was among the highest in the nation.

Several key provisions should be introduced in a TABOR for Oklahoma:

• It should be constitutional rather than statutory.
• Voter approval should be required for any increase in taxes or debt.
• The growth of government at all levels should be limited to the sum of inflation and population growth.
• Surplus revenue above that limit should be returned to taxpayers through tax rebates or cuts.

An Oklahoma TABOR could stabilize the budget over the business cycle and constrain the growth of government. The TABOR limit can be linked to the rainy day fund. When the economy is experiencing rapid economic growth, as it did in the 1990s, a portion of the surplus revenue can be allocated to that fund. When a recession hits, the revenue shortfalls can be offset by transfers from the rainy day fund to stabilize spending and balance the budget.

Several recent studies reveal how TABOR could benefit the Oklahoma economy. Economist Stephen Moore has shown that with TABOR the state would have generated almost $4 billion in surplus revenue over the past decade. Another study shows how a TABOR limit linked to a rainy day fund would have stabilized the budget over the business cycle.

An Oklahoma TABOR can be designed to achieve any desired tradeoff between constraining the growth of government and reducing the tax burden, and stabilizing the budget.

The debate over TABOR can be understood in terms of a battle between citizens and special interests -- that is, between taxpayers and tax consumers. Taxpayers want to limit the burden imposed by government taxation and spending. Special interests seek to preserve what they perceive to be their rights to that spending.

Clearly, state government has to grow to keep up with population growth and inflation. That is a reasonable benchmark. But if politicians think it should grow faster than that, it's up to them to explain why. They'll have a tough go of it.

A survey conducted in May confirmed Oklahomans' fiscal conservatism. Voters think taxes are too high. They think state government is too big and wastes too much money. By a wide margin, they prefer cutting state spending to raising taxes. An overwhelming 88 percent of them believe state spending should grow at the same rate or slower than family income. And they favor an Oklahoma TABOR by a margin of 73 percent to 18 percent.

Of course, the battle for Oklahoma's TABOR won't be easy. Tax consumers won't go down without a fight. Some of their objections will be valid and some will be ridiculous, but all of them either have been answered or will be answered.

Ronald Reagan launched the tax limitation movement in California more than three decades ago. Let's make sure that when the Gipper's birthday arrives next Feb. 6, our state legislators are preparing to hold hearings on a TABOR for Oklahoma.

Dr. Barry Poulson is a distinguished scholar with Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

This article appeared in The Oklahoman.