The Tennessee Educators (sic) Association has gone on the offensive, attacking SJR629, Jim Bryson’s proposal to limit the growth of state spending

Since Tennessee is already near the bottom of most rankings in investing in education, such a constitutional cap on spending would be severely limiting and irresponsible. SJR 629 is largely modeled after the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) which was enacted in Colorado in 1991. The 1991 provision had such a negative impact that Colorado voters last year suspended several key provisions of the amendment. SJR 629 is sponsored by Sen. Jim Bryson (R-Franklin) who recently announced that he would seek the Republican nomination to oppose Governor Phil Bredesen in this year’s election. The resolution is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Finance, Ways & Means Committee on Tuesday, April 25. TEA members are urged to contact senators on the Finance Committee and ask that they vote “NO” on SJR 629. The message should be that SJR 629 would place a “straitjacket” on the funding of essential state services, including public education. It would tie the hands of future legislatures in attempting to address the changing needs of state government.

Well, first of all there is no proven correlation between per-pupil spending and results. That myth continues to be touted as fact by educators unions without fail. Somehow the “changing needs of state government” are almost always going to include growing the size and reach of said government. The TEA’s view is myopic at best. That’s one fallacy. Hobbs takes them to task for another

Colorado’s TABOR is an extensive and complex constitutional provision that affects not just the growth of the state budget but also tax increases, creation of new taxes, and increases in bond debt - at both the state and the county and city level. And Colorado’s TABOR requires voter approval in referenda for any spending over the year-over-year growth cap, for any tax increase, for any new tax, and for any increase in bond debt.

By contrast, SJR 629 really only does three things:

1. It changes the Tennessee constitution’s existing cap on the annual growth of the state budget to allow it to be broken only if two-thirds of the legislature approves, rather than the current simple-majority vote.
2. It puts unspent surplus funds in the state’s rainy day fund.
3. Once the rainy day fund reaches a set target, additional surpluses go to reducing the state sales tax.

SJR 629 does not affect local or county budgets or taxes, has no impact on the state’s bond debt, and does not require or authorize voter referenda on such issues.

To be an educators union, one would think they would be…well, educated. Or at least generally informed. But certainly not completely clueless. Not only are they wrong in their comparison to Colorado’s experience with TABOR, they are wrong is their assessment as to what really happened in Colorado

The TEA compounds the deception by claiming that Colorado’s TABOR had “a negative impact” on Colorado’s state budget, leading voters there to “suspend” TABOR in a recent election. In a related comment,, TEA asserts SJR 629 would place a “straitjacket” on the funding of public education and “would tie the hands of future legislatures in attempting to address the changing needs of state government.”

None of that is true.

A decade ago, a few years after adopting TABOR, Colorado voters approved “Amendment 23, which exempted public education from the TABOR cap, and in fact required funding for public education to grow faster than the rest of the state budget. It was that decision which made Colorado’s budgetary position increasingly untenable. A few months ago, Colorado voters approved a plan to break the TABOR limits for five years, in order to “catch up” on the spending cuts caused by that state’s education lobby’s insatiable lust for tax dollars.

Hobbs goes on to note that with SJR629 in effect, the TEA could actually make the better case of diverting funds from less useful government programs to education. Sounds reasonable to me, but the union doesn’t want that. Unfortunately, the TEA’s scope and public policy goals are far in excess of obtaining funds for education. It’s government they want - bigger but not necessarily better.

Remember folks - the TEA is a union. They do not represent a single student. This in itself is fine, but the TEA makes an effort not to be straightforward about it, couching their rhetoric in “for the children” soundbites, which is something that the UAW or Teamsters can’t do. They oppose any proposal that would limit their power, which trumps the needs of education itself. Their opposition to SJR629 is no more noble than that.