Some days ago, AARP members in Maine got a lengthy, undated missive in the mail from Jud Dolphin, AARP’s state director. Painting in bold, often brash statements, he puts together the most negative picture of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights seen locally thus far.

In case you’ve been on another planet these past few months, TABOR is a referendum aimed at easing the tax burden and controlling local spending – more or less. From Garland’s Mary Adams’ citizen initiative, TABOR continues to gain favor in the state despite heavyweight opposition from such as AARP. By the same token, an increasing number of state and municipal bodies, including the Scarborough Town Council, are supporting TABOR, despite some correctable reservations.

Mr. Dolphin makes a strong case, often lurid, trumpeting AARP’s opposition to TABOR. Nationally, within the organization’s Web page, their opposition reflects their often liberal stance.

This may fly in the face of common sense, though, because the membership of AARP – most of us old bucks and buckees, getting by on fixed income – is as a group the most battered by runaway budgets and excessive spending. Among other AARP members I’ve spoken with, the consensus felt AARP had no business taking such an adamant negative stand toward TABOR.

Some of Mr. Dolphin’s comments demand a second look.

Within his discourse, Mr. Dolphin states: “In fact in the one state where it was tried, 100,000 homeowners lost their property tax exemption because of TABOR.”

Since this was an obvious reference to the state of Colorado, I contacted Mike Coffman, Colorado state treasurer, and asked him for a verification that such happened as a result of TABOR.

Coffman’s reply:

“This is absolutely not true. The senior property tax reduction was written so that the Legislature would have the flexibility to fund it or not fund it. During the economic downturn starting in FY 2001-2002, the Legislature chose not to fund it. We had a mandate for spending on K-12 education that required increases from the General Fund irrespective of whether or not the revenue was there to support the increases. This strained much of the remainder of the budget. No doubt, TABOR did not envision an adequate reserve to stabilize the budget during an economic downturn, and it had the so-called rachet effect where allowable revenues could only grow by a formula of inflation plus population growth, even if there were an absolute decline in revenues. If revenues fell, then you would always apply that formula to the lower number. I believe that your version has corrected the latter issue.”

According to information from Colorado’s Web page, the state did very well under TABOR, adopted in 1992, for a number years until economic changes started showing problems. Amendment 23, passed in 2000, eased some of the transition. Note, too, that it was not “tried” as indicated by Mr. Dolphin, but was implemented as a governmental process in 1992.

Talking with personnel in the State Treasurer’s office in Denver, when I asked one of the gentlemen about the impact of TABOR in the state, he said it depended on whom I happened to be talking with. I think that’s more realistic than some of TABOR’s pros and cons.

TABOR would not create the doom-and-gloom picture painted by Jud Dolphin, but it might convince our directionless Legislature to become more positive and aware of today’s needs. Twenty other states, in addition to Maine, have some sort of legislation pending.

(And speaking of the AARP, the changes in their publications through recent months make a membership in AARP a tremendous bargain. The AARP magazine is more than worth cost of the membership, as are their available travel discounts.)

During these last days before the Nov. 7 election, you’ll hear all sides of party politics and glib promises. It’s your chance to make your voice heard. Regardless of your take on TABOR, or the many hopefuls seeking election to public office, use your franchise and vote your preference. Taken too much for granted, this opportunity is not available in some parts of the world.