An unimaginative failure. That’s the best way to describe the results of the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission. Instead of courageous, outside-the-box thinking that would improve state government and provide fiscal stability, the commission indulged the same tired argument that government has to tax and spend more.

Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote that government at all levels is missing the meaning of the economic crisis. Americans are becoming disheartened because leaders and lawmakers ‘are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths–spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally.’

The Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission was no exception.

The 2009 General Assembly passed a resolution creating a 16-member commission to study ‘the fiscal stability of the state’ and to ‘develop a strategic plan.’ Ten members from the majority party (including four legislators) and six from the minority (including two legislators) met 11 times between July and November.

Early in the process it became clear the commission had a predetermined outcome to increase government spending. Department heads from the big six budget items – K-12 education, health care, higher ed, transportation, corrections, and judiciary – testified how much more in taxpayer dollars they would need to be ‘fully funded.’ Not surprisingly, the department heads came up with the staggering $9,271 billion figure–or roughly $1,854 additional taxpayer dollars per year for every man, woman and child in Colorado, or $7,416 for a family of four.

Naturally with a Christmas wish list of government spending, comes the predictable criticism of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), which right now is the only line of defense between working families’ wallets and a massive increase in government spending. Some majority commissioners complained about previous lawmakers lowering the income tax rate and taxpayers getting their money back in the form of TABOR refunds.

Allowing citizens to vote on how much government they want and how much they are willing to pay for it, has long been the antithesis of big spenders. Thus, ridding state government of TABOR has been a long-time goal. This goal sparked the commission’s only moment of creativity. Along a party line vote, the commission invented a third way to amend the Colorado constitution.

Assuming the 2010 General Assembly passes the legislation, Colorado voters would decide a measure to create a 19-member commission to address fiscal policy, defined as expenditures and revenue only, in the state constitution and submit one or more proposals to voters in 2012. The commission would have direct access to the ballot without signatures, and any measures it may propose would be exempt from the single-subject rule.

Commission members will be appointed, with six from the Governor, three from the senate president, three from the senate minority leader, three from the speaker of the house, three from the house minority leader, and one from the chief justice of the state supreme court.

This idea is troubling for several reasons. First, the makeup of the commission includes an appointment from the chief justice of the state supreme court, which seems to cross the line of separation of powers. Two, the legislature hand picks commissioners who are unelected and unaccountable to voters. Third, the commission has the authority to bypass citizens and single-subject requirements.

The only courageous idea to reduce spending and reform government was a proposal for the elimination of the Commission of Higher Education. It enjoyed strong bi-partisan support and was submitted for legislative drafting. However, without notice or consensus, majority members withdrew the proposal.

The commission also failed to take bold action to create a reliable rainy day fund and to relieve higher education of onerous and costly regulations. Instead, mostly along party line vote, the commission recommended legislation to establish a rainy day fund that won’t be fully funded for 18 years assuming we suffer no other economic crises; to allow for weak, limited flexibility in higher education regulations; to expand non-profit-government partnerships, and to support a Denver University-conducted tax study. None of this legislation is a game changer nor is it likely to lead Colorado to fiscal stability.

The commission squandered a golden opportunity to reform government and provide long term fiscal stability. Instead, it indulged the same, worn-out argument that government spending must grow. Should big spending proponents succeed, the result will prove to be more than unimaginative: it will prove to be unsustainable. No wonder that taxpayers are disheartened.

Amy Oliver Cooke is the Director of the Colorado Transparency Project for the Independence Institute. Cheri Gerou is a Colorado State Representative from House District 25. Sean Conway is a Weld County Commissioner. All three are minority members of the Long Term Fiscal Stability Commission. This article originally appeared in the Denver Post, November 22nd, 2009.