Proponents say that the proposal to limit government spending increases to inflation plus population growth is essential and that to toss it now subverts the will of the 150,000 people who signed the petitions. But opponents say TASC is unnecessary and overly complex and that fraud and deception were used to qualify the petition.

That distills the debate. But as polarized as TASC battle may be, what is clear about both sides is this:

Neither camp trusts the voters. Or, in a worse case, they think the voters are ignorant.

Yes, both sides. Consider:

Those who support TASC, including state Sen. Bob Beers and many conservatives, believe in a simple proposition — government is growing too fast and spending and taxing too much because of the decisions made by politicians. Therefore, we need to take the discretion to spend and tax away from them after a certain point and allow the people to decide through referendums.

No, you retort (if you are Bob Beers or like-minded), that just shows we have faith in the voters if we give them veto power over tax increases? Not so.

The very underpinnings of TASC declare that voters can't be counted on to elect the right people — figuratively and literally, the right people — to ensure government holds the line. So we will insert an artificial mechanism to act as a governor (alas, for the caucus, Beers won't be one) and take the voters out of the equation until we decide when to allow them to vote directly on taxes and spending — the job of elected officials.

It says quite simply to voters: You can't do the job. So we are firing you and replacing you with an automatic taxing and spending cutter. Automation comes to politics.

So what about those who oppose TASC, including unions, gamers and the company that owns this publication, The Greenspun Corporation? It's very simple on this side, too: The reason they have funded a so-called blocking campaign — to try to see TASC never gets on the ballot — is that they believe the voters will be too easily swayed by the initiative's appeal.

They don't want to take the chance of having TASC on the ballot and then trying to win the debate where Beers & Co. can use pithy sound bites about restraining Big Government and opponents will have to resort to a Chicken Little campaign. They figure most voters won't believe the sky is falling and would rather stop their taxes from rising.

No, you say (if you are on the anti-TASC team), we believe in the voters and that's why we are against initiatives that undermine the republic form of government. Not so.

The entire anti-TASC campaign is premised on the fact that voters aren't knowledgeable enough or smart enough to think of the long-term consequences of an initiative that could stunt the valley's growth and destroy an already frail education/health care/social service infrastructure. So they will step in and take that decision away from 
the benighted and use money and power to influence the system to reject the effort.

The anti-TASC case is much harder to make. And that's why I think it needs to be made and forcefully. This is a sooner or later proposition. If TASC is knocked off the ballot, it will galvanize the conservative, pro-initiative base that will coalesce and organize until some form of tax and spending control is enacted — and in the meantime erase many good elected officials and candidates from the landscape. But if it is on the ballot and the opponents can make the case why it is an abomination in a straightforward but compelling way, they can kill it once and for all.

The alternative — trying to suppress the will of the people, or at least the 
will of tens of thousands of people — is an idea that will prove unstoppable. That the voters will understand all too well.