Tax crusader Douglas Bruce challenged lawmakers Tuesday to 'fess up to "shucking and jiving" with taxpayers as they wrangled over the official explanation of Referendums C and D.

Several lawmakers rolled their eyes at the El Paso County Republican, whose performance before a legislative committee was part English professor, part economics professor and plenty parts politico.

The explanations of the tax measures, along with their pros and cons, are to appear in what is known as the "Blue Book," the state's official voters guide, which all voters receive before an election.

Both sides of Ref C and D agreed that the language in the book needs to be simple, but they disagreed on what that language should say.

"Why don't we tell people the truth?" Bruce said during a presentation before a legislative committee at the Capitol.

"We're shucking and jiving with you, and you're never going to get (tax rebates) again, sucker," he said.

Bruce is the author of the 1992 voter-approved Taxpayer's Bill of Rights or TABOR, which controls government taxation and spending.

Ref C would suspend TABOR limits for five years, starting with the current fiscal year, allowing the state to keep the estimated $3.7 billion that otherwise would have to be returned to the taxpayers.

Ref D would let the state borrow up to $2.1 billion against that money to start road and school construction right away.

The election is Nov. 1.

The public is invited to comment on Blue Book language, but few Coloradans offered such detailed suggestions as Bruce.

In some areas, he said, the legislative staff used information that wasn't needed.

"I don't often agree with Doug Bruce so I need to remember this moment," said House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, who moved to get rid of a section.

On nearly every point, Bruce said, "Why don't we tell the people the truth?"

Sometimes he would repeat the same arguments until Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Jefferson County, stopped him.

"We get it," she said curtly.

Bruce also said the pro and con arguments in the draft were lopsided and "emotionally manipulative."

"Without Referendum C, the state will have to reduce funding for items such as higher education, programs that assist seniors like the senior homestead exemption, and programs that benefit low-income people and the disabled," one proposed "Pro" argument read.

"For the official state voter guide to allow such scare tactics is despicable," Bruce said.

To be balanced, he said, the arguments against Ref C should state that if it fails the state would cut back on such items as the purchase of Viagra for convicted sex offenders and pay for "left-wing" university professors and such.

Nice try.

In the end, around 5:30 p.m., lawmakers wrapped up their meeting by making only a few changes to the draft proposed by the nonpartisan legislative staff.

"There weren't many changes," said Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, D-Denver. "It's essentially the way the staff wrote it. We deferred to their judgment."