Rep. Don Marostica will apologize to Republican leaders he called "losers" and "has-beens" but will push forward with a spending bill that has turned some in his caucus against him.

The Loveland Republican appeared at a Thursday news conference with Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, to announce the duo's sponsorship of Senate Bill 228, which would repeal Colorado's 6 percent general fund spending limit.

Known as Arveschoug-Bird, it restrains the growth of budgets for departments such as higher education and human services.

Marostica's appearance at the news conference came one day after he was pulled into two meetings with House Minority Leader Mike May, R-Parker, to discuss GOP opposition to the bill.

Upon learning that prominent Republicans - including Independence Institute President Jon Caldara, former Senate president John Andrews and former treasurer Mark Hillman - were exerting pressure to kill it, he told the Rocky Mountain News: "They're has-beens. They're losers."

That remark earned the second-term legislator a meeting with state GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams, at which Marostica got their phone numbers and agreed to apologize.

Despite rumors of a push to strip Marostica of his post on the Joint Budget Committee, party leaders did not punish him.

"They're still fellow Republican Party members," Marostica said of Caldara and the others after the meeting. "We've got to agree to disagree and move on."

Now, he and Morse must rally support to repeal the limit, an action the Office of Legislative Legal Services has said can be done only by a vote of the people. The issue is whether the 1991 law was wrapped into the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights when that constitutional amendment was passed.

The limit is particularly difficult during a down economy, because essential services that are cut during a recession won't get a big infusion of money to restore them when the economy recovers, Morse said.

Sen. Al White, R-Hayden, predicted that with the current infusion of government money into the economy, the country would see hyperinflation, with rates rising 15 to 18 percent, in three to five years.

Because the state constitution requires education spending to rise annually by the rate of inflation plus enrollment growth, the 6 percent general fund growth limit essentially would mandate that all other services get cut, he said.

White, however, withdrew his co-sponsorship of the bill this week, leaving Marostica as the only Republican backing it.

Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said the 6 percent growth limit has kept spending in check and allowed Colorado to avoid a huge deficit.

He also is concerned that eliminating the cap will cut transportation funding, because money over the cap is now directed to roads and capital construction.

What's legal?

There is debate over whether eliminating the 6 percent general fund spending limit can be done by statute or must be a constitutional amendment.

* Constitutional argument:

Wording in the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights amendment states, "Other limits on district revenue, spending and debt may be weakened only by future approval." The growth cap is clearly a limit on spending, said Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.

* Statutory argument:

Arveschoug-Bird, at its establishment in 1991, called itself a "restriction on state appropriations." Removing the general fund cap will not increase state revenue or spending; it will only remove a mandate on how revenue must be spent, says former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky.