Virtually unnoticed in the wake of the pay raise controversy in Harrisburg is a fast-moving legislative initiative that would impose constitutional limits on state budget increases.

Alarmed opponents say the limits being considered could cause everything from higher tuition at state universities to the elimination of funding for foster care and programs for the elderly and disabled. But the Republican leadership says the move is overdue and necessary, and won't necessarily lead to program cuts.

"It forces a governor to actually set priorities goals, as opposed to just increasing funding," said Steve Miskin, a spokesman for the House Republicans. "Basically, it just means living within our means."

The legislation is modeled after the Taxpayer Bill of Rights in Colorado, which antitax crusaders such as former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas are working to adopt around the country. Pennsylvania is acting, however, just as Colorado voters decided in a referendum on Nov. 1 to suspend its spending cap for five years after a bipartisan coalition campaigned for the suspension.

California residents last week by a 2-1 ratio voted down a spending-cap proposal promoted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Republican leadership in Harrisburg announced spending caps as part of its Playbook for Progress agenda presented in February. But the bills moved only after lawmakers returned to the Capitol intent on shifting attention away from the pay raise.

Many fiscal conservatives joined with liberal interest groups in denouncing the law that raised the base salary for legislators by 16 percent. The outcry resulted in the repeal of the pay raise this week.

"I think they definitely want attention put on policy issues and off of the pay raise, no doubt about that," said Matthew Brouillette of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation, which is pushing the spending caps. "The pay raise wound up trumping many agenda items the leadership laid out. The motivation is certainly there to start getting things done."

Both the House and Senate recently passed different versions of the spending-cap bill that would tie budget increases next year to a formula tied to inflation. The Senate also passed a companion bill to change the constitution and make the spending caps permanent. The House is also moving a constitutional amendment.

Brouillette said that the goal is to get the caps into the constitution "so that it couldn't be changed at the whim of the legislature in the future." About 30 states have spending caps, and 19, including Colorado, enshrine them in the constitution.

The Senate appropriations committee will consider the House versions next week and "we expect to agree on language and get it to the governor" by the end of the month, said Senate Republican spokesman Erik Arneson.

Gov. Rendell has called the legislature's move hypocritical given its decision to raise its own pay. "It reeks of hypocrisy, but if it's the will of the legislature, we have to consider that," said Rendell's spokeswoman, Kate Philips.

Rendell is running for reelection next year, and at least one Republican sponsor of the legislation, Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola of Dauphin County, is considering running against him.

At the same time, the governor's office released a lengthy analysis arguing that a state cap could lead to increased local taxes to maintain programs, particularly in education.

The analysis also says that inflation is a bad measure for the needs of state government programs. The inflation index is based such consumer costs as food and housing, while state governments fund services like health care and education.

A coalition of interest groups, including universities, school boards, teacher unions and advocacy groups, has rapidly mobilized to head off the bills.

Under Colorado's law, which has been in effect since 1992, budget growth was tied to the consumer price index, plus population growth, and all excess revenue was returned to taxpayers regardless of the economic climate. That resulted in actual budget decreases during the 2001 recession.

On Nov. 1, Colorado voters, by a ratio of 53-47, decided to return $3.7 billion in potential rebates to the treasury.

"It hasn't done anything good for Colorado," said Ken Gordon, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, in an interview. "It created inflexibility, and it was difficult to fashion a budget based on current needs."

Gordon, who addressed a hearing held by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on Monday, said that tuition at public colleges skyrocketed and programs like child immunizations were virtually eliminated.

Since the enactment of spending limits in 1992, Colorado went from 34th to 48th in public support for higher education among the states, according to the journal Postsecondary Education Opportunity.

Arneson and other Republicans say that Pennsylvania is considering spending-cap versions that offer more leeway. Unlike Colorado, they allow for the accumulation of a "rainy day fund." The House version would put 25 percent of any surplus in such a fund, while the Senate would return 50 percent.

"Next year's budget could grow by as much as $640 million in the Senate version. It would be just a slowing of government spending," he said.

Arneson added, "We're not going to deny that the timing works out in terms of trying to restore credibility with voters who are disillusioned now, but we've been saying since February we'd do it, and we're here doing it."