|
Voters across the nation didn’t just deliver what President Bush now calls a “thumping” to his Republican party and its congressional and state house candidates.
Americans also voted down some very ill-advised initiatives that aim to control how we spend our money and shape our land.
Three states had so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“Tabor”) amendments on their ballots, and all failed badly -- in Oregon the measure went down 71-to-29 percent, in Nebraska 70-30, in Maine 54-36.
Tabor amendments are the anti-tax crusaders’ most recent hope. They’re modeled after a 1992 Colorado initiative (now suspended) that limited the state budget to the sum of inflation plus population change. Taxes or spending can only be raised by a supermajority of the legislature or popular statewide referendum. Several Tabor efforts appear to be funded by fiercely anti-tax New York real estate magnate Howard Rich and his Americans for Limited Government organization -- imported formulas some critics suggest are the opposite of “grassroots,” in fact more like transplanted “Astroturf.”
Still, ever since California’s Proposition 13 in 1978 sparked nationwide votes to curb government, every camp from local officials to teacher groups to police and firefighters have jumped to oppose financial straightjackets on state or local government. Their defensive argument: don’t hobble essential services; let elected representatives manage public budgets.
But what if people believe taxes or overall government spending are too high? The anti-Tabor campaign in Maine this year was bolstered by an unusual Brookings Institution report on the state’s choices, commissioned by a statewide non-profit, Grow Smart Maine.
True, said the report, Maine does have unusually high property and personal income taxes, and true, with 262 school districts, it’s overspending the norm for K-12 education. Plus, state administrative expenses are high.
How then to cope? The Brookings proposal: Think, then cut. Create a bipartisan Maine Government Efficiency Commission of civic leaders, empowered to review all state functions, identify practical savings, and then send its proposals, with a top goal of $100 million budget reduction, to the legislature for a single up-or-down vote.
To spur revenues, there’d be a $200 million Maine Innovation Jobs Fund investing in research and development for promising industries and partnerships. To help towns and cities spur tourism and curb sprawl, there’d be simplified building codes. An increased lodging tax would shift taxes to tourists. The top Maine income tax rate would be cut.
Instead of the “gimmickry, one-size-fits-all” of Tabor amendment budget cuts, says Brooking’s Mark Muro, principal author of the report, the Maine formula does economize, but then goes on to outline strategic moves for shared future prosperity.
A continent away, the same theme of forward-looking investment sparked voters’ approval -- much to veteran observers’ surprise -- of the entire $37 billion panoply of public works bonds that Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger thrashed out in negotiations with California’s Democratic legislators last spring. Roads, bridges, schools, ports, levees, seismic refits, port security, affordable housing, local transportation funds -- all and more are included.
Why did such a mega-package pass? In significant part, says William Fulton, president of Solimar Research Group and publisher of California Planning & Development Report, because of its bipartisan support. He suggests that Schwarzenegger, analogous to the legendary Earl Warren, governor at the end of World War II, is positioned (collaborating with Democrats controlling the legislature) to shape the entire next generation of California growth.
What Californians didn’t pass was a “regulatory taking” property rights measure proposition that would give private owners sweeping rights to sue government for the purported value they claim their property loses because of government regulations.
The takings measure, modeled on the controversial Measure 37 initiative Oregon voters approved two years ago, goes far beyond simple eminent domain reform (passed in eight states this fall). Instead, it gives private property owners standing to sue governments for dramatic settlements in compensation for alleged profit if they were free to build on protected farmlands or open spaces.
Oregon voters gave 62 percent to the regulatory takings in 2004. But now some serious buyers’ remorse is reported. Over 60 percent of Oregonians who say they’ve heard a lot about the impacts of Measure 37 indicate they’d now oppose it, according to a poll released in late October by the Defenders if Wildlife Action Fund and the Izaak Walton League of America.
Maybe other states are wising up. Nov. 7's “no” vote on the Oregon-like regulatory taking measures were 48-52 percent in California, 24-76 percent in Idaho, 42-58 percent in Washington. Only Arizonans, by a 65-35 percent margin, approved, possibly confusing the issue with eminent domain.
The moral, from spending to takings, should be simple: bipartisanship and thoughtful debate produce dramatically better results than the rigid formulas that today’s political ideologues so often try to foist on us.
Comments may be addressed to npeirce@citistates.com
|
