Proposed taxpayer bill of rights bill of wrongs

By Robert Horenstein

article created on:

It's the final session of Sunday school and my cousin Marty, wearing a button that reads, "YES ON TABOR: Taxpayer Bill of Rights," is standing at the entrance to the synagogue asking parents to sign a ballot initiative petition.
"Marty, maybe you'd have more success gathering signatures over at the conservative Protestant church down the street," I suggest after dropping off my kids.
"I see my role as drumming up Jewish support for TABOR," Marty replies.
"But don't you realize how harmful this arbitrary spending limit would be?" I say. "If it passes, there won't be enough money for programs that help the working poor, the elderly and the disabled. Why would the Jewish community get behind something like that?"
"Because it's a concept that comes straight out of the Torah," Marty insists. "It's right there in Exodus. Bezalel is about to build the Tabernacle in the wilderness, so Moses instructs the people to donate materials for construction. Well, they bring so much that Moses, not wanting to take more from the people than what's needed, calls a halt to their contributions. In today's vernacular, he caps spending and returns the surplus tax revenue to the people."

"If you ask me, that passage proves that TABOR would be a mistake of biblical proportions," I say. "It shows that the Children of Israel were willing to give however much gold and silver was necessary to accomplish the task. The message is that we need to adequately fund those things that are of the highest priority—back then, it was the Tabernacle; for us today, it's healthcare and schools."
"Maybe you ought to read our campaign literature," Marty suggests, handing me a pamphlet from the Taxpayer Association of Oregon. "See, this initiative has the backing of Grover Norquist, the greatest anti-tax mind in the country. Do you remember reading Henry David Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience' in high school—you know, 'That government is best which governs least?' Well, Norquist is a modern-day Thoreau. He says his goal is to reduce government to the size where he can 'drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'"
"Are you sure you don't mean a modern-day Alfred Hitchcock?" I say. "Besides, given the size of the federal deficit, which has mushroomed to over $400 billion under the current administration, I have a feeling that a bathtub won't quite cut it. Perhaps Mr. Norquist should consider something a bit larger—say, Lake Michigan?"
"The federal budget is skewed because of the high cost of the war on terror," Marty explains. "But what excuse does Oregon have? Each year, we rank in the top 10 in state spending per capita, which is why our taxes just keep going up. The proponents of TABOR are simply saying, let's cap state spending at inflation and population growth. Any monies above the cap can't be spent. Now that's hardly radical, but do you see where we'll end up?"
"Seems to me we'll end up back in the Doonesbury comic strip," I say.
"Don't be so dense," Marty snaps. "We'll end up with fiscal sanity restored in the halls of the Capitol."
"A spending limit based on inflation and population growth, while it may sound reasonable, Marty, really isn't," I say. "The government has to purchase healthcare and other services that rise in cost faster than inflation. And population growth won't take into account the rising number of seniors with all of their costly needs. What we'll end up with is further cuts in vital services as happened in Colorado."
"In other words, let's just keep spending more money on programs that may not even be working because that's what we've always done," Marty says. "I'm talking about protecting the taxpayers of this state from constantly rising demands on their pocketbooks. Besides, are you going to tell me that you wouldn't appreciate getting a nice little tax refund check every year?"
"Now that's a silly question," I reply. "Since I'm going to have to shell out hundreds of dollars for my kids' textbooks, art and music classes, field trips—things the state will no longer pay for if TABOR passes—I'm going to need all the help I can get."
"Sometimes a little short-term pain is necessary for long-term economic gain," Marty says.
"If you're convinced that there's still so much waste in state government, wouldn't it make more sense to target the specific programs that are wasteful?" I ask.
"Our job as voters is to set spending limits, not evaluate programs," Marty replies. "We elect legislators, on the other hand, to sort out the spending priorities and make the tough budget decisions. If TABOR gets on the ballot and passes, it'll inspire the Legislature to find efficiencies and eliminate waste. It's also going to create competition among agencies to prove their cost effectiveness."
"Wow, Marty," I say. "For someone who wants to drown government in the bathtub, you sure have a lot of faith in the politicians and bureaucrats."
"Trust me," Marty says. "With TABOR, we'll be living in a state that serves as a model of innovation and efficiency."
"No, Marty," I reply. "With deep cuts in education and human services, we'll be living in a state—of decline."

Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Community Relations Committee.