Hey, Big Spender: What Part of NO Don't You Understand?

Oregon voters have resoundingly defeated their legislature's tax increase plan -- for the second time in a year, and by an even bigger margin.

On Jan. 28, 2003, Oregonians voted to reject the legislature's proposed $313 million tax hike. All the Oregon politicians and the major media warned voters that if they turned down the tax, the legislature would be forced to cut spending. As The Washington Post summed up the stakes: "9,000 elderly people slated to lose spaces in long-term care facilities; thousands more slated to lose prescription drug coverage; mentally ill and disabled Oregonians losing medical and housing aid. And every day brought news of another school district preparing to cut school days, cancel spring sports or pare enrichment activities."

Yet after hearing all the warnings of old people being thrown out in the cold Oregon winter, 54 percent of the voters told the legislature to go ahead and cut.

Surprised that the people had called their bluff, the politicians raised taxes anyway -- by $1.1 billion, far more than the amount the voters had rejected. After the August tax hike, opponents set out to put an initiative on the ballot to reject the tax. They needed 50,420 voter signatures in just three months. They turned in more than 147,000.

The measure was placed on the Feb. 3 ballot. State employee unions poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the pro-tax effort, far outspending the tax opponents. But once again the people voted to reject the legislature's tax increase, this time by 59 percent to 41 percent.

Even before the two tax-increase votes, the mood of the voters should have been clear to all. In November 2002, Oregonians rejected by 79 percent a proposal to create a large-scale state health-care plan, with the potential for major tax increases. Country singer Lorrie Morgan might ask Oregon politicians, "What part of 'no' don't you understand?"

Oregon voters aren't unique. When they're given a chance to have a say, Americans don't like big government. On Election Day 2002, voters in two parts of Virginia turned down a proposed tax increase for new roads. That same day 45 percent of the voters in the most liberal state in the Union, Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts, voted to abolish the state income tax, despite dire warnings from even conservative pundits that the measure would wreck vital services. Last September, Alabama voters rejected Gov. Bob Riley's $1.2 billion tax hike by 2 to 1. The next month California voters tossed out big-spending Gov. Gray Davis, and 62 percent of them voted for candidates who promised not to raise taxes to close the state's deficit.

Go back a bit further, and you could say that what most voters wanted in 2000 was neither Bush nor Gore but smaller government. A Los Angeles Times Poll in September 2000 found that Americans preferred "smaller government with fewer services" to "larger government with many services" by 59 to 26 percent.

Federal taxpayers never get a chance to vote on taxes and spending. If they did, we might see a resounding rejection of President Bush's 24 percent increase in the federal budget. That's why Congress isn't likely to allow a national initiative on taxes. But our representatives in Congress should listen to the voters they represent. In states where people are allowed to vote on taxes versus spending -- from Oregon to Massachusetts, from Alabama and Virginia to California -- voters are making it clear that they want lower taxes and smaller government.

It's always the elderly and children the pols target first when pressuring the public to increase taxes, it seems. States and municipalities are boxed in by union agreements with AFSCME and independent fire, police, EMT and utility worker contracts.

What a mess.

With all these rejections of the way elected officials try to run the government, how do they get elected?

My theories on this:
1) the big gov lobbyist and contributors drown out the voice of the little guys.
2) Small gov types don't run as often because they're usually too busy running businesses etc.
3) People resort to "lesser of 2 evils" voting patterns because they think that the small gov guy, who often comes from a 3rd party, can't win.

It's always the elderly and children the pols target first when pressuring the public to increase taxes, it seems.

It's the same situation with school budgets up here. The voters shoot them down because of the ridiculous increases in salaries and benefits for the unionized teachers, but by the time it's put to a vote the contracts are already signed so those items aren't negotiable anymore. They end up chopping out programs, after-school stuff, and crammed 40 kids to a classroom to make up for it.

Meanwhile, all the voters want is for a rational contract to be signed with the teachers, and the only way they have of protesting it is to shoot the budget down even though it has no impact on the contracts.

It IS a mess.

The last gov spent all the excess before he left, so there wasn't any money in the till....and the legislature tried it again...to raise taxes as they do almost every new gov. It didn't work, but they do get by with a lot of graft.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.