Ending Maine’s tax-and-spend culture
10/29/09 | 8 comments
guest column

Ending Maine’s tax-and-spend culture


Stephen Bowen

In its recent editorial encouraging a no vote on the Question 4 Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative, the Bangor Daily News repeats many of the worn-out claims one hears from the tax-and-spend special interests who oppose TABOR II.

The BDN claims, for instance, that TABOR II would “freeze” government spending at a certain point. In fact, TABOR II would allow government spending to grow at whatever rate voters prefer. Under TABOR II, government spending could double every year if voters approved such increases at the ballot box.

The BDN also claims that TABOR has been so harmful to Colorado, where it has been on the books since 1992, that voters there suspended “key parts of the law.” To be clear, Colorado residents voted to allow the state to temporarily retain surplus revenues that were to have been refunded back to taxpayers, but otherwise left the TABOR law untouched. Colorado voters still get to vote on spending and tax increases and just last year they overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to repeal TABOR in its entirety.

The BDN goes on to accuse TABOR II supporters of having “an animus for government.” The use of the word “animus,” which is defined as a feeling of hostility or ill-will, suggests that the tens of thousands of Mainers who signed the petitions putting TABOR II on the ballot, as well as the thousands more who will vote for it on Election Day, hate government.

Like all Mainers, though, TABOR II supporters understand that government is a necessity. The central question of the TABOR II debate is one of how much government is enough and how much government is too much.

Those opposed to TABOR II have made their opinions on this question quite clear. Christopher St. John, one of TABOR II’s most ardent opponents, has suggested not only that government spending should never decrease under any circumstances, but that it should constantly grow at the same pace as the rest of the economy.

In other words, if your pay goes up 5 percent, your taxes should go up 5 percent as well.

The BDN seems to agree, suggesting that Maine will not be able to “provide needed infrastructure and services” unless government spending continues to grow.

However, there is significant evidence to suggest that, if anything, Maine has too much government.

Maine still has a tax burden that is higher than most. Research by the Tax Foundation, for instance, indicates that 35 other states run their schools, pave their roads and take care of their needy residents while costing their taxpayers a smaller percentage of their hard-earned incomes than the Maine government demands from its taxpayers for providing these same services.

Indeed, it is hard to imagine Maine government being much bigger than it is today. We already have more people on Medicaid, as a percent of the population, than any other state, and a higher percentage of people on food stamps and welfare than all states but one.

Despite what you hear, it doesn’t have to be this way. The tax-and-spend special interests persist in advancing the fiction that state government must spend more because Maine is a large, sparsely populated state. The fact is, though, that none of the 12 states in the nation that are more sparsely populated has higher tax burdens than Maine. Not one.

The truth is that we have big government and high taxes because that is the path those in power have chosen. The question for voters to decide, therefore, is how well the big government and high-taxes approach is working for us.

Maine’s national ranking for per capita personal incomes was 35th in 1992 and is 35th today. Relative to the other 50 states, we’ve made no forward progress in raising the incomes of Maine people, despite the fact that total state spending skyrocketed 113 percent over that period. We doubled state spending in little more than 15 years and what, exactly, do we have to show for it?

The definition of insanity, it is said, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Maine has been trying, in vain, to tax and spend its way to prosperity for a generation. Those opposed to Question 4 have spent nearly $2 million, an almost unimaginable sum, trying to convince Mainers to continue down this same path regardless, though it grows harder each year to see how it is getting us any closer to the prosperous future we all want for our state.

Question 4, by contrast, represents a change from the tax-and-spend status quo. It represents a new and different approach to building prosperity, one that involves and empowers Maine taxpayers and makes government at all levels more transparent and accountable.

Election Day approaches and two paths lie before you, one tried and one new. Which will you choose?

Stephen Bowen directs the Center for Education Excellence at the Maine Heritage Policy Center.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
8 comments on this item
On 10/29/09 at 8:16 AM, muguet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I would not argue the need for frugality lessons at the State House. Llike you, I am troubled by the number of people on public assistance, but would never advocate removing them from the rolls without removing the need. Historically, we have exempted so much wealth from taxation in the fervent hope that it would create more wealth to fall like soft, summer rain over our economy. Further, Maine has been very responsive to employers' demands for low labor costs -- again, the savings was to trickle down and benefit all of us. Instead, profits go to out-of-state shareholders, and the hardworking, small-business owners and meager wage-earners are left to fill a disproportionately daunting need. Site-selection professionals value low tax rates, but with a broad, stable tax structure -- ours is too narrow and volatile. 'Starve the Beast" will inevitably fail, as citizens will not tolerate unmet needs in our vulnerable population and lawmakers will continue to dole out the corporate welfare to those who pay for their campaigns. It's time for a frank discussion about what Maine people want, how much it costs, who will we "exempt" from carrying the load and why. Oppose TABOR II. Thank you.

Report abuse
On 10/29/09 at 9:03 AM, MainStreet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

So, where does the government get money to meet unforeseen emergencies like floods, fires etc.?

Report abuse
On 10/29/09 at 11:29 AM, muguet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Good question, MainStreet -- Every interest group, individual business etc. with lobbyists tries to make the case "..don't tax ME..." (but educate MY children, fix MY road, care for ME when I'm old -- someone else can pay) Corporations and the wealthy are heavy users of public money too. Ideally the government taxes wealth, not people per se, in a progressive, fair manner. We tax work/wages at a much higher rate than profits these highly productive workers help create. The share of the tax burden is not commensurate with the share of wealth, with corporations shouldering a lower share than ever before while enjoying an unprecedented share of the wealth in this country. Meanwhile, we subsidize their labor costs through our welfare system, as so many full-time (and taxpaying) workers require assistance. this sort of polarization destabilizes the economy, making it prone to collapse (as we have seen recently and in 1929..). The cries to further lighten the load of those at the top in the hope that it will grow the economy have been discredited by history. Those of us left footing an unfair share of the bill are wrong to fight amonst ourselves about who pays for the services we want.

Report abuse
On 10/29/09 at 12:41 PM, JosephMartin wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

What will Maine look like in another 10 or 15 or 20 years if the state continues to tax and spend faster than those with jobs grow their own wages?

And for all the whining from the LEFT about freezing classrooms and fire trucks without fuel... why don't the panic-filled fear-mongerers threaten to cut WELFARE - which is one of the biggest expenses of all???

Can't you imagine THIS on a television commercial???

.

.

.

.

"This is Maria and her seven kids. She is 23 years old and has no jobs skills at all, but is too busy with her children to get a job anyway. Five of the kids' dads visit now then, but two of the guys are in prison. Maria moved to Maine from Colorado six years ago because the welfare was much less generous because of Colorado's mean evil TABOR laws. If TABOR passes here in Maine, Maria might have to move to a smaller apartment or even start working part-time. To preserve the Maine Lifestyle we know and love - vote NO on Question 4!"

.

.

.

.

Well... it would be "Truth in Advertising!"

Report abuse
On 10/29/09 at 10:29 PM, EJParsons wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

You'll never end tax and spend as long as you keep voting in the progressives. All they know is tax and spend.

Report abuse
On 10/30/09 at 6:42 AM, muguet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"Maria" is largely a work of fiction, and a tired one at that, cooked up by the Regean campaign. If events of late have taught us anything, it's that the REAL "Maria" doesn't drive a "cadillac" -- a Mazzarhati, perhaps, on Wall Street. Spending sprees have not been the exclusive puvue of the Democrats in my lifetime, and certainly not in the past decade. When Wal-Mart hands a trainee a W-4 with one hand, and a welfare application with the other, "The people of Maine will be paying part of your salary -- you'd have to work two days here to eat for one...". We're subsidizing the labor costs of the richest family in America! I am neither Republican nor Democrat -- Green Independent, actually, and we're a very fiscally conservative AND progressive bunch. Frugality isn't as simplistic as simply slashing taxes, slashing entitlements, slashing infrastructure; only to see the costs rear their ugly head elsewhere. It certainly isn't shoving ever more wealth toward those at the top(income disparity has been much a matter of public policy, as workers have been highly productive) in the vain hope dollars will multiply and "trickle down". We know where our money will yield the most return to the citizens of America. Oppose TABOR II. Thank you.

Report abuse
On 10/31/09 at 12:05 PM, Jethro wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Like many others,chances are good that "Maria" would have moved to Maine from many states in the country, jumped on the wagon that allows Welfare recipients to collect a generous benefit package that many working Mainers cannot afford for themselves. Are the bleeding heart liberals posting here suggest that Mainers will turn a deaf ear to the truly needy, that somehow allowing the State to grow economically, creating a business friendly atmosphere, increasing jobs and allowing us to keep our tax growth inline with income , is somehow based on greed? are they aware that Maine government now is slashing and cutting all the programs they want to protect? Overspending is the reason, taxes removed from the family budget to fund a wasteful and redundent State Government has working Mainers bent over from carrying a ever increasing tax burden. Follow the money trail of the anti-TABOR organization ' Citizens Unified for Maine's Future' and you will soon realize the only future they are concerned about is reducing Mainers take home pay to keep increasing the flow of taxpayers money into their coffers. IT IS YOUR MONEY,FIGHT TO KEEP IT BY VOTING YES ON 4!

Report abuse
On 10/31/09 at 12:53 PM, muguet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

The fundamental assumption here, that a reduction in public investment encourages increased economic activity in the private sector is wrong. A dearth of public infrastructure, with its associated costs, in fact inhibits economic activity elsewhere. The business community is in fact more heavily reliant on public services than is "Maria". "Maria" hasn't brought our public budget to its knees any more than the rest of us, and blame inflicted upon the poor, regardless of how "deserving" they may be, is wildly misplaced. "...stand in awe of the burdens of the poor, rather than in judgment of how they carry them..." Oppose TABOR, Thank you.

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.