
November 15, 2005
Voters Showed Less Appetite for Tax Cuts
By JOHN M. BRODER
LOS ANGELES,
Nov. 14 - Has the American voter's ardor for cutting taxes and shrinking
government cooled?
Voters in California, Colorado
and Washington State
rejected ballot measures this month that would have rolled back tax increases
or limited state spending. Some say the votes could mark a turning point in a
decades-old revolt against high taxes that got its symbolic start in California
in 1978 with Proposition 13, which sharply limited property tax increases for
homeowners and cut deeply into state services.
It may be, some analysts suggested, that after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and this year's Gulf
Coast hurricanes, Americans saw the
value of government investment in infrastructure, public safety and other
services and are now more willing to pay for it.
"It looks like that to me," said John
G. Matsusaka,
president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University
of Southern California Law School.
"The public sector did a lot of belt-tightening during the last recession,
and the public now appears to be letting it out a few notches. I think we saw
that in Washington State
and Colorado."
On Nov. 1, Colorado voters
approved a ballot proposition that would allow the state to keep a projected
$3.7 billion in tax revenue over the next five years rather than return it to
taxpayers.
In California last Tuesday,
voters resoundingly defeated Proposition 76, supported by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger. The measure would have limited state spending and given the
governor broad new powers to cut spending when state revenue lagged.
And in Washington,
an initiative put on the ballot by antitax groups
failed last week by a six-point margin, letting stand a 9.5-cents-a-gallon
gasoline tax passed by the Legislature.
In California, Mr.
Matsusaka said,
voters ignored Mr. Schwarzenegger's
appeals to give him more power to cut state spending and tuned out television
advertisements warning that the rejection of Proposition 76 would mean a big
tax increase next year.
In New Jersey, which has the
highest property taxes per person in the nation, voters elected Senator
Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, as
governor last week, even though he promised a more modest reduction in property
taxes than his Republican opponent, Douglas
R. Forrester.
"People are still concerned about spending, but it's not a front-burner
issue for them," Mr. Matsusaka said. "They're
more concerned about wanting to put money in for education."
Advocates of cutting taxes and limiting public spending said, however, that
the three ballot results were responses to specific situations and did not mark
the beginning of some sort of backlash.
"I don't see it," said Grover Norquist, president
of Americans for Tax Reform and one of the nation's most vocal tax opponents.
"I would be very sensitive to it and sweating over it if it were
happening."
California voters, Mr.
Norquist said,
were in a sour mood over the special election last week when they voted down
the spending cap and all seven other measures on the ballot. Washington
voters succumbed to warnings that roads and bridges were crumbling and that the
gas tax was needed to avert disaster.
And, he said, Colorado voters
were hoodwinked by a "traitor" Republican governor, Bill
Owens, into voting for a huge tax increase.
(Governor Owens's argument
was that limits had locked spending at levels that were far too low to handle
the state's increasing population and cost of services.)
"All trends start with small sets of data points," Mr.
Norquist said when
asked if the three votes could mark a major shift in public opinion. "But
if you flesh in the picture for the year, that's not the case at all."
Mr. Norquist
pointed to a proposal in Oklahoma
in September that would raise gasoline taxes to pay for highway construction
and maintenance. It was defeated by 87 percent to 13 percent. He said that
while Colorado residents voted to
lift the spending cap, they also turned down a $2.1 billion bond issue for
transportation. Voters in West Virginia
also rejected a big bond issue to underwrite the state's pension funds.
Mr. Norquist
said he was working with tax-limitation groups in Maine,
Nevada, Ohio,
Oklahoma and Oregon
to put spending limits before voters in 2006. He said lawmakers in several
other states were also considering new caps on state spending, using a variety
of formulas involving population growth and inflation.
Kim Rueben,
a public finance economist at the Tax
Policy Center
at the Urban Institute, said the outcome of the votes this year was not
sufficient to establish a trend. But Ms.
Rueben said that for the past several years voters had been willing to increase taxes or approve
bond issues when they were designated for tangible improvements.
On Tuesday, voters in Maine, New
York and Ohio
approved bond issues totaling nearly $5 billion to pay for transportation
projects, water systems, college buildings and research programs.
"Starting in the late 1990's, there has been more emphasis on the state
of state infrastructure, and effort to get new money in and new things
built," Ms. Rueben
said. "I think in general people want roads and are happy to fund them.
But they are less willing to just turn over money to the state and let
officials decide how to spend it."
That was how Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington,
a Democrat, went about trying to save the gasoline tax increase that barely
passed the Legislature on the last day of the session in May.
After the tax bill squeaked through, opponents quickly gathered 400,000
signatures to put a measure on the Nov. 8 ballot to repeal the increase, which
will take effect in increments over the next three years. The money is
dedicated to the repairing and seismic retrofitting of the state's highways, bridges
and tunnels.
Governor Gregoire
said in an interview that two rockslides that closed the Interstate 90 pass
through the mountains of eastern Washington
and the damage along the Gulf Coast
from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita helped her
cause, by showing what can happen when state infrastructure is in poor
condition.
"Their levees are our bridges," Ms.
Gregoire said,
referring to New Orleans.
"People here were skeptical, but Katrina
brought the message home loud and clear."
She added, "People here who have been antitax
for a number of years now said: 'We're not going to leave our safety at risk;
we're not going to leave this to our kids. We're going to invest.' "
The repeal measure was voted down by 53 percent to 47 percent, but a look at
a map of how Washington
residents voted is revealing.
Twenty-nine of Washington's
39 counties voted to repeal, many of them by margins of 20 or even 30
percentage points. The measure failed because the heavily populated, more
liberal counties around Seattle and two college towns in
eastern Washington voted against
it.
In other words, when it comes to taxes, Americans are still divided.