Lesson not learned

More than 1,200 irate retirees scorched Gov. King’s phone lines one day last week, demanding he veto a bill that would tax some Social Security recipients in order to give a tax break to other retirees — former state and federal workers — who don’t receive Social Security. The governor had to bring in extra help to handle the hardly spontaneous combustion; he now is in the uncomfortable position of having to decide which group of retirees to tick off.

Governing by orchestrated outrage isn’t exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but the guarantee of free speech surely applies to a telephonic mode they could not have envisioned. While it would be better if important public-policy decisions were made after thoughtful debate and careful deliberation, this is a bad bill that never should have gotten this far and that should be killed by any available means.

Not that state and federal retirees should be taxed more harshly than others. Of course they shouldn’t. The problem with this bill is that it attempts to fix one problem and merely creates another; it makes enemies of two groups with the same bills to pay, the same needs to meet. Whether it’s retirees versus retirees or retirees vs. wage-earners, legislators have no business stirring up such trouble.

Sadly, the worst part isn’t even that many lawmakers now are saying they didn’t understand what was in the law they made. With term limits, there’s been a lot of hand-wringing this session about the lack of “institutional memory.” It seems that “institutional reading comprehension” should be the more immediate concern.

Here’s the worst part: the Maine Legislature continues to not learn from other (frankly, more successful) states, it continues to not follow good examples. There’s a lot going on beyond Kittery and Ft. Kent, including some pretty savvy legislating. It’s not that hard to find out who’s doing what.

One good source was dropped into the Legislature’s lap back in early February, when the session was young and the slate was clean. It was a widely publicized report card issued by Governing magazine and Syracuse University that evaluated how each of the 50 states tended to business and planned ahead.

Maine, Mainers might recall, got a mediocre C. Actually, less than mediocre: Maine finished in the bottom third of the class; 36 states did better. The best thing the graders could say about Maine is that a safety campaign coincided with reduced snowmobile fatalities. In other matters of passing interest to government — infrastructure investment, financial management, tax policy — the indolent student was scolded for letting its mind wander.

The top four, A-minus, states (Washington, Utah, Virginia and Missouri) would never pass a law that put taxpayers of equal means at each other’s throats. Not because they’re just naturally smarter, but because they have in place firm procedures regarding tax policy. They, and most B states as well, subject every proposed tax cut, hike, addition, exemption, adjustment or tinkering to a thorough tax-incidence study. Nothing is enacted until there is a clear understanding of how it affects every conceivable category of taxpayer. Taxation will always be unpleasant, but it need not be a surprise. Maine lawmakers could have learned that lesson from esteemed public-policy researchers. They didn’t, so maybe 1,200 screaming retirees can get their attention.