Two key principles have piloted the tax reform debate this year in Maine. The first is that property tax relief must focus on improved state funding for public schools. This marker was set when the Maine Municipal Association (MMA) submitted its citizen’s initiative back in January. The second principle is that tax reform must mean tax relief. This goal emerged and hardened over the course of a difficult legislative session as Gov. Baldacci and key legislators worked to balance the state budget without adding to Maine’s already high tax burden.

School funding relief without higher taxes is exactly what Gov. Baldacci now has asked lawmakers to approve in a special session of the Maine Legislature. His proposal is a clearly focused and responsible alternative to the abrupt spending increases and new taxes demanded by the MMA initiative. It deserves quick legislative support.

In a nutshell, the governor proposes to ramp up school funding over a five-year period until the state pays a full 55 percent of the total cost of public education in Maine. He also asks for a limit on municipal spending growth to make sure these new state resources are not diverted from the critical goal of property tax relief. We need this responsible policy alternative to appear on the ballot in November.

The MMA proposal is not tax relief. The Legislature’s Taxation Committee spent a long time this year looking at it in detail. It demands immediate payment by the state of 55 percent of Maine’s aggregated statewide public school costs and 100 percent of all special education expenditures. While these are fundamentally good goals, they carry a first-year price tag of nearly $264 million and have costs rising at about $70 million a year every year thereafter. The MMA initiative also contains no local spending restrictions and no improvement to the broken school funding formula. Neither better schools nor lower taxes is secured by the MMA approach.

In fact, the only guaranteed result of adopting the MMA proposal would be the delivery of a critical shock to Maine’s fragile economy. Trying to find $264 million next year to pay for the MMA proposal is a prescription for crisis in Maine.

Let’s put the size of the MMA demand in perspective. Adding a penny across the board to the Maine sales tax raises about $142 million a year in new state revenues. Taxing grocery staples raises another $115 million a year. Even if adopted, these combined tax increases would still leave us short of the first year costs for the MMA bill. And then there would be the next $70 million needed in the second year and each year thereafter. Cuts in government spending of this magnitude could be equally disastrous, since we just reduced the state biennial budget by nearly 20 percent or $1 billion. An additional immediate cut of $264 million or more would attack core government functions regarding public health and safety. We also need to guard against the negative repercussions on our economy of a sudden and widespread shutdown of state contracts, employment and services.

Maine does not need this type of manufactured fiscal crisis. Ramping up education support over five years will allow for the orderly restructuring of state responsibilities and for a thoughtful reworking of our school funding formula. Limiting the growth of municipal services will allow property owners a chance to receive real tax relief over time. Gov. Baldacci has proposed the right policy and voters deserve a chance to support his plan in November.

David G. Lemoine, D-Old Orchard Beach, is House chair of the Taxation Committee.