Prioritize state spending needs

Since our nation’s founding we have engaged in a debate over the purpose of our government. Progressive arguments for promoting and protecting the common good have repeatedly clashed with radical arguments for protecting only the private property rights of business and the wealthy.

Will our government be used to advance the rights, freedoms and well being of “we the people,” and fulfill it’s constitutional promise “to form a more perfect union” and “promote the general welfare”? Or will we allow government to be used solely to advance a coddle-the-rich, you-get-what-you-deserve social Darwinism?

Does this conception sound a bit stark? Consider this. On March 23, the unabashed representative for this particularly radical, right-wing worldview, Grover Norquist, will be speaking in Maine at the invitation of the Maine Heritage Policy Center. This is a man so bitterly partisan, he said in The Denver Post that “bipartisanship is like date rape.” On Pat Robertson’s TV show he said that people who disagree with him “aren’t stupid, they’re evil.” He has proclaimed that his goal is to “shrink the size of government to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub,” and, in an interview on National Public Radio, compared the logic of the estate tax to the morality of the Holocaust.

An ideological soulmate to Newt Gingrich, he was an architect of the Contract with America. Recently, he assisted in creating George Bush’s tax-cuts-for-the-rich and budget-cuts-for-the-general-welfare policies. This is in keeping with his belief that there should be no taxes on capital income (trust funds, stock market gains, etc.) only on wages- meaning that the middle class, not the wealthy, should pay the taxes.

In an interview with William Greider, when asked about his ideal government, he said, simply, “the McKinley era.” In other words, a repeal of the 20th century, taking us back to a time when robber-baron monopolists controlled our government and economy, workers were basically wage slaves with no rights and the idea of a social safety net was a pipe dream. Is this your vision for Maine and America?

Norquist’s MHPC appearance, parroting the line that “Maine’s problem is not taxes, but spending,” is hypocritical in the extreme. He knows that, at the federal level, massive budget cuts and tax cuts for the rich have resulted in Maine losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. This is on top of tens of millions of dollars in unfunded mandates, like the No Child Left Behind Act and many homeland security costs, that our state has to pay for. But this is how Norquist would have it since, as he said in

The New York Times, “I hope a state goes bankrupt.”

That said, it is absolutely important that we prioritize our spending needs, look for efficiencies and streamline programs as much as possible. But let’s be honest with ourselves. The state cut $1.2 billion from last year’s budget. A couple of months ago we cut another $100+ million in a supplemental budget. Now the governor has proposed cutting straight through the bone and into the marrow, looking for another $100+ million, mostly from healthcare for our most vulnerable citizens – brain trauma patients, the mentally disabled and other mental health services.

This assault on Medicaid is based on the deceptive argument that the state’s healthcare spending is out of control. But the fact is, while Medicaid spending did go up 9 percent last year, private insurance premiums went up by 15 to 20 percent. So Medicaid is doing an excellent job – in fact, better than the private sector – of controlling costs and extending coverage. We should be proud of our commitment to take care of our own and should be looking for ways to make this commitment more effective and expansive.

And what about the as yet unfulfilled promise of the governor and Legislature coming together on a meaningful property tax reform proposal? Some people need relief now, not in five years. Where is the money for this supposed to come from? The real goal of bringing a divisive interloper like Norquist to our state is to so poison the well of discussion that the idea of revenue generation is kept off the table. But at this point, do we have any choice?

Actually, the governor has several choices. For a penny on the sales tax, putting it back where it was just a few years ago, the state would gain $125 million for property tax relief. Since Maine’s sales tax is the narrowest in the country, it would be even better if we took a hard look at the absurdly long list of current exemptions. The benefit here is that the sales tax brings in a good deal of revenue from tourists. Roughly 10 percent of the tax, as well as one-third of the 7 percent meals and lodging rate, is paid by out-of-staters. If only the lodging rate was raised, tourists would account for over half of that. Maine’s M&L rate is the lowest in New England and if we’re going to call ourselves Vacationland, then we might as well capitalize on it.

By shifting revenue generation off the property tax and onto the sales tax, we would be lowering the total taxes paid by Mainers, especially those of lower and moderate income, while preserving essentials like healthcare and education. A man like Norquist, however, would have none of this. As noted above, he would characterize anyone proposing such ideas as “evil.”

Let’s be clear. The real question is whether we will defend our public services and bring meaningful property tax relief to those who need it, or will we engage in bombastic name-calling and demonization of the least among us? So I ask you to declare now, my fellow Mainers, which side are you on?

Rob Brown of Bar Harbor is an organizer for the Maine Citizen Leadership Fund.