Maine’s political majority has a problem in the form of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, a citizen’s initiative expected to appear on the November ballot. Part of the problem is that TABOR, as the initiative is widely known, could work. That is, it would gradually lower the state and local tax burden, something the majority has talked about and largely failed to do over the last dozen years.

TABOR is a set of government-spending restrictions adjusted annually to account for changes in population and inflation. It is statutory and may be on thin constitutional ice when it requires the Legislature to surrender the power of taxation to voters under some circumstances. But if it survives a challenge to its signature count, a constitutional protest and is passed by voters, you might expect it to act here as it has acted in the other states that have some version of it. Spending would constrict; taxes would fall, at least a little.

State and local taxes in Colorado, with a stricter version of TABOR than Maine’s proposal, decreased only from 10 percent of income when TABOR began there in 1992 to 9.3 percent in 2003. Still, that dropped Colorado from 22nd lowest to sixth lowest in the country, says the Tax Foundation. Maine, which passed a weaker version of spending limits last year, is a long way from that level. Its tax burden is 13 percent, the most burdensome of tax burdens in the galaxy.

But even if TABOR is stricter than what Maine has now, it is not the wild beast its opponents describe. It is, instead, a means to call the bluff of the people who say they want to cut taxes but haven’t done much about it. TABOR would chew away at state and local government because government pays for programs that run ahead of inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index, the scale TABOR uses to increase spending. Over the years, there would be less money for public programs in education and health care, with some costs shifted to the private sector (for those who can pay) and some services forgone.

That is the goal, often unstated, of any honest tax-reduction strategy beyond savings that come from running government more efficiently, an incremental benefit at best. Fewer services and less money spent on them.

That is, at least the theory. In Maine, it wouldn’t work that way. This is the other part of the problem for the majority, which is not merely Democratic, Republican or independent but representative of the state’s prevailing belief in government, and that belief includes a desire for lower taxes that stops short of deciding which programs to kill.

Instead of cuts, you will get maxims. Opponents of TABOR, for instance, will observe the ship of state must turn slowly – some writers liken it to changing the direction of a tanker, others say an aircraft carrier, but both are all wet. TABOR is slow but it is relentless. The turn-the-tanker routine of taking new, small steps every year pretends that hard choices can be put off while it provides more opportunities for people who oppose specific reductions to stop them.

You can see the results in an annual scorecard of gold stars (exceptional) and red flags (pathetic) from the Maine Economic Growth Council. Its Measures of Growth is a widely praised and subsequently ignored accounting of where Maine stands in its efforts to improve its economy, community and environment. Here’s what the latest edition says about its listing for state and local tax burden: “This measure has missed its benchmark for the third straight year, and the Growth Council has given it a Red Flag for 2006. Reducing Maine’s tax burden is critically important to achieving a sustainable economic growth. Maine competes with other New England states to attract people and businesses, and its tax burden hinders the state’s competitiveness.”

Rather than picking over TABOR, the real tax debate in Maine should be why we have a tax burden that apparently is killing us but we’ve been unable to do much about it. (It is killing us, right?)

Two observations about this: First, brain injuries. In 2004, Gov. Baldacci tried to balance the budget by eliminating programs, among them was rehabilitation for those suffering brain injuries. Advocates for the injured swarmed the State House and gave compelling accounts of what the cuts would mean. Like magic, 75 percent of the funding was restored.

Second, the citizen’s initiative Question 1, which asked whether Maine should immediately raise state funding of K-12 education to 55 percent of the total share, thereby relieving property-tax payers of some of the burden. The question passed, but legislators found it impractical so they changed the statute to hitting 55 percent by 2009.

If money can be made to appear when angry citizens show up at the State House and the outcome of a citizen’s initiative can be made to disappear when it is inconvenient for balancing the budget, is there any doubt about the fate of an approved TABOR? Within a few years, it would be legislatively amended, reconfigured, rebalanced and generally stretched beyond recognizable form.

And with that accomplished, the political majority will be free to return to fretting over Maine’s high tax burden.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News.