I was taught that a plan, be it business, financial or military, be composed of concrete elements, such as what, who, when, and where, which can be translated into a road map for accomplishing the goal. Instead of claiming to be a plan, Gov. Baldacci’s tax relief editorial in the Jan. 1 BDN is nothing more than a tax philosophy, good enough to win re-election, but hardly the stuff to achieve the expressed goal.

Examine a few points in the governor’s “plan.” One supposes that freezing increases in the value of property will be achieved by imposing governmental controls. Not only does this smack of fascism, but more likely than not, it will create a perverse effect on the real estate market and lead to unintended consequences, as often happens when the government injects itself into the free enterprise system. Moreover, maintaining constant property values will not prevent local assessors from raising property rates, needed to insure sufficient local revenue to sustain spending, which lacking a TABOR imposed limitation, will surely increase to keep pace with inflation, contractual cost of living wage increases, ever increasing energy costs, etc. The governor acknowledges that although property taxes for residents were reduced by $65 million, they have not seen what they expected in the way of tax relief.

Taxpayers know that state and local revenues originate from their pockets and are not created and disbursed to them by some beneficent, philanthropic, faceless entity called “the government.” Any increase in state spending – euphemistically called investment – whether to increase aid to education or to promote economic development, requires increases in state revenue or, if revenues are held constant, a diversion from other recipients. Savings accrued from more efficient administration means less spending which leads to decreased incomes or unemployment for the victims of efficiency. Less income results in lower taxes, i.e., less state revenue; unemployment benefits mean un-programmed state spending. Newton’s law stating that to every action there is an equal but opposite reaction holds true in government as well as the physical world. The governor would have you believe that state increased investments in education, economic development, and other areas will be transferred to nonresidents and an ever strengthening and expanding business community.

The governor claims that there is a principle that Mainers receive the relief due them. Is this principle embodied somewhere and has it been quantified? He endorsed the defeat of TABOR, which attempted to provide relief via quantified spending limits. He also states that reducing our tax burden must be accomplished through a growing economy. But an economy can grow principally by reducing the tax burden. Reducing the impact of taxes has been demonstrated to be the crucial link to economic growth. No nation has been known to tax itself into prosperity. Such vote-appealing, but meddlesome approaches as increasing wages via government fiat will not create more jobs, but may have the opposite effect, since dictating unprofitable business strategies are disincentives to expansion. But then again, telling business to put more money into the pockets of its employees will accrue more tax revenue to the state.

Our state legislators are in the best position to verify if the Maine framework from which to achieve tax relief is good, as the governor claims. To the casual observer, however, one must wonder why after all these years, the state continues to be maligned as anti-business. If Ireland, which, in an article in the Bangor Metro magazine was compared to Maine, can transform itself into a flourishing economic nation, using tax reduction as the stimulus, why can’t Maine? Does the Irish model bear any resemblance to the Maine framework and if not, why not?

Ron Goldstone lives in Dexter.