The Virginia-based National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has completed a survey of state ballot "initiatives" from the recent US election and found that taxpayers are - again - making gains. Gains - and the process that gave rise to them -- that Canadians can only observe with envy.
By way of background, "initiative" is a process that allows for the passage of laws via referendum brought on by a citizen petition. At best, it's an alien concept in Canada, at worst, it's one step removed from the end of civilization as we know it. More about that later.
NTU Vice-President Pete Sepp reports that voters in nearly a dozen states opted to trim, cap, or reform entirely their own systems of taxing and spending. For example:
- Massachusetts voters passed, 59 percent-41 percent, an initiative to reduce the state's personal income tax rate to 5 percent by 2003;
- Two states overwhelmingly adopted sweeping changes in their methods of taxing automobiles that will result in significantly lower levies (Montana, 58 percent-42 percent, and South Carolina, 84 percent-16 percent);
- Two states also voted to repeal and ban state inheritance taxes (Montana, 67 percent-33 percent, and South Dakota, 79 percent-21 percent);
- Louisiana residents rejected (62 percent-38 percent) a referendum to repeal the current federal income tax deduction they may take against state income taxes; and
- Although Arizona voters O.K.'d a proposal to raise state sales taxes by 6/10 of one cent, the increase is partially offset by limits on local property taxes.
Like our American neighbours, tax cuts are an issue in the current federal election campaign. However, there are a few very important differences.
For starters, tax cuts that result from the initiative process are citizen-driven rather than politician-driven. One need look no further than the recent leaders' debate to understand how that concept is embraced by the political elite of our country.
NDP leader Alexa McDonough called citizen-initiated referendums "cowardly and reprehensible". Joe Clark described them as a "dangerous mechanism". And Jean Chretien called them "divisive" adding that referendums "break families and villages and communities". And although Stockwell Day supports the initiative process, he does so apologetically at best.
In Canada, the preferred option has been tax cuts dispensed through the "trust me" approach (read: "elect me and we will eliminate da GST"). Even if Canadians elect a leader committed to a specific tax cut it is far from certain that it will ever materialize.
The opposite is true under the initiative process. Once an initiative "wins" taxpayers and voters can be assured that the desired result will take effect. In other words, voting for or against a specific initiative is guaranteed to produce something much more tangible than a nebulous promise.
Novel concept that, and perhaps the best explanation as to why the political elite in our country has so much contempt for the idea.
Their view is one that says while voters are smart enough to elect them; those same voters cannot possibly be trusted to contemplate policy issues such as taxes. This writer suggests the outcome of that attitude is plain to see.