What's the governor afraid of?

When Mark Warner ran for governor in 2001, he promised the people of Virginia, repeatedly, that he would not raise taxes.

In December 2003, with the midterm legislative elections safely over, he proposed a budget that would do just that, to the tune of over $1 billion in new tax burden for Virginians.

Now, with his tax increase proposal under increasing fire, he is steadfastly trying to deny taxpayers their say on his proposal, in the form of a statewide referendum.

All of us, including men and women running for political office, sometimes make promises that we later regret. Sometimes, conditions change in ways that make us rethink the promises that we have made. Gov. Warner has used this rationale for breaking his “I will not raise taxes” promise. But when such a thing occurs, it is the duty of honorable men and women to ask to be released from their promises. Indeed, it is a long-standing tradition among Virginia Senators to do just this before changing a promised vote. A referendum could serve as a request from Warner to be released from his 2001 promise.

Evidently, Warner does not consider himself bound by this most basic ethical principle. He first ridiculed the idea of a referendum as a “gimmick,” an interesting commentary on the governor’s faith in the people who elected him.

More recently, he has attempted to put his refusal to listen to the people in an attractive cloak, saying on March 5: “I'm not going to turn Virginia into California!”

In so saying, Warner was attacking a straw man. No one is suggesting that every issue normally tackled by the legislature be taken from their hands and given over to the public. No one is even suggesting that this occur with any other issue before the elected representatives of the people.

In most cases, legislators are indeed more qualified than anyone else to decide the fate of bills and proposals they consider. In theory at least, legislators have all the facts necessary to make an informed decision, and certainly have access to more pertinent information, more quickly, than do ordinary citizens. (Speaking for myself, I would not want to have to make a snap decision on any issue debated before the Subcommittee on the Chesapeake.)

But a tax increase is not like most issues. The impact of a tax increase is not only immediately visible, but its impact is also such that no one is more qualified to assess that impact than the individual men and women who will have to pay it. When a government raises taxes, it is asking -- or more accurately demanding -- that taxpayers tighten their belts and do without something else on which they would spend their own money.

It is perhaps the most basic principle of economics that no one can spend the same dollars twice. If the government of Virginia demands $100 more dollars from a family, that is $100 fewer dollars for that family to spend according to its desires and preferences.

It therefore only makes sense for legislators to take their case directly to the people who will be most directly affected by decisions on taxes. Gove. Warner and others in Richmond who wish to raise taxes will argue, and have argued, that there is great value in store for Virginia if taxes go up. They promise that the public schools will be better taken care of, that health care will be more readily available, that law enforcement will improve, the state’s bond rating will remain strong, etc.

Of course, we already know what Warner’s promises are worth, but even if we give him the benefit of the doubt this time, it raises the same question: if tax increases are such a wonderful idea, why NOT take this idea to the people, and bind yourself to their response? Gov. Warner has demonstrated that he has no reluctance to talk to the people; he just refuses to commit himself to listen to us.

Should there be a referendum, the governor of Virginia would have the most visible and most effective “bully pulpit” for swaying public opinion. How weak must Warner think his case is, if he refuses to even consider a process in which he would have a distinct advantage over the opponents of tax increases? How little faith must he have in his own ability to persuade us?

Fear of the people who elected you is not a hallmark of political leadership in the United States. Neither is breaking promises.