Bangor Daily News, Oct. 13

A recent opinion poll showed that some Maine residents are dangerously confused about the consequences of Question 1, the proposal to cap property taxes. Surprisingly, the poll found no difference in the level of support for the measure between southern and northern Maine. What it did find was that support for the cap was much higher among those making under $40,000 than it was among those making more than $80,000.

Although residents of any income level are right to complain that property taxes generally are too high, the Palesky tax cap would disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of those who are less well off. As a double whammy, the tax cap would drastically cut municipal revenue, meaning towns would be less able to afford government services, many of which disproportionately benefit those with low incomes.

Generally speaking there is a correlation between a person’s income and the cost of the house where he or she lives. So it follows that someone earning less than $40,000 would live in a less expensive house than someone earning more than $80,000 a year. Naturally, the person with the less expensive house is paying less in property taxes and would see smaller savings if the tax cap passed.

Follow this example from the Maine Revenue Service. If someone who depends on Social Security for income (therefore getting far less than $40,000 a year) and lives in a house worth $100,000 in a town with a mill rate of 17 – both about the state average – the tax cap and the state’s existing Circuit Breaker program would reduce property taxes by about the same amount, to less than $900. For a $250,000 house, the tax cap is worth about $1,000 more than the Circuit Breaker. For a $350,000 house, the tax cap saves $1,800 more than the Circuit Breaker.

The Circuit Breaker works. If you live on a limited income in a typical community (the median price of a home in Maine was $98,700, according to the 2000 census), the current state tax break is nearly as good as the tax cap. As wealth increases, the state tax assistance program is not as effective and for the wealthiest there is not help at all because they exceed the qualification limits. This is as it should be because the Circuit Breaker aims to help those who need it most. A proposal, which failed in the Legislature earlier this year, would have doubled the Circuit Breaker, making it a much better deal than the tax cap initiative.

Further, those with fixed or limited incomes will be less able to afford new fees and higher sales taxes that are likely to result to cover the cost of some municipal services if the tax cap passes.

Yet, according to the poll by Survey USA, 50 percent of those who earn less than $40,000 support the tax cap. Only 38 percent of those who earn more than $80,000 do. There is statistically no difference in opinion between residents of southern and northern Maine although property values are much higher in the southern part of the state.

Before heading to the voting booth on Nov. 2, residents of all income levels should seriously consider the ramifications of Question 1. It is a bad policy that will disproportionately harm those who can least afford it in order to benefit those who need it least.

Tactical, not political


The Times, London, Oct. 18

It has been reported that the United States had asked for about 650 British troops to be transferred to an area south of Baghdad, freeing the 24th Military Expeditionary Force for other duties, almost certainly fighting in the Sunni Triangle. While there had not been an official response from Downing Street, approval is likely to be forthcoming. The subsequent response has been little short of hysterical.

Nicholas Soames, the shadow defense secretary and emblem of Tory mediocrity, while not denouncing the idea, has given warning that it might be perceived as a “political gesture” by the prime minister to Mr. Bush before the U.S. presidential election next month. …

The Liberal Democrats have swiftly condemned the idea that British soldiers formally might be under American command. …

Such criticism is ridiculous. Furthermore, the claim that British forces are being switched around in an effort by Mr. Blair to boost the president’s re-election attempt is juvenile and demeaning. Does it really help Mr. Bush’s cause that U.S. troops are in need of “reinforcement”? It is the Iraqi polls in January, not the U.S. ballot next month, that is behind the timing of this redeployment. It is essential that a proper poll can be conducted in cities such as Fallujah, if at all possible, so that the will of the entire Iraqi people can be recorded at the ballot box. It makes sense for some seasoned British troops to take over certain responsibilities near Baghdad allowing the best U.S. soldiers to drive Abu Musab al- Zarqawi and his ilk from the country. …