Let Alaskans vote on an income tax

While our betters in the Democrat-led state House coalition approved a stiff, progressive state income tax — puckishly naming it the Education Funding Act — and our friends on the left scramble to rally support for it, the Senate thankfully is balking.

While Democrats and their fellow travelers eye your paycheck, the GOP-led Senate has other plans. It aims to cut government's size further, even trimming — gasp! — education. It wants to restructure the Permanent Fund to help close the gap. What it does not want is an income tax.

Gov. Bill Walker, already in the bag for a broad-based levy — read income tax — is offering to help resolve the differences between House and Senate leaders. Right. The political left claims Alaskans really, really support such a tax. Those on the right know that is nonsense — and they are correct.

[House-passed income tax bill now in Senate]

The House coalition, undeterred by what ordinary Alaskans want and unfettered by good sense, is unwilling to concede anything when it comes to its deficit-reduction package. It includes a restructured Permanent Fund, a hefty income tax and higher oil taxes. The coalition's plan? Wait for the Senate to cave in.

Anchorage Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux, one of the coalition's three Republican henchpeople, even warns that if the Senate thinks it can get away with simply restructuring the Permanent Fund as a fiscal fix, it's "got another thing coming," whatever that means.

There is a way out. Instead of prolonging the misery, why not give Alaskans the last word? It is, after all, their pockets LeDoux & Co. want to pick. Why not an up-or-down vote on an income tax? Make it advisory, if necessary, but set a vote. When the ballots are counted, voilà, we will have our answer.

It is easy to understand why Democrats and their fellow travelers — with voracious appetites for taxes of all kinds — might balk at allowing the hoi polloi to vote on an income tax. Despite the left's repeated claims Alaskans would embrace one, a recent Dittman Research poll for the Alaska Chamber indicates otherwise.

It found 58 percent of the poll's respondents opposed such a tax. (Dittman Research, by the way, gets a 100 percent rating for "races called correctly" in Nate Silver's 538 Pollster Ratings.)

That poll of 808 likely voters across Alaska asked what they would support to help close the budget gap. In addition to rejecting an income tax, they nixed using some of the Permanent Fund, or increasing the fuel tax — even if home heating fuel were excluded. The only levy they liked was a statewide sales tax. It won 53 percent support.

[Alaska House votes to levy income tax, sending bill to a hostile Senate]

They have ample reason to reject an income tax. If adopted, there is no turning back. It would be forever — and grow. Worse, citizens would lose any modicum of control over state spending by giving government automatic access to money.

Alaska, one of seven states without an income tax, once had one. It did what income taxes do. It was established in 1949 at 10 percent of a taxpayer's federal income tax liability. By 1975, it was changed to progressive, with a top rate of 14.5 percent. It was repealed in 1980 as oil dollars flooded Alaska. That is unlikely to happen again.

Connecticut, per capita the richest state in the union, is a shining example of taxes and spending run amok. It has the nation's third-highest tax burden, the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says, imposing an average 12 percent tax at the state and local level combined. Twenty-six years ago, the Nutmeg State had no employment-based income tax. In 1991, it adopted a 4 percent income and investment levy. Today that tax is 6.7 percent and there are a hosts of others.

And spending? George Mason University's Mercatus Center pegs Connecticut as the state in the worst fiscal condition — and second only to Puerto Rico. The Tax Foundation ranks it as one of the 10 worst in which to do business. "Governing" magazine says its economy is the 42nd worst in the nation. Spurred by a $2 billion tax hike, 26 percent of its companies are considering moving out.

There are lessons in all that for those who would accept taxes and surrender control over spending.

Truly controlling government spending requires "starving the beast," cutting revenues to cut spending. Giving lawmakers guaranteed and limitless tax income only sends spending and taxing into an economy-breaking cycle.

The Senate gets that, but the House coalition, bent on protecting funding for union teaching and government jobs, never will agree.

Senators likely will take a hellacious beating from the left and its propaganda machine, but they must stand their ground. Resolution of the income tax question will decide Alaska's fate and future; whether it will be something to be proud of, or another Connecticut.

Let Alaskans decide.

Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com, a division of Pocaro Communications.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com.