DATE: Friday, October 10, 1997              TAG: 9710100029

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B11  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Opinion 

SOURCE: Keith Monroe 

                                            LENGTH:   85 lines

TAX CUT SOUND BITES MODERN CAMPAIGNS DEBASE THE DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE

For those who missed the Beyer-Gilmore debate this week, here's a Cliff's Notes version.

VCU President Trani: What an honor to host this historic debate that allows all Virginians to witness democracy in action.

Beyer: If you like pedophiles, pollution and Pat Robertson, vote for my opponent. If you want fast money from a car tax reduction, I'm your man.

Gilmore: Liar, liar. Flip-flopper. Naysaying liberal. I'm the one with the big tax cuts.

Beyer: Dishonest extremist. You let perverts out on the street. I'll cut car taxes faster.

Gilmore: Polluting Volvo dealer. You opposed ending parole. I'll cut car taxes deeper.

Beyer: Faster.

Gilmore: Deeper.

Beyer and Gilmore: And we'll have the best schools in the universe - cheap.

When you discount the mudslinging as mere static, it's obvious that the race for governor of Virginia has congealed into a one-note contest to see who can promise the bigger tax cuts.

Ever since 1978's Proposition 13 in California, the secret to electoral success has been to promise tax cuts. Woe betide the candidate who won't play.

But there's still no free lunch. As a U.S. Supreme Court justice long ago remarked, taxes are the price we pay for civilization. The question is how much civilization we want, or can afford.

Of course, government can get too big and overbearing. It can waste money shamelessly, often by catering to the electorate's whims. I certainly have no problem conceding the conservative premise that at some point people are overtaxed and it's bad for them and the society they inhabit.

But the logical counterpoint is also worth noting. At some point people can be undertaxed, and the consequences of that can be equally bad. Instead of vying to promise the biggest free lunch, it would be refreshing to hear candidates acknowledge that some taxation is necessary because some government programs are desirable.

Once that point is conceded, the debate can shift to how to create a fair and efficient tax system and which government services should be provided in a streamlined manner. Instead, candidates encourage voters to have contempt for the common good and exalt self-aggrandizement as the chief virtue.

The idea that ``that government is best that taxes least'' is the politics of the me generation. The catch phrase of the day is: Taxes are the people's money and the government should give it back to them - or not take it in the first place.

OK. Let's suppose the government gave back all the money and went out of business. How long could the people keep their money? Or keep earning it? If there were no taxes, there would be no police, no military, no courts or prisons. No rule of law, in short. No bulwark against invasion from without or predation from within. A struggle where man is a wolf to man could ensue.

With no public roads, ports, tunnels, bridges, airports, water and sewer systems, commerce would grind to a halt. With no public schools or universities, no regulation of food and drugs, no public hospitals, Social Security or Medicare men could quickly return to a state of nature in which life, as Hobbes noted, is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

Sounds a tad Medieval.

So maybe some government is needed and some taxes must be levied to support it. Governments are instituted among men to build roads, hire cops, field a military and educate children. That is, in the words of the Preamble, to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. That may sound suspiciously liberal, but it was good enough for Madison.

Unfortunately, poll-driven candidates believe the way to win elections is to show voters the money, to pander to the baser impulses of the electorate with the promise of ever-bigger free lunches. They shirk the duty of leadership: to identify community needs and build a consensus so individuals agree willingly to contribute to the common good.

And, in fact, citizens aren't as babyish as the politicians suppose. They aren't just a collection of appetites. People know that today's free lunch has to be paid for tomorrow, that the low taxes of today will have a high cost if bought at the expense of adequate roads and schools.

There are polls that show votes will choose services they deem essential to a decent life for themselves and a prosperous future for their children, but don't hold your breath waiting for a campaign based on those polls. You can't make a rational case for deferred gratification and enlightened self-interest in a 30-second sound bite, a sneer or a smear. MEMO: Mr. Monroe is editor of the editorial page of The Virginian-Pilot.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu