Molly Ivins October 26

NEW YORK — It's always interesting to see the consequences of bad policy decisions. This is also known as watchin' the chickens come home to roost.

Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey was the toast of Republican circles a few years ago; she cut state income taxes by 30 percent, and boy-o-boy, was that ever popular. Everyone likes a tax cut — and a nice, big, fat one you can see in your paycheck is the very best kind.

And of course, in order to cut taxes, you have to cut spending, so down went the state's contribution to the schools. And up went the share of school bills to be paid by local governments, which then raised property taxes through the roof to make up for what the state is no longer spending. Property taxes in Jersey are now so high that there's a new tax rebellion underway, which is taking the form of kicking Whitman out of office.

Whitman is now even-steven in a race with a Democrat no one ever heard of. She may yet pull out a victory, since she has stopped running the unfortunate ads that showed her strolling around her posh family estate and switched to vintage Bill Clintonism instead. Her new ads show her feeling our pain and telling us she GOT the message.

It is hard to resist a little moralizing here — in fact, why bother? What goes around comes around. When the feds cut taxes and dump problems on the states, state taxes go up. When the states cut taxes and dump problems on the locals, local taxes go up. For those who are ideologically committed to the proposition that all big government is bad, this "devolution" is a desirable end.

The problem is, as Donna Shalala recently observed, this makes justice an accident of geography. Some states are rich and are willing to raise taxes to pick up slack left by the feds. Others aren't. Some school districts have so many zillions in assessed valuation that they can afford to bump property taxes without driving homeowners to despair. Others don't and can't.

Of course, New Jersey could do what California did 30 years ago and cap property taxes.

That was a really brilliant move. Not only has it created staggering inequities in California property taxes, but it has also produced one of the single saddest consequences of stupid public policy ever seen.

California once had the finest system of public education in the nation and possibly the best in the world, from kindergarten through graduate school. It was the pride of the state and the engine that fueled the economy. California's schools now rank 47th in the country. All art, music and theater programs, anything considered a "frill," is long gone. School libraries are closing; buildings are coming apart; classes are huge. The very middle-class citizens who once complained so about a thousand dollars in property taxes now spend $10,000 a year to send their children to private schools because the public schools are in such terrible shape. "Dumb" barely begins to cover it.

Undeterred by the evidence that stupid public policy has terrible consequences, the Republicans in Congress have just given us another dose. Tax-free savings accounts for education sound like a dandy idea — kind of hard to see why anyone would be against it.

Think about it a little longer. As Education Secretary Richard Riley said, "They are trying to sell the American people a regressive tax policy masquerading as something good for education." The bill, approved by the House on a 230-198 vote Thursday, allows parents to place up to $2,500 a year for each child into a special savings account for educational expenses, including private or parochial school, tutoring, computer classes, etc.

This sounds fine, but according to the Treasury Department, most of the benefits will go to — surprise — wealthy families. A family making less than $50,000 would get a tax cut of $2.50, which won't buy your kid a box of crayons. Know any working-class families that have $2,500 to sock into a savings account? Meanwhile, the Treasury is out $600 million.

The weird thing about the Republican arguments on this bill is that they're pitched on grounds of "fairness." They claim that the bill will help working-class parents, whose kids are stuck in bad public schools, send their children to private schools just like rich folks do. Excuse me, but wouldn't it be smarter to fix the public schools? It would sure cost parents a lot less.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.