'Stakes High in Vote on $2.9 Billion Bond Act."

That is how one newspaper headline recently described the transportation proposition - No. 2 - on the Nov. 8 ballot.

 I would submit the headline understates the situation. At issue in the bond act is not only whether improving the state's transit network justifies adding to the state's heavy debt burden. What's also at stake is survival of the shaky political will to take unpopular but responsible stands.

Most of us know that paying up front to maintain public facilities, amenities and services is preferable to borrowing to pay for them. Long-term capital improvements are another matter. But often - and this is true of Proposition 2 - the line between capital and maintenance is blurred. For example, is "reconstruction" of Route 347 at Smithtown, Route 112 at Brookhaven, Korean Veterans Parkway on Staten Island and Highway 17 in Binghamton not simply another way of disguising deferred maintenance?

Polls have shown the public has no problem investing in public services through taxation. The catch is that the taxes, if they are to be imposed on income, must be perceived as fair, proportionate to what a person can afford. Such a progressive tax has long been a non-starter in New York. Instead, the state has accumulated one of the highest bonded debts among its 49 counterparts and the second worst credit rating next to California's. A less noted consequence of this consistent pay-later policy is that polls now indicate New Yorkers have become favorably disposed to momentarily painless borrowing.

What can account for that change in attitude? Habit may be one answer; despair or exhaustion another. "In a two-party system," writes historian Howard Zinn, "if both parties ignore public opinion, there is no place voters can turn."

The two-party disregard of public opinion on taxation can be traced to the 1976 United States Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited amounts of money to be used in political races. Within two years, elected officials were responding to contributors with vested interests - rather than to constituents. William Greider assesses the situation in his book, "Who Will Tell the People? The Betrayal of American Democracy":

"For those who blame Republicans for what has happened and believe that equitable taxation will be restored if only the Democrats can win back the White House, there is this disquieting fact: The turning point on tax politics, when the monied elite first began to win big, occurred in 1978 with the Democratic Party fully in power and well before Ronald Reagan came to Washington. Democratic majorities have supported this great shift in tax burden every step of the way."

When both parties support a policy - such as tax cuts for special interests instead of fair-share tax increases - the news media cannot be faulted for amplifying the bipartisan position over that of anyone who opposes the policy. Favorable publicity and tireless politicians explain why the Transportation Bond Act is being promoted so effectively. At a political meeting in Manhattan recently, the state Senate's deputy minority leader had his promotional pitch interrupted. A questioner asked why having people pay a little more in income taxes wouldn't be preferable to the bond issue. The senator, Democrat Eric Schneiderman, replied like a Republican. "New Yorkers already pay high taxes," he said.

"Will a raise in the income tax continue to be off the table," a follow-up questioner asked, "if a Democratic governor is elected next year?"

"Tax revision, maybe," replied Schneiderman. The implication concerning a tax increase was clear - not a chance.

Some years ago, a leader of the budding European Union predicted that the United States would reawaken to the value of taxation as an instrument of "social cohesion," bringing Americans of all classes and races together in improved schools, efficient trains, clean parks and on well-maintained beaches.

A vote against the bond act will surely not be a vote for tax-encouraged social cohesion. But it may slow the trend to what is becoming political dogma: Do anything to avoid having to invoke the "t-word."

Commentary:
"The two-party disregard of public opinion on taxation can be traced to the 1976 United States Supreme Court decision that allowed unlimited amounts of money to be used in political races." Yet another reason to stop conservatives from being on the Supreme Court. The Court has become an enemy of our democracy because it's conservative. Period.

We can't find anyone in the media willing to take-on the tax cuts republicans pass (which create record deficits) because they're too busy pushing the GOP agenda. While it's true democrats made mistakes in the late 1970's, it's illogical to suggest they're responsible for the massive increase in debt since the Reagan tax cuts. We know with absolute certainty that the GOP is incapable of governing responsibly and it's highly likely the democrats don't want to change the status quo either. So, more of the same can be expected for the foreseeable future no matter who controls congress. As President Clinton recently said (paraphrased); 'Democrats should fight for something or go home.