County Must Weigh <i> All </i> Revenue Sources : Should Tax Hikes Be Seriously Considered? Absolutely

The depths of anti-government and anti-tax sentiment in Orange County have given it a special place on the national political map. Local candidates have reaped rewards from adherence to this general philosophy. But what about the depths of the fallout from the county’s declaration of bankruptcy? Is that a special case requiring a reconsideration of taxes as a way out of the woods?

Yes. As we argued two weeks ago, the county’s political leadership would be unwise to rule out new sources of revenue. Now, as the county tries to come to terms with its $172-million shortfall in the current fiscal year alone, a number of responsible groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Orange County Business Council are expressing some receptiveness to this option. In a Times Orange County poll published last weekend, most respondents said they believed a combination of tax increases, increased user fees and spending cuts would be necessary to help restore the county’s fiscal health.

Pollster Cheryl Katz observed that while a poll conducted after the county filed bankruptcy in December found that 80% of those surveyed opposed raising taxes to help recapture lost funds and only 17% were in favor, the passage of time has brought many residents to a more accepting position. The recent poll found 53% of respondents favoring raising taxes to maintain the current level of funding for public schools, for example. Interestingly, the recent poll found that 57% of respondents believed that the investment fund losses would hurt the quality of life in the county somewhat and 17% believed a lot.

Are the dreamers in the Hall of Administration, who would like to wish the county out of its predicament, listening? Surely they will hear heavy footsteps from those opposed to any new taxation to pay for the recovery. The idea of new taxes has received a very chilly reception on the Board of Supervisors. But if political support is a concern, putting the issue on the ballot has a lot to recommend it.

That would shift the decision on bearing the burden to residents. The estimate is that raising the tax half a percent could bring in an estimated $136.5 million annually. To implement it before March, 1996, the issue would have to be the subject of a special election after it received four votes from the supervisors.

The county’s political leadership also has balked at a bailout from Sacramento. The supervisors need to get in touch with reality. To make the necessary cuts would pare so deeply into county government as to seriously jeopardize services.

To cling to the “no taxes, period” position is unrealistic, and now it appears that stand is unsupported by many citizens. The county’s leaders should not play to the crowd that wants to dismantle government, viewing the county’s fiscal crisis opportunistically.

There also are other ways of raising new revenue, such as raising consumption taxes on alcohol and tobacco, taxes on hotel occupancy and entertainment, and document fees. It may be that the tax burden is heavy, but the economy has picked up and people have a sense of community spirit about getting the county back on track.

Look at these ideas, and, of course, look at trimming fat. There may be ways in which the county can come out leaner than before. But don’t wait for lightning to strike, either. Many citizens seem inclined to bite the bullet by assuming what could be a short-time extra burden. The county’s leaders should be as realistic as many of its people. Now is the time to unite the community in sacrifice and reclaim a bright future.