Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, March 22, 1994                   TAG: 9403260005
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: NORM FINTEL
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

IF WE WERE KINDER, WE COULD BE LESS TAXED

To the degree that we do not respond to needs that can be met locally, but shove them up one or more rungs on the ladder of responsibility - to that degree we are inviting outside forces, whether government or competition, to shape our destiny.

I could use the homeless and needy as an example, but let me use one most people do not think of. Our nation has always honored the teacher. Through much of our early history, the teacher was next to the preacher and the doctor as an important person in the community. Salaries were never high for teachers, but social rewards were there, and support for the teacher's task was there.

Somehow after World War II, the image of the teacher faded. Who knows why? And does it matter?

It could have been faulty educational paradigms. It could have been our preoccupation with reorganizing schools and school districts so that they would be - get this - larger and more efficient. It could have been our fascination with the exploding world of technology. When Sputnik appeared, we tended to blame our schools for not producing a ``first'' in space. It could have been our preoccupation with post-Depression financial well-being.

It could have been ... well, you name it.

It could have been all of these, but behind it all I suspect that we, you and I, delegated too much of our responsibility and authority - not to the teacher, but to school boards, principals, vice principals, superintendents and all the specialists you can name. We generally pay these people well, but those who teach your children on the front line of the classroom are still at the bottom of the reward system.

In the '50s and '60s, when pay scales were rising everywhere, we let teachers' pay lag. Recruiting good students to enter teaching became more and more difficult. Keeping good teachers in the classroom is just as hard. So many people I talk to say, "I started out in teaching," and then go on say they just couldn't make it.

Why is this so not only in education but for many of the functions of government? One reason is that we lose sight of what is most important: not low taxes, but needed results.

We instead blame government for inefficiencies and decide that "no new taxes" is the solution. We forget that we are to blame for our lack of participation in government, for not going to the polls, for not getting involved in politics at the local level. "The government" is made the scapegoat.

Believe me, it makes a great scapegoat, but we need a mirror to understand government. It is not hard to see why the Founding Fathers wanted a government of checks and balances, and why so many fought for the principles inherent in "that government governs best that governs least."

Some argue that we are afflicted with a loss of values, or of losing a sense of national purpose. The problems at root are there, but we will not solve those problems without a grass-roots revival involving all of us.

I do not propose a return to the past, but a going-forward to rediscover the values and purposes that should drive our generation and the next into a more just and peaceful society.

It is not enough to say "no new taxes." We must ask whether our governments - we - are confronting the basic issues and problems, and whether they are doing so in ways that will improve the quality of life for all.

If I avoid all taxes and can live a good life, but let my brother and sister be in need, what is my reward?

If I let taxes go up and do not know what they purchase or whether they address the real needs of the people, what is my reward?

If I do not run for office or support those who do, or bother to go to the polls, what is my reward?

I realize that all the world is about as perfect as I am. That means I cannot assume that all will always go well with government. Nor can I assume that the most strident voices are right. Sometimes we need a "mute" button for those strident voices, so we can hear a more timid person saying, "I think we ought to raise taxes so that we will have better schools, fewer homeless and needy, more jobs and health care for everyone."

Let us be relentless in our insistence that all of society's institutions perform up to some reasonable standard of excellence, but let us not diminish the hopes and education of those who cannot at the moment help themselves.

Let us pay for the needy right here at home. Dollars sent to Washington to buy programs are heavily discounted by the weight of bureaucracy. A dollar spent locally would account for at least two sent by way of either the state or the federal government.

Better yet, adopt a homeless family for the year. Give someone a job. Train someone for a job. Teach someone to read. Give someone a reason to hope. If you go to church, make sure your church remembers its mission. If you do not go to church, use the 10 percent you save to do something on your own.

I think I know human nature well enough to know that few will respond to the request to tithe (or even to give 1 percent). If that's true, we must continue to rely on our governments, which have power to assess your resources, to bring in the dollars needed to assure that justice and mercy are indeed values we as a nation still hold dear.

I propose a law that would give a double tax-exemption to all gifts to churches and charities where those agencies devote the bulk of their energy and resources to those in need. If, as I say, it costs $2 in taxes to buy $1 of local effort, both the government and charity would come out ahead.

We might even solve some of the problems of homelessness, hunger and health. We might even have a truly bright new vision for the 21st century.

Norm Fintel is retired president of Roanoke College.