“Someday” is a projection of hope, usually overly optimistic and unrealistic (someday I’ll be an astronaut; someday I’ll wash my car; someday ice-cream will be calorie-free).

But someday need not be such a pipedream.

In New York, Doug Cunningham of the Times Herald-Record (serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills) explains why voters will revolt against vague taxes, specific bonds sooner rather than later.

Someday, I don't know when, three things serendipitously will coincide. They are: A groundswell of public outrage. An election. A slate of candidates that's committed to doing the right thing and not the easy thing. I'm not optimistic this is the year, but it's coming.

Friday, Gov. George Pataki – increasingly, a Republican in name only, even if the Republicans do someday return to their successful big-tent strategy – put out the word that he "pledged his strong support to the $2.9 billion Rebuild and Renew New York Transportation Bond Act of 2005."…

I wonder why the sales pitch for this bond act mostly boils down to this: It won't be wasted in the maw of bureaucracy. It won't be frittered away on government junk and useless programs. It will do good things, like build critical roads and repair bridges before they fall down. Therefore, you should approve it.

Call me a Neanderthal. But when did it get to be standard practice that bond acts should be approved because the money won't be wasted? Shouldn't we expect that the vast preponderance of our tax dollars not be wasted? For that matter, shouldn't a government like New York state's, with a state budget larger than that of a lot of countries, be able to pay for the roads and bridges and trains without an extra tax on the people? Where does all of that tax money go, anyway? Can't we fix the bridges before they're about to fall down?

Good questions Doug; why is government inanity waste a foregone conclusion? It shouldn’t be, and it doesn’t have to be.

Just look at Colorado where a Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) was passed in 1992 (after a groundswell of public outrage similar to that described by Doug): since then, the government has been restrained by a strict tax and expenditure limit based on reasonable growth and fair taxation. The result has been an exceptionally successful protection regime that shielded Colorado from recession and crippling debt; yet, as is so often the case, special interests are crying foul.
Referendum C & D, going to the voters on November 1^st, are the cleverly disguised wolves in sheep’s clothing.  Referendum C, which would temporarily lift the spending limits on state government imposed by TABOR, would allow the state to keep up to $3.7 billion in taxpayer money that would otherwise be refunded. Referendum D would allow the state to borrow up to $2.1 billion for roads, school maintenance, pensions and other projects.

But just like Doug says in his article, why does the government need more money? Where does the money go? How 'bout instead of spending taxpayer money on booze and prostitutes for Colorado co-eds, the government earmark that money for bridges and roads…that seems reasonable, right?

Just because ice-cream will never be zero calories doesn't mean government will always have zero accountability.