?Both the sena? tor anal the governor are advocating a statewsponsored interruption of a private contract between the trash hauler (who has the garbage) and a land?ll operator (who has the space for the garbage). ??Milee Pence CONSTRAINED VISIONS groups operating independently, doing what they do best? Is anonymity to be admired over involvement in the giving process? I think not. If anything, such trends only undermine the direct relationship between donor and donee. Where donors contribute indiscriminately without specific purpose or norms, and where donees spend. without reference to donor expectations, there can be no authentic accountability. It is the reason William Aramony got away with what he did, and it is the reason his dismissal only obscures the real problem of the United Way, which is one of over?centralization and bureaucratiza- tion. The fact that Aramony?s lavish spending so offends contributors suggests they agree the organization no longer represents their interests or respects their intentions. The good thing is, United Wast donors can do something about it. They can take their charitable dollars and give them to the groups they want to support. They can take an active interest in their dOnees? activities and monitor how their funds are spent. By becoming more discriminating givers, they can contribute to a more responsible, dynamic and responsive non-profit sector. Michael 5. foyce is chainnan of the indianapotis? based Philanthropy Roanatahie. THE POLITICS OF SOLE) WASTE German Jews of the 49305 would know exactly what to call the Coats-Bayh assault on the private property of unpopular individuals engaged in an unpopular enterprise. by MIKE FENCE Indianapolis (May 15}? Out-of?state trash: Nobody likes it, and Indiana politicians, on both sides of the aisle, love to hate it. For starters, Sen. Dan Coats recently decried a Supreme Court decision which held that Alabama could not impose a higher tax for . out-ofwstate trash than it charges for in~state trash. In deciding the case, justice Byron White articulated a powerful defense of the private enterprise and the Commerce Clause of the US. Constitution stating, ?no state may isolate itself from a problem common to the several states by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade.? Despite a reputed predisposition in sup- port of the free ?ow of interstate trade, Senator Coats has called for iminediate action in the Congress saying, ?Until the Congress acts, the Court will continue to invoke the Commerce Clause to deny states the authority to control their own borders from the ?ow of out?of?state trash." The senator has also introduced legislation in the well of Congress in restraint of the free ?ow of trash between the several states. He did so ostensibly in fulfillment of campaign commercials featuring his opposition to an obese garbage-collector dropping New Jere sey trash on the front stoop of unsuspecting Hoosiers. More recently, after a series of failed legal actions, Gov. Evan Bayh fired the latest volley in the war against outuofwstate trash. He closed the operation of an Allen County offender who was one of Only three landfills still accepting the unwashed refuse of New Jersey and beyond. Bayh applauded the ingenuity of admin? istration officials who found an error in paperwork sufficient to terminate the opera- tiOn until voluntary commitments to refuse out-of?state trash were secured. Thus for the past two years Hoosiers have been treated to a bipartisan assault, not on out-of?state trash, but rather on their private property and constitutional right to engagein free enterprise across state lines. The issues, while clouded by high?minded nationalism to the Right and environmentalism to the Left, have been nothing short of a state-sponsored attack on the private enterprise of certain Hoosiers those who dare to conduct politically unpopular, albeit legal, businesses during an election year. Recall that both the senator and the gov- ernor are advocating a state-sponsored in? terruption of a private contract between the trash hauler (who has the garbage) and a landfill operator (who has the space for the garbage). There is no coercion here. This is a simple contract between a Hoosier and an outvof-state hauler that presents no imminent threat to the public-at-large. . The issues come into high relief when one lifts the unpopular business of land?ll op? eration out of the equation and replaces it with, say, a German bank owned by an objectionable religious minority in the year 1930. The operation of the bank was legal, but the operation, and the operator, were PAGE TWENTY CONSTRAINED VISIONS politically unpopular. Then, as now, various legislative and administrative initiatives were brought to bear on the elimination of the offending businesses and their prOprietors. Then, as now, the power of the state was brought to bear to coerce a legal, but politi- cally unpopular, business out of existence. Is the example too extreme? Not when history teaches that private property and personal liberty are inextricably linked. That?s precisely why our forefathers wrote the Commerce Clause into the Constitution. Let?s hOpe Indiana?s politicians become as inter- ested in guarding our freedom as they are in guarding our garbage dumps. Michael R. Pence ispresidenr of the foundation. CORT: ATAX FOR THE 19905 ine??icient City govemmenis are trying to throw out a bigger fox net. iheir argu? ment is escaping burdensome levies unfair. by DOUGLAS KMIEC South Bend (March 26 Some local government officials just don?t get it. Hoosiers are overtaxed. Bob Beutter, who we thought knew better, has thrown in with the tax?and- spend crowd in support of new county option income taxes (COIT). Mishawaka Mayor Beutter and South Bend Mayor Joe Keman and (some years ago) Fort Wayne Mayor Paul Helmke say there is just no other choice. At a time of high unemployment and little or no wage increases, the local gov- ernment boys have taken a play from inside the Washington beltway to propose, unsuc- cessful so far, a St. Joe County Income Tax. ?It?s only one percent,? they say. ?Won?t cost much, just $1 50 per year or so for the average John Doe." Uhmhuh. Haven?t we heard this all before? When is the last time a tax stayed at a low level or decreased after it had been authorized? Our good mayors try to soft-peddle their incredulous pronouncement by proclaiming that a new county income tax is the most equitable way to finance government ser- vices, and that in any event, adopting a new income tax on county residents will be offset by a credit against the property tax. Well, let?s take a closer look at those astounding prOpositions. First, the business of ?no other choice." Gee, Bob and Joe and Paul, most private citizens who want to spend more than they have, end up reducing spending. You'd be surprised how few of us conclude that our ?only choice? is to rob our neighbors to underwrite our expenditures. Already cut to the bone, you say? Really now. I bet if a blue-ribbon panel of business leaders were formed to audit the South Bend and Mishawaka and Fort Wayne municipal budgets, a cut or two might be found, maybe even in a few nettlesorne regulatory depart- ments. But let?s assume that ?services? would have to be cut without additional revenue. What services are we talking about? And how much are we paying for each of these now? Are we sure that providing them through municipal government is the least costly? It sure would help us to be bornvagain citizens to see a breakdown of exactly where each present tax-dollar goes. . And on the subject of cost and quality, numerous studies have shown that a great many services presently provided by mu? nicipalities can be contracted out to private firms at a fraction of the cost. This not only reduces municipal budgets without a tax increase, your honors, but it also.increases citizen choice and value. Citizens can choose which services to enjoy and select from a number of providers competing for their business. The laws of economics suggest that breaking the public monopoly on municipal services lowers cost and increases quality. There is another plus to contracting out it?s far more equitable than levying income taxes on people who don?t take advantage of municipal services or who use them in dif- ferent proportions. Contracting out allows, in essence, for user fees. Businesses that need special trash-hauling or environmental services pay more; homeowners with far less need, pay less. Our pro-income tax mayors tout the ?equity? of an income tax, saying that only those with jobs will pay. Making people pay more tax because they labor is? hardly equi- table; far better, to make people pay for what they use. Nothing more, nothing less. By the way, since we're on the subject of equity, let?s cut out the nonsense about prOperty taxes being reduced in exchange for your prOposed new income tax. Property-tax assessments in StJoe county over the last few PAGE ?Mostpn?vnte citizens who want to spend more than they have, end up reducing spend? ing. You?d he surprised how few of us con- clude that our ?oniy choice? is to rob our neighbors to nndemrire onr- expenditures. Kmiec