Oregon voters have raised taxes on the richest among them.

In the words of Willie Stark in "All the King's Men," they chose to soak the fat boys and spread it out thin. Or in the words of millionaire Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, they engaged in "class warfare."

Whatever their motivation, they chose raising taxes on corporations and households making more than $250,000 instead of closing schools early, laying off teachers and slashing the social safety net.

These are the same Oregon voters who limited regulatory taking and property taxes, rejected a sales tax and turned down new income taxes. It's not like they love taxes.

Voters made this choice despite warning from business leaders that the tax increases would drive away entrepreneurs and force existing businesses to slash jobs.

Don't hold your breath for a similar vote in Idaho. The initiative was pushed by the state's public employee unions, who worked hard to make the case to voters that protecting schools and services would protect the economy as much as low taxes.

Idaho's unions are politically toothless, thanks to the passage of the "Right to Work" law in the state in the 1980s. Idaho lawmakers are actually talking about cutting taxes for the rich based on the hope it will create jobs.

So Oregon's vote, coupled with Idaho's deep cuts in education, social services and all state government services, gives people on both sides of the issue a real chance to prove who is right. Will the state that raises taxes to protect schools and services do better economically than the state that keeps taxes low?

Will Idaho place billboards on Oregon's Interstate 5 saying "Come to the state of low taxes on the rich and corporations?" I heard some lobbyists say this might be a real opportunity.

All across the West, other states are struggling with the same problems because states have to balance their budgets.

Oregon pioneered the initiative process of direct legislation where voters, not elected lawmakers, make the laws. While a legislator in 1898, William S. U'Ren, led the effort to give voters the chance for initiatives and referendums.

He led the effort to expand it to local governments with a constitutional amendment in 1906. Under his leadership, Oregonians banned free railroad passes, made U.S. Senate election by popular vote instead of by the Legislature, established a presidential primary and gave voters the power to recall officials.

If Idaho Republicans are right, then our state should directly benefit as businesses choose to come here instead of staying in a place that will hit them with taxes. If Oregon Democrats are right, those businesses will stay because the leaders and employees have kids in school.

Rocky Barker: 377-6484