Legislators this year used a $540 million budget surplus to give them fortitude to pass a $118 million property tax relief bill while still being able to squirrel away $350 million for a quantity of rainy days. The tax relief and reserve were possible, even when the total state spending for the biennium is $6.3 billion.

Was that enough tax relief for North Dakotans, given the prospect of a healthy, growing economy and possibly the accumulation of a bigger surplus than at the beginning of 2007?

The question was not answered in full by the Legislature. The debate goes on, now fueled by a proposal to cut individual and corporation income taxes.

An advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, intends to initiate legislation by way of the ballot box to cut personal income tax by 50 percent and corporation income tax by 15 percent.

Whether that comes off to people as a sound, responsible action may be correlated most to their attitude toward government spending. That, and whether they have a stake in particular areas of state spending that are important to them - public education, for instance. Or human services. Or, or, or …

There may be few of us who are so impartial that we would pay no mind if spending on all programs and services were slashed by a certain percentage equally, across the board.

That begs the question of whether state spending should be cut or remain at the current level or whether programs and services should be funded more by the next Legislature - if it can be afforded.

Projections and reasonable economic forecasting notwithstanding, we simply can't know where the state's economy will be even two years in the future. Cutting off $280 million of expected state revenue from income taxes in taxable years 2009 and 2010 would be a serious decision to make, not knowing if revenue from oil and gas production and extraction taxes, for instance, will hold strong.

Most of us as taxpayers don't make a fine distinction between the components of our total tax burden, what we pay in property tax as being absolutely separate from state income tax. But it matters greatly to local governments and districts that depend on property tax as well as some of them that draw on sales tax, while state government is directly concerned with what we pay in income and sales taxes.

A reduction in income taxes would challenge state legislators' decisions on how to spend our money and what services and programs we get in return. That's not an unreasonable challenge to offer.

It's countered by the contention that our say in state spending comes at the polling place when we elect our representatives.

That verity won't stop people from believing strongly that we have the right to initiate policies that affect us and where our money goes, and how much of it should go to the state.

Doubtless, there will be 12,844 signatures on petitions collected by March 11. Once the ballot issue is initiated, then the real debate will begin.

The advocacy group's plan may not be a good one at all, but its existence should provoke mainstream Republicans and Democrats to come up with a better proposition.