By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

When Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, breezed through town last year, one of the things he had in his briefcase was copies of his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Simple enough. It is a pledge that candidates for office could sign promising that if elected they would not raise taxes.

On Aug. 30, 2002, candidate Linda Lingle became one of 13 candidates for governor across the nation to sign the pledge. She vowed to "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes."

Norquist put out a press release praising Lingle for her commitment to the taxpayers and pointedly noting that her Democratic opponent, Mazie Hirono, had not signed.

Well, there are campaigns, and there are the realities of running a state and all the problems and challenges it presents.

Which brings us to today. Chatting with reporters about the latest city-state plan for a $2.64 billion light-rail transit system, Lingle acknowledged the obvious: If the public decides it truly wants such a system, she said, "there will be some sort of a tax increase." And presumably, if she is still in office, there will be a tax increase not vetoed by Gov. Lingle. Granted, it will ultimately be a county tax, but state authorized nonetheless.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but there are echoes of the former President Bush's famous "Read my lips" declaration about no new taxes at his nominating convention. Once he became president, Bush saw the need for some kind of tax increase as part of an overall effort designed to get the federal budget under control.

His political opponents had a lot of fun with that, but in reality, Bush had little choice.

The same applies to Lingle. Yes, it was fun to campaign sternly on one's intention to oppose "any and all efforts to increase taxes" — but then there's reality.

Clearly, the governor knows she is in a bit of a contradictory box, but she obviously feels the public will understand: "If the trade-off is delivering a solution to the traffic problems, let each one of us be judged," she said.

Indeed, if Honolulu and state can come up with a true-blue solution to our traffic-congestion woes, then most voters almost certainly will understand the need for a modest tax to pay for it. It is a little like voter responses to polls asking if they would be willing to pay more taxes for substantial improvements to our schools.

The real point here is to take a lesson about campaign rhetoric and how much stock to put into it. There are undoubtedly at least a few people who voted for Lingle precisely because she said in writing that she would oppose any and all new taxes. A few others voted against Hirono because she was suspiciously silent on the question.

Do those voters who made their decision based on the no-tax pledge have a right to be disappointed? Of course.

Should they demand their money — er, their vote — back because a deal was broken? Probably not. But it will now be up to Lingle to prove to them and to other voters that her shift in position was based on what is best for the people, not on insincerity.

Jerry Burris is editor of The Advertiser's editorial pages. Reach him through letters@honoluluadvertiser.com.