Spending foes ought to listen to Lincoln.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Steve Novick For The Register-Guard

Abraham Lincoln is, of course, best known as the first presidential candidate to win Oregon. (We became a state in 1860 and made the right choice.) Then, of course, there was that whole business of freeing the slaves and winning the Civil War. But Abraham Lincoln should also be remembered as one of America's most eloquent explainers and defenders of the role of government.

In a July 1854 essay, Lincoln wrote: "Why ... should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away?"

He answered himself: "The legitimate object of government is to do for the people whatever they need to have done, but which they can not do, at all, or can not do, so well, for themselves - in their separate and individual capacities. ... There are many such things ... roads, bridges and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools ... the criminal and civil (justice) departments."

The remarkable thing about Lincoln's list is that it's a pretty good description of what Oregon government does today. "Common schools" are the biggest item in the state budget. Health care - care for the "afflicted" - and prisons and courts - "the criminal and civil departments" - are the other big-ticket items in the state general fund. Child protective services - for the "helpless young" - are part of the state budget, too. Our gas taxes pay for "roads, bridges and the like."

It may be 2005, but Oregon government isn't doing a lot of fancy, newfangled things; it's doing just about the same work government did in 1855.

In the same essay, Lincoln observed: "The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive." In other words: In government, as in life, you get what you pay for. That seemed obvious to Lincoln - but today, most supporters of government services probably would be too scared to be that blunt.

Lincoln's views on taxation were somewhat out of sync with modern Republicanism; he thought that the wealthier members of society should pay a good deal of the cost of government. As president, he enacted a progressive income tax. As an Illinois state legislator in 1839, he defended a proposed tax increase this way: "I believe it can be sustained, as it does not increase the tax upon the 'many poor,' but upon the 'wealthy few.' '

He added, with a touch of mischief: "The wealthy can not justly complain, because the change is equitable. ... If, however, the wealthy should, regardless of the justness of the complaint, as men often are, when interest is involved, complain of the change, it is still to be remembered that they are not sufficiently numerous to carry the elections."

One of the stated goals of Gov. Ted Kulongoski and state legislators is to "restore faith in government." Pollsters such as Adam Davis, of Oregon's Davis and Hibbitts firm, have observed that one problem with our politics today is that many voters don't really know what exactly state government does.

In an effort to address that problem, our leaders might consider employing using the simple, direct and eloquent language of Abraham Lincoln.

Steve Novick of Portland is communications director of Citizens for Oregon's Future, a nonprofit organization that seeks to provide reliable information about taxes and government budgets.