The right message.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Critics of Lane County's new income tax have variously depicted the three commissioners who voted last month to enact it as:

Mini-tyrants who, by enacting an income tax instead of putting it before voters, committed the mortal sin of "taxation without represen- tation."

Money-snorting camels who got caught poking their noses under the taxpayers' tent.

Arrogant empire builders who refused to accept voters' rejection of a proposed income tax last November and decided to ram it down taxpayers' throats anyway.

Serial tax-and-spenders who don't understand how to prioritize spending or make the county "live within its means."

Anyone who watched the county board debate the income tax Wednesday should understand that none of those stereotypes fits Commissioners Faye Stewart, Bobby Green and Bill Dwyer, who last month voted to enact the tax and on Wednesday to put it on the May ballot. In an intense late-afternoon session, the three commissioners, along with dissenters Peter Sorenson and Bill Fleenor, grappled with the wrenchingly difficult decision of how best to protect county government and the citizens to whom it provides essential services, ranging from corrections to public health.

By voting to refer the tax to voters, Stewart, Green and Dwyer chose the best option available. But it's also the most difficult, and one that could prove fatal to their political futures. Whether one agrees that the income tax is the proper way to deal with the possible loss of federal payments to timber counties, the three deserve respect for making a tough call under tremendous pressure.

Going into Wednesday's meeting, it was unclear how the board would vote. Last week, board Chairman Stewart indicated that commissioners would begin the process of repealing the tax in light of pending legislation that could extend the federal payments for one year - and in light of a referral movement that appeared likely to gather enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot in September.

But the board majority wisely recognized that repeal would be premature because of the possibility - some would suggest probability - that the county payments provision will not survive intact in Congress, especially given its inclusion in a controversial appropriations bill that includes a Democratic proposal requiring U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

Even if the federal payments are approved, they may end up significantly reduced from historic levels, leaving the county in the position of still having to make major budget cuts and layoffs.

By putting the tax on the May ballot, commissioners have ensured that they will know sooner rather than later if they can rely on the new tax to maintain existing services. If Congress extends the county payments program, then commissioners have pledged to make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the new tax, which, if voters so choose, would be capped under the county charter.

Repealing the tax would have severely limited the county's budgetary options. It also would have sent exactly the wrong message: That the county's elected leaders, who did the right thing by acting to preserve county government in the face of a financial crisis, could be intimidated by critics who came wielding threats, petitions and patently false stereotypes.