The year 2002 has been a rough one for public employees. Our pension funds and 401(k)s have been on a long journey south, the economy has been looking for the bottom of a recession and tax revenues have shrunken to the point where every state budget is written in red.

Whether these events were due to Sept. 11, politicians giving away the surplus, a natural downturn in the economic cycle, the greed and misdeeds of corporate executives or some other phenomenon is of little relevance--now. The fact is, public employees are the focal point in budget solutions that are based on cuts rather than thoughtful policymaking about the services needed, the services provided and the revenue base that pays for it all.

In 2002, budget balancing took on many forms. Michigan offered a broad early retirement package as a humane way of cutting state government but is now faced with the task of providing expected services with fewer people. In my state, Wisconsin, across-the-board cuts were mandated, resulting in layoffs and reduced services. In fact, 41 revenue-generating positions in the department of revenue were eliminated. While those cuts saved Wisconsin a few million dollars in salaries and benefits, they reduced revenue potential by more than $60 million. Minnesota and Ohio also initiated broad cuts, but both had the foresight to actually add revenue-generating positions.

One bright light in 2002 came from New Jersey. Gov. James McGreevey, facing a $5.2 billion shortfall, hired some of the nation's top economists and tax policy analysts to review the revenue bases to determine if the state's tax system was fair and equitable. In McGreevey's words, the review found that "É the corporate business tax, as presently enforced, is inequitable to the hard-working middle-class families of the state."As a result, New Jersey closed scores of tax loopholes and revamped its corporate business tax.

Much like New Jersey, Wisconsin has seen a consistent reduction in corporate participation in the tax system. In the total mix of taxes collected by Wisconsin, corporate income tax collections have dropped from 11.3 percent of the total in 1979 to less than 5 percent in 2002. Residential property taxes during that same time increased from 54 percent of all property taxes collected to 68 percent. The beneficiaries of these changes are the corporations doing business in Wisconsin.

In 2002, New Jersey was the exception to the policymaking rule. Unfortunately, elsewhere in the country, policymakers who favor reducing the size of government and its related services to the level of revenue are winning the debate. But they are not working on a solution.

As public employees, one question we must bring to the forefront of debate in 2003 is: Can the tax system be examined and changed to ensure fairness and equity and provide the revenues needed to support quality public services? We hope the answer to that question is yes.

We must move debate away from tax increases to tax fairness and equity. If corporations are no longer allowed to bid on tax breaks, if tax loopholes like incorporating offshore are closed and if aggressive accounting practices used by the likes of Enron, Tyco and so on are challenged, we may approach tax fairness and equity for working families. And like New Jersey, tax fairness and equity also may provide sufficient revenues to close budget gaps, ensuring continuation of the services we provide.

In order for public employees to change public policy debate, however, we must engage in it. We must organize and mobilize our members so we speak with a collective voice on behalf of the services we provide and the clients we serve. We must educate lawmakers and the public about what is at stake if tax inequity continues and services are cut. If we do not demand a fair and equitable tax system for all, the corporate voice will continue to influence and shape public policy and the governments we serve.