Well, former President George Bush should have disabused anyone of that notion when he infamously betrayed his "No New Taxes" pledge.

Sure enough, the GOP continues to be consistent only in its inconsistency on taxes. You would think that it would be in their interest to take a firmer stance.

For example, in 1999, Virginia Republicans cut taxes and won. On the other hand, in Nassau County, New York, they raised taxes--just before the election, the Republican- controlled legislature pushed through a 9% property tax hike that was intended to take care of the deficit problems.

Think about it. The party of No New Taxes right before election day doesn't cut its own salary--or chop waste--or find other creative ways to fix the problem.

Instead, they raise voters' taxes.

So of course the Democrats--for the first time in the county's history--took over the legislature.

To be sure, that won't help taxpayers. Now, the party that never met a tax it didn't like is in charge.

Problem is, there really is no party that can be relied on to cut your taxes.

The question Nassau County residents must ask themselves is why would a party commit political suicide like that. And the disturbing answer is--they must have felt they could get away with it.

The voters did not make it clear that they would not tolerate such a huge tax increase.

Taxpayers must never waver in their disdain for taxes. Taxes are a necessary evil--up to a point. And then they become an unnecessary evil. You must make it clear to the politicians that we have reached this point.

What awaits you after the next election? It's always hard to say. Because you can't trust what candidates tell you during the campaign.

Even if the Republicans win big in both the White House and the Congress, their desire to cut taxes--and the degree of a mandate they have--will depend on how much of an issue they make of tax cuts in the campaign.

Some Republican candidates, like Steve Forbes, do make cutting taxes a high priority.

But the likely GOP nominee, George W. Bush, will probably only play the issue up when and if he has to garner conservative support. His heart will be in it no more than his father's was. And we see where that got us.

Under the successful initiative--Initiative 695--voters have veto power over increases in any state or local tax, any government fee, and any rate increase for a government-run utility. In addition, the initiative replaces the state's outrageous car tax with a relatively low $30 fee. The cost to the state of all these cuts is estimated to be $750 million.

But Washington taxpayers should realize that the fight isn't over.

It's only just begun.

Tax-and-spend advocates are attacking the initiative in court. Even if they lose in court, they will relentless search for loopholes in the new law. They will furiously grasp for other sources of taxes not covered by the new rules. And they will continue to try to defeat it election after election.

And of course they will mount a continuous effort to trash the law in the media. Every problem, every pothole, every homeless person, every murder, every traffic tie-up, will be blamed on the tax cuts.

Bureaucratic incompetence--lack of vision at the top--poor planning--waste--all of these real problems found in every state and municipality are now safe from media scrutiny in Washington state.

Because there's a ready scapegoat: Initiative 695.

Even when the elected officials agree with taxpayers and try to keep taxes low, the courts come in and exercise the taxing authority. And you thought courts can't impose taxes.

Well, throw out those old civics books. Courts can do pretty much what they damn well please.

Just look at what's happening in New Hampshire, a state heretofore justifiably proud of its tradition of having no state income taxes.

Well, that tradition may disappear. A court in New Hampshire has declared the state's system of paying for education with property tax funds as invalid. And efforts by the legislature to fix the system without imposing an income tax have been rebuffed by the court.

No question about it: Our government officials are drooling over the Internet as a cow they can milk--and milk--and milk.

That's because the tax hogs and greedy bureaucrats know that the Internet is where the money is going to be in the next century. So here we are at the cusp of the next millennium, and we are already facing perhaps the greatest danger to our future--the determination on the part of the federal government, the state government, and even other countries, to tax the Internet.

Some states are already aggressively taxing the web. For now, though, for the most part governments--federal, state, local, other countries--are lying in wait, hiding in the bushes, biding their time. They're evaluating, planning their attack, waiting for the right moment.

Congress recently passed a three-year moratorium on Internet taxes, appointing a commission to study the matter. More on that later.

For now, what you need to understand is: Congress has given us a time out. We are at an historic time, at a proverbial fork in the road. And it is up to you to make sure that we take the right fork--the path to a tax-free Internet, free of the suffocating restraints and regulations that follow any tax scheme.

Imagine if you could go back in time, say, to 1913. That's when this country passed the Constitutional Amendment allowing the income tax. Until then it was unconstitutional. Suppose you had a second chance to lobby Congress, write letters, protest. Would you?

I think most people would. Well, we can't go back in time. But we sure can let people know how we feel about what's going on now at an equally momentous point in the history of taxes.

As sales over the Internet mushroom, the government will be like that cartoon cat, drooling over the singing canary, unable to fit his paw into the cage. Politicians will try to go after it with all the creative instincts of the hapless Wile E. Coyote. Unfortunately, unlike that notoriously inept Warner Brothers character, the government is not preordained to fail.

So those of us who feel we're taxed more than enough have a window of opportunity to save the Internet. It's up to you to learn what's at stake and what can be done.

You can't go anywhere without reading about the Internet. And for good reason. That's what's driving the economy, the stock market, and optimism about the future. It also has given a needed shot of adrenaline to democracy and free expression.

You have probably heard it before, but it bears repeating: Electronic commerce is growing at an enormous rate.

More than 140 million people were using the Internet in 1998. It's estimated that more than 1 billion people will be using it in the first decade of the next century. More than $300 billion worth of business in the U.S. is already conducted on the Internet.

It's been estimated that 56 percent of U.S. companies will have products online by 2000. That's more than double the 24 percent in 1998.

Even the Congressionally appointed commission studying Internet taxes--the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce--marvels at the Internet's potential:

"The Internet promises to level barriers to market entry, provide all consumers with total access to all product information, and connect all buyers to all sellers. It will effect near perfect market competition, textbook competition that even Adam Smith would marvel [at]. Indeed universal market access over the Internet already is reducing the cost of doing business and providing access to untapped markets, workforces, and suppliers.

Hmm--"Total access"--"Near perfect market competition"-- cost reduction.

Can't have any of that, can we? And sure enough, in virtually the next breath, the commission reminds us of why all this may be bad for us--states won't get theirs. Here's how the Commission puts it, in typical governmentese:

"The Internet has the potential to undermine traditional forms of state and local revenues in proportion to its huge social and economic benefits."

Ain't that a shame? Doesn't it remind you of an organized crime syndicate's reaction to a legitimate business moving on to their turf? The crime boss's first concern would be to see if he could shake the business down to get a piece of the action.

So what the Commission wants to do is to--and here are their words again: "map the rules of engagement for a new virtual-business paradigm."

In short, what the government's saying is that people will start buying everything off the Internet, and not have to pay the state taxes. That's rubbish, for one thing. Shoppers will never stop shopping in the real world. What the Internet does is expand commerce. More people will shop for more things.

But it also indicates the audacity of the government to feel they can create a new "paradigm" when it comes to the Internet. In other words, it all comes down to control. The government wants to control everything. Just like that unhappy crime boss.

Currently, the Internet is for the most part one of the least regulated and least taxed avenues for commerce. Which means it's a magnet for new regulation and taxes.

States have already imposed taxes. More want to. And would already be doing it, if not for the moratorium.

But don't be complacent. This moratorium has several catches. For one thing, it's temporary. It applies for only three years. And second, its purpose is not entirely noble. Many of its supporters merely wanted to buy time to create an efficient system to tax the Internet.

And third, technically speaking, states can still collect taxes from you.

Why do you need to be concerned about Internet taxes? There are several reasons:

First, no matter how much the initial tax is on Internet purchases, it will grow in the future.

Then there is the complexity. Say a company in Texas, sells a product stored in Nebraska to a customer living in Maryland, with the Internet server based in Georgia. All four states might claim to the right to tax that transaction. Then come the inevitable rules, regulations, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, that crop up in any taxation scheme. The complexity alone would clobber small businesses doing business on the Internet.

In addition, taxes on the Internet increase the already dire threat to your privacy. To tax you, the government needs to know where you live, what you buy, and whom you buy it from. That's dangerous information for the government to have. If states know what you're buying, that is great information they can sell.

Furthermore, imagine what taxes will do to the stock market value of all these dot.com companies. As soon as people see the taxes hitting, the complexity, the fact that the government's getting hold of their most personal information--people might end up shunning the Internet and return to the mall. Which, of course, is what state and local governments want you to do.

But the end result would be an economy in shambles, businesses bankrupt, people out of jobs--and, ironically, less revenues for the government.

Currently, even without the congressional moratorium states would have a hard time taxing Internet profits. That's because of a 1992 Supreme Court decision that said that a company couldn't be taxed by a state unless the company has a physical presence in the state. That case covered mail order sales. But, so far, everyone's interpreting it as applying to Internet sales as well.

When it came to the mail order issue, that decision made states apoplectic. Imagine how they feel about its effect on their ability to tax the Internet.

Some states claim that you owe use taxes if you buy something off the Internet no matter where the seller's located. Technically, you're supposed to pay the tax to the state government when you buy something. But most people don't.

It's been estimated that Internet sales could reach $100 billion by 2003. And that $4 billion in sales would go uncollected.

But that estimate doesn't take into the account the impact of taxes. If the Internet were taxed, fewer people would buy on the Internet. There wouldn't be $4 billion to collect.

And, according to at least one extensive study, there's no indication the Internet is harming state collections. According to Ernst & Young, state and local governments lost only $170 million. Ernst & Young points out that the sales tax base has been eroding for a long time, but has picked up speed as the Internet has. In other words, the Internet hasn't hurt state collections.

Even as taxes continue to get ever more complex, professional service providers continue to become more and more mercenary. This is true particularly with the merger frenzy that promises to continue well into the 2000's. These mergers, which create bigger and bigger financial service companies and law firms, increasingly distance the adviser from the true needs of the client.

So, to a greater and greater extent, lawyers and CPAs will seek to maximize their volume, and investment advisers will seek to sell you more products.

And you and your family will be the only ones left who are truly concerned about looking for the best strategies to fight the numerous tax collectors ready to go to battle for your wealth.