Butler County voters, like most voters across the state, didn't allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the bogus Taxpayer Relief Act, more commonly known as Act 1.

That was the major positive of Tuesday's primary election balloting.

The measure lost because it was not a genuine tax-reform measure. It simply would have been a tax shift that would have made many state residents worse off than they are under the current property tax structure.

It was merely another attempt by the General Assembly to pretend to deliver tax reform — to improve lawmakers' standing with the voters — while actually doing no such thing.

The measure would have brought about a reduction in real estate tax millage initially, but the legislation did not provide for freezing of that lower millage. That was a major flaw.

In many school districts, over the course of a few years or less, the real estate levy would have returned to its current rate while, as a result of Act 1, taxpayers would have continued to pay a higher earned-income tax rate as stipulated by Tuesday's referendums.

Thus, over the long run, Act 1 would not have been a taxpayer relief act, but rather a vehicle for significantly higher overall tax bills for most state residents.

Shame on the General Assembly and Gov. Ed Rendell for thinking that commonwealth voters could be fooled into supporting such a tax-reform farce.

Support didn't happen this time; it didn't happen in 1989, when then-Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr. was behind a ballot referendum that would have raised income taxes to shift the burden of school funding away from property taxes; and it didn't happen in 1999, when Act 50 was promoted as the taxpayers' "salvation" because it would have allowed school districts to increase their earned-income tax rates in lieu of nuisance taxes.

If there is to be real tax reform in Pennsylvania — if the property tax is ever to be eliminated or significantly reduced — that action must emanate in the General Assembly by way of a higher sales tax or state income tax, or some new taxing vehicle. That change must cover the entire state, not be left to local taxpayers to decide on an individual basis.

But most importantly, it must contain no windows for the real estate levy to be revived or increased.

Act 1 provided no such assurances and, therefore, Act 1 failed.

Praise is in order for the Butler County residents who helped to kill it — who were not fooled.

It is to be hoped lawmakers and Rendell won't try to hide behind the argument "We tried, but you defeated it." Meanwhile, Rendell should abandon the bogus argument that the tax-reform plan's complexity led to its defeat.

Complexity was not at the root of most of the rejection; it was the generally recognized fact that Act 1 was a losing proposition and too big of a risk to wallets and pocketbooks.

Whether Rendell will have another opportunity to try to deliver on his 2002 campaign promise to provide property tax relief remains to be seen, but at this juncture it seems unlikely.

For now, it seems Rendell's best hope is to keep his fingers crossed that slot machine gambling profits will provide better-than-expected tax benefits for commonwealth residents.

As for Act 1, too bad it took so long and so much effort to relegate it to the prominent place on the trash heap of bad tax ideas where it belonged from the start.