In a representative democracy, Lincoln's vision is the way a political system is supposed to work. Constituents petition elected officials, making their voices heard. Elected officials, responding to that public will, carry out their wishes.

For months, the citizens of Allegheny County clearly professed their will that Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato and County Council not enact the 10 percent drink tax and the $2 per day rental-car tax that were passed into law in December. These citizens knew that a burdensome tax directed at a single industry (in this case, hospitality) would be harmful to economic development, would result in closed businesses and would contribute to the climate of economic malaise in the county. They also were righteously angry that their hard-earned money would be transferred from their pockets to an inefficient and wasteful Port Authority.

Unfortunately for Mr. Onorato and his allies on County Council, passing the law did not quiet the rabble. To the contrary, the chorus of voices opposed to the new tax rose after its passage displayed a new, angrier tone (to the point that one restaurant owner announced that he planned to create urinal cakes with Mr. Onorato's visage). This chorus includes all three of the County Council members elected since Mr. Onorato first sought the drink tax in October of last year.

In the meantime, the drink tax reaps its toll. The Post-Gazette has reported that some restaurant operators have been forced to lower their prices in order to maintain demand, effectively reducing their profit margins. Others have seen patronage diminish: One operator reported a 15 percent drop in demand since the tax went into effect. Bartenders and servers also have seen a marked drop in their tips -- a large chunk of their income.

On the banquet front, County Council member Nick Futules, owner of the Harmar House banquet facility near Westmoreland County, stated that his 2008 Saturday bookings are off by 12 events from last year, causing an estimated loss of $150,000 in revenue. Anecdotally, other operators are reporting a substantial decline in six-pack sales, while one local bar owner is willing to give his business away to the buyer of his home, much the way some sellers leave the custom drapes.

Now, finally, County Council and Mr. Onorato have begun to respond to the will of their constituents. On Jan.15, County Council voted 14-1 in favor of seeking alternatives to the drink tax to allow its repeal. Last month, Mr. Onorato expressed interest in repealing the drink tax and finding an alternate source of funding for the Port Authority, perhaps through the legalization and taxation of video poker machines in bars.

It did not take the Post-Gazette long, however, to rain on the parade. Rather than lauding Mr. Onorato for finally listening to his constituents, the Post-Gazette skewered him in an editorial for considering the rescission of the drink tax. ("Tough It Out: Don't Gamble On a Drink Tax Alternative," Feb. 22).

Calling the plan to tax video poker machines a "risky 'alternative,' " the Post-Gazette intoned: "The best alternative [to the drink tax] is a little backbone on Grant Street." Oddly, it was the Post-Gazette in August, a mere six months before, which had called the drink and rental-car taxes "speculative" and argued against using them to fund all of the county's Port Authority obligation. ("Transit Risk: The Drink and Rental Taxes Should Get Limited Use," Aug. 7).

In December, the Post-Gazette opined that Mr. Onorato should reduce the drink tax rate, as it would collect more than the Port Authority needed and would burden business owners. ("Over the Limit: Cut the Drink Tax If It Collects Too Much," Dec. 27). Now the drink and rental-car taxes are to be the saviors of the county's persistent deficit.

Mr. Onorato and his County Council allies should be congratulated, not criticized, for looking for Port Authority funding alternatives and for considering the repeal of the drink tax. The real question is: Is there any steak with the sizzle?

While taxes on video poker machines are fine to ponder, Mr. Onorato and County Council must consider funding mechanisms which do not require the approval of the state Legislature, which could be years in coming -- if it came at all. New County Council member Chuck McCullough, a former county solicitor, has proposed a variety of funding options for the Port Authority which would allow the repeal of the drink and rental-car taxes. Among them are the imposition of fees on nonprofits for county benefits, raising or establishing fees for certain county services and seeking repayment of money loaned to the Airport Authority. These are meaningful changes that could fund the Port Authority and provide immediate relief to taxpayers and restaurant and bar operators.

Mr. Onorato and his allies on County Council deserve moderate applause for reconsidering their bad decision to impose the drink and rental-car taxes. We can save the real applause for when they heed the clear sentiment of the public and repeal the drink and rental-car taxes and replace them with achievable, broad-based alternatives.