The Salem News
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Look carefully at who's urging no vote on Question 1
By Chip Ford
Last Wednesday evening, I debated Steve Crawford, spokesman for the
Coalition for Our Communities, aka the No on Question One ballot
committee.
The event was sponsored by
The Salem News and Beverly's cable access channel. It covered all three
ballot questions and will be seen on cable TV systems around the North
Shore repeatedly until the election.
Steve came into the ring
with the No side's usual game plan, but I was ready with my own. I've
observed their tactics for weeks now and was prepared to strike their
Achilles' heel at my first opportunity — namely the labor and public
employee unions' prominence and deep pockets.
It has become obvious over
the past few weeks that the No committee does not want to publicize the
nexus of its support. It's likely that their internal polling has
indicated it's better to downplay the unions. But the fact is, Big Labor
is providing about 99.9 percent of the Coalition for Our Communities'
financial support and a huge part of its logistical support.
When confronted, the
opposition quickly glosses this fact over with a blanket statement of
having support from "civic, human services, environmental, labor, faith
and business groups" and quickly seeks to change the subject.
So naturally I went right
after the massive public employee and labor union support in my opening
statement, exposing and coming back to it at every opportunity.
When Crawford admitted to
it, he tried to downplay the amount of money Big Labor has contributed,
understating it by about a million bucks. Having just internalized the
No committee's campaign finances from my analysis of his committee's
campaign finance reports, I hit him with and informed the viewing
audience of all the enormous specifics and amounts in detail.
Later, I decided to explore
some of the other supporters of the No on Question 1 committee. I didn't
get far.
Third down on its highly
touted and lengthy list of tax-borrow-and-spenders: ACORN.
This organization has been
in the news lately from being charged with massive voter registration
fraud around the country. But that's not the big story for us taxpayers.
The really big story: ACORN
is one of the primary reasons the federal government just had to bail
out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Thanks in large part to
ACORN, taxpayers have just been fleeced for the trillion-dollar federal
bailout, from which ACORN profited and hopes to profit by even more
millions of federal tax dollars.
But even that isn't enough.
Here in Massachusetts it's battling taxpayers to prevent repeal of the
income tax and its state gravy train!
Talk about shameless,
insatiable greed — about how More Is Never Enough (MINE).
And ACORN's only third on
the No committee's vast list of supporters. So many more to go and so
little time remaining to expose them.
But as I told the audience
the other night in my closing statement, innately all us voters know
what the problem is and we all know what and who is behind it — and what
the only cure will ever be.
Chip Ford of Marblehead
serves as a spokesman for Citizens for Limited Taxation. The above is
adapted from his most recent online update to CLT members. The Salem
News/BevCAM forum to which he refers can be seen in Beverly on Channel
10 this Friday at 9 p.m., Sunday, Oct. 19, at 6 p.m.; and Tuesday, Oct.
21, at 9 p.m., or can be accessed online at http://bevcam.blip.tv/
The Marblehead Reporter
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Marblehead Reporter editorial
Question 1 not a game
Question 1 supporter
Barbara Anderson recently injected some unfortunate terminology into
the debate over Question 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot.
In her recent column in one
of our daily competitors, which urged voters to “send Congress, Beacon
Hill a loud wake-up call,” Anderson wrote that “concerned voters” fall
into one of two categories: “1. Those who ‘get it,’ who understand that
politics is a game and we need to learn how to play it, too, or we get
the booby prize; and 2. The boobies, who think it’s all for real, debate
the fine points, and enable bad behavior by refusing to become combative
about it.”
One way of getting
“combative,” of playing “the game,” concludes Anderson, is to vote yes
on Question 1 Nov. 4, depriving the state of 60 percent of its revenue,
which, because the state has certain mandated expenditures, would result
in across-the-board cuts of 71.1 percent to the rest of state government
in the estimation of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Call us “boobies” if you
will, Barbara, but we find it hard to view Question 1 as part of a
“game,” given the widespread and devastating impact on too many people,
whom Anderson’s Citizens for Limited Taxation and Carla Howell’s
Committee for Small Government are apparently all too ready to cast as
“pawns.”
We are thinking of the
seniors who, according to North Shore Elder Services Executive Director
Paul J. Lanzikos, stand to lose things like home-care services, “meals
on wheels” and drug benefits if Question 1 is approved.
We are thinking of
students, who will be crammed into more crowded classrooms and lose
things like after-school programs, extra help on the MCAS exam,
special-education services, extracurricular activities and state-college
scholarship opportunities if Question 1 passes.
Heck, we are even thinking
about all of us who travel over any of the state’s 250 structurally
deficient bridges, repairs on which would likely fall by the wayside if
Question 1 passes, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
We know, given the state of
the economy, it will be tempting to check “yes” Nov. 4 and put more
money in your pocket. That’s particularly true in Marblehead, where the
state’s fiscal woes have yet to hit home. Due to prudent fiscal
practices, the town seems to be better equipped to roll with the punches
Gov. Deval Patrick was prepared to throw Wednesday in announcing plans
to address a budget gap possibly as large as $2 billion.
But you don’t have to look
far to find a far different situation. Lynn Mayor Edward “Chip” Clancy
recently described his town as being “in financial collapse.” In
Swampscott, residents were nervously awaiting Gov. Deval Patrick’s
Wednesday announcement about cuts, having already envisioned the closing
of an elementary school. And that’s even before getting to the possible
impact of passing Question 1. Given that scenario, we’re with School
Committee Chairwoman Amy Drinker, who suggests that town voters have an
obligation to be good citizens of the state by rejecting Question 1.
Or you can do as Anderson
suggests and vote “yes.” If you do so, however, we are willing to bet,
in the long run, you’ll feel like anything but a winner.
COMMENTS:
Comment from:
Concerned Citizen
The same things were said
about Prop 2 1/2 and they never materialized. (Thank you Barbara
Anderson.) No towns went 'out of business', crime did not suddenly go
up, people were not dieing in the streets, kids still graduated, and
houses did not burn down all around us.
The people will always
spend their own money better than the state will. In these difficult
financial times who needs your money more than you do? Use the savings
to pay for your heating bill or pay your mortgage.
BTW: Bridges and roads are
supposed to be paid for by the gas tax except that the politicians spend
that money on other things - Why? Because they can.
As long as they have your
money they will spend it. Take the money away and they will begin to
make choices - just like you do every day.
Vote YES on Question 1.
Remember the politicians
LIVE in the same cities and towns that you live in. They too want their
streets protected, their bridges repaired, their fires put out, and
their kids educated - they are not going to put their property or
families at risk - the sky WILL NOT fall but the waste will be
eliminated.
One thing is for certain:
if you vote against Question 1 nothing will change AND you will have
less money.
Comment from:
Barbara Anderson
Gee, Kris, did you think I
meant you when I talked about boobies? They are actually very nice
birds, though, very accomodating: 'their name is possibly based on the
Spanish slang term bobo, meaning 'dunce', as these tame birds had a
habit of landing on-board sailing ships, where they were easily captured
and eaten'. BTW, today's issue of Forbes magazine endorses a Yes vote on
Question One; I'm in good company.
The Marblehead Reporter
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A message, or just a mess?
Question 1 evokes strong feelings
By Kris Olson
Marblehead resident Barbara
Anderson and her organization Citizens for Limited Taxation have a
simple answer to Question 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot, which seeks to repeal
the state income tax: “Hell yes!” You can even print your own bumper
sticker with that slogan from CLT’s Web site.
But some local officials
have quite a different take on Question 1’s passage. They think it would
send the state to hell in a hand basket.
If approved by the voters,
Question 1 would first cut the income-tax rate in half, from 5.3 percent
to 2.65 percent, on Jan. 1, 2009, and eliminate it completely a year
later. When all is said and done, state tax revenue would be reduced
$12.5 billion, approximately 60 percent.
But that only begins to
tell the tale of the havoc passage of Question 1 would create, according
to opponents. Selectman Judy Jacobi, at her board’s meeting last
Wednesday, pointed to a recently released study by the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation entitled “The Enormous Consequences of Question 1.”
Noting that “a significant
share of state spending is required by the state constitution, federal
requirements or legal operations,” the MTF estimates that passage of
Question 1 would result in across-the-board cuts of 71.1 percent to the
rest of state government.
“The cuts would impact the
31 state and county prisons, the entire court system, the wide range of
human services programs, transportation, state parks and environmental
programs, support for the University of Massachusetts and state and
community colleges, state employee pensions and health benefits, and the
Department of Revenue and Registry of Motor Vehicles, as well as many
other programs and services,” MTF said in a press release.
Specifically for
Marblehead, MTF estimates the town would lose $1.13 million in
non-education local aid.
Impact on the town’s
education aid is less clear but could be an order of magnitude higher.
While the Vote No on Question 1 Political Action Committee’s Web site
suggests the town would lose the entirety of its $4.9 million in Chapter
70 funds and another $1 million in special-education and other aid, both
the MTF and Massachusetts Municipal Association indicate that state
constitutional requirements would limit education cuts to somewhere in
the neighborhood of 27 to 29 percent statewide. However, the MMA adds,
perhaps ominously for a relatively wealthy town like Marblehead, “many
districts would lose all school aid.”
Given that 86 percent of
the town’s budget is spent on personnel, any significant cut in local
aid would mean layoffs, which in the schools would translate to larger
class sizes, noted School Committee Chairwoman Amy Drinker. She added
that, given that layoffs themselves come with their own costs of
providing unemployment benefits to former employees, the cuts would have
to go even deeper than a dollar-for-dollar match of salary to lost aid.
Drinker noted that this had
already been shaping up to be a difficult budget year, even if Question
1 fails. Gov. Deval Patrick was expected Wednesday afternoon to announce
his plans to address a budget gap possibly as large as $2 billion, after
the Reporter’s press deadline. Patrick has pledged to make reductions in
local aid a last resort but offers no guarantees.
“We’re doing our level best
not to go at either local aid or Chapter 70 funding,” Patrick told the
State House News Service Tuesday. “And so far I think we will be able to
do that or at least not touch it in a significant way.”
State reimbursement funds
for school-construction projects, like the Village School renovations
set to begin in January, should also be safe, Drinker said, noting that
the Massachusetts School Building Administration is funded by a portion
of the state sales tax, rather than the income tax. Indeed, the MTF
report lists the MSBA — along with the mandatory portions of the state
spending on Medicaid and Chapter 70, the MBTA and payments on
outstanding bond debt — as categories of spending that are required to
remain intact, even if Question 1 passes. But an MMA simulation, worked
out with state officials, lumps new school projects in with the $150
million annual Chapter 90 road-construction program that would grind to
a halt if Question 1 passes.
The MTF also notes that the
Patrick administration has instituted a cap on capital spending of 8
percent of annual budgeted revenues. If Question 1 passes, all the state
would be able to afford for the next seven years under that cap would be
payments on existing debt service, meaning no new projects until 2016.
Over that span, some $20 billion in investment in the state’s
infrastructure will have been foregone, according to the MTF. The
recently passed $2.9 billion bridge bill to repair 250 structurally
deficient bridges would be just one such investment that would fall by
the wayside, the MTF added.
Perhaps the safest thing to
say, then, is that few programs, services or categories of aid would be
entirely safe.
Beyond the impact on the
town’s bottom line, Jacobi said she is concerned about residents who
benefit from services funded at the state level. One such example is
senior services. On Tuesday, North Shore Elder Services Executive
Director Paul J. Lanzikos sent out an analysis of the impact of Question
1’s passage on the state’s elder population and painted a grim picture.
Among the consequences, said Lanzikos, would be that as many as 15,300
senior citizens could lose their home-care services and 3.4 million
“meals on wheels” could be lost statewide. Nursing-home care and drug
benefits for the elderly would also be affected, Lanzikos added.
It is consequences such as
these that lead Jacobi to believe that she and her colleagues have an
obligation to take a stance on Question 1. She said she intends to ask
for a vote when the board next meets Oct. 22. Drinker, too, said she
expects Question 1 to come up at tonight’s School Committee meeting, and
she indicated a willingness to vote if one of her colleagues made a
motion to take a position on Question 1.
“It’s like blowing up the
house when you need to remodel,” Drinker said. “I fundamentally disagree
with this as a tactic.”
The case in favor
If the impact would be so
dire and widespread, why would one consider voting in favor of Question
1?
Anderson begins her answer
with a history lesson. After a “temporary” increase in the income tax
was enacted in 1989, CLT was at the forefront prolonged efforts to get
the rate back to 5 percent. Voters approved a phased-in rollback in
2000, but the Legislature repealed it in 2002, freezing the rate at 5.3
percent.
While Anderson emphasized
that not CLT but rather the Committee for Small Government headed by
former gubernatorial and Senate candidate Carla Howell is sponsoring
Question 1, CLT has jumped on board.
“If the politicians won’t
keep their promise of 5 percent, then let’s go for zero,” goes CLT’s
rationale, as expressed in a press release.
To Anderson, Question 1 is
a last resort, state government having “reached the point of no
accountability.”
“The system exists not to
provide services but to serve itself,” according to CLT. “Something has
to be done, and Question 1 is the only game in town, the only way to
save the Commonwealth from its corrupt and irresponsible politics.”
Anderson said she looks
with envy across the border to New Hampshire, where there is no income
or sales tax and a “very different political culture” that includes a
part-time Legislature. Yet the roads are well paved, and the state is
consistently voted one of the most livable and safest in the nation.
Anderson concedes that New Hampshire property taxes are among the
highest in the nation (third on a per-household basis), though
Massachusetts is not far behind (eighth), she added. On a per-capita
basis, Massachusetts state and local tax revenues are fifth highest, New
Hampshire 47th.
“Yet New Hampshire services
seem to be as good as ours or better,” says CLT.
CLT notes that eight other
states also do not have a personal income tax, but the Massachusetts
Taxpayer Foundation’s report suggests that many of these states have a
unique way to make ends meet. In several cases, these states have a
“strategic asset” — oil in Alaska, gambling in Nevada, tourism in
Florida — that brings large sums in to state coffers. Eight of the nine
(Alaska being the exception) also rely substantially more on taxes
generated at the local level than Massachusetts does, according to the
MTF.
CLT offers another simple
theory for supporting Question 1: “We can use the money.”
“If there is no income tax,
we will have more for ourselves and our families,” reads CLT’s press
release. “We can apply our income tax money to our health insurance and
pensions plans, instead of supporting extraordinary benefits for
government workers. We can choose to support charities that do a better,
more efficient job than the state in helping others. We can apply our
savings to our property taxes, thereby helping Gov. Deval Patrick keep
his pledge of ‘property tax relief.’”
But the MTF report raises
the question of whether those most in need would feel much relief from
passage of Question 1. Proponents tout $3,700 in savings for the
“average” taxpayer from Question 1, but the MTF said that number, while
correct, does not tell the entire story. For a majority of the state’s
taxpayers, the $3,700 figure overstates — by nearly $3,000 — the benefit
they would receive from approval of Question 1, according to MTF. For
the 65 percent of the state’s taxpayers who earn under $50,000, the
average state income tax payment is $850. Meanwhile, tax filers earning
in excess of $100,000 pay an average of $16,295, meaning they have
nearly 20 times as much to gain from Question 1’s passage.
Given that average incomes
in Marblehead are higher and that the town does not get back in state
aid what it contributes in taxes, some argue that residents should
support Question 1 and keep their money in their own pockets. Drinker,
for one, finds such “secessionist” talk disheartening, noting the
rationale is no different from arguing that Neck residents should fund a
disproportionate share of the recent causeway project, because they use
it more.
Visit
CLT’s Web site, and you will see
another image that explains the organization’s support of Question 1, a
“gravy train” being ridden by public employee unions. Anderson said it
is little surprise the unions are leading the opposition to Question 1,
noting that they have a lot to lose if it passes. This particularly true
with a sitting governor who has shown a willingness to take on the
unions on issues like instituting civilian police details, dismantling
the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and cutting the unions out of the
decision to join the Group Insurance Commission, which Anderson noted
has caused quite a stir in neighboring Swampscott and elsewhere.
Where the candidates
stand
Asked at a forum last
February, the three candidates running to fill the state-representative
seat vacated by Doug Petersen — Democrat Lori Ehrlich, Republican John
Blaisdell and independent Mark Barry — all said they opposed Question 1,
though Blaisdell said he thought the Legislature should not have voted
to void the 2000 referendum vote to reduce the tax rate 5 percent (from
its current 5.3 percent).
Blaisdell, who is back to
challenge now-incumbent Ehrlich on the Nov. 4 ballot, said that he has
since changed his tune on Question 1.
“There has to be a clear
message sent to Beacon Hill: Enough is enough,” he said.
Blaisdell said it was “easy
to reach” that decision, having had a chance to review the Legislature’s
work over the last several months, particularly the overrides of the
governor’s budget cuts.
The current deficit the
state is facing was foreseen, said Blaisdell, “And yet the Legislature
continued to spend, spend, spend.”
He added, “If you, as an
individual, operated your lifestyle that way, your checkbook would be in
big trouble. If you can’t pay the rent, you shouldn’t be out buying a
new car. If you can’t pay the food bill, you shouldn’t be going on
vacation.”
Ehrlich agreed that “waste
and redundancy are never acceptable,” but noted that Patrick’s imminent
cuts make clear that Question 1 goes way beyond eliminating such waste.
“Taking a sledge hammer to
the budget at a time the state is cutting to the bone and municipal
budgets are at their breaking point would only make a bad situation
worse,” Ehrlich said, noting that even prominent House Republicans like
Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading and Brad Hill of Ipswich
oppose Question 1.
The governor’s cuts were
already likely to impact public safety, senior services and special
education, Ehrlich noted.
“Question 1 would take it
so much further,” she said, calling the concept behind Question 1
“radical and reckless.” “It would have a negative impact on everyone in
the state.”
If they find themselves
sitting in the Legislature after voters Question 1, Ehrlich and
Blaisdell each said the challenge would be great.
“The sudden and severe loss
of revenue would somehow need to be replaced, but not before it takes
its toll on public safety, public education, employees and our bond
rating,” Ehrlich said.
She added, “When confronted
with a budget crisis, your only choices are to cut spending, raise
revenue or some combination of the two.”
If she is reelected and
Question 1 passes, Ehrlich said she and her colleagues would “explore
the few options we have in those areas, and fast.”
Faced with the same
challenge, Blaisdell acknowledged that, with $18 billion left to work
with, “There [would] have to be changes made in the way we fund schools,
fire, police and other town services…. We would have to do something to
increase investment in schools and local services.”
