Many other governors, including Republicans like John Rowland of Connecticut,
Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, and Kenny Guinn of Nevada, have included new taxes as part of
balanced proposals to close their budget gaps.
Romney should do the same. If he doesn't, the Legislature should do it for him.
A Boston Globe editorial
Mar. 7, 2002
Not overtaxed
Mayor John T. Yunits Jr. is advocating an increase
in the state income tax to avoid cuts in local aid that could lead to layoffs and a reduction in
services....
Yunits said Wednesday night concerned residents should consider mobilizing
support for at least temporarily returning the state income tax to 5.95 percent
from the current level of 5.3 percent....
Yunits said Massachusetts is 26th in the nation in
terms of per capita tax burden, a good position to be in given the quality of life in this state.
The Brockton Enterprise
Mar. 6, 2003
Brockton mayor calls for state income tax hike
And in fact, the Massachusetts per capita tax burden
is 5th in the nation, not 26th as the mayor stated. Our tax burden relative to our overall personal
income is 23rd, but the fact that there are a lot of very rich people living here
has nothing to do with the amount of services we need. Governor Romney's
proposed budget is roughly the same as last year's; it's now or never for fiscal
responsibility.
Letter to the editor
The Brockton Enterprise
Submitted: Mar 6, 2003
From Barbara Anderson
Maybe that's because Romney is the first governor he
has dealt with who is trying to transform state government from a bloated, wasteful behemoth to a
streamlined, efficient, well-oiled machine. Romney has no choice but to cut
$114 million in state aid this year and $232 million next year. This is just
one move he has to make to close an anticipated $3 billion budget gap. What makes
these mayors think they should be immune to the pain everyone else will feel?
...
Democratic leaders in the Legislature are telling communities to prepare for 20
percent cuts in local aid. These are scare tactics designed to build support for
tax hikes. All we need to get through this is a bit of sacrifice, hard work and
prudent spending.
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Mar. 7, 2003
Mayors cry foul as their budgets are cut by state
I have personally reduced my prescription drug costs
by more than 75 percent and would like to share with your readers how I did it.
The MetroWest Daily News
Mar. 8, 2003
Tips for prescription drug savings
By CLT Member Enzo Rotatori
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Movies seem to be a great theme these days to analogize
happenings up on Bacon Hill. A member recently noted how I seem to have been caught up in it in my recent comparisons
with "A Guide to the Married Man" and Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western series
("The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"). Today CLT member Enzo Rotatori of Framingham passes
on good information on how to beat prescription drug costs, reprising character
Howard Beale's "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" from the film
"Network"!
Enzo didn't mention that, by utilizing his advice, consumers
also avoid the unconscionable "user fee" on prescription drugs -- state government's lame "solution" for the "rising cost
of prescription drugs" problem. (Drive the cost even higher so government can profit from
providing nothing!)
The Tax Hike Express is chugging along, picking up speed,
even as it again strangles facts and contorts figures to justify its endless appetite for more of our hard-earned
income.
A Boston Globe editorial on Friday asserted: "A recent study
ranks Massachusetts 46th - that's 46th - among the 50 states in the bite taken out of an individual's income by state
and local taxes and fees. For taxes alone the ranking is 35th."
Really now, does anyone honestly believe that Massachusetts
taxpayers are under-taxed, or that this "study" came from anyone other than the tax-and spend Gimme Lobby?
(Surely "recent" isn't the group's official name or the title of the study.)
Ah, but the Boston Globe then goes on to identify the authors: "The figures quoted above
are from a study recently published by the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, and the Greater Boston Chamber
of Commerce based on data from the US Census in 2000."
So why then are its authors, the so-called Mass. Taxpayers
(Taxspenders) Foundation and other big-business Fat Cat special interests, so desperately scrambling to fend off higher
taxes on their elite membership, replaced instead by higher taxes on average taxpayers?
The Boston Globe went on to list Republican governors in a
few other states who are supporting some kind(s) of tax increase(s) this year and asserts "Romney should do the
same."
But the Boston Globe failed to note that none of the other
states listed imposed "The Biggest Tax Increase in State History" last year in their respective states ... as the
Massachusetts Legislature did -- the largest 2002 tax increase of any state in the nation!
Most mayors across the commonwealth seem to find their shorts tied in a knot and can do
nothing else but selfishly complain that the "embarrassment of riches" days of whopping
local aid increases have ended and they have to -- gasp! -- manage municipal spending. Of
course, the Legislature is again playing on their collective greed and weakness, scaring
them with even greater reductions than the average 5 percent that Governor Romney has
proposed. (Compared to recent average annual local aid increases of 7 percent.) They've all
learned how to game the system.
It's the same scam we witnessed last year, with the mayors
clamoring for the same solution: hike the income tax rate back up to 5.95 percent so they don't have to take the
heat or start acting responsibly. But only "temporarily" they promise with a
wink and a smirk.
How truly stupid do they believe we taxpayers are? How much
more can they insult our intelligence? The last time the income tax was increased "temporarily," in 1989, it lasted ...
well, it's now fourteen years later and the rate still hasn't been rolled back to 5 percent
despite even the voters' overwhelming 2000 rollback mandate.
Despite even last year's outright near-abolition of the
income tax -- in its entirety -- by 46 percent of the voters.
Municipalities are raising more money in overrides and reevaluations than ever; local
government spending also has doubled over the last dozen years ... but More Is Never
Enough, and never will be.
My personal two favorite mayors are "Blustering" John Barrett of North Adams and
Somerville's "Empress" Dorothy Kelly Gay. Mayor Barrett is easily outraged on cue.
Mayor Kelly Gay has the annoying habit of always referring to everything that's
done in "her city" in the First Person, ie., "I had to cut," "I had to raise," or "I had to fire," as if she
wields sole power in her city. Perhaps in Somerville she does.
Rising mayoral tax hike stars are Medford's McGlynn, Newton's Cohen and Lynn's Clancy
... but what ever happened to last year's lead tax hike cheerleader Ed Lambert of Fall
River? And hasn't Boston's Menino been awfully quiet since that expose where we learned
that he'd padded Boston's payroll with his entire Hyde Park neighborhood and had
squandered millions of taxpayer largesse? Tom must be looking ahead to a hopeful
Democratic National Committee convention state bailout.
The Legislature believes it knows who to recruit to get the
unscrupulous dirty work done and how to do it; and in the Gimme Lobby pecking order, so too do the mayors. They're all
tax increase veterans from last year's tax hike war.
"Freezing" the voters' tax rollback mandate was just the
gluttons' appetizer last year. Today they're salivating over the main course.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 7, 2002
A Boston Globe editorial
Not overtaxed
In Massachusetts, the realities include the fact that Mitt
Romney was elected governor after pledging not to raise taxes and that the voters cast a
surprisingly strong 45 percent vote last November to eliminate the state
income tax altogether. So the governor and Legislature cannot be expected to
turn first to new taxes to close next year's budget deficit.
Romney also pledged not to cut core services, but his
stopgap cuts for this year and his proposals for next year will reduce spending on many basic services,
some of them drastically.
Why is Romney so insistent on keeping one campaign promise
while he is so willing to abandon the other?
The governor regularly expresses sympathy for the homeless,
for poor people losing health coverage, for mental patients relying on state-funded therapy,
and for many others who depend on the state. No one suggests that these
sentiments are anything other than genuine. Yet when tough choices need to be
made, Romney has acted as if the specter of taxes trumps all other considerations.
"The road to Taxachusetts is a dead-end street," he said in
a televised speech introducing his new budget.
But Taxachusetts is a straw man, and Romney should know it.
A recent study ranks Massachusetts 46th - that's 46th -
among the 50 states in the bite taken out of an individual's income by state and local taxes and fees.
For taxes alone the ranking is 35th. The income tax burden here is relatively
high and the sales tax burden low - a sensible, progressive balance. The overall
tax ranking is high measured on a per capita basis because personal income is
high here. Naturally, if two states have identical tax rates, the one with the
higher income will collect more revenue and therefore rank higher on the per
capita tax chart, even though the individual's tax burden, the proportion of
income taxed, is the same.
The point is that Massachusetts is no tax magnet and has not
been for some years. The figures quoted above are from a study recently published by the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce based on data from the US Census in 2000. Since the Massachusetts
income tax rate has declined from 5.85 percent to 5.3 percent since 2000, the study
indicates that the state's favorable movement in the rankings "has probably
accelerated."
Romney does not seem to be a supply-side government
minimalist. By raising a variety of state fees substantially and by cutting local aid to the point that
many communities will have to seek property tax increases, he is dipping
heavily into people's wallets. The one absolute seems not to be protection of
taxpayers but of his own reputation after promising no tax increase, no matter
what the consequences to core services.
Many other governors, including Republicans like John
Rowland of Connecticut, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho, and Kenny Guinn of
Nevada, have included new taxes as part of balanced proposals to close their
budget gaps.
Romney should do the same. If he doesn't, the Legislature
should do it for him.
Return to top
The Brockton Enterprise
Thursday, March 6, 2003
Brockton mayor calls for state income tax hike
By Sean Flynn, Staff writer
Mayor John T. Yunits Jr. is advocating an increase in the
state income tax to avoid cuts in local aid that could lead to layoffs and a reduction in services.
Yunits said the city is facing a loss of at least $12.5
million in local aid. He said the state aid cuts could lead to layoffs of teachers, fewer police officers and
firefighters and cuts in services, such as the elimination of some school bus
routes.
Yunits said Wednesday night concerned residents should
consider mobilizing support for at least temporarily returning the state income tax to 5.95 percent
from the current level of 5.3 percent.
The state income tax was 5.95 percent until the tax rollback
initiative sponsored by former Gov. Paul Cellucci passed in 2000 and brought the
income tax down to its current level of 5.3 percent.
"For about $5 a week more, for middle income families in the
$35,000 to $50,000 range, the former rate would bring in more than $1 billion in
additional local aid for important services such as education and public safety,"
said Yunits.
"We were used to that rate for years until Cellucci used the
rollback for a political spectacle, at a time when expenditures for health care and education
were necessarily increasing. He did all these things and then went to Canada."
Cellucci is now the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
Yunits made the call for higher taxes during a budget "town
meeting" at South Junior High School attended by about 75 residents.
He said Gov. Mitt Romney is using "nothing but rhetoric"
when he calls the state "Taxachusetts."
Yunits said Massachusetts is 26th in the nation in terms of
per capita tax burden, a good position to be in given the quality of life in this state....
Return to top
Letter to the editor
The Brockton Enterprise
Submitted: March 6, 2003
In Sean Flynn's March 6th report, "Brockton mayor calls for
state income tax hike," Mayor Yunitz accused Governor Romney of using "nothing but rhetoric"
when he calls the state "Taxachusetts" because, Yunitz said, Massachusetts is
26th in the nation in terms of per capita tax burden.
As I remember it, the governor didn't call the state
Taxachusetts but warned that he does not want to take us back down that road by having tax hikes
every year. This would be necessary if the state does not begin to cut back its
annual expected spending hikes.
And in fact, the Massachusetts per capita tax burden is 5th
in the nation, not 26th as the mayor stated. Our tax burden relative to our overall personal
income is 23rd, but the fact that there are a lot of very rich people living here
has nothing to do with the amount of services we need. Governor Romney's
proposed budget is roughly the same as last year's; it's now or never for fiscal
responsibility.
Barbara Anderson
Executive director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
The Brockton Enterprise
Friday, March 7, 2003
Editorial
Mayors cry foul as their budgets are cut by state
Mayors who met with Gov. Mitt Romney Tuesday to discuss cuts
in state aid came away angry, for the most part. But they are just angry at the messenger;
it is certainly not Romney's fault these cuts need to be made and not his fault
too many cities didn't plan well enough for this rainy day.
One mayor, John Barrett of North Adams, said there was a
"credibility gap" between municipal leaders and the governor. He also said that after dealing
with five different governors, "these are the most defensive people I have ever
dealt with."
Maybe that's because Romney is the first governor he has
dealt with who is trying to transform state government from a bloated, wasteful behemoth to a
streamlined, efficient, well-oiled machine. Romney has no choice but to cut
$114 million in state aid this year and $232 million next year. This is just one
move he has to make to close an anticipated $3 billion budget gap. What makes
these mayors think they should be immune to the pain everyone else will feel?
Oh, sure, they will argue they are doing their parts and
that the cuts are far more than were anticipated. But they have no choice; they have to deal with it.
Romney said he will listen to their ideas and be willing to take another look at
the formula used for cuts, but that will just be minor tinkering. The cuts will
still be significant and call for creative management and difficult choices.
Those two attributes have been in short supply in many
communities over the last decade. Some cities and towns did a good job of building reserves and not
overspending; others did a poor job and now will pay the price.
It was telling that Boston Mayor Thomas Menino was not among
the 39 mayors at the meeting with Romney. Instead, he was lobbying legislators,
trying to get them to give Boston more money. If that happens, it will be at the
expense of communities where each dollar is more precious than in Boston,
where Menino has overspent and paid no attention to warnings that this day
would come.
Democratic leaders in the Legislature are telling communities to prepare for 20
percent cuts in local aid. These are scare tactics designed to build support for
tax hikes. All we need to get through this is a bit of sacrifice, hard work
and prudent spending.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Saturday, March 8, 2003
Letters to the Editor
Tips for prescription drug savings
Prescription drug costs are out of control with no immediate
relief in sight. Particularly vulnerable are low income families and senior citizens.
In keeping with the theme from my favorite 1976 movie
entitled Network, I again quote "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore."
I have personally reduced my prescription drug costs by more
than 75 percent and would like to share with your readers how I did it.
Although ordering prescription drugs from Canada involves a
small amount of paper work and extra time, it is well worth the time and effort for the savings.
As example, my wife's three month medication from a local pharmacy costs
$243. This same prescription from Canada, including shipping and insurance
costs, was quoted as $117, a greater than 50 percent savings. The only
difference between the Canadian and U.S. medicine is the color of the package
for this drug. I have researched a dozen Canadian pharmacy Web sites and the
two best ones are: CanadaRx.net and
Unitedhealthalliance.com. Copies of their
order form and instructions are available on line.
Another way to reduce prescription costs is to cut "hard"
pills in half. This can be accomplished with a pill cutter which can be purchased for $5 at local drug
stores or the pills can be cut with a sharp knife on a hard surface.
With the cooperation of my doctor, my 20mg cholesterol
medication is written for 40mg. My doctor has confidence that I will split the pills. My cost of
increasing this particular medication from 20mg to 40mg is only eight percent.
This results in a savings of 85 percent over the cost of two 20mg prescriptions!
My last recommendation for saving on prescription drugs will
return a 100 percent savings. Always ask you doctor for salesman samples of the drug he
has prescribed for you. Do not feel embarrassed to ask for these free drug
samples. Your doctor has a closet full of a variety of sample medications
which if not given away will have to be thrown out on expiration date. I have done
this on my last four doctor appointments and have been successful four times.
This represents a four month savings worth a few hundred dollars.
The drug industry is attempting to stop shipment of Canadian
drugs to the United States. GlaxoSmithKline, one of Europe's largest drug manufacturers,
implemented a ban on its drugs being sold by Canadian pharmacies to American customers. This
is being challenged by the Canadian Competition Bureau under the Canadian Competition Act.
I am doing further research to provide more cost savings
suggestions.
Enzo Rotatori, Framingham
Note: Enzo is a member of CLT.
Return to top