CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, April 12,
2003
Tax hikes, pay raises, and Chip's response to the Globe
But antitax groups are predicting widespread outrage from taxpayers if they're forced to pay more to keep their vehicles.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said the auto excise tax has come to symbolize "Taxachusetts," since many other states don't have one. Any attempt to raise excise taxes further would meet strong opposition, she predicted.
"They're trying something sneaky and underhanded here, by changing the valuation of your car," Anderson said. "They shouldn't even have an auto excise tax in the first place. You're paying it if your car is just sitting there in the street, even if you don't use it."
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 11, 2003
House plan seeks more excise tax for newer cars
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe,
[state Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, chairwoman of the Senate Taxation Committee]
asked the revenue agency to analyze how much money would be generated for the state by three different tax hikes: an increase in the personal income tax, higher minimum corporate taxes, and a legal change aimed at collecting revenue from businesses that duck state taxes through shell operations outside of Massachusetts....
"There is a growing amount of evidence that some Democratic leaders are trying to lay the groundwork for a tax increase," said [Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees], an East Longmeadow Republican. "But I don't think it's going to fly. We have to just stand firm and talk about Romney's reform package and make sure the members and public know that the governor is closing the gap without taxes."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Tax panel to study hypothetical hikes
Democrats eyeing increase, GOP says
Gov. Mitt Romney fired back yesterday at the House of Representatives' near-wholesale rejection of his proposed court reforms, accusing lawmakers of trotting out "intolerable" cuts to win support for another major tax hike....
The Republican governor called lawmakers' arguments a "ridiculous" attempt to protect the status quo.
"Sadly, I think the task force is long on criticism and short on action," Romney said. "The House is more intent on protecting business as usual."...
By giving short shrift to his reforms, lawmakers unnecessarily limit the options for solving next year's $3 billion deficit, Romney said.
"The direction they may be heading is, 'Give me taxes or give me cuts, but don't give me reform,'" Romney said.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Gov blasts House panel for nixing his court reform
The House task force appointed by Speaker Finneran to examine all manner of revenue raising will almost certainly discuss tax increases, when it is released Wednesday - but don't call that a "recommendation."
The revenue task force is expected to list tax hike options, and to present them as a list of ideas, not formal recommendation. The big question will be whether the House budget committee or the full House adopts any of the ideas. And that will depend on whether legislative leaders feel they have a two thirds vote to override a promised tax veto.
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 14, 2003
House Task Force on Revenues report
While [Senate President Robert] Travaglini said there is "no appetite" for new taxes among the general public or in the Legislature, he hinted that may change.
"We must balance the budget without new taxes and without cutting core services," he said. "If we can't do that, there could be a call back and a revisiting of our strategy."
Brockton Mayor John T. Yunits Jr. agreed with that assessment.
"The magnitude of these cuts will generate blood in the streets," he said. "There will be calls for new revenues."
Yunits favors re-establishing an income tax rate of 5.95 percent that was in effect in 1999, which would be an increase over the current 5.3 percent rate.
He said that would bring in an additional $1 billion to help alleviate the deep cuts in government services and help prevent the layoff of needed police officers, firefighters and teachers across the state.
The Brockton Enterprise
Friday, April 11, 2003
State budget to be cut to the core
And with the state facing a $3 billion budget gap in the fiscal year ahead, [Robert McCarthy, president of the Firefighters Association of Massachusetts] said tax hikes, even though Romney is dead set against them, have to be discussed. "Whatever it takes," he says. "I think the people will pay additional taxes if they're told the truth." ...
The firefighters join municipal officials and many in the public education system who are calling for new taxes to minimize budget cuts. Like Romney, legislative leaders say new taxes are off the table or at most, a last resort.
Voters in November indicated a strong anti-tax sentiment by electing Romney and nearly abolishing the state income tax, the largest single source of state tax revenue. But the size of the state's budget gap has made it difficult for new taxes to be completely ignored as a potential solution....
State House News Service
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Feeling snubbed and fearing layoffs,
firefighters take case to the Hill
Dissident Democrats appalled at what they call a "naked power grab" by Speaker Thomas M. Finneran to boost the pay of loyalists admit they are powerless to stop the bill when it comes to a vote Monday....
The bill giving House and Senate leaders unilateral power to boost the pay of loyalists by lifting limits on leadership bonuses sailed through a House Public Service Committee hearing yesterday.
Under the measure, a majority vote in either chamber would be enough to confer extra pay on favored
legislators ...
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 11, 2003
Pols: 'Farcical' Finneran $ bill to pass in House
The new line on the tax form was added when legislative conservatives voted last year, as they put it, to confront liberals with an opportunity to put their money where their mouths were: Those who chose to support social programs or other state expenditures could choose to pay for them.
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government says another motive was to challenge those who acted to freeze the tax rate at 5.3 percent, postponing the final reduction to the 5 percent approved by the voters in 2000. But setting up a two-tier tax system -- one required and one voluntary -- solves nothing. It only adds inequity to the problem.
We certainly applaud those individuals whose compassion has led them to volunteer extra tax payments.
But we do not recommend it....
This page believes that the current deficit should be addressed with a balance of cuts and a temporary increase in the income tax rate back to 5.6 percent -- still less than was paid during most of the 1990s.
A Boston Globe editorial
Friday, April 11, 2003
A collective duty
A link to
Chip Ford's essay in response to the Boston Globe's failed historical
logic
follows the editorial, below
Considering that in 2000, more than a million people voted in a statewide referendum against cutting income taxes at all, you'd expect the Department of Revenue would now be deluged with liberals clamoring to pay higher taxes.
Er, no. With four days to go before the April 15 filing deadline, 1,538,749 state tax returns have been filed, and exactly 712 concerned citizens have opted to pay at the higher rate.
The total extra take from these 712 concerned citizens is $81,040, which works out to a little more than $100 per taxpayer. And if that's all they're paying, their taxable income averaged only about $20,000 per person, which won't get you far in
France-achusetts.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 11, 2003
Taxachusetts liberals show talk is cheap
by Howie Carr
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The tax hikes are coming, the tax hikes are coming!
Clearly the spending slash-and-burn strategy of the
Legislature is coming more clearly into focus by the day. No reforms, no
restructuring; patronage, pork and privilege will continue to reign
supreme on Beacon Hill. They'll cut where it hurts the most, where the
most vocal will scream the loudest like stuck pigs, demanding higher
taxes.
Finneran will keep upping the pay of his favorites,
filling the courts with his cronies and insuring their longevity, and
trying to play "Tax hike ... who, me?"
Already the House is recommending a whopping increase
in the auto excise -- one of the most detested taxes in the
commonwealth, one of the few states that even have one. Oh sure, they
"promise" it'll be only for new cars, only for the first five
years ... until everyone gets used to it (if anyone buys any new cars
after the tax takes effect). Then, once the shock has settled in and
becomes ingrained in the state's culture, soon it'll be "every
driver should pay his 'fair share'" and the tax will be expanded to
include even older vehicles. Oh yes, we certainly know how that
scam works after all these years.
Now we also have the chairwoman of the Senate Taxation
Committee looking into "hypothetical" tax hikes -- oh no, for
sure, honest "her request for information in no way suggests the direction of her committee or Senate
leadership." Of course not; she's just wasting taxpayers' money
seeking irrelevant information for no purpose.
Unbelievable ... literally unbelievable.
But all those good "we don't need or want a tax
cut" liberals sure have come around 180 degrees since the tax
rollback ballot question in 2000. So far, only 712 of them are left.
Obviously now, the other million-plus absolutely did need and
want a tax cut after all, and they're definitely not going to part with
it now.
That's quite alright, according to the Boston Globe
-- but what else can they say when so many of their ilk are making fools out of them. The Globe editorial board is now actually
recommending against it ... sort of like that old saying: "When
they're running you out of town, get in front of the mob and make it
look like it's a parade."
Though most probably wouldn't think it possible, the
Boston Globe embarrassed itself even more egregiously in that
editorial against our voluntary tax check-off. To fit their political
agenda, they twisted history in knots and stood it on its head by
comparing today's fiscal crisis to the "social bond" they
advocate: "Mutual responsibility should be the social lodestar, requiring everyone to keep in mind, as Winthrop said,
'our community as members of the same body.'"
The Puritan communitarianism of the Mayflower Compact
was a complete and utter failure that cost the lives of more than half
the "Pilgrims" who lived by the false god of "mutual
responsibility." By 1627, the leaders of Plimouth Plantation had
rejected that failed "social bond." "From each
according to his ability to each according to his need" that Karl
Marx later personified was replaced with simple property rights ... and
the demoralized colony immediately flourished far beyond even
their hopes or expectations. The Puritans, at least, learned a
beneficial, life-saving lesson from experience.
The Boston Globe editorial quoted John Winthrop ...
but they gave no mention to Gov. William Bradford, who in his journal "Of Plymouth Plantation" (1620-1647),
documented the abject failure of the kind of communitarianism the
Boston Globe incessantly advocates, and praised the amazing success
achieved from the fruits of property rights and the seed of capitalism
which in desperation they had sown.
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better
content," Bradford wrote. [See my essay, a rebuttal of the
Boston Globe's cravenly deceptive editorial screed.]
Is the Boston Globe's editorial board simply ignorant
of history ... or is it intentionally deceptive?
Or does it just think its readers are simply ignorant
and subject to its deceptions?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 11, 2003
House plan seeks more excise tax for newer cars
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
It's a dreaded annual tradition in Massachusetts, an annoying and seemingly pointless bill that comes no matter how decrepit or little-used your car: the auto excise tax.
Now, House lawmakers are calling for the most comprehensive overhaul to the tax in a generation, a move that would result in far higher taxes for owners or leasers of newer cars, and no tax at all on cars that are more than five years old.
"We want this based on the real-world value of the vehicle," said state Representative Stephen Kulik, a Worthington Democrat who helped develop the proposal as a member of the House Task Force on Local Government, which was appointed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. "It's just changing an existing tax, and it's something that should have been done decades ago."
But antitax groups are predicting widespread outrage from taxpayers if they're forced to pay more to keep their vehicles.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said the auto excise tax has come to symbolize "Taxachusetts," since many other states don't have one. Any attempt to raise excise taxes further would meet strong opposition, she predicted.
"They're trying something sneaky and underhanded here, by changing the valuation of your car," Anderson said. "They shouldn't even have an auto excise tax in the first place. You're paying it if your car is just sitting there in the street, even if you don't use it."
Governor Mitt Romney is promising to veto a measure along the lines House leaders are calling for. That would set up a difficult bar for lawmakers to clear - an override requires two-thirds votes in the House and Senate.
But Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who has not stated a position on the issue, has been more willing than Finneran to consider tax increases to cope with the current fiscal crunch.
House lawmakers said they think the measure would pass because it's only a change to the way excise taxes are calculated, rather than a rate hike.
Now, the rate is calculated based on the state's assessment of a car's value, with no regard for the vehicle's market value. Under the proposed change, any car less than five years old would take the Kelley Blue Book value - which in most cases is significantly higher than the state's figure.
The Massachusetts auto excise tax dates back to the 1920s, and was originally meant to pay for road construction and maintenance. The tax is set by state law, but it is collected by municipalities, and the money now goes directly to the coffers of cities and towns to pay for services at their discretion. It generates about $550 million annually.
In 1981, as part of the tax reform brought by the passage of Proposition 21/2, the tax was dropped from $66 per $1,000 of assessed value to $25 per $1,000. The minimum charge is $25 a year, and the auto excise tax applies to any car that's principally garaged in the state, whether it's registered or unregistered, leased or owned.
For purposes of calculating auto excise taxes, the state currently assumes that the value of cars drops precipitously after they're put on the road. The value of a vehicle is set by state law at 90 percent of its manufacturers' list price in the year of manufacture, and that rate drops to 60 percent in the following year, 40 percent in the third year, 25 percent in the fourth year, and 10 percent in all years thereafter.
"The depreciation schedule is wildly unrealistic in its current form" compared to market values, said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Asssociation, which wants higher excise taxes to be charged as a way to cope with huge cuts in state aid to cities and towns.
The owner of a 2000 Honda Accord sedan, for example, is paying about $115 a year now, but would be charged about $340 under the proposed change. For the owner of a 2000 Mercedes S-Class, the excise tax bill would jump from about $440 to about $1,375 under the House plan.
Lawmakers and the municipal association said no comprehensive research has been conducted to predict how much extra revenue the change would generate, but easily tens of millions of new dollars could flow to cities and towns, Beckwith said.
As a sweetener, House lawmakers are proposing that no excise tax be levied on vehicles after their fifth year on the road. Since current excise taxes on older vehicles are so low, the cost of collecting those fees often exceeds the tax itself, Kulik said.
Plus, the phase-out of the excise tax would make the tax more progressive, he said. Higher-income residents tend to own newer and more expensive vehicles, and residents who are driving their vehicles into the ground would be exempt from the excise tax altogether.
"Certainly, if you're a high-income individual who buys a luxury vehicle, you're going to pay more," Kulik said. "The city or town would be collecting more on newer vehicles, and it would save them the cost of sending bills and collecting on older vehicles."
But House Republican leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. said most voters are astute enough to realize that Democrats are simply trying to hike taxes in a backhanded manner, because few people would be willing to give up their cars.
"This isn't a tangential fee or something, since there's no opportunity to escape it, practically speaking," said Jones, of North Reading. "Get the thread and needle out and start to sew your wallet together. The tax man cometh."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Tax panel to study hypothetical hikes
Democrats eyeing increase, GOP says
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
Nobody wants to utter the "tax" word these days on Beacon Hill.
But state Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, chairwoman of the Senate Taxation Committee, may have unwittingly revealed the Senate's strategy on tax increases in a letter she sent to the Department of Revenue last week.
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, Creem asked the revenue agency to analyze how much money would be generated for the state by three different tax hikes: an increase in the personal income tax, higher minimum corporate taxes, and a legal change aimed at collecting revenue from businesses that duck state taxes through shell operations outside of Massachusetts.
In an interview, Creem said her request for information in no way suggests the direction of her committee or Senate leadership, adding that she sent the letter of her own volition. She said she asked for the data so that she and other Senate members could be armed with facts this spring in case any number of proposals are raised for discussion.
"I don't think the Senate is leaning any way," said Creem, a Newton Democrat. "Before we get to the point of cutting core services, I want to know all the options that are available to us and what revenues they would raise. I want to be prepared as chair of taxation to give my colleagues all the information they need to know when they make the decision on what they want to do."
But Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees said Creem's letter reflects quiet exploration among some Democrats about raising taxes this year, even after last year's $1.2 billion tax hike. With the public widely opposed to taxes and Governor Mitt Romney promising a veto, however, Lees predicted that their efforts will ultimately fail.
"There is a growing amount of evidence that some Democratic leaders are trying to lay the groundwork for a tax increase," said Lees, an East Longmeadow Republican. "But I don't think it's going to fly. We have to just stand firm and talk about Romney's reform package and make sure the members and public know that the governor is closing the gap without taxes."
Creem asked DOR Commissioner Alan LeBovidge to provide details on several different scenarios involving the income tax, including increasing the rate from 5.3 percent to 5.6 or 5.85 percent. She is also seeking information on increasing the minimum state corporate excise tax for higher-earning companies. Now, the minimum tax for companies of all sizes is $456, but Creem wants information on revenue from a sliding scale that would have the minimum tax top out at $10,000 a year for the largest corporations.
The House will debate its budget for the next fiscal year in late April, with the Senate to follow in mid-May. Fiscal 2004 begins July 1.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Gov blasts House panel for nixing his court reform
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Gov. Mitt Romney fired back yesterday at the House of Representatives' near-wholesale rejection of his proposed court reforms, accusing lawmakers of trotting out "intolerable" cuts to win support for another major tax hike.
The salvo came one day after a House task force blasted Romney's "false premise" of a court system larded with patronage and waste.
Addressing an annual prosecutors conference in Braintree, Romney described the House report as "all windup and no pitch."
The Republican governor called lawmakers' arguments a "ridiculous" attempt to protect the status quo.
"Sadly, I think the task force is long on criticism and short on action," Romney said. "The House is more intent on protecting business as usual."
The House task force on the courts was only the latest in a string of reports in which lawmakers rejected Romney's proposals to restructure higher education, Medicaid and local government mandates.
By giving short shrift to his reforms, lawmakers unnecessarily limit the options for solving next year's $3 billion deficit, Romney said.
"The direction they may be heading is, 'Give me taxes or give me cuts, but don't give me reform,'" Romney said.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Eugene O'Flaherty, (D-Chelsea), who led the task force, fired back that Romney's restructuring proposals amount to "gimmickry."
The House report had rejected Romney's proposal to fold the Boston Municipal Court into the larger system - accusing Romney of trying to make a "symbolic sacrifice" of court employees.
"He's probably never been inside a courtroom," said O'Flaherty, a practicing lawyer since 1994.
"I have encountered nothing throughout this state but hard-working people who are doing the best they can, increasingly with less resources."
Also yesterday, Romney roundly rejected the House task force's proposal to decriminalize a host of crimes - from prostitution and pot-smoking, to shoplifting and certain motor vehicle offenses.
"That would be nuts," Romney said.
Backers of the proposal said the state's $2.2 million annual outlay for public defenders for petty criminals would be better spent on serious offenses.
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 14, 2003
House Task Force on Revenues report
The House task force appointed by Speaker Finneran to examine all manner of revenue raising will almost certainly discuss tax increases, when it is released Wednesday - but don't call that a "recommendation."
The revenue task force is expected to list tax hike options, and to present them as a list of ideas, not formal recommendation. The big question will be whether the House budget committee or the full House adopts any of the ideas. And that will depend on whether legislative leaders feel they have a two thirds vote to override a promised tax veto.
House budget chief John Rogers (D-Norwood) said recently that votes are not there in the House to support higher taxes. House staffers say the report will reflect the totality of testimony they heard, including loud calls for tax increases from Green Party activists, unions, and other liberal groups.
Mayors also requested local option taxes. Others have been urging the state to borrow money, or dip further into remaining reserves, to help bridge the budget gap.
House staffers say the report represents just a summary of findings. The report will likely be released Wednesday, according to Finneran aides. All of the other reports have been presented during caucuses.
State House News Service
Advances - Week of April 14, 2003
House Task Force on Revenues report
The House task force appointed by Speaker Finneran to examine all manner of revenue raising will almost certainly discuss tax increases, when it is released Wednesday - but don't call that a "recommendation."
The revenue task force is expected to list tax hike options, and to present them as a list of ideas, not formal recommendation. The big question will be whether the House budget committee or the full House adopts any of the ideas. And that will depend on whether legislative leaders feel they have a two thirds vote to override a promised tax veto.
House budget chief John Rogers (D-Norwood) said recently that votes are not there in the House to support higher taxes. House staffers say the report will reflect the totality of testimony they heard, including loud calls for tax increases from Green Party activists, unions, and other liberal groups.
Mayors also requested local option taxes. Others have been urging the state to borrow money, or dip further into remaining reserves, to help bridge the budget gap.
House staffers say the report represents just a summary of findings. The report will likely be released Wednesday, according to Finneran aides. All of the other reports have been presented during caucuses.
The Brockton Enterprise
Friday, April 11, 2003
State budget to be cut to the core
By Sean Flynn, Staff writer
State Senate President Robert Travaglini had no good news for members of the Metro South Chamber of Commerce Thursday morning, confirming fears that the House and Senate will unveil budgets that severely cut state services.
But he said unlike in past years, the details will come soon.
"We cannot cut our way out of this crisis," he said. "We will abandon what I believe are core services of government."
Last year, the leaders of the Legislature, then Senate President Thomas Birmingham and House Speaker Thomas Finneran, battled over provisions of the budget, such as financing campaign reform, so passage of the budget was delayed until late fall.
"You may not like the budget this year, but it will be on time," said Travaglini. "For the first time in a long time, the House and Senate have established a camaraderie."
He said he, Finneran and Gov. Mitt Romney have been meeting weekly in order to try to settle differences.
The House is expected to unveil its version of the budget on April 23, and the Senate will follow with its proposal in mid-May. Fiscal year 2004 begins July 1.
In the current fiscal year, Travaglini said $650 million was cut from the budget.
Now, there is nearly a $3 billion shortfall in state revenues.
Travaglini said about $700 million can be made up by increasing various state fees and through cost-saving measures. That leaves $2.3 billion that must be cut from about $23 billion in projected expenditures.
Travaglini said about $16.4 billion of the state budget cannot be cut because the money represents expenditures that are legal obligations of the state or mandates of the federal government, such as bond debt repayments, pensions, Medicaid, health insurance and foundation level spending for the school districts in the state.
The needed cut of $2.3 billion must therefore come from $6.7 billion in so-called discretionary funding, he said.
That will mean cuts in local aid and other areas of 15 to 20 percent, he said.
While Travaglini said there is "no appetite" for new taxes among the general public or in the Legislature, he hinted that may change.
"We must balance the budget without new taxes and without cutting core services," he said. "If we can't do that, there could be a call back and a revisiting of our strategy."
Brockton Mayor John T. Yunits Jr. agreed with that assessment.
"The magnitude of these cuts will generate blood in the streets," he said. "There will be calls for new revenues."
Yunits favors re-establishing an income tax rate of 5.95 percent that was in effect in 1999, which would be an increase over the current 5.3 percent rate.
He said that would bring in an additional $1 billion to help alleviate the deep cuts in government services and help prevent the layoff of needed police officers, firefighters and teachers across the state.
Travaglini said the current deficit is the result of 42 different tax cuts in 1990s, the rollback of the income tax in 2000, a recession, the terrorist attacks and the collapse of the stock market.
"It is not inefficiency and waste in government, and it is not because we have ineffective people administering government," he said. "It is time for this administration to transfer from campaign mode to government mode."
The governor has proposed increasing revenues by allowing slot machines in the state, but Travaglini said these possible revenues will not be a part of the Legislature's budget.
"We'll take a look at proposals," he said. "We have to consider the effect on the Lottery, the local aid and the fabric of our community. But let's decide once and for all if it's something we want to do, and not dance around it."
State House News Service
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Feeling snubbed and fearing layoffs,
firefighters take case to the Hill
By Michael P. Norton
The chief of the state's firefighters union says he's getting the cold shoulder from Gov. Mitt Romney.
Robert McCarthy, president of the Firefighters Association of Massachusetts, has written four letters to the Republican governor. The first was to congratulate him on winning the Corner Office. McCarthy then wrote to protest unilateral local aid cuts that he says have led to 100 pink slips for firefighters.
The third letter asked the administration to consider laid off firefighters for open positions at the Massachusetts Port Authority. And in the fourth letter, McCarthy urged the administration to split anticipated federal homeland security funds between the state's police and fire forces.
"No response at all," McCarthy said, self-assessing his treatment from the new Republican administration. State Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn appointed McCarthy to a public safety committee. But the administration has not opened up the dialogue that McCarty has sought.
Today, McCarthy, whose organization represents 12,000 firefighters, tried a different approach.
With Massachusetts AFL-CIO chief Robert Haynes at his side and dozens of helmet-wearing firefighters behind him, McCarthy arrived at Romney's office at 11:15 am to demand a meeting. Romney was in Washington D.C. attending meetings. An aide assured McCarthy that his message would be delivered.
McCarthy says rounds of local aid cuts don't square with public calls for enhanced public safety in a time of war and terrorism. "I'm having firefighters laid off every day," he said. "It's like we don't exist." If Romney's proposed $232 million cut were adopted, McCarthy believes 2,000 firefighters would be let go.
And with the state facing a $3 billion budget gap in the fiscal year ahead, McCarthy said tax hikes, even though Romney is dead set against them, have to be discussed. "Whatever it takes," he says. "I think the people will pay additional taxes if they're told the truth."
Expanded gambling, a firefighters' Lottery ticket and local option taxes all deserve exploration, he says.
The firefighters join municipal officials and many in the public education system who are calling for new taxes to minimize budget cuts. Like Romney, legislative leaders say new taxes are off the table or at most, a last resort.
Voters in November indicated a strong anti-tax sentiment by electing Romney and nearly abolishing the state income tax, the largest single source of state tax revenue. But the size of the state's budget gap has made it difficult for new taxes to be completely ignored as a potential solution.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey said administration officials have met with many firefighter representatives, including Berkley Fire Chief Robert Partridge, president of the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts. She could not say whether administration officials met with McCarthy or responded to his letters.
Asked about the 2,000 layoffs that McCarthy says would be caused by Romney's budget, Healey said, "I don't know how that is calculated." But Healey says the layoffs would be far worse and "unconscionable" in her words under an $800 million local aid cut that legislative leaders are considering.
"I understand why they were here today," Healey said of the firefighters. "I am very supportive of public safety services. They should be very concerned about what the House is saying in terms of local aid cuts."
Healey said municipalities can "manage through" the administration's proposed $232 million cut, which will she says will lead to local aid reductions of between 5 and 10.5 percent, depending on the community. But she called the 18 percent cut suggested by Democratic legislators "unconscionable."
McCarthy agrees.
"It would be devastating," he said Thursday afternoon during a break from an emergency meeting of the association's executive board. "What they are saying is the governor's budget is not real. Local aid is going to be cut even more and it's going to make my situation even worse. We need to talk about fees. We need to talk about taxes. We need to talk about revenues dedicated to public safety. Are they just going to forget about it just because there's a deficit? We sounded the alarm today and we're going to continue ringing it until someone hears it."
In his own letter, released on Beacon Hill Thursday morning, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. John Rogers (D-Norwood) says Romney and his aides are confusing and misleading taxpayers by publicly claiming to have proposed a local aid cut that averages 5 percent, but may hit 10 percent for some communities.
Actually, Rogers claims, Romney's budget cuts non-education-related local aid by 21 percent, or slightly more than the worst-case scenario envisioned by House budget writers.
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman dismissed Rogers' assertions. "It's not right," said Feddeman.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 11, 2003
Pols: 'Farcical' Finneran $ bill to pass in House
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Dissident Democrats appalled at what they call a "naked power grab" by Speaker Thomas M. Finneran to boost the pay of loyalists admit they are powerless to stop the bill when it comes to a vote Monday.
Opponents "will probably get a few more votes than usual," said Finneran foe Rep. Douglas W. Petersen (D-Marblehead). "But it looks like this will pass pretty easily."
The bill giving House and Senate leaders unilateral power to boost the pay of loyalists by lifting limits on leadership bonuses sailed through a House Public Service Committee hearing yesterday.
Under the measure, a majority vote in either chamber would be enough to confer extra pay on favored legislators; currently, a change in state law and the governor's signature are required.
Fifty-one of the 160 House members get $7,500 to $25,000 bonuses on top of their $53,380 annual base pay. Since becoming speaker in 1996, Finneran has added 11 leadership jobs with bonuses, including four floor division leaders who each earn an extra $15,000 despite having no official duties other than an occasional vote count.
The speaker has said the bill simply gives the House the power to eliminate outdated committees and create new ones.
But Colin Durrant of Common Cause Massachusetts said the plan to create even more leadership posts "will very soon lead to the farcical outcome of having more than half the body being technically 'leadership.'"
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 11, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
A collective duty
With nearly half of the state's anticipated 3.3 million income tax returns processed by the end of last week, only 677 taxpayers had volunteered to pay at the optional higher rate of 5.85 percent instead of the required rate of 5.3 percent. These contributions, averaging a bit over $100, produced a mere $77,342 in additional revenue for the state. Unless late filers are exponentially more generous, it is clear that the state's $3 billion budget gap will not be solved by charity.
And it should not be.
The new line on the tax form was added when legislative conservatives voted last year, as they put it, to confront liberals with an opportunity to put their money where their mouths were: Those who chose to support social programs or other state expenditures could choose to pay for them.
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government says another motive was to challenge those who acted to freeze the tax rate at 5.3 percent, postponing the final reduction to the 5 percent approved by the voters in 2000. But setting up a two-tier tax system -- one required and one voluntary -- solves nothing. It only adds inequity to the problem.
We certainly applaud those individuals whose compassion has led them to volunteer extra tax payments.
But we do not recommend it. Government is a social bond that people should enter into willingly, but they should not have the option of partial citizenship. The core concept is that of community -- that everyone has a stake in everyone else's well-being. "We must delight in each other," John Winthrop said with great vision in 1630. Mutual responsibility should be the social lodestar, requiring everyone to keep in mind, as Winthrop said, "our community as members of the same body."
Taxation is a necessary mechanism of community, and fair taxation is a reliable indicator of a healthy society.
When there is a gap between revenues and expenditures, it is up to the governor and Legislature to make the hard choices of what services will be cut and what revenues will be raised. This page believes that the current deficit should be addressed with a balance of cuts and a temporary increase in the income tax rate back to 5.6 percent -- still less than was paid during most of the 1990s.
It is unfair for Governor Romney to close the gap through cuts and regressive fee increases alone. And it is unfair for anyone to think that the gap should be closed through taxpayer charity.
The day Massachusetts starts relying on voluntary contributions is the day it ceases to be a commonwealth.
Chip
Ford's essay
in response to the Boston Globe's failed historical logic
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 11, 2003
Taxachusetts liberals show talk is cheap
by Howie Carr
It seemed like a such a wonderful idea - giving big-hearted Massachusetts liberals the opportunity to voluntarily pay the higher state income taxes they're always trying to foist on the rest of us.
Under a new law this year, every taxpayer in the commonwealth can elect to pay income taxes at the old higher rate of 5.85 percent, rather than at the new, lower 5.3 percent rate.
Considering that in 2000, more than a million people voted in a statewide referendum against cutting income taxes at all, you'd expect the Department of Revenue would now be deluged with liberals clamoring to pay higher taxes.
Er, no. With four days to go before the April 15 filing deadline, 1,538,749 state tax returns have been filed, and exactly 712 concerned citizens have opted to pay at the higher rate.
The total extra take from these 712 concerned citizens is $81,040, which works out to a little more than $100 per taxpayer. And if that's all they're paying, their taxable income averaged only about $20,000 per person, which won't get you far in France-achusetts.
Surely, there must be some mistake. This state teems with compassionate advocates and liaisons and community organizers, not to mention human shield wannabes, yet a mere one-20th of 1 percent of the population is willing to pony up.
Don't they understand? It's for the children.
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for governor last year, recently told a suburban newspaper, "I know a lot of rich people who say they aren't paying their fair share of taxes."
Key word: say. Talk is cheap, Jill, and so are your hypocritical comrades.
A few weeks ago, after I first wrote about this disconnect between rhetoric and reality, The Wall Street Journal editorialized that a good follow-up would be to ask some local members of the congressional delegation if they're planning to voluntarily pony up some extra dough for the most vulnerable members of society, the victims of Reagan-Bush, etc.
So calls were placed yesterday to millionaire Sens. John "Liveshot" Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, of whom it can safely be said they never met a tax they didn't like. Neither returned my calls.
Then I called U.S. Rep. Barney Frank. If he chooses to pay at the higher rate, it'll cost him about $800. He returned my call.
"No, I won't (be paying at the higher rate)," he said. "I don't trust the legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions, so I'll donate the money myself, probably to some health clinics in New Bedford that are going to get hit hard in the new budget."
For the second time, I called the offices of two people who lust after higher taxes - those two tax-crazed Democratic legislative leaders of whom even Barney Frank is suspicious. Senate President Bob Travaglini and House Speaker Tommy "Taxes" Finneran did not return my calls. I am shocked, shocked.
Then I phoned Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-South End). Trav has just appointed her to "review Gov. Romney's reorganization proposals." I hope in the rush of her new duties, the solon won't make the same mistake she's made in the past - neglecting to file her income taxes, which once led to a brief stay in a halfway house.
Surely Sen. Wilkerson would gladly pay higher taxes. In a way, you might consider them her reparations, shall we say, for her prior bad acts.
Alas, when my phone did not ring, I knew it was Dianne . . . and Liveshot, and Teddy, and Tommy Taxes and Trav. But how do you think they'll vote the next time they get the chance to raise taxes for everybody else?
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO-AM 680, WHYN-AM 560, WGAN-AM 560, WEIM-AM 1280, and WXTK 95.1 FM.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|