CLT
UPDATE
Monday, April 14,
2003
CLT's first-in-nation "Tax Me
More" fund
a winner ... as they go
It's tax week, and since you're already annoyed with the bite Uncle Sam and Beacon Hill are taking out of your paycheck, some geniuses at the State House think it's a perfect time to float a plan to hike the automobile excise tax.
There probably is no tax or fee levied by state government that incites as much fury as the excise tax - paid just for the privilege of having your car sit in your driveway - so it's kind of Politics 101 not to kick this sleeping dog.
Ah, but kick it they have.... and they are being so clever about this one they probably think they can get away with it.
Instead of proposing to raise the excise tax rate ($25 per $1,000 of assessed value since Proposition 2½ lowered the tax from $66 per $1,000 in 1981) - a straightforward tax increase that proponents could argue for on its merits - lawmakers want to change the formula the state uses to assess the tax....
House leaders should pop this trial balloon quickly. Or on second thought, maybe they should let the plan go forward. The taxpayer revolt will be something to watch.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, April 14, 2003
Car tax hike revolt brews
Virginia, struggling through a financial crunch, has a message for taxpayers who feel an overwhelming desire to pay more than they owe. Go ahead.
A law passed last year by the General Assembly set up an account to take donations to the state's operating budget.
Since last July, when the so called "Tax Me More" law took effect, the money has been rolling in. All $400 of it....
The idea originated in Massachusetts, where a grass-roots group succeeded in reducing income taxes in a 2000 referendum, then set up a way for opponents to voluntarily pay at the old rate. So far this year, 712 people have opted for the higher tax, generating $81,000, according to
Barbara Anderson, executive director of the Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
The Virginian-Pilot - Norfolk, VA
Monday, April 14, 2003
Taxpayers are in no hurry to chip in extra for state budget
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- State lawmakers across the nation have come up with an unusual alternative to raising taxes for their cash-strapped states: "Tax Me More" funds that rely on donations from taxpayers.
"We have to be innovative and think outside the box when it comes to generating new revenue," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Jeff Coleman, a Republican. "The public is not going to swallow a massive tax, bond and spend package."
Within the past year or so, "Tax Me More" proposals have surfaced in states such as Kansas, Alaska and Oregon, sponsored by legislators opposed to raising taxes in a weak economy.
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Pa. Lawmakers Propose 'Tax Me More' Fund
The state Legislature is prepared to go all out in its effort to protect the status quo. It has determined that "reform" means higher taxes and slick maneuvers, not cost cutting....
The effort of the House panel is so transparent it is
laughable ... That system is alive and well and will continue to be funded by abused spouses, penniless defendants and hapless taxpayers, if legislators are allowed to run roughshod over reforms proposed by a governor who cares about taxpayers.
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Monday, April 14, 2003
Legislators shield wasteful court system
In fact, Finneran's answers exude ultimate confidence.
So why do I remain skeptical on most of the above, especially on no-new taxes and expanded gambling?
First of all, it was more than a year ago when the Speaker made a trip to Lowell and predicted dire cutbacks of 10 percent to 20 percent in local aid to cities and towns. As we all know, it didn't happen. Instead, the Legislature approved a $1.2 billion tax increase the largest in the state's history....
Already, the House and Senate PR machines called committees are churning out messages that Romney's budget-stabilizing proposals don't meet financial expectations. Senate President Robert Travaglini is saying he won't stand for cuts that trample the elderly, education and core services. These are the same promises, of course, that got us into this mess.
Also, liberal tax-and-spend groups are chumming the waters. The Mass. Taxpayers Foundation, Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities are lobbying lawmakers for tax increases. The Massachusetts Teachers' Association is spending $2 million on a radio campaign in that effort.
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, April 13, 2003
Is the Speaker stacking the deck?
By Jim Campanini
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Today's Boston Herald editorial was right on the money except
for one detail obvious to us long-suffering Massachusetts taxpayers: tax increases
are forever, while tax cuts are only temporary until they can be raised
again.
The proposed new formula to increase the auto excise tax,
we're promised, will affect cars only five years old or newer. To sell this scam
to the public, they propose to do away with the auto excise tax on all vehicles
older than five years. For now.
It won't be long before they're back harvesting those exempt
vehicles, again forcing their owners to pay only their "fair share" --
at the established new, higher valuation of course.
Mark my words.
Today, the Virginian-Pilot reported on the success of
Virginia's "Tax Me More" fund, which has raised only an additional
$400 this tax year.
The first "Tax Me More" fund was
implemented in Arkansas one year almost to the day after CLT filed its
Voluntary Tax Check-Off bill in December of 2000, and today we were credited
with being the first. The Associated Press a few days earlier reported that the
Arkansas "Tax Me More" fund has to date "taken in between $2,000 and
$3,000."
In sharp contrast, Massachusetts is way ahead of
Virginia and Arkansas, with an additional $81,000 filling the state's coffers
thru CLT's voluntary tax check-off.
That's a far cry from what we should see. 41 percent
voted against Question 4 in 2000, our "temporary" income tax hike
rollback. If they really didn't "need or want a tax cut," as
our opponents persistently asserted, if they all still felt that way,
Massachusetts would have raked in an additional $300-$400 million.
Those over-a-million voters who cast ballots against our
rollback but have taken the tax cut must agree with U.S. Congressman Barney
Frank, who Howie Carr reported in his column of April 11 (Taxachusetts liberals show talk is cheap)
asserted, "No, I won't (be paying at the higher rate) ... I don't trust the
legislative leadership and Gov. (Mitt) Romney to make the right decisions
...."
Who can argue with that logic? We don't trust the legislative
leadership either, and the congressman knows them a whole lot better than we do;
he used to work on Beacon Hill.
More evidence that our January prediction that tax hikes were
already in the pipeline is surfacing almost daily now. No longer are we the lone
voice in the wilderness. Reforms and restructuring are out, pork, patronage and
perks will be defended at all cost, "blood-in-the-streets" cuts is the
strategy, and tax hikes are the inevitable goal.
I wonder why it took others so long to see it coming?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 14, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Car tax hike revolt brews
It's tax week, and since you're already annoyed with the bite Uncle Sam and Beacon Hill are taking out of your paycheck, some geniuses at the State House think it's a perfect time to float a plan to hike the automobile excise tax.
There probably is no tax or fee levied by state government that incites as much fury as the excise tax - paid just for the privilege of having your car sit in your driveway - so it's kind of Politics 101 not to kick this sleeping dog.
Ah, but kick it they have. So far, the proposal to raise the automobile excise tax is just a trial balloon contained in a House of Representatives panel report about possible moves to offset local aid cuts. But trial balloons are floated to gauge reaction before politicians dive into politically risky waters, and they are being so clever about this one they probably think they can get away with it.
Instead of proposing to raise the excise tax rate ($25 per $1,000 of assessed value since Proposition 2½
lowered the tax from $66 per $1,000 in 1981) - a straightforward tax increase that proponents could argue for on its merits - lawmakers want to change the formula the state uses to assess the tax. Their proposal would align the formula (based on the car's value) with the Kelley Blue Book instead of using the current formula which depreciates value more quickly.
So the owner of a 2000 Volkswagen Passat, for example, would pay about $478 instead of about $153. And a mini-van driving soccer mom would spend about $612 on her 2002 Honda Odyssey instead of about $400.
The more high-end the car, of course, the more dramatic the increase, and this
``progressivity" appeals to some lawmakers (probably the ones who think the graduated income tax is such a great idea.)
To calm the fury from such a steep tax climb, lawmakers want to drop the tax to zero after the vehicle hits the five-year mark. That should go a long way to appeasing taxpayers who don't know why they're paying the tax in the first place.
Gov. Mitt Romney has jumped out in front of this one and promised to veto the measure if it reaches his desk - maybe he remembers how former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore rode this one issue to electoral victory a few years back.
House leaders should pop this trial balloon quickly. Or on second thought, maybe they should let the plan go forward. The taxpayer revolt will be something to watch.
Return to
top
The Virginian-Pilot
Norfolk, Virginia
Monday, April 14, 2003
Taxpayers are in no hurry to chip in extra for state budget
By Christina Nuckols
Virginia, struggling through a financial crunch, has a message for taxpayers who feel an overwhelming desire to pay more than they owe. Go ahead.
A law passed last year by the General Assembly set up an account to take donations to the state's operating budget.
Since last July, when the so called "Tax Me More" law took effect, the money has been rolling in. All $400 of it.
Sen. Nick Rerras, R-Norfolk, one of the sponsors of the Tax Me More bill, said that when he touted the idea to civic groups, "people were either quiet or you got some chuckles as though they weren't that interested.
"It was almost like, are you kidding?"
The idea originated in Massachusetts, where a grass-roots group succeeded in reducing income taxes in a 2000 referendum, then set up a way for opponents to voluntarily pay at the old rate. So far this year, 712 people have opted for the higher tax, generating $81,000, according to
Barbara Anderson, executive director of the Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
Arkansas was the first state to set up a special fund -- like Virginia has -- for voluntary donations. Several other states are considering similar proposals.
In most states, including Virginia, the measures were introduced by anti-tax politicians when they were under pressure to raise revenues. Virginia's law was adopted when legislators were being asked to allow a referendum on raising sales taxes to pay for transportation projects in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia.
But even Sen. Rerras hasn't contributed.
"They're probably like me," he said of taxpayers. "I'd rather have my charitable donations going to other organizations, like community and religious groups."
Anti-tax groups say the Tax Me More funds make a point.
"By their paltry balances, they help to remind fence-sitters in legislatures where the public lies on budget cuts," said Pete Sepp of the Virginia-based National Taxpayers Union. "These kinds of funds are a wake-up call."
Evidence of taxpayer animosity existed long before Virginia adopted a Tax Me More fund. For decades, taxpayers have had the option to donate some or all of their state income tax refunds to one of several designated organizations.
Between 1993 and 2000, the most recent data available, participation dropped even though the number of programs eligible to receive funds has grown from eight to 19.
In 1993, 88,143 taxpayers contributed $765,770. In 2000, 27,869 people gave $527,719.
The Virginia Nongame Wildlife Program, which funds programs to protect bald eagles and other protected species, has been the most popular choice for the donations, but even it has seen its donation reduced by half over the past decade.
Sepp said he's not surprised that even bald eagles are getting the cold shoulder from taxpayers.
"It reflects a general cynicism about the ability of government to manage existing funds," he said.
However, some legislators who have supported tax increases say that interpretation is exaggerated. Del. James H. Dillard II, R-Fairfax, an advocate of a sales tax increase for schools, pointed to polls showing public support for the idea. Schools are not among the groups listed on tax forms to receive contributions.
"Most people I talk to aren't opposed to government doing essential things, and schools are essential," Dillard said.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Pa. Lawmakers Propose 'Tax Me More' Fund
By Martha Raffaele
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- State lawmakers across the nation have come up with an unusual alternative to raising taxes for their cash-strapped states: "Tax Me More" funds that rely on donations from taxpayers.
"We have to be innovative and think outside the box when it comes to generating new revenue," said Pennsylvania state Rep. Jeff Coleman, a Republican. "The public is not going to swallow a massive tax, bond and spend package."
Within the past year or so, "Tax Me More" proposals have surfaced in states such as Kansas, Alaska and Oregon, sponsored by legislators opposed to raising taxes in a weak economy.
Coleman introduced a bill last month to protest a plan by Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. The governor wants to boost the state income tax by 34 percent, triple the beer tax, levy new taxes on phone service, while lowering property taxes.
A Rendell spokeswoman declined to comment on whether the governor would sign Coleman's measure if the Legislature passed it.
Coleman said he modeled his bill after a fund established by Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in November 2001.
Huckabee's "Tax Me More Fund" was a response to legislators who insisted that tax increases or other measures were needed to offset $142 million in budget cuts. To date, it has taken in between $2,000 and $3,000, according to his spokesman, Jim Harris.
"He said 'Put your money where your mouth is, and if you feel like you're not paying enough, then go ahead and write a check,'" Harris said.
While other states have introduced "copycat" legislation, few if any measures have gotten very far, said Pete
Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union in Washington.
"I think that this is the type of legislation that is often proposed and often disposed of," Sepp said.
Return to
top
The Brockton Enterprise
Monday, April 14, 2003
Editorial
Legislators shield wasteful court system
The state Legislature is prepared to go all out in its effort to protect the status quo. It has determined that "reform" means higher taxes and slick maneuvers, not cost cutting.
That is apparent by a report issued last week by a panel appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran which went to great lengths to protect the ineffective and wasteful court system. The report opposed Gov. Mitt Romney's plan to close eight unneeded courthouses and fold the Boston Municipal Court into the state court system, which would save $4 million.
But the powers that be in Massachusetts still refuse to make any meaningful cuts, afraid their friends and relatives will lose their cushy state jobs. Instead, they have proposed another round of fees and a manipulation of crime categories to raise money to fund their patronage havens.
The report said $22 million could be raised largely through gouging more innocent people who pass through the court system. This includes boosting the cost of a temporary restraining order by $30 — a fee that falls largely on the less well off — and raising fees for everything from name changes to the cost of court transcriptions.
There also is a plan to treat some misdemeanors as civil infractions, taking away some defendants' ability to have access to a public defender. This plan is worthy of debate, but it should be placed in a social and criminal context, not just as a money-making scheme.
The effort of the House panel is so transparent it is laughable, but legislators who give themselves regular pay raises when everyone else is hurting are capable of any sleight of hand. So now they are demanding that we keep open courthouses that are only used a few times a week and courthouses run by people who refuse to answer to the central court system. If you thought patronage in the court system died the day Jackie Bulger — the less famous criminal brother — retired from a grueling career as clerk-magistrate of the Boston Juvenile Court, guess again. That system is alive and well and will continue to be funded by abused spouses, penniless defendants and hapless taxpayers, if legislators are allowed to run roughshod over reforms proposed by a governor who cares about taxpayers.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, April 13, 2003
Is the Speaker stacking the deck?
By Jim Campanini
Two weeks ago, House Speaker Tom Finneran sat down with Sun editors for an expansive 90-minute interview during which he mapped out the state's fiscal crisis and a potential strategy for solving it.
The state has a $3 billion budget gap, he said, and the Legislature and Gov. Mitt Romney are working to eliminate it.
No. 1, Finneran said the people of Massachusetts won't tolerate a tax increase.
No. 2, Finneran said the Legislature's got to reduce spending and that everything from Medicaid to Chapter 70 education aid funding is on the table for cutbacks.
No. 3, Finneran said the state must consider expanded gambling as an option for raising new revenues.
No. 4, Finneran said all of Gov. Romney's plans for restructuring state government should get a fair hearing.
If you've never seen Finneran in action, let me tell you he's quite engaging. He's intelligent and his command of the issues is breathtaking.
In fact, Finneran's answers exude ultimate confidence.
So why do I remain skeptical on most of the above, especially on no-new taxes and expanded gambling?
First of all, it was more than a year ago when the Speaker made a trip to Lowell and predicted dire cutbacks of 10 percent to 20 percent in local aid to cities and towns. As we all know, it didn't happen. Instead, the Legislature approved a $1.2 billion tax increase the largest in the state's history.
Still, Finneran did succeed in getting his message across. His warning shocked municipalities into getting their fiscal houses in order.
Today, the Speaker's warnings are even more severe.
But do I believe that the Legislature's got the stomach to lay off 2,000 state workers, cut Medicaid and health programs to the bone, and reorganize state government into a lean-and-mean operation?
Being the contrarian that I am, the answer is simply no.
This doesn't mean Finneran is being disingenuous. He's not. He's just the architect of a wonderful campaign for lawmakers, mostly Democrats, to change everything so that it all ends up remaining the same.
Already, the House and Senate PR machines called committees are churning out messages that Romney's budget-stabilizing proposals don't meet financial expectations. Senate President Robert Travaglini is saying he won't stand for cuts that trample the elderly, education and core services. These are the same promises, of course, that got us into this mess.
Also, liberal tax-and-spend groups are chumming the waters. The Mass. Taxpayers Foundation, Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities are lobbying lawmakers for tax increases. The Massachusetts Teachers' Association is spending $2 million on a radio campaign in that effort.
It's all having an effect on the public's psyche. Recent poll results show residents are slowly getting more skeptical about Romney's goal to balance the budget without higher taxes.
The bottom line? Before long residents are going to crawl to the Statehouse for a tax hike, wrongly believing that Massachusetts is being degraded into a Third World country. Of course, Finneran will happily oblige them with a new record-breaking tax package.
As for the gambling issue, it's a longshot. On Tuesday, April 15, the House will begin debating whether Massachusetts should approve slot machines at racetracks or plunge into casino-style gaming enterprises. Finneran remains opposed to expanded gambling he wants to protect the state Lottery but says he'll go along with whatever the majority decides.
I say there is a House majority that wants slots. However, the odds are firmly stacked against these lawmakers in the form of one man, Rep. Dan Bosley who chairs the House Government Regulations Committee.
Bosley opposes gambling. Interestingly, he's the lone Finneran critic who retained a committee chairmanship when the Speaker reorganized his "team" several months ago for the 2004 legislative session. All the others were banished to an obsolete committee that meets only during Leap Year.
Why?
Bosley's panel must approve any gaming bill before it can go to the House floor for a vote. In essence, Bosely and his panel can bottle up anything they don't like.
How shrewd is the Speaker in keeping Bosley at his post?
Well, we'll have to see how the gambling proposals play out. But my guess is that Bosley will do his job as a legislative blocker, without Finneran having to twist his arm.
Just think: more than a year ago Tom Finneran could see all this coming down the road. Fascinating. Incredible. Remarkable.
Jim Campanini is The Sun's editorial page editor.
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
|