CLT
UPDATE
Monday, June 9, 2003
New poll: "Only a third of
voters favor tax increase"
As if figuring out the real needs and numbers behind the plethora of Proposition
2½ override votes facing local voters this spring isn't complicated enough, the House has passed another property tax raising scheme that will surely make voters' heads spin.
An amendment to a House municipal relief package adopted last week would allow the amount of revenue communities are required to set aside to pay for property tax abatements - in the so-called overlay account - to be raised outside the limits of Prop.
2½....
Municipalities already can ask voters to override Prop. 2½ for specific purposes. They can ask for an override in the same amount as the overlay account. So far this spring, many voters are just saying no. House members may think there will be a different answer if the question is dressed up in an overlay disguise. The governor shouldn't let this tax trickery stand.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 9, 2003
A new property tax trick
It is unlikely that Massachusetts legislators would dare launch a frontal assault on Proposition
2½, but they showed last week they are more than willing to chip away at it until it is finally emasculated and irrelevant. That's the logic behind a provision slipped into a "local-option" tax package approved by the House. It would allow yet another segment of local budgets to become exempt from the most consistently effective limit on local taxes in state history.
The Salem News
Monday, June 9, 2003
Lawmakers should keep hands off Prop 2½
By Taylor Armerding
The Herald poll of 412 registered voters was taken by RKM Research & Communications June 4-5. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.8 percent....
Only a third of voters back tax increases to protect government programs....
On taxes, 52 percent of voters want pols to choose spending cuts while 32 percent say they want programs protected by tax hikes. Democrats aren't even overwhelmingly supporting tax hikes, with a slight plurality picking cuts.
"Voters continue to want politicians to impose the discipline to control spending," Myers said.
Among the 32 percent who want their taxes raised, 40 percent say they want the new money spent on health care while 32 percent prefer the money be spent on schools. A paltry 3 percent said general local aid to communities should go up if taxes are raised.
"Despite a lot of conversation about cuts in local aid, that's not where they think the state ought to be restoring funding," Myers said.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 9, 2003
Mitt's blind spot: Trust issue dogs popular gov
On the merits, the legislative pay plan, which passed the House and will likely be approved in the Senate next week, is the height of Beacon Hill arrogance. The measure would give House Speaker Tom Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini complete free reign to set the compensation levels of their leadership team and create new posts as they please. Such plans now have to be approved by the Legislature and the governor. But taxpayers have a legitimate interest in the compensation of their representatives. Changes to it deserve the scrutiny of the legislative process.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 9, 2003
Merits are missing in pay raise debate
A bureaucratic tussle over who makes the state's legal calls should not result in a bad call by Attorney General Tom Reilly on appealing a court ruling which essentially threw out the disastrous $1.30 prescription drug tax.
Gov. Mitt Romney got a little ahead of himself when he announced that he wouldn't appeal. That decision actually rests with the attorney general's office. And we're sure apologies are forthcoming from the governor's legal beagles for the lapse.
Reilly, who forced pharmacies to stop passing the tax onto consumers, should quickly wrap up his own review and just let this bad idea die.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 9, 2003
Let prescription tax die
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
A legislator scheming to end-run Proposition 2½ by
expanding municipal Overlay accounts argued during House debate that "since this money
goes back to taxpayers anyway" it should be exempt from the limits of Prop
2½. Hold on!
That money in a municipal Overlay account is there for one
purpose: to reimburse property tax over-assessments
-- money wrongly taken from a taxpayer that never should have been
taken! It is not "going back" -- it is being returned to correct a wrongful
levy, to reimburse an over-taxed homeowner.
They'd prefer that it sound like some kind of tax
rebate ... instead of a correction that a taxpayer must fight for.
*
*
*
The latest -- an honest, impartial and professional
-- poll just released today shows that only a third back tax hikes over
spending increases, that 52 percent want the state to cut spending not
raise taxes.
It was just the past Thursday that the Boston
Globe reported:
"A strong plurality of 401 Massachusetts voters surveyed would prefer that Beacon Hill leaders raise taxes rather than cut government services to deal with the state's budget deficit, a new University of Massachusetts poll shows.
"In the survey taken late last week, 47 percent of those polled said they want Governor Mitt Romney and the Legislature to use taxes to close the spending gap, while 29 percent want them to cut programs.
"'The anti-tax sentiment seems to be ebbing,' said Lou DiNatale, director of the poll."
Hardly, Lou, hardly ... despite your fondest wishes
and best efforts.
"Voters continue to want politicians to impose the discipline to control spending," Herald pollster R. Kelly
Myers countered.
I think we all have recognized by now that any poll
done by taxpayer-funded UMass concerning tax hikes is hardly impartial,
objective or credible, but instead just a campaign tool of the
tax-and-spenders that will always be hyped by the Boston Globe.
Actually, the only "poll" of taxpayers that
counts was our voluntary tax check-off on income tax returns filed
earlier this year, and we know taxpayers voted "no new
taxes" in massive, overwhelming numbers with less than one-twentieth
of one percent putting their money where their tax-us-more mouths
are.
99.95 percent of filers kept their income tax
rollback.
That's not an opinion poll subject to anyone's
manipulation. That's reality .... signed under the pains and
penalties of perjury.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 9, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
A new property tax trick
As if figuring out the real needs and numbers behind the plethora of Proposition
2½ override votes facing local voters this spring isn't complicated enough, the House has passed another property tax raising scheme that will surely make voters' heads spin.
An amendment to a House municipal relief package adopted last week would allow the amount of revenue communities are required to set aside to pay for property tax abatements - in the so-called overlay account - to be raised outside the limits of Prop.
2½.
In other words, if the community of "Podunk" sets aside 2 percent of its property tax levy to fund successful challenges to property tax assessments, it would be able to tax residents for that amount on top of the 2 percent annual increase already allowed. So Prop.
2½ would really be Prop. 4 1/2 in Podunk, and higher annual property taxes would be the result in any other community where voters adopt the overlay exemption.
Ah, and there's the rub. To get by the veto pen of the governor, proponents of the change included a requirement that voters approve the overlay exemption by referendum.
The amount of money communities set aside for abatements is based on the past three years of abatement history. So the overlay exemption provides an incentive for communities to inflate property assessments to build up a slush fund. But we doubt that will be explained to voters having to muddle through the reasoning for this complicated change.
Municipalities already can ask voters to override Prop. 2½ for specific purposes. They can ask for an override in the same amount as the overlay account. So far this spring, many voters are just saying no. House members may think there will be a different answer if the question is dressed up in an overlay disguise. The governor shouldn't let this tax trickery stand.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Monday, June 9, 2003
Lawmakers should keep hands off Prop 2½
By Taylor Armerding, Staff Writer
It is unlikely that Massachusetts legislators would dare launch a frontal assault on Proposition
2½, but they showed last week they are more than willing to chip away at it until it is finally emasculated and irrelevant. That's the logic behind a provision slipped into a "local-option" tax package approved by the House. It would allow yet another segment of local budgets to become exempt from the most consistently effective limit on local taxes in state history.
This is not about local control. It is not about fiscal flexibility. It is simply another desperate attempt to avoid what voters endorsed by a convincing margin when they elected Mitt Romney governor and nearly dumped the state income tax entirely -- reform.
The proposed modification to Proposition 2½ looks a lot like other methods already in place by which communities can exceed their limits. It would require a two-thirds vote by either a city council or town meeting to place it on the ballot, and then majority approval in a referendum. But that is the only good thing about it.
The bad things? Let us count them.
It is unnecessarily complicated. Last week even legislators were confused about exactly how it would work. And if those who make and vote on the laws are confused, it is clear everybody else will be even more baffled.
The new provision would allow communities to make their so-called "abatement reserve" exempt from Proposition
2½ limits. That is an amount of money, ranging from less than 1 percent to about 4 percent of a community's total tax levy, that must be set aside each year to cover tax abatements for property owners who can prove their property was
overassessed. In Beverly, that figure is about $400,000, and it's nearly $1 million in Andover and Lawrence.
Proponents argue since this money "goes back to taxpayers anyway," it should be exempt from the limits of Prop
2½. But generally, it doesn't all get used for abatements. And once a community passes this new override, it continues in perpetuity and could increase every year without a new referendum.
This creates a perverse incentive to overassess more and more property, to make the fund larger and larger. If property owners don't go through the hassle of seeking an abatement, this new "slush fund" can then grow uninhibited by those pesky referendums.
Worst of all is the fact it is not necessary. There are more than enough opportunities for voters to call for more local spending through overrides for general spending, debt exclusions, affordable housing, capital purchases and open space, if they're so inclined.
Legislators should be working on reform, not easier ways to avoid it.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 9, 2003
Mitt's blind spot:
Trust issue dogs popular gov
by David R. Guarino
Voters who back Gov. Mitt Romney's reform agenda still don't entirely trust the Republican and give the much-maligned state Legislature higher marks for putting people first, a new Boston Herald poll shows.
While most voters approve of the job Romney is doing, the poll shows the governor has an Achilles' heel: 42 percent of voters say they trust the Democrat-controlled Legislature to better protect their interests. Just 33 percent said Romney is better on that score, the poll found.
"Romney gets high marks for controlling state spending, keeping taxes down and reforming state government but he still hasn't connected with voters," said Herald pollster R. Kelly Myers.
"It reflects Romney's background as a very wealthy person. A lot of voters still have difficulty relating to Romney because he is not a typical Massachusetts politician."
The Herald poll of 412 registered voters was taken by RKM Research & Communications June 4-5. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.8 percent.
The new numbers come as Romney is struggling to push his bundle of reforms through the Legislature, which has rejected most of his proposals, including one bid to remake the University of Massachusetts without the office of President William M.
Bulger.
The poll, which also showed voters want Bulger to resign amid questions about his fugitive brother, also found:
Despite steadily increasing national consumer confidence rates, nearly 80 percent of Bay State voters believe the economy is stalled or getting worse.
Two-thirds of voters worry more about their family's economic straits than they do a terrorist attack.
Only a third of voters back tax increases to protect government programs.
Overall, voters support the governor, now six months in office.
Romney is viewed favorably by 54 percent of voters, while 30 percent give him unfavorable marks. Democrats, independents and Republicans all give him positive ratings, the poll finds.
Romney's favorable rating is higher than U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry at 52 percent, and well over the poor ratings given House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini - who both ranked under 30 percent favorable.
Romney's overall job approval rating of 52 percent is bested only by President George W. Bush, who scored 57 percent in Massachusetts in the poll.
The governor's push for reform appears to be driving his popularity. Only 27 percent of voters said they disapprove of Romney's reform efforts, and even Democrats embraced his reform by a 47 percent to 34 percent margin.
The poll shows Romney has succeeded in convincing voters to trust him, not the Legislature, on reform, taxes and spending.
But voters trust Romney only slightly more than lawmakers on improving the economy - 43 percent choosing Romney and 34 the Legislature.
On the overall issue of trust, all but Republican voters picked the Legislature over Romney. The poll also showed a huge gender gap on the issue of trust, with just 28 percent of women saying they trust Romney more than lawmakers compared to 38 percent of men.
On taxes, 52 percent of voters want pols to choose spending cuts while 32 percent say they want programs protected by tax hikes. Democrats aren't even overwhelmingly supporting tax hikes, with a slight plurality picking cuts.
"Voters continue to want politicians to impose the discipline to control spending," Myers said.
Among the 32 percent who want their taxes raised, 40 percent say they want the new money spent on health care while 32 percent prefer the money be spent on schools. A paltry 3 percent said general local aid to communities should go up if taxes are raised.
"Despite a lot of conversation about cuts in local aid, that's not where they think the state ought to be restoring funding," Myers said.
The economy continues to be voters' chief concern, with terror fears continuing to wane - as they did in a Herald poll last September. Sixty-three percent say their economic situation is a bigger concern than terrorism - 16 percent say the opposite.
"Although consumer confidence at the national level is going up, we're seeing that voters are still expressing a lot of reservations about the strength and performance of the economy," Myers said.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 9, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Merits are missing in pay raise debate
Gov. Mitt Romney's aides are couching his intention to veto a legislative pay hike plan headed to his desk as revenge for the Senate voting down the administration's reorganization proposals. And certainly payback in politics can be as rough as it gets.
But Romney would have been well advised to veto the pay plan anyway. Playing tit for tat is a dangerous game in the State House when the two branches in charge of enacting - or squashing - your Republican agenda are heavily Democratic.
On the merits, the legislative pay plan, which passed the House and will likely be approved in the Senate next week, is the height of Beacon Hill arrogance. The measure would give House Speaker Tom Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini complete free reign to set the compensation levels of their leadership team and create new posts as they please. Such plans now have to be approved by the Legislature and the governor. But taxpayers have a legitimate interest in the compensation of their representatives. Changes to it deserve the scrutiny of the legislative process.
But there was a tenuous logic to the argument that the House and Senate should be able to organize their affairs much as the governor should be able to organize the executive branch. Legislators cut the knees out of that argument when they rejected the administration's executive branch restructuring plans out of hand.
So Romney, who had leaned toward signing the pay proposal, will pay them back by vetoing their pay raise.
So here's the sorry state of affairs on Beacon Hill. Legislators voted down Romney's higher education reorganization proposal to protect their pal University of Massachusetts President William
Bulger. Romney is vetoing a pay raise in a fit of pique.
Wouldn't it be nice if the merits of these proposals were part of the debate on Beacon Hill?
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
|