CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, May 7, 2005
Battling tax rollback editorials
continue
A spike in state tax revenues for April prompted a
predictable call this week by Governor Romney for the Legislature to
reduce the income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, as voters
mandated in a 2000 ballot question. Advocates of doing this -- and
forfeiting $590 million in annual tax collections -- should first
examine the systematic underfunding of important state responsibilities
since that vote, which cut state revenues just before the economy
started weakening....
The state House of Representatives had similar data late last month when
it dispatched to a study commission a Republican proposal to cut the
state's income tax rate to 5 percent. When the study commission meets,
it should demand that proponents of a tax cut spell out how this could
be accomplished without further compromising the state's ability to aid
its towns and cities, protect its air and water, provide affordable
higher education, and prevent diseases. The Commonwealth is doing none
of these things well now.
A Boston Globe editorial
Friday, May 6, 2005
Before a tax cut
With state tax revenues setting all-time records and
exceeding estimates by almost $1 billion this fiscal year, state legislators
have run out of pretexts for ignoring calls for a rollback of the state income
tax rate to 5 percent....
Nearly 16 years ago, the Legislature promised that the income tax hike would be
temporary, and voters reminded them of that promise on the 2000 ballot. It is
time for the Great and General Court to make good on its pledge.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Friday, May 6, 2005
A promise unkept
Soaring state revenues remove lawmakers’ excuses
When the state Department of Revenue announced Monday that
Massachusetts had collected more than $2 billion in taxes in April, a record for
a single month, Romney again declared the fiscal crisis over and asked the
Legislature to cut the state income tax.
Lawmakers should again reject the governor's request for the same obvious
reason: The state cannot afford it....
Until the state is sure it has seen the light at the end of the tunnel, it
should not cut taxes. Better yet, it should wait until it is out of the tunnel
completely.
A Springfield Republican editorial
Thursday, May 5, 2005
Romney tax cut wish more wishful thinking
Five years ago voters overwhelmingly approved the rollback in
a statewide ballot referendum, but legislators have steadfastly ignored the
mandate while using the cash to balance budget shortfalls....
The Legislature, however, is going to use the money much differently. It will
likely boost legislative salaries (despite the recession, lawmakers have
received a pay raise every year since 2000), boost salaries and benefits for
state workers, and boost funding for pet projects....
What really gets our craw, however, is the Legislature's inability to craft laws
that would stabilize or reduce runaway costs associated with public pensions and
health-care costs. The public sector is failing to pay its fair share, while the
private sector is bearing the burden.
Legislators really have no right to our rollback money.
The longer they hold on to it, the longer they'll drag their feet on making
prudent budgetary decisions.
And, of course, they'll continue to spend.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Democrats: Rolling on the rollback
Reaction was mixed last week as a newly formed committee
began gathering signatures aimed at forcing a ballot question in November that
would reduce property taxes in Springfield by more than $15 million.
While supporters of the ballot question said it would force debate on how, they
say, city leaders have mismanaged the budget and city government, some opponents
said it will wreak financial havoc if approved by voters....
Since 1995, eight communities have attempted underrides statewide to reduce the
tax levy, and seven were successful, according to state records. The largest
underride was $2 million approved in Plymouth in 1995.
Nicolai was a member of the Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation
from 1978 to 1997, and was on its board of directors from 1981 to 1997 and was
board chairman from 1984 to 1997.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
praised the ballot question effort.
"As much as anything, maybe it's meant as a statement of disgust for the way
Springfield is being run," Anderson said.
She said that municipal officials also predict "disaster, devastation and
destruction" if taxes are not raised and made those predictions about
Proposition 2½ when approved 25 years ago.
The Springfield Republican
Sunday, May 1, 2005
Reaction mixed on underride
We sympathize with Peter Paul Nicolai, a local lawyer who wants to put an "underride"
on the Springfield ballot in November 2006....
As City Council President Timothy J. Rooke noted, Nicolai should prepare for the
population to get out of Dodge City if he's successful. "If it passes, I would
hope that Paul Nicolai also includes an evacuation plan for the city."
We are underwhelmed with his proposal.
A Springfield Republican editorial
Saturday, May 7, 2005
Underwhelmed
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
It didn't take long after the Boston Globe published
Barbara's guest op-ed column ("Tax
rollback would restore trust," May 5) to fire back -- the very next
day. Of course, her column was motivated by the Boston Globe's attack
editorial on the tax rollback on April 28 ("Fixated
on 5 percent").
But just as occurred on April 28 ("House continues to stifle the people’s voice"),
Worcester's Telegram and Gazette, again on the same day as the Globe, leaped in with its own editorial
supporting the rollback. (It's interesting to recognize
that both newspapers papers are now owned by the New York Times Company,
yet their editorial views are in such contrast.)
Of course Springfield's Republican (where did they
ever come up with that name for such a consistently liberal,
tax-and-spend daily newspaper?) chimed in with its dependable opposition
to the rollback. But its editorial was countered by the Lowell Sun's
reliable support.
One thing they all agree on -- whether pro or con --
is that the surplus will be spent if it's not returned to us taxpayers,
with those opposed to respect for voters and their decisions advocating for that additional spending, as always.
Former CLT chairman of our former board of directors
is creating wholesale panic among elected officials in Springfield over
the prospect that he might pull off an underride for the
taxpayers of his city.
Springfield is
so financially and morally bankrupt that it's on the verge of
state receivership. This city of
gross corruption and mismanagement is where, according to Springfield's
paper of record, former state Representative Christopher Asselin, "eight
family members and four contractors were indicted last year, accused of
swindling more than $2.5 million from the [housing] agency during the
past decade" by the federal government.
More underrides are surfacing here and there around
the state in municipalities that allow for them as taxpayers shout that
they've had enough. If one of the
bills filed by CLT this year (S-1644) is adopted by the Legislature,
taxpayers in every city and town will soon have that power of the
underride.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 6, 2005
A Boston Globe editorial
Before a tax cut
A spike in state tax revenues for April prompted a predictable call this
week by Governor Romney for the Legislature to reduce the income tax
rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, as voters mandated in a 2000 ballot
question. Advocates of doing this -- and forfeiting $590 million in
annual tax collections -- should first examine the systematic
underfunding of important state responsibilities since that vote, which
cut state revenues just before the economy started weakening.
Since 2001, spending for local aid has declined 20 percent on an
inflation-adjusted basis. For higher education, the decrease has been 24
percent, putting Massachusetts 47th in per-capita spending in this area.
At a time when economic growth has never been so closely tied to the
educational level of the work force, this shortchanging of public
colleges and universities is extremely shortsighted. For public health
the drop has been 30 percent, forcing the loss of many valuable
programs, including ones to prevent AIDS and stop teenage smoking.
Massachusetts was once a leader in dealing with toxic wastes,
brownfields restoration, wetlands protection, and conservation of open
space. Since 2001, spending for the environment has fallen by 29
percent. The state is now 48th in per-capita expenditures on the
environment. The retreat has been especially severe for the Department
of Conservation and Recreation, which has seen 43 percent of its budget
evaporate in four years. Poorly maintained and understaffed parks,
beaches, and rinks are testimony to this loss of support. State spending
has tended to increase since 2001 for health programs such as Medicaid,
but state reimbursements still lag behind providers' actual costs.
While it is true that April's $2 billion in tax revenues was 11.2
percent higher than the yield in April a year ago, much of the increase
was due to a surge in capital gains tax revenues, which oscillate
dramatically. The increase in income tax withholding, which reflects
actual job growth and wage increases, was just 1.8 percent compared with
April 2004. The state has 175,000 fewer jobs now than in February 2001,
just before the economy stumbled.
The state House of Representatives had similar data late last month when
it dispatched to a study commission a Republican proposal to cut the
state's income tax rate to 5 percent. When the study commission meets,
it should demand that proponents of a tax cut spell out how this could
be accomplished without further compromising the state's ability to aid
its towns and cities, protect its air and water, provide affordable
higher education, and prevent diseases. The Commonwealth is doing none
of these things well now.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Friday, May 6, 2005
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
A promise unkept
Soaring state revenues remove lawmakers’ excuses
With state tax revenues setting all-time records and exceeding estimates
by almost $1 billion this fiscal year, state legislators have run out of
pretexts for ignoring calls for a rollback of the state income tax rate
to 5 percent.
Last week, on a strict party-line vote, House Democrats rejected a
Republican call for the rollback, which voters approved by initiative
petition in 2000. They claimed the money is needed for a variety of
state spending programs.
As Gov. Mitt Romney — a supporter of the income tax rate rollback —
quite correctly pointed out, the record-breaking collection of $2
billion in income, sales and capital gains taxes last month — capping
more than a year of higher-than-expected collections — indicates a
forward-moving economy and removes all of the questionable reasons to
stonewall on the rollback.
He’s right. While there is never a shortage of ideas about how any extra
revenue might be spent, letting taxpayers hold onto the surplus — to
save, invest or spend as they see fit — would be a welcome tonic for the
state’s economy and, ultimately, its tax coffers.
This year’s budget debate overall has been reasonably restrained, with
less in the way of “outside-section” shenanigans than in some past
years. But to have so much revenue piling up begs for special interests
to pounce. To leave a billion dollars in unanticipated tax revenue
rattling around in the state’s general fund waiting to be dispensed is
an engraved invitation to mismanagement and waste.
Some of the unexpected revenue likely will be needed for supplemental
appropriations. But even with the long-awaited rollback, those
expenditures would be covered.
Nearly 16 years ago, the Legislature promised that the income tax hike
would be temporary, and voters reminded them of that promise on the 2000
ballot. It is time for the Great and General Court to make good on its
pledge.
Return to top
The Springfield Republican
Thursday, May 5, 2005
A Springfield Republican editorial
Romney tax cut wish more wishful thinking
A year ago, after declaring that tax revenues for April were higher than
expected, Gov. W. Mitt Romney declared the state's fiscal crisis over
and asked the Legislature to cut the state income tax.
State lawmakers refused, questioning whether Romney had seen a light at
the end of the tunnel or a train.
It was the wise decision.
When the state Department of Revenue announced Monday that Massachusetts
had collected more than $2 billion in taxes in April, a record for a
single month, Romney again declared the fiscal crisis over and asked the
Legislature to cut the state income tax.
Lawmakers should again reject the governor's request for the same
obvious reason: The state cannot afford it.
In November 2000, voters in Massachusetts approved a ballot question to
lower the state income tax from 5.85 to 5 percent over three years. Gov.
A Paul Cellucci told voters the tax cut would actually increase state
revenue because it would create jobs and allow people to spend more. We
know what happened next. By 2002, with the state mired in a fiscal
crisis, the Legislature froze the tax cut at 5.3 percent because the
state needed the revenue.
While the signs of a recovery are encouraging, it would be premature to
lower the income tax to 5 percent now.
Before the state lowers the tax rate, it should first restore the $3
billion in cuts made to the state budget during the fiscal crisis. Here
in Western Massachusetts, cities and towns laid off teachers, police
officers, firefighters and municipal workers during the fiscal crisis.
Services for the elderly, the poor, children, the mentally ill and the
homeless were cut. The University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the
community colleges - the pride of the region - lost funding.
Some of the funds have been restored, but not nearly to the levels
needed to function effectively.
Massachusetts is not out of the woods. According to the Department of
Revenue, most of the unexpected revenue in April came from capital gains
taxes, an unreliable indicator of the state's economy.
Until the state is sure it has seen the light at the end of the tunnel,
it should not cut taxes. Better yet, it should wait until it is out of
the tunnel completely.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
A Lowell Sun editorial
Democrats: Rolling on the rollback
Last week, House Democrats on Beacon Hill defeated a measure to return
to taxpayers what is rightfully theirs: a rollback of the state's income
tax from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. Five years ago voters overwhelmingly
approved the rollback in a statewide ballot referendum, but legislators
have steadfastly ignored the mandate while using the cash to balance
budget shortfalls.
Granted, the economic recession of 2001 hit the state hard. But it is
over. Massachusetts has registered employment gains for seven
consecutive months. Tax receipts continue to climb, too. Money is coming
in.
So why won't legislators give taxpayers what they are owed?
If the rollback were granted today, taxpayers would gain $300 million.
In 2006, they would receive $600 million. Over two years, that's $900
million. This is money taxpayers would recycle into the economy, keeping
businesses busy and workers working.
The Legislature, however, is going to use the money much differently. It
will likely boost legislative salaries (despite the recession, lawmakers
have received a pay raise every year since 2000), boost salaries and
benefits for state workers, and boost funding for pet projects.
Whom would you rather trust to spend the $900 million? Beacon Hill or
yourself?
Since 2001, the Legislature has moved at a snail's pace to make major
savings reforms. For instance, Democrats still resist Gov. Mitt Romney's
call to consolidate the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the state
Highway Department. A merger would save nearly $150 million annually.
Also, Democrats have bottled up changes to the Pacheco Law that would
create competition -- and fairer pricing -- through the privatization of
some state services.
What really gets our craw, however, is the Legislature's inability to
craft laws that would stabilize or reduce runaway costs associated with
public pensions and health-care costs. The public sector is failing to
pay its fair share, while the private sector is bearing the burden.
Legislators really have no right to our rollback money.
The longer they hold on to it, the longer they'll drag their feet on
making prudent budgetary decisions.
And, of course, they'll continue to spend.
Return to top
The Springfield Republican
Sunday, May 1, 2005
Reaction mixed on underride
By Peter Goonan
Reaction was mixed last week as a newly formed committee began gathering
signatures aimed at forcing a ballot question in November that would
reduce property taxes in Springfield by more than $15 million.
While supporters of the ballot question said it would force debate on
how, they say, city leaders have mismanaged the budget and city
government, some opponents said it will wreak financial havoc if
approved by voters.
"Realistically, if we cut $15 million from the budget, have the last
person shut off the lights," City Council President Timothy J. Rooke, an
opponent, said Friday. The current budget is $442.3 million.
City Clerk William J. Metzger said that a two-page mailing to voters by
the Springfield Underride Committee contains distortions on his pay and
the size of the City Council staff. The committee chairman, Paul Peter
Nicolai, defended the underride effort and mailing.
Since 1995, eight communities have attempted underrides statewide to
reduce the tax levy, and seven were successful, according to state
records. The largest underride was $2 million approved in Plymouth in
1995.
Nicolai was a member of the Massachusetts Citizens for Limited
Taxation from 1978 to 1997, and was on its board of directors from
1981 to 1997 and was board chairman from 1984 to 1997.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, praised the ballot question effort.
"As much as anything, maybe it's meant as a statement of disgust for the
way Springfield is being run," Anderson said.
She said that municipal officials also predict "disaster, devastation
and destruction" if taxes are not raised and made those predictions
about Proposition 2½ when approved 25 years ago.
Nicolai defended his group's efforts and the mailing.
The committee is calling for an "underride" of the Proposition 2½ tax
levy limit, to reduce taxes by $15 million a year, beginning July 1,
2006. The amount was chosen because voters approved an override of
Proposition 2½ in 1991 that increased taxation by that amount annually,
but never received the services promised including good schools, safe
streets and good government, Nicolai said.
"We are taking back the override we gave them," the committee states in
its mailing.
The group must collect signatures from at least 8 percent of the city's
registered voters to forward the ballot question to the City Council.
The city has close to 80,000 voters.
Nicolai said his group is mailing letters to about 10,000 households,
targeting voters, and is circulating petitions through his Web site.
Some city officials, including Mayor Charles V. Ryan, said an underride
would devastate city services, with Springfield already facing a budget
deficit this year estimated at $21 million. Ryan and Rooke last week
defended the city's efforts under a state-appointed Finance Control
Board to control spending, collect back taxes and hold its managers
accountable.
Metzger said the underride committee's mailing, which criticizes city
elected officials and budget practices, incorrectly states that the City
Council has "five full-time aides." The council has one full-time aide
and two part-time aides, he said.
Nicolai said he included two clerks in Metzger's office because they are
listed as "City Council Clerks" conducting council-related clerical
work.
Metzger also challenged a statement in the mailing that lists his salary
as $108,000 in 2004, and states the salary is "$14,000 more than the
Worcester City Clerk," adding that Worcester has 25,000 more people than
Springfield.
Metzger said his salary is $100,938, approximately the same salary paid
in Worcester. The Worcester city clerk said his salary including a
stipend is $99,600, but would be $119,600 (the top step) if he had
Metzger's longevity.
Nicolai said he apologizes if his salary figures are incorrect, but
defended the mailing as showing many examples of the city's track record
of mismanagement and wasteful spending.
Return to top
The Springfield Republican
Saturday, May 7, 2005
A Springfield Republican editorial
Underwhelmed
We sympathize with Peter Paul Nicolai, a local lawyer who wants to put
an "underride" on the Springfield ballot in November 2006.
Voters were promised good schools and safe streets in 1991 after they
approved a Proposition 2½ override that
raised an additional $15 million annually in tax revenue.
Today, Nicolai said, the city has bad schools, unsafe streets and the
"Enron of city government."
Unfair? So is life, the price of gas and crab grass.
Now, he wants an "underride" question on the ballot to reduce taxes by
the same amount.
Springfield is in a hole - and Nicolai is in favor of giving everyone a
shovel and telling them to dig deeper.
As City Council President Timothy J. Rooke noted, Nicolai should prepare
for the population to get out of Dodge City if he's successful. "If it
passes, I would hope that Paul Nicolai also includes an evacuation plan
for the city."
We are underwhelmed with his proposal.
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
|