CLT
UPDATE
Monday, May 8, 2006
Taxpayers beware:
Bay State's New Socialism marches on
State taxpayers start working for themselves today,
as residents officially completed their payments of about $16,427 in
government taxes yesterday....
"Our tax freedom day is a milestone for us, but it is very late," said
Gov. Mitt Romney, who once again called on the Legislature roll back the
state income tax from 5.3 to 5 percent....
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, and Republican legislative leaders urged the
Senate to include the roll back in their upcoming debate for the fiscal
2007 budget.
"When they passed this in 1989 when they temporarily raised (taxes), we
knew they were lying and we are not going to let them forget it,"
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. "We are angry at the broken promise, and the disobeying of
the will of voters in 2000."
Democratic lawmakers defended their stance to hold off on the tax roll
back.
"Through the 1990s we cut taxes over 30 times, close to $3 billion,"
said state Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. "I think we are doing
pretty good. Of course we want to provide tax relief, but we still need
to pay for all the programs people in Massachusetts expect."
Senate President Robert Travaglini, who does not support lowering the
income tax this year, has filed a bill to cut taxes for families, which
could benefit people who need it most, said his spokeswoman Ann
Dufresne.
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
GOP lawmakers renew call to
roll back state income tax to 5 percent
. . . Democratic lawmakers defended their stance to hold off
on the tax rollback.
"It isn't time yet," said state Rep. Christopher Speranzo, D-Pittsfield. "Even
though there are positive local aid numbers (in the House budget), when you look
at programs, there are a terrific number that are still far below that high
point (of state funding before the recession)."
North Adams Transcript
Thursday, May 4, 2006
State taxpayers hit Tax Freedom Day
Last anybody looked, people were leaving Massachusetts in -
well, not in droves, but they were more or less leaving in small droves - a
two-year trickle that gave the Bay State among the most lackluster net
population statistics in the nation....
But now here comes the latest revenue report, from the crucial April
tax-collection month, and you'd think it was another Massachusetts Miracle.
Collections blasted through the $2 billion mark and set a new record by a
considerable margin: $2.215 billion, up 9.8 percent over April 2005. Collections
are running more than 8 percent ahead of last fiscal year at this time.
Corporate and business tax collections were up better than 35 percent from last
year - not in any way the sign of an economy on the skids.
The data were instantly reframed around the politics of the gubernatorial race.
To wit: Gov. Mitt Romney asked, not implausibly, "How can one continue to argue
that we're in fiscal crisis and that we can't afford to do what the citizens
voted for us to do?"
State House News Service
Weekly Roundup - Week of May 1, 2006
According to a story in the Friday, April 28 edition of The
Salem News, the superintendent of Beverly's schools, James Hayes, says Beverly
would have a second-rate system if it spent only what it could afford.
Apparently, as the superintendent sees things, Beverly should determine how much
it can afford to run its schools — then it should spend more.
Such an approach would be disastrous, of course. But however unwittingly, Hayes
uncovered a biting truth with his remark: Beverly cannot afford its existing
school system. But then, none of the surrounding communities can afford theirs
either....
For reasons difficult to fathom, the superintendent, the mayor and the teachers
union fail to recognize that they have a common problem: A reasonable amount of
tax revenue in Beverly cannot satisfy any of them....
Mayors have squeezed city operational budgets for years so as to provide more
revenue for — guess what — the schools. But those days are coming to an end.
Public safety will become the next victim if the omnivorous appetite of the
schools is not directed, in part, away from local budgets.
The Salem News
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Lesson for all in Beverly flap
By Robert Kelly
Under Proposition 2½, overrides were intended only to be used
for unusual and unforeseen situations. This is not the case with this proposed
override....
Northborough's fiscal 2007 budget provides 75 percent of the $40 million toward
education. This leaves very little funds to run the rest of the town.
Boston Globe - West edition
Sunday, May 7, 2006
Letter to the editor
A 'no' to Northborough school override
Could a constitutional amendment increasing the state
income tax by 1 percent be the answer to local education costs?
State Rep. Matt Patrick, D-Falmouth, thinks it’s worth a shot, and he
could have an unlikely ally for the concept in Barbara Anderson
of Citizens for Limited Taxation....
Patrick said that he would intend to maintain the present state spending
on education, for which $3.7 billion is allocated within the 2007 state
budget proposal....
Anderson said she also recognizes that as an amendment to the state
Constitution, such a proposal would go through a full, open and lengthy
public debate, and eventually be decided by voters.
"I don’t tend to get upset about anything that has to go before our
voters," Anderson said. "It isn’t as threatening as him filing a
statute....
It is the potential to reduce property tax burdens that has Barbara
Anderson, executive direct of Citizens for Limited Taxation, calling
Patrick’s idea "an interesting concept."
"That would be an exciting proposal in another state," Anderson said in
a phone interview Wednesday. "While the concept works if your tax burden
is low, I don’t see how our state can handle that." ...
That said, the ability to lift education off the property tax is
attractive....
CLT has been looking for ways to provide additional property tax relief,
so Anderson said shifting education to some other means of funding might
be worth talking about.
"We would love to see education off the property tax altogether," she
said.
Anderson said that she’d be more interested in a constitutional
amendment forbidding property taxes to be used to fund education, which
then places the entire burden to pay for the commonwealth’s public
schools on the state.
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, May 5, 2006
Boosting income tax 1% for education suggested
Rep. Patrick looking at amending state constitution
The Constitution Convention resumes on Wednesday after a long
recess.... While there are many other amendments pending, the only other one
with a shot at this year's ballot is an amendment sponsored by former House
Speaker Thomas Finneran that would make deposits into the state's rainy day fund
a constitutional obligation....
Officials from the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the state's
Information Technology Division, and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation will
testify Thursday before the Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State
Assets.... MTF recently called for the state to raise the amount it borrows
annually from $1.25 billion to $1.5 billion. Gov. Mitt Romney rejected that
idea....
Scheduled for potential votes are bills permitting law
enforcers to stop motorists if they or their passengers are not wearing seat
belts...
State House News Service
Advances - Week of May 7, 2006
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Buckle-up those political seat belts, citizens and
taxpayers: the threats are upon us, raining down from Beacon Hill.
Little if anything is done in the Legislature for months, until it's
budget season, and then things get crazy. Everything relevant is
suddenly dumped into the caldron of budget deliberations for an
up-or-down vote, take it all or leave it. None of our heroic pols
do anything but take what's served up to them at the last supper, and
this feast will be no different. Now is when we must pay
particular attention, and move fast.
Senate President Robert Travaglini has "a better
plan" for an income tax cut -- to add to the the Legislature's
oft-touted list
of tax cuts of the '90s, as referenced by Sen. Steven Panagiotakos
(D-Lowell) in the Lowell Sun report. The biggest problem with
Travaglini's plan, and Panagiotakos' support for it, is that it still
gives the Beacon Hill middle-finger salute to voters and taxpayers.
We already told the Legislature where and how to cut the income tax.
Regardless, they're still holding that salute high, sticking it in our
faces.
Travaglini's scheme is pure socialist redistribution
dogma straight out of the
Karl Marx playbook. It would take from
some to give to others -- others the legislative Social-Democrats deem "more needy"
or "more worthy" -- "From each according to their ability to
each according to their need."
Former Senate President Tom Birmingham also had "a
better plan" for our rollback. He termed his redistributionist
scheme "Five Easy Pieces." [See: CLT Update, May 10, 1998, "Five
Easy Pieces" of B.S." or Barbara's column of May 23, 1998, "Massachusetts
- Land of Broken Promises."] It too vaporized in 2002,
along with the voters' rollback. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh
away."
Even the former Senate president has come around and, last
October,
called for our tax rollback. According to Boston Globe business
columnist Steve Bailey:
He believes honoring the tax cut should take precedence
over new spending or other tax cuts.
"The experience of the last three fiscal years demonstrates [the tax cut] is
affordable without eviscerating core elements of state government," he says.
"After three years of budgetary surpluses, it is now clearly time."
And so many still ponder their navels over why the
Massachusetts Diaspora, why citizens are pouring out of this state like
no other?
Matt Margolis wrote on May 5 on his
Hub
Politics website blog, "Latest Suffolk Poll":
Perhaps another question in
this poll reveals what will influence how these current undecideds
will vote. According to the poll, 41% of respondents have considered
moving out of Massachusetts, and the top reasons for leaving were
the high taxes (37%) [my italics - Chip] and the high cost of living
(26%). It is also worth noting that 43% said government in
Massachusetts is too big.
The Legislature refuses meaningful tax relief while
local property taxes skyrocket. It claims to be concerned with the
mounting cost of municipal government and the burden it places on
homeowners and thus property taxes. But one of its first orders of
business this season was to
kill a House Republican budget amendment that would have excluded
municipalities from the burden of the state's 21.5¢/gallon
gas tax, a potential savings of close to $10 million a year. Some
help it proved to be from the start.
Meanwhile proposals for constitutional amendments
abound which can permanently change the political dynamic and lock into law
changes to our way of life. One of the biggest threats is
Tom Finneran's legacy: an amendment to the state constitution that
mandates a certain percentage of revenue automatically is deposited into
the state's "rainy day fund." It's still lurking beneath the
surface out there in the netherworld, needing only one more con-con vote
to get onto the next statewide ballot.
Remember, this is the man who took taxpayers'
automatic tax decrease off-the-board in the late-90s [The Boston
Globe, Mar. 18, 1998, "Finneran’s
move could offset tax cut; Bill that would reduce rates also raises the
bar for a refund"], through his "rainy day fund" formula scheming.
We taxpayers used to get an automatic tax reduction when the
state's "rainy day" fund overflowed at a certain level. It's never
hit that level since, and if the indicted former-House speaker has his
way still, it never will. The "trigger" for a tax refund prior to
1998 was $950 million. As revenue surpluses continued to pour in,
the "trigger" was moved up: the state's "rainy day" fund is
expected to reach $1.7 billion soon.
Constitutional amendments are hard to fight -- when
the money's on the other side. We
tried to educate voters about the meaning of the constitutional
amendment concerning automatic legislative pay raises on the ballot in
1998; explained to them it would be forever. Nonetheless, voters
bought the proponents' spin (that legislators would never again get to
vote on their own pay raises, missing the fine print that they'd
never need to), granted legislators automatic, constitutionally-mandated pay hikes,
and now that amendment can never be reconsidered. It will be hard
to run a counter-campaign against a mercilessly-funded proponents'
campaign to win next November. Especially considering that the
so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation -- and its Fat Cat
corporate Big Business interests with bottomless pockets -- are behind it, and are
calling for more state borrowing.
Taxpayers -- beware the march of New Socialism.
Please go to the CLT website and see what
you can do now.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
GOP lawmakers renew call
to roll back state income tax to 5 percent
By Rebecca Deusser, Statehouse Bureau
State taxpayers start working for themselves today, as residents
officially completed their payments of about $16,427 in government taxes
yesterday.
But Republican lawmakers said Tax Freedom Day -- the day when Americans
have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year
for all levels of government -- is no reason to celebrate.
"Our tax freedom day is a milestone for us, but it is very late," said
Gov. Mitt Romney, who once again called on the Legislature roll back the
state income tax from 5.3 to 5 percent.
This year's national Tax Freedom Day was April 26, according to a report
issued by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit organization based in
Washington, D.C., but Massachusetts' was five days later, due to higher
taxes.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, and Republican legislative leaders urged the
Senate to include the roll back in their upcoming debate for the fiscal
2007 budget.
"When they passed this in 1989 when they temporarily raised (taxes), we
knew they were lying and we are not going to let them forget it,"
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. "We are angry at the broken promise, and the disobeying of
the will of voters in 2000."
Democratic lawmakers defended their stance to hold off on the tax roll
back.
"Through the 1990s we cut taxes over 30 times, close to $3 billion,"
said state Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. "I think we are doing
pretty good. Of course we want to provide tax relief, but we still need
to pay for all the programs people in Massachusetts expect."
Senate President Robert Travaglini, who does not support lowering the
income tax this year, has filed a bill to cut taxes for families, which
could benefit people who need it most, said his spokeswoman Ann Dufresne.
Travaglini's bill would give tax relief to low- and middle-income
families similar to what they would get back if the state lowered the
income tax rate, while giving less to high-income families.
His bill would cost $70 million, rather than the estimated cost of $700
million for a tax roll back, Dufresne said.
Panagiotakos said he supports Travaglini's plan.
"From a political standpoint, it's probably easier to just cut the tax
rate, but if we are trying to prioritize a certain segment, like working
families, this is a better tax cut," he said.
Return to top
North Adams Transcript
Thursday, May 4, 2006
State taxpayers hit Tax Freedom Day
By Rebecca Deusser, Statehouse Bureau
State taxpayers started working for themselves Wednesday — the roughly
$16,427 they've earned since the beginning of the year having satisfied
their state and federal tax commitments.
But Republican lawmakers said "Tax Freedom Day" — the day when Americans
have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year
for all levels of government — is no reason to celebrate.
"Our Tax Freedom Day is a milestone for us, but it is very late," said
Gov. Mitt Romney, who once again called on the Legislature roll back the
state income tax from 5.3 to 5 percent. . . .
"When they passed this in 1989, when they temporarily raised (taxes), we
knew they were lying and we are not going to let them forget it," said
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. "We are angry at the broken promise, and the disobeying of
the will of voters in 2000."
Democratic lawmakers defended their stance to hold off on the tax
rollback.
"It isn't time yet," said state Rep. Christopher Speranzo, D-Pittsfield.
"Even though there are positive local aid numbers (in the House budget),
when you look at programs, there are a terrific number that are still
far below that high point (of state funding before the recession)." . .
.
Return to top
State House News Service
Weekly Roundup - Week of May 1, 2006
[Excerpt]
By Craig Sandler
Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minute. Or no, let's put that in the
appropriately wonkoid vernacular: wait just a revenue-collectin' minute.
Last anybody looked, people were leaving Massachusetts in - well, not in
droves, but they were more or less leaving in small droves - a two-year
trickle that gave the Bay State among the most lackluster net population
statistics in the nation. Net inflow and outflow is used as a fair
metric for how well a region's civic life is proceeding, and
Massachusetts wasn't looking good.
Two crummy data points had just combined to produce as wretched a result
as a politician could want: the unemployment rate in March went down,
but it was because the state lost both people and jobs, losing people at
a faster rate. And a third datum provided the salt for an economy
bleeding jobs: our unemployment rate has inched above the national
level, which it did not for literally a decade.
But now here comes the latest revenue report, from the crucial April
tax-collection month, and you'd think it was another Massachusetts
Miracle. Collections blasted through the $2 billion mark and set a new
record by a considerable margin: $2.215 billion, up 9.8 percent over
April 2005. Collections are running more than 8 percent ahead of last
fiscal year at this time. Corporate and business tax collections were up
better than 35 percent from last year - not in any way the sign of an
economy on the skids.
The data were instantly reframed around the politics of the
gubernatorial race. To wit: Gov. Mitt Romney asked, not implausibly,
"How can one continue to argue that we're in fiscal crisis and that we
can't afford to do what the citizens voted for us to do?" He and his
trusty sidekick (except on abortion) Kerry Healey argued this is the
time for an income-tax rollback that's long served as the fulcrum of the
Republican agenda. But Democrats suggested that a lot of the money is
already spent, and Senate President Robert Travaglini has moved to take
away the rollback card in the GOP hand by instead suggesting deductions
aimed more specifically at the working class.
House and Senate Democrats appear to be competing to raise education aid
the most, and this week the Senate restored MassHealth dental and vision
benefits that Gov. Romney says may cost $75 million and which are not
available to many workers in the private sector. Huge job creation and
capital spending bills are looming in the wings. In other words, the
Democrats are geared up to do things other than reducing taxes with any
tax collections that exceed estimates and are not spoken for.
Simply put, things are a jumble - or if you prefer, "directionless,"
which is how Associated Industries of Massachusetts put it in announcing
a business confidence index that ticked downward last month, yet
remained a bit above the national average. The state's not demonstrably
on the rise or decline; it's lagging the nation in job growth and
population but leading it in the quest for an answer to the most
pressing policy problem of all: affordable health care for the working
class. Which it can fund with its billion-dollar budget surplus. It's
strange.
And it's fitting that the recent numbers add up to a restatement of the
awkward, complicated reality: both sides have a point when they
simultaneously cry: "We're losing jobs!" and "We're running a huge
surplus!" No one can articulate how to consolidate the meaning of those
badly-aligned observations into compelling policy. Victory in the
governor's race could very well lie ahead for the politician who comes
closest, though. . . .
Return to top
The Salem News
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Lesson for all in Beverly flap
By Robert Kelly
According to a story in the Friday, April 28 edition of The Salem News,
the superintendent of Beverly's schools, James Hayes, says Beverly would
have a second-rate system if it spent only what it could afford.
Apparently, as the superintendent sees things, Beverly should determine
how much it can afford to run its schools — then it should spend more.
Such an approach would be disastrous, of course. But however
unwittingly, Hayes uncovered a biting truth with his remark: Beverly
cannot afford its existing school system. But then, none of the
surrounding communities can afford theirs either. The only ones who can
are those in high-income communities who are converting their public
schools into the equivalent of a private system.
For reasons difficult to fathom, the superintendent, the mayor and the
teachers union fail to recognize that they have a common problem: A
reasonable amount of tax revenue in Beverly cannot satisfy any of them.
The solution to this conundrum is political, not financial. Mayors,
unions and superintendents must eventually come to a common conclusion:
The system is broken and the only long-term solution is to beat on state
lawmakers until they fix it. The practice of city officials and unions
pounding on each other has become counterproductive to their own cause
and to the public.
The proof? Superintendents, endlessly pressed by political leaders for
better performance, are routinely discharged for not delivering the
impossible. All mayors are under budget pressures that are increasingly
difficult to resolve — and many good ones are forced from office because
they failed to deliver the impossible. And teachers in blue-collar
schools are required — at a pay level that never satisfies them — to
deliver test scores that equal, say, Newton's; even though they do not
have the student mix, the parental support and the taxpayer base to make
such an outcome even remotely possible.
Fighting each other eventually brings every middle-income community to
the same place that Beverly is today. The superintendent wants this, the
mayor wants that, the unions want something else, and all of these wants
are directed at the same pot of tax revenue.
Mayors have squeezed city operational budgets for years so as to provide
more revenue for — guess what — the schools. But those days are coming
to an end. Public safety will become the next victim if the omnivorous
appetite of the schools is not directed, in part, away from local
budgets.
A political leader is needed; someone who can pull competing powers into
the same room and develop a coalition that is powerful enough to demand
attention. Our schools and how they are financed must be re-examined.
There is much to be done and nothing will improve significantly until
some politician with an appetite for fame reinvents our public school
system.
Robert Kelly of Peabody writes a weekly column for The Salem News.
Return to top
Boston Globe - West edition
Sunday, May 7, 2006
Letter to the editor
A 'no' to Northborough school override
In response to Thursday's Globe West story on the override vote for
Algonquin Regional High School tomorrow, Jim Casella, who last month
stepped down after 13 years on Northborough's Financial Planning
Committee, wrote why he opposes it:
1. Under Proposition 2½, overrides were intended only to be used for
unusual and unforeseen situations. This is not the case with this
proposed override.
2. Proposition 2½ was passed with the understanding that state aid would
provide significant contributions to cities and towns. When the economy
results in less aid, municipalities should reduce their budgets instead
of passing the loss on to the taxpayer through overrides.
3. The recent state budget proposed by the Legislature is restoring some
of the cuts in aid. If the override passes at the same time state aid is
increasing, then this will give municipalities additional revenue to
increase their budgets, since overrides are a permanent increase in the
levy limit.
4. Northborough's fiscal 2007 budget provides 75 percent of the $40
million toward education. This leaves very little funds to run the rest
of the town.
5. The Northborough tax rate is already one of the highest in the area
and the state.
6. In the past five years, the tax bills for most residents have
increased by 36 percent while inflation and Social Security benefits
have increased by only 14 percent. This has placed a very heavy burden
on seniors who are on a fixed income.
Jim Casella
Return to top
The Barnstable Patriot
Friday, May 5, 2006
Boosting income tax 1% for education suggested
Rep. Patrick looking at amending state constitution
By David Still II
Could a constitutional amendment increasing the state income tax by 1
percent be the answer to local education costs?
State Rep. Matt Patrick, D-Falmouth, thinks it’s worth a shot, and he
could have an unlikely ally for the concept in Barbara Anderson
of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Patrick, whose district includes the villages of Osterville and Cotuit
in Barnstable, said he intends to file a constitutional amendment in the
fall to increase the state income tax by 1 percent, dedicated entirely
to public education, including the state’s university system.
Making the Connection
"The proposal raises an important point," said Michael Widmer, president
of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), "that there’s a direct
connection between the income tax and the level of the local property
tax."
Founded in 1932, the MTF describes itself as an "independent,
non-partisan organization focusing on state spending and tax policies."
Regarding the suggestion that education funding be shifted to the income
tax, Widmer said, "It’s a fairer tax than property taxes, so the idea of
using the income tax in order to provide some property tax relief is
reasonable."
In the end, Widmer said, there are only three kinds of taxes – income,
property and sales – and those looking for relief from one will
necessarily find themselves affecting the others.
"One concern is whether we should be raising the income tax at all at
this time," Widmer said. Another is "how it would work to ensure the
monies would have property tax relief."
Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, said his organization would be interested in taking a look
at such a proposal, but would need details before commenting. Beckwith
said that the notion of amending the state Constitution to make sure
funds would go where they were intended is an accurate assessment.
Patrick said that he would intend to maintain the present state spending
on education, for which $3.7 billion is allocated within the 2007 state
budget proposal.
Such an approach is no quick fix, requiring a minimum of three years
from introduction, through two state constitutional conventions and
eventually to the voters for ratification, but Patrick believes it’s
time to start something.
For Patrick, the advantage to a Constitutional amendment is that the
funds cannot be touched. For Widmer, that is reason for caution.
"It requires that the wisdom of the proposal and the sustainability of
the proposal be ironclad, and very carefully thought through," Widmer
said, warning of the law of unintended consequences.
Anderson said she also recognizes that as an amendment to the state
Constitution, such a proposal would go through a full, open and lengthy
public debate, and eventually be decided by voters.
"I don’t tend to get upset about anything that has to go before our
voters," Anderson said. "It isn’t as threatening as him filing a
statute.
Patrick said that the proposal will need to be completed by late fall,
but as an unopposed candidate for the fall election, he intends to spend
time this summer drafting language and building support.
He has discussed the idea with his colleagues on Beacon Hills and admits
"most of them roll their eyes," but he has a couple of legislators
willing to co-sponsor such an amendment.
That would provide more than $2 billion in dedicated revenues. The
benefit to taxpayers, Patrick said, would come in a "concurrent
decrease" in local property taxes, the primary source in many
communities, for public schools.
"That’s where it hurts to tax people," Patrick said of property taxes.
"I’d like to shift the burden from the towns to the income tax."
It is the potential to reduce property tax burdens that has Barbara
Anderson, executive direct of Citizens for Limited Taxation, calling
Patrick’s idea "an interesting concept."
Citizens for Limited Taxation is responsible for the passage of
Proposition 2½ in 1980. The voter-approved legislation holds increases
to local property tax levies to 2.5 percent of the prior year. Anderson
and CLT have stood as the tax-limiting law’s champion and protector ever
since.
"That would be an exciting proposal in another state," Anderson said in
a phone interview Wednesday. "While the concept works if your tax burden
is low, I don’t see how our state can handle that."
Anderson said that Massachusetts already has one of the highest income
tax burdens in the nation. On Tuesday of this week, CLT said
Massachusetts celebrated "Tax Freedom Day," defined as "the first day of
the year when every cent you make doesn’t go entirely to government."
In particular, Anderson has concerns about the ability of small business
to absorb that kind of increase.
"It would make a horrendous hit on the only growth sector in our
economy," she said.
That said, the ability to lift education off the property tax is
attractive.
"It would be nice for us who don’t like property taxes, but it would be
very, very hard to sell to job creators," Anderson said.
CLT has been looking for ways to provide additional property tax relief,
so Anderson said shifting education to some other means of funding might
be worth talking about.
"We would love to see education off the property tax altogether," she
said.
Anderson said that she’d be more interested in a constitutional
amendment forbidding property taxes to be used to fund education, which
then places the entire burden to pay for the commonwealth’s public
schools on the state.
The question would then become where the funding would come from. From
Anderson’s point of view, "It would have to come from existing state
taxes."
Anderson has advocated and voters support a rollback of the income tax
to 5 percent. That has not happened, and remains a rally cry in election
years.
"If [Patrick] would consider going back to 5 percent as voters have told
him to do, he might be worth talking to about it," Anderson said.
For his part, Patrick said that a rollback could provide a good starting
point for a compromise.
David Still is the editor of the Barnstable Patriot.
Return to top
State House News Service
Advances - Week of May 7, 2006
[Excerpt]
Constitutional Convention: The Constitution Convention resumes on
Wednesday after a long recess.... While there are many other amendments
pending, the only other one with a shot at this year's ballot is an
amendment sponsored by former House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would
make deposits into the state's rainy day fund a constitutional
obligation. The proposal, which was approved by the last General Court
by vote of 181-12, is the first one on the convention calendar. The
convention may simply recess to another date without taking action on
the pending amendments, or may launch into a full debate, and roll call
votes, on the pending issues. (Wednesday, 1 pm, House Chamber) ...
Capital Budget Hearings: Officials from the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs, the state's Information Technology Division, and
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation will testify Thursday before the
Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets.... MTF
recently called for the state to raise the amount it borrows annually
from $1.25 billion to $1.5 billion. Gov. Mitt Romney rejected that idea.
(Thursday, 11 am, 1 pm, 2 pm, Room A-2)
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
|