CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
"Taxachusetts is dead" -- Long live
Taxachusetts!
Clearly, more support for local government is needed.
If the property tax can't provide it, the state must come up with more
aid....
What taxes can reasonably be increased? I agree . . . that the property
tax is not one. But what about the income tax? Another 1 percent would
cost the average taxpayer about the same as a cup of coffee a day. Would
this really be a hardship to anyone? ...
We should demand that our political leaders show enough courage and
leadership to generate the funds that are so obviously needed if we are
to escape living in public squalor and degradation in the midst of one
of the wealthiest societies on earth.
The Salem News
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Letter to the editor by James Davies
Current level of taxation can't support
essential services
High taxes were the biggest concern, with 19 percent calling
it the most serious problem facing Massachusetts -- nearly twice as many as in
an August 2005 survey, when the cost of healthcare was the top concern.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Poll shows concerns on Patrick
New England is the third most heavily taxed region in the
nation, and residents will pay an estimated 11.3 percent of their income in
state and local taxes this year -- behind only the Mideast and Great Lakes
Region, an independent study reported Friday.
Massachusetts ranks 28th nationwide, with residents paying an estimated 10.6 of
their income this year to fund state and local operations and services. The
state, the region's largest economy, was once referred to as Taxachusetts
because of its painful tax burden, according to the Washington-based Tax
Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.
Associated Press
Sunday, April 8, 2007
New England has 3d highest tax burden in US,
study says
"When one looks at our total taxes, for a number of years
we've been in the middle of the pack," said Michael Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "We still rank quite high in the amount we
pay in personal income tax because we don't have a lot of deductions. We're
slightly above average in property taxes and low, 45th, actually, in sales tax.
So when you put it all together, that's not a surprising finding."
Massachusetts earned its reputation, fairly or unfairly, in the 1980s. Since
then, the state has passed Proposition 2½ to limit property tax growth and made
several cuts in the 1990s to the income tax, currently set at a flat rate of 5.3
percent....
Taxes reached a high in 1980, when Bay State residents paid more than 11.3
percent of their incomes to state and local taxes. Massachusetts ranked second
in the nation that year for having the highest tax burden.
That percentage dropped to a low of 9.8 percent in 2002, but has steadily
increased over the past five years.
The Berkshire Eagle
Sunday, April 8, 2007
No tea party for current state taxes
As Patrick approaches his 100th day in office this week, he
finds himself at odds with the Legislature about how to close an estimated
budget gap of more than $1 billion next year. Patrick's budget, which has been
his central focus since his inauguration, relies on the corporate tax changes,
which would provide nearly $300 million in the coming fiscal year to help
balance the budget. The freshman governor has also proposed allowing communities
to impose a modest levy on rooms and meals to relieve some of the pressure on
the property tax....
"There's some support for his proposals, but not strong support," said [Andrew
E. Smith], who conducted the Globe poll, which surveyed 500 randomly selected
Massachusetts adults between March 31 and April 4 . The margin of error was plus
or minus 4.4 percentage points .
A majority of residents said they supported Patrick's tax proposals even as they
picked out high taxes as the most important issue facing the state -- suggesting
that people may not consider Patrick's proposals traditional tax hikes.
"I think raising taxes . . . for most people means either a personal income tax
or a sales tax," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation and a sharp critic of the corporate tax changes....
But Smith and Widmer said the popularity of closing corporate tax loopholes was
modest, considering that, in general, people tend to be willing to support
taxing someone else....
Just over half of those surveyed -- 53 percent -- liked the governor's proposal
to let communities impose a 2 percent rooms and meals tax. Smith said this was
also modest -- "a slim majority." ...
The poll results suggest that the state's financial situation presents a serious
challenge for state leaders, Smith said. High taxes topped the list of issues
that residents felt were the most urgent facing Massachusetts, while concern
about the state budget gap was relatively scant. When asked how the state should
cover the budget gap, only 21 percent said the state should raise taxes, while
74 percent said they would like to see spending cuts to close the gap.
Opposition to increasing taxes ran across the parties, the poll found; only 29
percent of Democrats, 13 percent of independents, and 7 percent of Republicans
said it was a good idea ...
"There's been a lot of pent-up demand, as economists call it, on the
Legislature's part to spend more money on a host of projects ..." [Smith] said.
"If all these things go through, the next election will be like the Michael
Dukakis election -- 'the tax-and-spend liberals are back.'"
The Boston Globe
Monday, April 9, 2007
Many in poll back governor's revenue plans
Schools are hurting because the increases in employee health
insurance costs and, in some towns, in special education, are outstripping any
reasonable inflation index -- not because the aid formula is unfair.
To solve the underlying problem, town employees should be included in the health
insurance plan for state employees (which has controlled the growth in
premiums).
The proposal Patrick has endorsed allows them in, but gives local unions a veto.
Beyond this, he’ll need larger annual increases than the roughly $200 million he
proposed if he’s to avoid big cuts in school programs all across the state.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 9, 2007
Why school aid comes up short:
Health costs vex municipalities
By Edward Moscovitch
How tight is the grip of public employee unions over state
lawmakers? We think we know the answer, but we’re about to find out for sure.
The House and Senate are getting ready to debate a bill that would allow cities
and towns to join the state’s Group Insurance Commission, an almost guaranteed
way to relieve the pressure on local budgets.
Those budgets are getting absolutely croaked by health care costs, and just
about everyone with a say in the matter acknowledges that allowing cities and
towns to join the GIC will save them big money -- or at least stanch the
bleeding....
The problem with the bill now pending in committee -- and another, filed by Gov.
Deval Patrick -- is that they grant far too much power to a coalition of local
unions to block any city or town from GIC enrollment.
Lawmakers don’t want to alienate the unions, particularly the Professional
Firefighters of Massachusetts, which has taken a lead role in fighting this
reform....
They’d lose a tiny bit of political leverage in the process.
That means when all is said and done they may retain the power to haggle over
whether their health plans cover prescription eyeglasses.
But when there’s no money left to keep the fire station open, they could just
lose their jobs.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, April 9, 2007
Group coverage is a no-brainer
The battle over a $5 million Proposition 2½ override question
has become a Celebrity Death Match pitting the Easter Bunny against an
unidentified Bag Lady.
Last Tuesday, a group of citizens opposed to the override stood in front of the
CVS on Route 9, with a stark message for residents: “Yes on 2 and this could be
you.” A woman was dressed as a bag lady and had a shopping cart....
George Burns, an override supporter, also wore a costume to highlight his
position. His was the cute and cuddly Easter Bunny. He held a sign near some
schools on certain occasions last week with the address for the Web site of
YES4Shrewsbury.
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, April 9, 2007
Proposition 2½ becomes fashion statement
Woman dresses in tatters to warn about override
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
(with a little help from Barbara)
Some of you may have read in various news items or
columns over the last week that, hooray, we are no longer Taxachusetts,
that our tax burden is now ranked 28th in the nation. We
immediately responded with our news release yesterday about Massachusetts' 4th in the nation
ranking.
This debate has gone on for years, decades. The U.S. Census Bureau
collects the data, and the Washington-based Tax Foundation puts it in
various sorts of order. People go to the foundation's website and
choose the data they want to emphasize. You can always
go there yourself through the CLT
website (Other
Links).
Economists rate states’ tax burdens either relative to their personal
income, or per capita, depending on the study. In Massachusetts,
those who want to argue that the Taxachusetts label is dead use the fact
that there are a lot of wealthy people here, so the total taxes relative
to all that personal income is comparatively low (28th this year).
A state with only billionaires, taxing the amount MA now taxes, would
have a very very low tax burden relative to personal income. If we
were all poor, the same amount of taxes would make our tax burden seem
very high, relative to personal income.
Really liberal groups like TEAM go farther, and use the revenue
burden relative to personal income. "Revenue burden" includes user
fees ("tax burden" does not), and our user fees are relatively low here,
so the revenue burden is usually around 45th.
CLT prefers to compare states by the number of people who live there.
The per capita tax burden divides the total amount of taxes by the
number of men, women and children in the state, so you can compare large
and small states. This also roughly relates to the amount of
services one state might need compared to others with more or fewer
people.
Taxpayers prefer the per capita comparison, as it breaks down how much
every man, woman, and child in a state pays on average annually for
government to provide public services for a given population:
roads and bridges maintenance, police and fire services, regulatory
agencies, the judicial system, courts and prisons, education, social
services -- everything government does down to the local level.
How much each citizen pays for what every citizen is entitled to within
a given state. Massachusetts' 2007 per capita tax burden is the
4th highest in the country, 22.5% above the national average.
This becomes most striking with the foundation's Tax Freedom Day:
the number of days we work strictly to pay for government --
before we can start working for ourselves and our families.
Across the United States of America, on average Tax Freedom Day this
year arrives on April 30.
In Massachusetts, taxpayers work until May 6 just to pay for government,
two days later than last year. Tax Freedom Day in Massachusetts is
the 9th latest in the nation, according to the foundation's 2007 report.
We work longer for the government than taxpayers in 41 other states.
We don't begin working for ourselves and our families until six days
later than the national average.
After reading the Berkshire Eagle news report by Matt
Murphy, you will really be confused, because he clearly is.
But note one thing he reported, that "taxes reached a high in 1980, when
Bay State residents paid more than 11.3 percent of their incomes to
state and local taxes. Massachusetts ranked second in the nation
that year for having the highest tax burden. That percentage
dropped to a low of 9.8 percent in 2002, but has steadily increased over
the past five years." This is accurate, and 2002 is when the
Legislature "froze" our income tax rollback at 5.3 percent.
No matter how you compute a tax burden, Proposition 2½ did make a
difference of which we can all be proud. But we are losing ground
again.
It was comforting to learn, according to a recent
Boston Globe poll, that people are still concerned about taxes.
They're not buying the "'Taxachusetts' has vanished" pitch: they
consider taxes their number one concern.
And many more by the day have begun to recognize the
biggest culprit in our ever escalating tax burden: The public
employee unions and their ceaseless demands for more from taxpayers'
pockets. This could be the start of long overdue reforms. If
it doesn't begin now, will it ever happen before we all go bankrupt and
homeless?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Salem News
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Letter to the editor
Current level of taxation can't support essential services
To the editor:
Bill Plante was absolutely right in his Saturday, March 31, commentary
in The Salem News: Our schools and other local services can't survive at
an acceptable level on the property tax alone.
School classes are often too large for optimum learning. Special
education is mandated to take an ever larger portion of school funds.
Many schools lack decent buildings, libraries and equipment. Other costs
for things like health care, classroom computers and heating are
increasing dramatically.
Clearly, more support for local government is needed. If the property
tax can't provide it, the state must come up with more aid. I suggest
two actions for the Legislature and governor:
1) Free local government to use a variety of tax sources at the
discretion of the locality. In many other states, for example, cities
and towns are free to tax such things as meals and lodging that have
mainly a local impact and therefore need not concern the state, with the
result that property taxes in those states are often lower than in
Massachusetts.
2) Face the obvious fact that state revenues are not sufficient to
maintain a decent society.
A number of examples in the news confirm this fact: Boston and other
cities are suffering a crime wave that threatens record homicide rates
and leaves residents fearful for their lives and their children's
safety. This climate of violence appears to have been exacerbated by
reductions in funding for youth workers, school services, police
personnel and job and recreational opportunities for young people.
Healthy adolescents with nothing to do and little adult guidance often
get into trouble. The state has knowingly chosen this alternative,
rather than raise the revenue needed to keep our cities safe.
In another instance, we read that the state beaches are littered with
trash and poorly maintained for lack of funds. State parks are in
disastrous condition for lack of adequate maintenance.
State health authorities lack the funds needed to assure sanitation of
food service providers. And now we learn that the state is borrowing
funds to pay salaries for highway workers, and for road and bridge
maintenance that should be counted as current expenses.
These problems and a host of others cannot be solved by taking funds
from "somewhere else." There is no somewhere else. Virtually every
aspect of state and local operations is overstressed and underfunded.
The only reasonable solution is for the Legislature and the governor to
raise more money through increased taxes.
What taxes can reasonably be increased? I agree with Plante that the
property tax is not one. But what about the income tax? Another 1
percent would cost the average taxpayer about the same as a cup of
coffee a day. Would this really be a hardship to anyone? If so, then
maybe the amount of the exemption from tax should be raised a little to
benefit lower-income taxpayers. Maybe we could even afford the cost of
two cups of coffee a day if it would solve some of our urgent problems.
Or consider a tax on compensation over $100,000 per year. Such a tax of
several percent would certainly cause no hardship. Surely professional
athletes, corporate executives and others making hundreds of thousands
or millions a year could share a little more of their income with the
society that has made their positions possible.
We should demand that our political leaders show enough courage and
leadership to generate the funds that are so obviously needed if we are
to escape living in public squalor and degradation in the midst of one
of the wealthiest societies on earth.
James Davies
Beverly
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Poll shows concerns on Patrick
But popularity high despite his missteps
By Frank Phillips
Governor Deval Patrick remains a highly popular figure in Massachusetts,
but his constituents are concerned about his performance as the state's
new chief executive after several stumbles during his first months in
office, according to a Boston Globe poll.
Sixty-three percent of the 500 adults surveyed last week view the new
Democratic governor favorably, which is comparable to his standing just
before his landslide victory in November, when he received a 60 percent
favorable rating in a Globe poll.
But despite Patrick's continued popularity, only 48 percent approved of
the way he is handling the job, while 33 percent disapproved -- a
relatively high number for a governor's honeymoon period, according to
Andrew E. Smith, director of The Survey Center at the University of New
Hampshire, which conducted the poll.
A mere 31 percent felt that Patrick has shown he can deliver on his
campaign promises, and 48 percent of those interviewed said he has not
met expectations, including 42 percent of Democrats. The poll, conducted
March 31 through April 4, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4
percentage points.
The results reflect a leader whose personal qualities remain attractive
to his constituents, but whose actions as governor are causing ripples
of concern as he approaches his 100th day in office this week.
"Patrick still has a reservoir of good will among the public," Smith
said. "They are disappointed with some of his mistakes he has made early
in his term, but they still are supportive of him overall. He still has
that charisma and likeability that we saw during the campaign and that
had attracted voters."
Of those surveyed who said they voted for him, 84 percent said they
would cast their ballot for Patrick again if the election were held
today. Four percent would defect to Republican nominee Kerry Healey, 3
percent to independent Christy Mihos, and less than 1 percent to the
Green-Rainbow Party candidate, Grace Ross. In November, Patrick won by
20 percentage points in a three-way race, receiving 55 percent of the
vote.
"He deserves a chance to do what he said he was going to do," said one
of those surveyed, Lee Davis, 51, of Lawrence, an unenrolled voter who
supported Republican Mitt Romney in 2002 but cast his vote for Patrick
in November. "He is not really settled in yet. I think he is learning on
the fly. That is what you have to do in Massachusetts."
Of those who gave Patrick a favorable rating, the most prevalent reason
-- given by 23 percent -- was that they "just like him." Sixteen percent
rated him favorably because of his policies, and only 10 percent cited
the fact they think he is doing a good job.
Patrick's image as a political outsider, particularly after 16 years of
Republican chief executives, continues to help him, with 71 percent of
those surveyed agreeing that he brings a fresh perspective to
Massachusetts politics. Even 52 percent of the small sample of
Republicans agreed.
But several of Patrick's missteps have rankled the public. His hiring of
a $72,000 chief of staff for his wife caused the deepest concerns, with
67 percent saying it was important -- including 64 percent of Democrats
-- while 26 percent of those surveyed said it was not. Patrick's call to
a Citigroup executive on behalf of the controversial mortgage company
Ameriquest also troubled a large bloc of respondents; 62 percent said it
was important to them and 27 percent said it was not. Sixty one percent
of the Democrats said the call is an important issue.
"That was a big misstep," said Kathy Troiano of North Andover, a 54-year
old musician and an unenrolled voter, when asked about her responses to
the survey. But she said she had voted for Patrick and would do so
again. "Maybe he was unaware that he is not a private citizen anymore.
He is a public official and he has to realize that he will be held to a
higher standard."
Patrick's use of the state helicopter on at least two occasions and his
decision to upgrade his official car and buy new office furniture does
not seem to have stirred much public ire. Sixty-five percent said the
helicopter was not an important issue, and 52 percent said the decision
to lease a Cadillac and buy $27,000 in furnishings was not important.
Despite the perception that he mishandled some of those issues, Patrick
received higher ratings as governor than Romney in the survey, with 43
percent saying he is a doing a better job than his Republican
predecessor did and only 22 percent rating him worse. Thirty-five
percent think he is doing the same as Romney. The responses broke down
along party lines, with 54 percent of Republicans judging Romney the
better governor, and 59 percent of Democrats tapping Patrick.
Independents were fairly evenly divided, with 34 percent rating Patrick
better, 30 percent choosing Romney, and 36 percent saying the two
leaders were about the same.
The former governor, now a top-tier Republican presidential contender,
is the least popular of the state's major political figures. His
favorability rating has dropped to 42 percent and unfavorable rating has
risen to 51 percent among the general public. Two years ago, before he
switched to more conservative positions to run for president, Romney had
a 52 percent favorable, 37 percent unfavorable rating.
Just under 50 percent said both Patrick and Romney have an equal ability
to handle a crisis, while about 29 percent said Patrick is better at
crisis management than Romney, and 22 percent said he is worse.
Other findings:
44 percent said Massachusetts is headed in the right direction -- the
same as in a March 2005 survey -- while 56 percent said the state is off
course. Younger adults were the most optimistic about the direction of
the state, while Republicans were the most pessimistic.
High taxes were the biggest concern, with 19 percent calling it the most
serious problem facing Massachusetts -- nearly twice as many as in an
August 2005 survey, when the cost of healthcare was the top concern.
With Boston's homicide rate increasing, crime and drugs shot up
dramatically as a top concern, with 14 percent citing it as the leading
problem, compared with only 4 percent in 2005.
Associated Press
Sunday, April 8, 2007
New England has 3d highest tax burden in US,
study says
New England is the third most heavily taxed region in the nation, and
residents will pay an estimated 11.3 percent of their income in state
and local taxes this year -- behind only the Mideast and Great Lakes
Region, an independent study reported Friday.
Massachusetts ranks 28th nationwide, with residents paying an estimated
10.6 of their income this year to fund state and local operations and
services. The state, the region's largest economy, was once referred to
as Taxachusetts because of its painful tax burden, according to the
Washington-based Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.
New Hampshire is the second least-taxed state, with residents shelling
out 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes, according to the
report.
Vermont and Maine have the highest and second-highest tax burden, with
residents paying 14.1 percent and 14 percent respectively, the report
says.
Connecticut ranks eighth, with residents paying 12.2 percent of their
income to fund state and local operations. Rhode Island ranks fourth
nationwide, and its residents will pay 12.7 percent in state and local
taxes this year.
"Now the moderate tax burden in Massachusetts teams with the low burden
in New Hampshire to prevent New England from being an especially
high-tax region, despite the huge tax burdens in four smaller states --
Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and Connecticut," the research group said.
State and local taxes will consume a record-setting 11 percent of the
nation's income this year, the report said.
The Berkshire Eagle
Sunday, April 8, 2007
No tea party for current state taxes
By Matt Murphy, Eagle Boston Bureau
It might be time to shed the "Taxachusetts" moniker once and for all.
Long the butt of national jokes, Massachusetts' unflattering reputation
for unwieldy taxes is on shaky ground, according to a new report from
the Washington-based Tax Foundation.
The study ranks Massachusetts 28th in the nation for its state and local
tax burden, higher than only New Hampshire among the state's five New
England neighbors.
The state's 10.6 percent tax burden also falls below the national
average, with a record-setting 11 percent of the nation's income
expected to be consumed by state and local taxes.
But the news might serve as little consolation for Massachusetts
residents who have seen property taxes skyrocket in recent years, relied
upon more and more each year by cities and towns to foot the bill for
schools, road improvements and other services.
"When one looks at our total taxes, for a number of years we've been in
the middle of the pack," said Michael Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "We still rank quite high in the
amount we pay in personal income tax because we don't have a lot of
deductions. We're slightly above average in property taxes and low,
45th, actually, in sales tax. So when you put it all together, that's
not a surprising finding."
Massachusetts earned its reputation, fairly or unfairly, in the 1980s.
Since then, the state has passed Proposition 2½ to limit property tax
growth and made several cuts in the 1990s to the income tax, currently
set at a flat rate of 5.3 percent.
"I think when people think of 'Taxachusetts,' they're talking about the
overall cost of living, which is still quite high when you consider the
cost of housing, utilities and health care," Widmer said.
Taxes reached a high in 1980, when Bay State residents paid more than
11.3 percent of their incomes to state and local taxes. Massachusetts
ranked second in the nation that year for having the highest tax burden.
That percentage dropped to a low of 9.8 percent in 2002, but has
steadily increased over the past five years.
"What's happened recently is that we are seeing more emphasis put on the
property tax in recent years," Widmer said.
Vermont topped the list of states with the highest tax burden. Residents
of the Green Mountain State pay 14.1 percent of their income, on
average, to local and state taxes.
Vermont was followed closely by Maine, with a 14 percent tax burden.
New Hampshire, where there are no income or sales taxes, ranked 49th in
the country, with an 8 percent tax burden, higher only than Alaska.
Massachusetts' tax burden was calculated by the Tax Foundation based on
an average per capita income of $51,297. The average resident pays
$5,419 in yearly taxes.
New England came in as the third most expensive region in which to live
based on taxes, topped by the Great Lakes region and the most expensive
Mideast region, comprising New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Delaware and Washington, D.C.
The Boston Globe
Monday, April 9, 2007
Many in poll back governor's revenue plans
By Lisa Wangsness
Massachusetts residents appear to favor Governor Deval Patrick's
proposals for raising revenues to bridge the state budget gap and ease
the property tax burden, with a small majority expressing support for
closing what he described as corporate tax loopholes, and for giving
communities the right to impose a local tax on meals and hotels,
according to a new Globe poll.
The survey also found significant and growing interest in expanded
gambling as a source for state revenue, an option Patrick is currently
studying. Two-thirds of residents, 67 percent, said they would support
putting slot machines at racetracks in the state , compared with 54
percent four years ago. Support for a casino has grown to 61 percent.
As Patrick approaches his 100th day in office this week, he finds
himself at odds with the Legislature about how to close an estimated
budget gap of more than $1 billion next year. Patrick's budget, which
has been his central focus since his inauguration, relies on the
corporate tax changes, which would provide nearly $300 million in the
coming fiscal year to help balance the budget. The freshman governor has
also proposed allowing communities to impose a modest levy on rooms and
meals to relieve some of the pressure on the property tax.
The poll found that a majority of residents, 56 percent, approved of
Patrick's leadership on the state budget. But the Legislature,
particularly House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, has balked at many of
Patrick's ideas, including the meals tax and the corporate tax changes.
The House budget committee is scheduled to release its spending plan on
Wednesday.
While the poll's findings could provide legislators with some political
cover to get behind Patrick's ideas, Andrew E. Smith, director of the
University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said lawmakers should be
cautious.
"There's some support for his proposals, but not strong support," said
Smith, who conducted the Globe poll, which surveyed 500 randomly
selected Massachusetts adults between March 31 and April 4 . The margin
of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points .
A majority of residents said they supported Patrick's tax proposals even
as they picked out high taxes as the most important issue facing the
state -- suggesting that people may not consider Patrick's proposals
traditional tax hikes.
"I think raising taxes . . . for most people means either a personal
income tax or a sales tax," said Michael Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and a sharp critic of the corporate
tax changes.
Closing corporate tax loopholes seemed like a good idea to 56 percent of
residents, despite arguments from the business community that additional
business taxes could discourage companies from coming to Massachusetts
or drive Massachusetts companies away .
"If they're going to leave the state of Massachusetts, they're going to
leave anyhow," said Adam Burnieika , 58 , an independent from Rockland
who voted for Patrick's Republican opponent, Kerry Healey, in the last
election. "Everybody should pay their fair tax."
But Smith and Widmer said the popularity of closing corporate tax
loopholes was modest, considering that, in general, people tend to be
willing to support taxing someone else.
"You would expect that to be in 60 to 70 percent range," Smith said,
noting that support split along party lines. Sixty-nine percent of
Democrats favored the plan, compared with just 29 percent of
Republicans.
Just over half of those surveyed -- 53 percent -- liked the governor's
proposal to let communities impose a 2 percent rooms and meals tax.
Smith said this was also modest -- "a slim majority."
Tom Faulkner , 53 , a Democrat from Monson who works as an educator and
voted for Patrick last November, said he would oppose the idea if it
came up in his community, but he supported Patrick's proposal to let
cities and towns decide whether to impose it.
"The only thing I liked about it was that it was in the hands of the
community," he said.
Slots and casinos, on the other hand, appear to hold much greater appeal
and present a palatable alternative to tax increases, Smith said.
"Gambling is the one area where he's got some leeway," he said,
referring to the governor. "Those are more solid numbers, the kind of
thing [lawmakers] could look to and say, 'Yes, there is general public
support for these proposals.' "
To many residents who see neighboring states reaping millions from
gambling it seems foolish for Massachusetts to miss the same
opportunity.
"Why have everybody drive to Connecticut or Rhode Island?" said Cheri
Cost , 46 , an independent from Grafton . " Why not keep them in the
state and bring the money back in?"
Whether there is sufficient support for expanded gambling at the State
House, however, remains in question. Patrick, a critic of gambling
during his campaign, decided after he took office to take a fresh look
at the issue. He has met with proponents and opponents of gambling, and
has assigned his chief economic development aide to do further research.
In the Legislature, Senate President Therese Murray has said she is open
to considering casinos, but DiMasi is a strong opponent of slots and
casinos, and his chamber has repeatedly defeated legislation for slots.
The poll results suggest that the state's financial situation presents a
serious challenge for state leaders, Smith said. High taxes topped the
list of issues that residents felt were the most urgent facing
Massachusetts, while concern about the state budget gap was relatively
scant. When asked how the state should cover the budget gap, only 21
percent said the state should raise taxes, while 74 percent said they
would like to see spending cuts to close the gap. Opposition to
increasing taxes ran across the parties, the poll found; only 29 percent
of Democrats, 13 percent of independents, and 7 percent of Republicans
said it was a good idea, despite their support for Patrick's plan to
raise millions more from corporations next year.
Patrick and the Democrats therefore face a long-term political risk if
they spend too much, Smith said, especially because this will be the
first budget in 16 years passed by a Democratic House, Senate, and
governor.
"There's been a lot of pent-up demand, as economists call it, on the
Legislature's part to spend more money on a host of projects, from
improving infrastructure, to adding a train line to New Bedford, to
increasing spending on social services, let alone providing property tax
relief for cities and towns," he said. "If all these things go through,
the next election will be like the Michael Dukakis election -- 'the
tax-and-spend liberals are back.'"
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 9, 2007
Why school aid comes up short:
Health costs vex municipalities
By Edward Moscovitch
The education aid resolution announced by the Legislature last week
represents a thoughtful and equitable distribution of the available
funds. Nonetheless, it will leave many towns far short of what they need
to avoid serious cutbacks.
Last year, the Romney administration and the legislative leadership
worked together to update the aid formula. Their long-term goal was that
each city and town should contribute toward its own schools an amount
equal to a certain percentage of its personal income and also a certain
percentage of its property wealth. These percentages should be the same
for all communities across the state and, overall, the property and
income amounts would be equal.
State aid would make up the difference between foundation budgets and
this target local contribution.
Towns now contributing more than this amount would get extra state aid
to bring their local contribution down to the goal, with this extra aid
phased in over five years. The plan included a faster phase-in for towns
with rapidly growing enrollment.
Last week’s resolution represented the second year of this program. The
Legislature also added extra money for low-income students and English
language learners.
Lawmakers deserve particular credit for two politically difficult steps:
They didn’t let towns take the higher of their amount or the
governor’s. Instead, they stuck with the principle that aid amounts
should be governed by a written formula based on enrollment, income and
wealth.
And they required towns that tax well below the target contribution to
come up with a bit more.
In doing so, legislators rejected somewhat different proposals from Gov.
Deval Patrick.
Last week, the governor came to my town of Gloucester and told the folks
what they wanted to hear -- that Gloucester’s aid was too low because
the formula didn’t adequately reflect income (as a blue-collar, sea-side
town, we have high property values but relatively low average incomes).
The cheers this gained him won’t last long. He didn’t point out that the
formula already weights income and property equally and that relying
totally on income would only increase Gloucester’s aid by a couple
hundred thousand dollars -- far from the $2 million to $3 million it
needs to avoid deep cuts.
The governor left the impression that Gloucester’s problems can be
solved by juggling funds within the formula -- that the formula is
broken and he’ll fix it. But he’ll find that the Legislature last year
did a good job of balancing competing interests of cities, suburbs,
small towns and coastal towns. Last week’s resolution is a polite
reminder that any changes will have to be made cooperatively and are
unlikely to stray far from the sound course set last year.
The only way to get significant additional aid to Gloucester -- and the
scores of other towns around the state with similar crises in school
funding -- is to increase substantially the total amount distributed.
Given the priority Patrick has set on avoiding any increase in state
taxes, such an increase is not going to happen.
Making promises he won’t be able to keep only buys Patrick trouble in
the long run -- and passes up the chance to build support for steps that
would actually solve the problem.
Schools are hurting because the increases in employee health insurance
costs and, in some towns, in special education, are outstripping any
reasonable inflation index -- not because the aid formula is unfair.
To solve the underlying problem, town employees should be included in
the health insurance plan for state employees (which has controlled the
growth in premiums).
The proposal Patrick has endorsed allows them in, but gives local unions
a veto. Beyond this, he’ll need larger annual increases than the roughly
$200 million he proposed if he’s to avoid big cuts in school programs
all across the state.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 9, 2007
A Boston Herald editorial
Group coverage is a no-brainer
How tight is the grip of public employee unions over state lawmakers? We
think we know the answer, but we’re about to find out for sure.
The House and Senate are getting ready to debate a bill that would allow
cities and towns to join the state’s Group Insurance Commission, an
almost guaranteed way to relieve the pressure on local budgets.
Those budgets are getting absolutely croaked by health care costs, and
just about everyone with a say in the matter acknowledges that allowing
cities and towns to join the GIC will save them big money -- or at least
stanch the bleeding.
Take Boston as one example. Sam Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal
Research Bureau, says the cost of providing health care to city
employees grew 92 percent from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2007. Equally
troubling, the percentage of the city budget eaten up by health care
grew from 7 percent to 11 percent. “Unsustainable” doesn’t even begin to
cover it.
Meanwhile, GIC costs grew at a still troubling but more manageable 61
percent. And if the plans are good enough for more than 286,000 state
employees and retirees they cover -- and they are -- they’re good enough
for municipal employees, too.
The problem with the bill now pending in committee -- and another, filed
by Gov. Deval Patrick -- is that they grant far too much power to a
coalition of local unions to block any city or town from GIC enrollment.
Lawmakers don’t want to alienate the unions, particularly the
Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, which has taken a lead role
in fighting this reform. So instead of an opt-out measure for cities and
towns (which Tyler and others favor), they’ve set an absurdly high bar
to opt in. It’s a half-measure, with no guarantee that it will lead to
meaningful savings.
To be fair, the unions are only doing what they’re used to doing --
fighting to the death for their members’ benefits. And should
communities enroll in the GIC, the unions would, in fact, give up the
power to bargain with local officials over the details of health
insurance plans (though not the amount they must contribute). They’d
lose a tiny bit of political leverage in the process.
That means when all is said and done they may retain the power to haggle
over whether their health plans cover prescription eyeglasses.
But when there’s no money left to keep the fire station open, they could
just lose their jobs.
The Telegram & Gazette
Monday, April 9, 2007
Proposition 2½ becomes fashion statement
Woman dresses in tatters to warn about override
By Kevin Keenan
SHREWSBURY— The battle over a $5 million Proposition 2½ override
question has become a Celebrity Death Match pitting the Easter Bunny
against an unidentified Bag Lady.
Last Tuesday, a group of citizens opposed to the override stood in front
of the CVS on Route 9, with a stark message for residents: “Yes on 2 and
this could be you.” A woman was dressed as a bag lady and had a shopping
cart.
The same anti-override group gathered again on the Town Common Friday
afternoon, with Benjamin W. Tartaglia, a candidate for selectman, and
the mysterious bag lady. She declined to identify herself to a Telegram
& Gazette photographer, saying she fears retaliation from the town for
her views.
While standing on the Common, a young woman in a vehicle passing by
shouted at the demonstrators that she deserved an education.
The override would permanently increase the town’s tax base, and would
cost property owners an additional 97 cents per $1,000 of assessed
property value. That translates to $360 more per year for the owner of a
single-family home with the median assessment of $371,400.
Two ballot question committees — one for and one against — have
registered with the town clerk’s office.
George Burns, an override supporter, also wore a costume to highlight
his position. His was the cute and cuddly Easter Bunny. He held a sign
near some schools on certain occasions last week with the address for
the Web site of YES4Shrewsbury. Mr. Burns was surprised by the stir
caused by his costume and the pugnacious tone the override debate has
taken.
“Oh, it had nothing to do with Easter. Just a way to attract attention
to our cause,” Mr. Burns said in an e-mail.
Resident Joy Buck is against the override and believes the message sent
by the Bag Lady tells the true story — which is emotional for many
longtime residents of the town who feel rising taxes threaten their
ability to keep their homes.
“A lot of people who have lived here 40 to 50 years are going to be
pushed out of their homes,” she said. “Many seniors and others will be
forced to sell their homes, and many may become homeless because of this
tax increase ... and many are veterans.”
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
|
