CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Taxpayers' Enemies Pull In Huge Funds
From Usual Deep-Pockets Special Interest Suspects
Meanwhile, the Coalition for Our
Communities, which opposes a ballot question repealing the state income
tax, raised just over $1.5 million between January and August, mostly
from labor unions. The National Education Association donated $750,000.
Associated Press
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Foes of income tax repeal take in $1.5m
The Coalition for Our Communities collected a combined $1
million from two national teachers union groups this summer, with state-level
unions kicking in another $500,000, part of a fundraising windfall that left the
labor-backed coalition with $1.3 million in the bank heading into September....
Along with a $1.5 million cash haul, the Coalition for Our Communities, part of
a heavily orchestrated resistance to the repeal, reported $245,000 in “in-kind”
contributions, including nearly $140,000 in consulting and staff time from the
Mass. Teachers Association, and office rental from a healthcare workers union.
The Boston Teachers Union donated $150,000. The national Service Employees
International Union sent $60,000. The lone check to come from an individual was
$100 from a Wayland homemaker on August 4....
Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the committee, and for Patrick’s campaign
committee, said local business groups had signed onto the effort.
Asked about the almost purely labor money that has so far flowed into the
resistance effort, Crawford said, “These people who have contributed so far know
firsthand that this reckless proposal is binding and would have a devastating
effect on the important services relied upon by every person in this state,”
said.
State House News Service
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tax repeal resistance flush for final two months
The meeting at the Freight Yard Pub was organized Tuesday by
Pamela Schwartz, Western Mass. field director for Coalitions for our
Communities, a partnering of unions, civic and community groups, nonprofits,
businesses and individuals to defeat Question 1. About a dozen civic, union and
business representatives attended.
Voters might rally around the question as "a way to send a message," said state
Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, but he added that the Legislature would be
hesitant to overturn the will of the people if it passes. "I don't think you can
rely on us to go back into session and repeal it." ...
Cutting anything out of the budget is difficult, said Bosley, but the ax would
end up falling on not only necessary services but investments in a wide range of
areas that the proponents of Question 1 say are wasteful. Massachusetts Museum
of Contemporary Art, he noted, would never have got off the ground without
millions in grants from the state.
It would have a ripple effect said Bosley; for example bad roads and poorly
maintained parks and museums would dampen tourism and damage the economy.
Failing schools and infrastucture would make it harder to attract people and
businesses. And it has far more serious implications, he said, because it would
affect the state's ability to make matching grants with federal funds — the
total loss in revenue would be even higher.
"People think that the people on the top get cut," said City Councilor Lisa
Blackmer. "But what really happens is the people on the bottom go — those are
your neighbors, your family." ...
"This is not a discussion about the level of services or taxation, this is
Libertarians getting together to say 'no tax,'" said Bosley.
Proponents of eliminating the income tax say the state has plenty of money —
that actual spending is $47 billion, or $23 billion above actual budget numbers.
Cutting $12 billion will still leave the state with $10 billion "in uncut
government waste."
Nine states have no income tax, including the Bay State's neighbor to the north,
New Hampshire. The Granite State ranks among the highest in property taxes but
among the lowest in overall tax burden....
"The one thing from having to fight this one scary question, it does afford us
the opportunity to build a community coalition that can, hopefully, live well
past Nov. 4," said Schwartz.
iBerkshires.com
Friday, September 5, 2008
Income-Tax Repeal Opponents Plan Strategy
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Question 1 campaign to eliminate the state income
tax has begun. The usual enemies of taxpayers are rallying its
army, setting its legions of special interests upon the beleaguered
citizenry in another reign of terror. Its limitless union finances
have again been unleashed, pouring in to build another massive
war-machine to set upon taxpayers and voters.
According to its
first campaign finance report to the state Office of Campaign &
Finance filed late last week, the Coalition for Our Communities, the
"NO" on Question 1 committee, since January 1 through August 31 has
raised $1,503,705 in cash donations, received $245,317.96 in in-kind
contributions, spent $156,366.69, and had $1,347,338.31 on-hand to
spend during its siege.
All of its $1,503,705 in cash donations has
come from huge union contributions -- but for one: $100 from a
Wayland "homemaker," probably a trustafarian. Most of its money
has come from out-of-state. Here's a sample:
8/7/2008 - American Federation of Teachers Solidarity Fund
555 New Jersey Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001, Antonia Cortese --
$250,000
6/5/2008 - Boston Teachers Union Committee on Political Education
180 Mount Vernon Street Boston, MA 02108, Tom Gosnell --
$150,000
5/5/2008 - Mass. Teachers Association
20 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108, David Borer --
$50,000
6/3/2008 - Mass. Teachers Association
20 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108, David Borer --
$15,000
7/29/2008 - National Education Association
1201 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20009, Michael McPherson --
$750,000
For a complete list of contributors and
amounts
CLICK HERE
The Coalition to Crush Taxpayers Beneath its Treads
also received "in-kind" contributions of $245,317.96.
In-kind contributions are those that are not made in direct cash
payments, but which benefit the campaign. Those were all made by
major union machines.
For a complete list of in-kind contributors
and amounts
CLICK HERE
The expenditure as of the end of last month of
$156,366.69 went primarily to a number of top-shelf professional
campaign consultants and strategists, such as $96,161.95 to Alipes CME,
apparently for designing and setting up its website. (Alipes
reportedly did this for Gov. Patrick's and Sen. Barak Obama's
campaigns.) It spent $18,000 on Carpman Communications LLP, and
$19,500 more recently on the national Dewey Square Group LLC. All
of this since May, most of it as their campaign ramped-up over the
summer.
For a complete list of expenditures and
amounts
CLICK HERE
Who makes up the Coalition for Our Communities?
A long list that includes just about every Gimme Lobby organization and
taxpayer-funded special interest across the state and then some, and no
doubt the list is still growing. For their current list of who's
who see:
THE
COALITION FOR OUR COMMUNITIES
One of its consultants, Pamela Schwartz, as noted in
the below iBerkshires.com report, is the committee's Western
Massachusetts field director. She was paid $483.83 three days
before the report's filing deadline -- so you can expect more to come
her way.
What do we know about Pam
Schwartz of Northampton? Could she be the same Pamela Schwartz
who's listed as the communication/outreach director of the Northampton
ultra-left group National Priorities Project? Perhaps it's merely
a coincidence. The anti-war, redistributionist NPP is far-left
leaning, funded by
left-leaning foundations.
Interesting how, when Carla Howell and Michael Cloud
were paid minimum wage or less for their years in the trenches
putting two repeal questions on the ballot over six years, it made
for a blazing tabloid front-page headline in the Boston Herald and deserved a
hatchet-job report by Hillary Chabot because -- gasp! -- they
were getting paid for their work. I'm waiting for the Boston
Herald's follow-up exposé revealing that the "NO"
side is -- gasp! -- paying much, much more to its
army "volunteers," who the Herald must have mistakenly thought, labor
with such high principles and moral commitment, salary-free.
Get prepared for the coming paid ad blitz and a
deluge of daily news reports generated by the opponents. The
anti-taxpayer juggernaut has just been primed, moved out of its
staging area, begun its infiltration of the population. Its self-interest warlords
and minions are still building fortifications and filling their warchest before their onslaught.
The funds their invading army has raised so far is
but the tip of the iceberg -- start-up money. Much more will
arrive before the reporting period, when it must be made public.
More will have arrived unreported before the final campaign report is
made public -- after the election. That's
exactly how this army of
special interests did it in 2000, during our income tax rollback
campaign. Below are excepts from their finance reports revealed
publicly only after the 2000 election, after voters had
made their decision:
Campaign for Massachusetts' Future (OCPF# 95286) -- 2000
Reporting Period: Oct 16, 2000 - Nov. 1, 2000
Total receipts: $1,306,121.59
$450,000 - Mass. Teachers Assoc. - 10/16/00
$75,000 - Mass. Teachers Assoc. - 10/19/00
$350,000 - National Education Assoc. - 10/19/00
Reporting Period: Nov. 2, 2000 - Nov. 15, 2000
Total receipts: $120,903.00
$50,000 - Boston Teachers Union - 11/2/00
$50,000 - Mass. Teachers Assoc. - 11/2/00
What was reported last week -- the ballot committee's
initial report -- is but the tip of the tax-borrow-and-spenders' iceberg:
It's the same iceberg that's kept our rollback still "frozen" at 5.3
percent. This "NO" campaign is being bankrolled by same
deep-pockets special-interests that lost the 2000 ballot campaign to us
and fifty-nine percent (59%) of the voters who demanded a return to 5
percent.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
Print Your Own Bumper
Sticker!
CLICK HERE
to download a full-color printable copy
You need the free Adobe
Acrobat Reader® program installed on your computer
to open and print this file
|
Associated Press
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Foes of income tax repeal take in $1.5m
By Ray Henry
A man charged with drug offenses nearly a decade ago after a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology student fatally overdosed on
laughing gas contributed $25,000 to the supporters of a ballot question
to decriminalize minor marijuana possession because he believes changing
the law could help avert future tragedies. . . .
Meanwhile, the
Coalition for Our Communities, which opposes a ballot question
repealing the state income tax, raised just over $1.5 million between
January and August, mostly from labor unions. The National Education
Association donated $750,000.
"This reckless proposal is binding," coalition spokesman Stephen
Crawford said, "and would have a devastating effect on important
services every person in the state depends upon: safe roads and bridges,
ambulance service that arrives in time, and classroom sizes that allow
our kids to learn and become active members of our community."
The Committee for Small Government, which supports the repeal, had not
posted its financial information by midevening yesterday.
Cutting the income tax would reduce by nearly 40 percent the amount of
money Massachusetts takes in each year. Municipal leaders have said the
proposal would cripple government, while supporters argue that taxpayers
would save thousands of dollars per year.
Mayors have urged Governor Deval Patrick to campaign against the
proposed income tax repeal.
"People hate paying taxes. . . . I understand that," Patrick said
Thursday. "But I also think that we're going to have to start leveling
with each other, that the services people say they want cost something."
State House News Service
Monday, September 8, 2008
Tax repeal resistance flush for final two months
By Jim O’Sullivan
The fight against a repeal of the state income tax has so far been
funded solely by unions and one Wayland homemaker.
The Coalition for Our Communities collected a combined $1 million from
two national teachers union groups this summer, with state-level unions
kicking in another $500,000, part of a fundraising windfall that left
the labor-backed coalition with $1.3 million in the bank heading into
September.
The committee backing the repeal, in comparison, had missed the Friday
deadline for its financial update, and had not filed as of late Monday
afternoon.
Along with a $1.5 million cash haul, the Coalition for Our Communities,
part of a heavily orchestrated resistance to the repeal, reported
$245,000 in “in-kind” contributions, including nearly $140,000 in
consulting and staff time from the Mass. Teachers Association, and
office rental from a healthcare workers union.
The Boston Teachers Union donated $150,000. The national Service
Employees International Union sent $60,000. The lone check to come from
an individual was $100 from a Wayland homemaker on August 4.
The Committee for Small Government was hoping to file its report by
Monday evening, said chairwoman Carla Howell. She said “technological
glitches” had prevented them from meeting deadline.
She refused to speculate on the campaign’s bottom line, but said the
difference in fundraising would be substantial.
“It’s certainly going to be very modest compared to our opposition,”
Howell said Monday afternoon. “This is a David versus Goliath.”
A spokesman for the Office of Campaign and Political Finance said the
committee had been working with the division’s staff to resolve what
they called technical difficulties. “Technical difficulties, however,
don’t exempt a committee from the possibility of late-filing fees,” said
the spokesman, Jason Tait.
The Committee for Small Government raked in $203,000 during the last
five months of 2007, paying out nearly all of that in expenditures,
about half of them to a signature-collection firm, Freedom Petition
Management in Worcester. The committee finished 2007 with $4,041 in its
account.
Gov. Deval Patrick and others have argued that the government services
that citizens rely upon would be decimated, with the income tax
bankrolling 40 percent of the state budget. Top legislators from both
parties have also criticized the repeal.
Proponents of the plan, which would halve the state’s 5.3 percent rate
in the first year and then eliminate the tax the following year, said
over 3.4 million Bay State workers would see an average $3,700 more each
year. They argue the repeal would create jobs and force policymakers to
eliminate wasteful spending.
In 2002, a similar question garnered 45 percent of the vote.
The coalition fighting the ballot measure this time around has spent
over $156,000, much of it on consulting fees.
Veterans of Patrick’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign have enjoyed much of
the committee’s spending.
Alipes CME, the Boston-based firm of Patrick’s campaign web guru Charles
SteelFisher, collected over $90,000 between May and August.
Communications adviser Larry Carpman’s firm netted $18,000 from June
through August.
Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the committee, and for Patrick’s
campaign committee, said local business groups had signed onto the
effort.
Asked about the almost purely labor money that has so far flowed into
the resistance effort, Crawford said, “These people who have contributed
so far know firsthand that this reckless proposal is binding and would
have a devastating effect on the important services relied upon by every
person in this state,” said.
iBerkshires.com
Your Berkshire Guide to the Community
Friday, September 5, 2008
Income-Tax Repeal Opponents Plan Strategy
By Tammy Daniels
NORTH ADAMS — Opponents say it will gut social services and local aid;
proponents say it will put more money in citizens' pockets. On Nov. 4,
voters will decide a ballot question that could ravage local and state
budgets for years to come.
The Question 1 calls for the elimination of the income tax in the state
over a period of years, which would strip away more than $12 billion in
revenue yearly — nearly half the state budget.
The Center for Small Government and its president, Carla Howell, who's
been able to get the initiative on the ballot for the second time in six
years (it was barely defeated in 2002), says its passage will force the
state to be more frugal and put about $3,600 back in workers' pockets.
"People are going to see this as an enormous carrot," said Richard
Alcombright, a city councilor and local banker at an informational
meeting earlier this week about fighting the ballot question.
Alcombright said he was concerned some state services go away — and
those services would fall on cities and towns.
The meeting at the Freight Yard Pub was organized Tuesday by Pamela
Schwartz, Western Mass. field director for Coalitions for our
Communities, a partnering of unions, civic and community groups,
nonprofits, businesses and individuals to defeat Question 1. About a
dozen civic, union and business representatives attended.
Voters might rally around the question as "a way to send a message,"
said state Rep. Daniel E. Bosley, D-North Adams, but he added that the
Legislature would be hesitant to overturn the will of the people if it
passes. "I don't think you can rely on us to go back into session and
repeal it."
Lawmakers say the loss of funds would affect public services such as
nurses, firefighters, police officers, teachers and highway workers;
halt road and school projects, and gut local aid.
Cutting anything out of the budget is difficult, said Bosley, but the ax
would end up falling on not only necessary services but investments in a
wide range of areas that the proponents of Question 1 say are wasteful.
Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, he noted, would never have got
off the ground without millions in grants from the state.
It would have a ripple effect said Bosley; for example bad roads and
poorly maintained parks and museums would dampen tourism and damage the
economy. Failing schools and infrastucture would make it harder to
attract people and businesses. And it has far more serious implications,
he said, because it would affect the state's ability to make matching
grants with federal funds — the total loss in revenue would be even
higher.
"People think that the people on the top get cut," said City Councilor
Lisa Blackmer. "But what really happens is the people on the bottom go —
those are your neighbors, your family."
She warned of another "brain drain," as young professionals would leave
the state for greener pastures.
At the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts breakfast on Wednesday,
union leaders warned that Question 1 would cut 22 percent out of the
state college system budget.
"This is not a discussion about the level of services or taxation, this
is Libertarians getting together to say 'no tax,'" said Bosley.
Proponents of eliminating the income tax say the state has plenty of
money — that actual spending is $47 billion, or $23 billion above actual
budget numbers. Cutting $12 billion will still leave the state with $10
billion "in uncut government waste."
Nine states have no income tax, including the Bay State's neighbor to
the north, New Hampshire. The Granite State ranks among the highest in
property taxes but among the lowest in overall tax burden. Communities
there, however, are also facing rising energy costs and soaring county
taxes.
Alcombright wanted to research New Hampshire's tax structure before
making any decisions.
In Massachusetts, communities could find themselves trying to cover the
loss of funds from the state while trying to remain with the Proposition
2½ property tax cap. Permit, licenses and other fees could rise
dramatically to cover the shortfalls.
Michael Supranowicz, president of the Berkshire Chamber of Commerce,
hesitated to weigh in on the issue without fully understanding what it
would mean to local businesses. "I want to put this information out for
our members and take a good hard look at this."
Schwartz said opposition to the question is bipartisan and broadbased,
and both the Springfield and Chicopee chambers of commerce have already
publicly spoken out in opposition. Also on board is the business-backed
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. (Citizens for Limited Taxation
supports Question 1.)
This was the time to start building a coalition to raise awareness of
the issue, she said.
A rally is being planned for Third Thursday (Sept. 18) in Pittsfield,
probably at Park Square. Others in attendance suggested information
booths during some the Fall Foliage Festival events later in the month.
"The one thing from having to fight this one scary question, it does
afford us the opportunity to build a community coalition that can,
hopefully, live well past Nov. 4," said Schwartz.
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
|
