Associated Press
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Backers of tax question plan Faneuil Hall rally
By Steve LeBlanc
BOSTON -- Supporters of a
ballot question that would end the state income tax may have the easiest
political pitch of the election: a promise of an average $3,600 back in
the pockets of each Massachusetts taxpayer.
But with virtually no money
for television ads and few brand-name backers, finding a forum to make
that pitch hasn't been easy for the Committee for Small Government.
The committee has adopted a
barnstorming approach to the campaign highlighted by a rally next
Saturday at Boston's historic Faneuil Hall. They say they'll follow that
up with more rallies and have offered to debate the other side in public
forums.
With less than $8,000 in
the bank as of Sept. 22, supporters face an enormous funding gulf. The
Coalition for Our Communities, which opposes the tax rollback, had more
than $1.2 million cash on hand, including $1 million from national
teachers unions based in Washington D.C.
Carla Howell, leader of the
Committee for Small Government, said the committee is relying heavily on
traditional campaigning, although she wouldn't rule out advertising.
"There's no question that
it is David vs. Goliath. Our opposition is going to spend millions on
advertising against us," said Howell, who debated former state treasurer
Shannon O'Brien in Weymouth last week . "It's a battle of the government
haves vs. the government have-nots -- those who profit from government
spending and those who foot the bill."
Opponents have launched a
campaign of their own to defeat the measure including a rallies in
Springfield, on the steps of Northampton Town Hall and at a recently
rehabbed school in Boston, according to Steve Crawford, a spokesman for
the Coalition for Our Communities.
Unlike Howell's group,
opponents have the money on hand now to take their campaign to the
airwaves.
"We are trying to get the
message out and build support for a campaign to fight this reckless
proposal," Crawford said. "We're going to be using all of the tools that
are part of a modern campaign. Television is certainly part of that."
Critics say the question,
which would eliminate about 40 percent of state revenues, would have
disastrous results, particularly when the state is already facing tough
fiscal times.
While unions have poured
money into the effort to defeat the measure, they aren't alone in
opposing the measure. Business groups have also warned of dire results
and top Democratic leaders on Beacon Hill are uniformly against the
measure, including Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi
and Senate President Therese Murray.
Even Beacon Hill
Republicans have been muted in their response, saying they're
sympathetic with the frustrations of taxpayers, but have stopped short
of backing the question.
That's left supporters
searching for higher profile endorsers.
Saturday's rally features a
radio talk show host, two newspaper columnists and Republican candidates
for Congress and the state Senate -- and Howell.
Keith McCormic is one of
the rally's speakers. The 34-year-old Greenfield resident is making his
first bid for office against Democratic incumbent Sen. Stanley Rosenberg
of Northampton.
McCormic, an educator who
works with special needs students, says he supports the question even
though it may put his job in peril by forcing cutbacks.
McCormic said the question
would pressure Beacon Hill lawmakers to be more open about how they're
spending the money the state already takes in.
"It will force people back
to the bargaining table, not with each other, but with the people. They
are going to have to justify all of these pet projects," McCormic said.
"It's better we have short term pain, with a long term solution, rather
than this death spiral."
Supporters say bigger name
backers could still surface before election day.
"We're still working on
some more names," said Garrett Quinn, Jr, helping to organize Saturday's
rally. "I haven't sent out my final press release naming the final
lineup."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A Boston Globe editorial
This question is not the answer
Economic anxiety caused by
the crisis in the financial markets, and all its attendant uncertainty,
could be enough to cause some voters to favor the question on November's
ballot to eliminate the state income tax. But Question 1 will make
things incalculably worse. The Globe urges every citizen, regardless of
income, to Vote NO on Question 1.
The state treasurer already
has said he will have to borrow at higher interest rates and tap rainy
day funds in order to cover current local aid payments to the cities and
towns. It's not hard to imagine how local communities would fare if the
state were suddenly starved of 40 percent of its operating budget, which
is what Question 1 would do. Local services from schools to police
stations to senior centers would be on the chopping block. Property
taxes - the most unfair and hated of all assessments - would likely rise
to make up the difference. That explains why the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, representing all 351 cities and towns, opposes Question 1.
Small businesses are the
job generators in Massachusetts, and they are trying hard to provide
decent wages and benefits to their employees. The state's landmark law
to extend healthcare coverage to all residents through affordable
personal plans would likely come to a screeching halt with a cut in
revenue of $12 billion, which is what Question 1 would cost.
Improvements to local roads, parking and streetlights, and crime
reduction efforts all would suffer. That is why the Greater Boston
Chamber of Commerce, and other chambers from Springfield to Attleboro,
representing thousands of small businesses, oppose Question 1.
The state's most valuable
natural resource is its brainpower. Cutting $12 billion from the budget
threatens teachers, after-school programs, MCAS remediation and summer
school, special education classes, sports and arts programs, state
college scholarships, workforce training and literacy classes. That is
why the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Massachusetts
Association of School Superintendents - labor and management alike -
oppose Question 1.
Proponents of limited
government envision a world where private institutions or charities
would do the work of government. But a profit-seeking private sector
can't or won't provide for many human needs, and charity cannot begin to
make up the difference. The Catholic Charitable Bureau of the
Archdiocese of Boston and the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization
oppose Question 1.
After steady work by fiscal
conservatives in the Legislature, Massachusetts has shed its "Taxachusetts"
epithet and now ranks 32nd for overall tax burden - that is, all taxes
paid as a percentage of personal income. That is below the national
average and well below competitor states such as New Jersey, California
and Michigan. The mix of taxes is now fairly stable and in good balance,
with the more progressive income tax taking up most of the burden. The
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the state's House
and Senate Republican leaders oppose Question 1.
Small-government extremists
who have mounted this question say the state is swimming in money. But
the magnitude of this tax cut cannot be waved aside. Much of the state
budget is dedicated to financial obligations like debt service and
pensions. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates that some $13
billion in state spending is non-discretionary: required by court order,
the constitution, or federal law. The $12 billion cut would have to come
out of what is left.
The state could stop
spending every dime it now spends on local aid and every dime on human
service programs - food banks, domestic violence and homeless shelters,
care for autistic children, substance abuse and more - and still not
have enough to make up for what is lost to Question 1. The state could
fire all 67,000 state employees - every prison guard and college teacher
- and still have to find another $7 billion.
Carla Howell, chairwoman of
the committee sponsoring Question 1, says 41 cents of every tax dollar
is wasted. How does she know that? It's what people estimated in a
survey she took. "That's just the tip of the trash heap," she says. But
one person's trash is another's crucial aid or life-giving opportunity.
Question 1 doesn't identify which is which; it is a blunt budget ax.
Voters are understandably
anxious about their futures, and angry at institutions that have allowed
the economy to deteriorate. But eliminating the income tax is not the
way to strike back at greedy Wall Street brokers, high gasoline prices,
double-dipping public employees, or crashing home values. We hope voters
will remember the slogan that helped defeat an earlier tax repeal effort
- "I'm mad, but I'm not crazy" - and reject this reckless measure.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
For fiscal sanity, no on Question 1
It is tempting to try and
bully the Bay State’s spend-ocrats into reforming their ways - forcing
them to strip the state budget of every gazebo, every bloated pension,
every “first deputy assistant to the assistant manager” at every obscure
state agency by starving them of billions in revenue.
But there is sufficient
economic chaos churning around us at the moment to know that now is not
the time to take that kind of a fiscal gamble.
We urge a “no” vote on
Question 1, the income tax repeal. But we likewise urge voters to use
the passion and anger they presently feel over the breathtaking
inefficiency of our state government to demand reform.
And if the folks on Beacon
Hill don’t take easily to such direction, well, then voters should elect
the kind of leaders who will.
Yes, those who want to
scrap the state income tax do have a compelling message: Eliminate the
personal income tax, removing $12 billion from the state’s revenue
stream, thereby forcing state budget-writers to live within their means
as the average citizen must.
Do away with pension
double-dippers. Require state employees to contribute more for their
health care. Take the state cars away from the parole board.
In return, they promise,
taxpayers will enjoy an average of $3,600 in tax relief each year.
And while we support a bit
of spine-stiffening of government bureaucrats on occasion, the group
behind this tax repeal would have us believe that Beacon Hill is going
to suddenly find religion on the spending issue. In reality, they will
simply start passing around a different collection plate.
A huge portion of the
budget is chewed up, after all, by federal mandates, debt service,
pensions, binding labor agreements and so on. So to keep pace with local
aid, school funding and the like we would be in for . . . a 15 percent
sales tax, perhaps? A 10 percent meals tax? A new statewide property tax
on top of the local property tax?
We simply can’t support the
inevitable shift in the tax burden that will flow from such a repeal.
Our elected leaders ignore
voter anger over the economy, high fuel prices, mortgage bailouts for
irresponsible borrowers and the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan at
their peril. While we recognize that they are unaccustomed to the use of
a scalpel to rein in spending, they ought to brush up on their knife
skills.
Because if they refuse to
do so, the ax is inevitable.
The New York Times
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Massachusetts Proposal Would Repeal Income Tax
By Pam Belluck
GRAFTON, Mass. — Given the
opportunity to get out of paying state income tax, who wouldn’t jump at
the chance?
Certainly Ruth Gregoire
would. Ms. Gregoire, 71, a retired employee of a fire sprinkler company,
dipped into chocolate ice cream at Swirls and Scoops and pronounced the
no-tax idea “very nice.”
Lakis Theoharis, 56, the
owner of the nearby Pepperoni Express, said: “I’m for the repeal of the
tax. To me, the smaller the government, the better for the citizens.”
And Rich Masterson, 39, a
trucking company supervisor, said, “I would love to see that!”
That view is exactly what
most state and local officials in Massachusetts are afraid of. Amid the
whirlwind presidential election, Massachusetts has a ballot contest of
its own this November that could drastically alter — some would say
cripple — state government.
At issue is Question 1,
which would eliminate the state income tax. It would save the average
taxpayer about $3,600 a year. Annual revenue from the tax is about $12.5
billion, roughly 45 percent of the state’s budget of about $28 billion.
“These are tough times for
everyone as it is, and if Question 1 passes, things will become
exponentially more difficult,” said Leslie A. Kirwan, the Massachusetts
secretary of administration and finance.
Ms. Kirwan added that
because some state programs cannot legally be cut, others would face
cuts of 60 percent or more. The loss of billions of dollars from
Question 1, she said, would devastate state services.
Gov. Deval Patrick, a
Democrat, has called the ballot measure “just a dumb idea.”
And elected leaders across
the state are worried.
“The knee-jerk reaction
would be, ‘That’s a great idea because it means more money for me,’ ”
said Brook Padgett, chairman of the Board of Selectmen in Grafton, a
town of about 17,000 near Worcester, which he said would lose 25 percent
of its budget because of state cuts. “It would affect everybody —
schools, police, municipal services, snow plowing. I couldn’t begin to
tell you what we would do.”
Although Massachusetts is
still often tagged with its “Taxachusetts” reputation, its recent
history is more nuanced.
In 2000, voters approved a
phased rollback of the income tax rate from 5.75 percent to 5 percent.
The Legislature froze the rate at 5.3 percent in 2002, permitting
further reductions only if economic conditions allowed.
In 2002, a ballot measure
to scrap the income tax received hardly any public attention. But to the
shock of elected officials, it netted 45 percent of the vote statewide
and a majority in nearly a third of towns.
Now, with the withering
economy, opponents fear that Question 1 will have even more traction.
Health care workers,
small-business owners and unions are especially concerned about that
prospect. A new group, the
Coalition
for Our Communities, has raised $1.3 million, about $1 million of
that from national teachers’ unions, and plans television advertisements
and direct mail campaigns against the repeal.
Karen White, director of
campaigns and elections for the National Education Association, which
has given $750,000, said the “reckless proposal” would have “dire
consequences that will put education at risk, health care at risk,
public safety at risk.”
She added: “We’re prepared
to commit more money if we need to. We’re going to do what we need to do
to make sure that we win this one.”
The pro-repeal effort,
which gathered 11,000 signatures to put the measure on the ballot, has
much less money — about $25,000 left to spend, disclosure reports show.
“Politicians at the state
and local level are overwhelmingly against us,” said Carla Howell,
chairwoman of the Committee for Small Government, who ran for governor
in 2002. “Everyday voters are much more inclined to end the income tax.”
Question 1 would cut the
tax by half the first year and eliminate it the next year, and Ms.
Howell said the state could compensate by cutting lucrative employee
pensions, paring bureaucracies and spending wisely.
“We don’t have to cut any
essential services or any government programs that are providing a
benefit to the people of Massachusetts,” Ms. Howell said. “All we have
to do is cut government waste.”
Some voters who wanted
taxes lowered to 5 percent have decided to support Question 1 to show
their anger at the state, said Barbara Anderson, director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which advocated 5 percent but is now
producing bumper stickers that read “Hell
Yes! Question 1.”
“It’s the only game in
town, it’s the only question on the ballot, it’s the only chance for us
to express our outrage,” Ms. Anderson said. “The more we looked at it
and realized that other states get along very well without an income
tax, like New Hampshire, you start dreaming.”
The 5.3 percent income tax
rate is far from the nation’s highest, and, according to the Tax
Foundation, a nonpartisan group, Massachusetts, which used to rank
second in combined local and state tax burden, now ranks 23rd.
Only seven states have no
income tax, but while ballot questions on sales and other taxes are
common, those proposing income tax repeals are rare, said Pete Sepp, a
spokesman for the
National Taxpayers Union, which supports the Massachusetts measure.
North Dakota has a ballot measure this year to halve the state income
tax.
“There aren’t many places
where you can initiate an income tax repeal from the citizens that
haven’t already done it,” Mr. Sepp said.
Still, even before the
anti-repeal campaign has begun in earnest in Massachusetts, there are
many voters who think Question 1 is a bad idea.
One poll, conducted by
7News/Suffolk University, found 36 percent in favor of eliminating the
tax and 50 percent opposed. Another poll, conducted by WBZ-TV, was
closer: 45 percent favored scrapping the tax, 47 percent wanted to keep
it.
“If it passes, you’re
looking at least double or triple whatever your property taxes are now,”
said Mike Kozlowski, who owns a garden store in Worcester.
Beth Piknick, a Cape Cod
nurse who is president of the state nurses’ association, said: “This is
really, really dangerous and extremely short-sighted. Unfortunately what
happens is the populations that are most vulnerable get it first — the
disabled, the elderly, the poor.”
In Grafton, where voters
were evenly divided on repeal in 2002, people like Henry Cyr, 63, a
retired Air Force officer, said, “The trauma to our financial system
would just be too great.”
And Marcia LeBlanc, 66, a
school bus driver, said: “I don’t think it’s a good idea. How are they
going to pay for state services?”
State Representative George
Peterson of Grafton, a Republican who voted for repeal in 2002, declined
to say how he would vote this time.
“If we lose $12.5 billion,
can I build a responsible budget with that loss in revenue?” Mr.
Peterson asked. “No, I can’t.”
But he suggested that if
the repeal passed, even though it is technically binding, the
Legislature might be forced to find a way around it and pass a new law
setting taxes at the 5 percent rate voters asked for eight years ago.
“I’m telling my constituents, if you want to send a message that we have
a budget that is out of control, send me that message.”
The Salem News
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Beware the politician promising 'real reform'
By Taylor Armerding
George Orwell might not be
pleased, but he would surely feel vindicated.
No, we don't have a
Ministry of Peace whose business is making war, a Ministry of Truth
whose business is spreading lies, or a Ministry of Love whose business
is the torturous brainwashing of those with independent thoughts.
But in politics and
government, there isn't much anymore that actually means what it says.
Keep that in mind during the next month, as you are hit with an
avalanche of declarations that "real reform" is going to root out
wasteful spending by state government, so there's no need for you to
vote yes on Question 1, to repeal the state income tax.
Some of the doublespeak is
relatively harmless, I suppose: If you fail your freshman year at
Haverhill High School, you are assigned to "Success Academy." If you are
unable to live independently, chances are you spend some of your days at
an "Independent Living Center."
But some of it is not so
harmless. When candidates refer to "hard-working people," they are
generally talking about those who belong to unions, whose goal is for
them not to work as hard or as much. For instance, there was the recent
story out of Andover about "sick-leave buyback," which pays workers
extra for what used to be considered basic honesty — not taking sick
days when they're not sick. Obviously, this exists not just in Andover,
but throughout public-sector employment.
Then there's the popular
technique of setting standards to "permit" something, when the real goal
is to prevent it. Check Andover again, where the bylaw governing
cellular telephone towers is not really meant to govern them, but to
block them. In this case, the federal government is wise to this
technique — it ought to be, since it does the same thing — and doesn't
allow local laws to trump federal regulations for cell towers.
It's a bit like creating an
"adult entertainment zone." Every community has to have one, but they do
their best to make sure that they block adult entertainment — a
perfectly fine thing, but perfectly disingenuous.
Or, you could visit any
community in the commonwealth where elected officials and union members
will tell you with a straight face that teachers, cops and firefighters
don't have any more job security than anybody else — that they can be
fired as long as their superiors follow the prescribed "process." Then
check to see how many of them have been fired for anything less serious
than committing a felony.
I have yet to hear of a
teacher being fired for "just" being a lousy teacher. The "process" is
not intended to make it possible to fire a bad teacher, cop or
firefighter. It is intended to make it impossible.
And, at the national level,
the most recent example is the Democratic energy bill that, fortunately,
will never become a reality. The Dems made a big point of saying this
was a bill that would allow offshore drilling for oil. It did allow
drilling — just not where there was much oil. It continued to ban
drilling where 90 percent of the oil could be found.
In light of all this,
pardon me if I'm not applauding Gov. Deval Patrick's big "reforms."
It sounds like the governor
has grown a spine, standing up to powerful unions that were instrumental
in helping to elect him. Patrick is moving to allow civilian flagmen
instead of police officers to direct traffic on some state road
projects, making a dent in one of the most lucrative (and unnecessary)
perks for any group of public employees.
More recently, the governor
has said he intends to start cutting some highway toll workers, in a
move towards automation.
Wow! Then are we actually
witnessing the decline of the hackarama?
Don't hold your breath. The
result of all this won't be known until long after the Nov. 4 election.
And I fear the governor's spine may soften once the income tax remains
safely in place.
Even if he does stick to
his reform agenda, it is much more modest than it sounds. It is larded
up with other exceptions and rules that are cutting savings that ought
to be at least $25 million a year down to about $5.6 million. And while
the police are in a frenzy of outrage, behaving at their thuggish worst,
it still looks like they're playing a part — that it's all an act to
make people think that finally government has heard the people and is
serious about reform.
As for the toll-takers?
More than one media outlet has pointed out that too many of them are
related to legislators for that to have a prayer of happening.
I'll be the first to
applaud real, substantive reform. But I won't believe it's real unless
it really happens, long after November.
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune.
