The Eagle Tribune
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Defending the government gravy train with class envy
By Taylor Armerding
You can tell when defenders
of an indefensible status quo are getting desperate. They play the class
warfare card.
So, perhaps you've noticed
the not-so-subtle shift in emphasis from those who oppose Question 1 on
the November ballot, which calls for eliminating the 5.3 percent state
income tax: It will give tax cuts to the rich!
It is no longer enough to
haul out the old "devastating cuts in services" line. People are
actually getting wise to the fact that the only real devastation will be
visited on those who have been on a decades-long, taxpayer-funded gravy
train.
It's no longer enough to
suggest — gently of course — that voting to let Massachusetts taxpayers
keep about $12.5 billion of the money they've been sending to Beacon
Hill will be, uh, well, there's really no other way to put this —
"stupid." You know, like shooting yourself in the foot. You will be
sorry, because all those services you desperately want and need will
vanish.
Is it just coincidence, or
is the timing of Gov. Deval Patrick's big announcement on budget cuts,
less than three weeks before the vote, a bit suspicious? He doesn't have
to say a thing, but the message is clear: Here's a little taste of the
pain you'll suffer if you eliminate the income tax.
Because, of course, that
money doesn't go into fat pensions, early retirements, lavish benefits
and rampant patronage. No, it all goes to critical services.
Your aging parents will
suffer. Your children will suffer. You will have to hide in your home
because there won't be any cops to protect you from criminals running
rampant in the streets. If your house catches fire, well, it will just
burn down because there won't be any firefighters around to put it out.
And you wouldn't want to drive anywhere anyway, because bridges will be
collapsing all around you.
(A brief aside — that last
one is a hoot. With the income tax firmly in place, the bridge on Mill
Road in Ipswich — one of the main links to Hamilton — has been closed
since the Mother's Day floods of 2006. Two years and five months later
nothing — nothing — has been done.)
Yes, the "devastating cuts"
line is getting old and overused.
And those who bother to
check, and notice that eliminating the state income tax would put the
budget about where it was 10 years ago, will probably remember that 1999
was not a time of Third World deprivation in Massachusetts. They will
probably also notice that while the state budget has increased much
faster than the rate of inflation, their own salaries and benefits have
not. They are getting tired of having to absorb energy and health
insurance increases within their own flatlined salaries, and then being
forced to insulate those on the public payroll from the same thing.
So, it's time to haul out
the big gun — class envy. The supposedly nonpartisan Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, which represents taxpayers about as well as a fox
represents chickens, warns that if Question 1 passes, those who make
more than $100,000 will benefit to the tune of $16,295, while those
making less than $50,000 will see only $850.
Wow. You know what? I'll
bet it's even worse than that. I'll bet that people who don't pay any
state income tax at all will get nothing back if Question 1 passes. How
grossly unfair is that?
In a sane world, the MTF
would get laughed off the public soapbox for such inanities. Of course
those who pay the most in taxes now will "get the most back" (actually
keep the most) if the tax is repealed. That should be obvious to
everybody who has made it out of preschool.
An argument like that makes
it clear that these people don't really care about services. This is
about power — the power to redistribute money from those who earned it
to those who are more "deserving."
If the state's leaders
wanted to defuse the anger and frustration that led to Question 1, they
could have done it easily, by honoring the vote several years ago
ordering them to keep their promise, and return the income tax to 5
percent. They wouldn't even do that, so great is their contempt for the
voters. If you want to talk "stupid," stupid is re-electing them every
two years.
Peter Meade, head of the
Vote No Committee, is fond of saying, "If you want to send a message,
get a Hallmark card."
But, Hallmark cards don't
work. Even votes don't work.
And that's the other thing
the MTF, the unions and the ACORN (yes, ACORN is now involved as well)
types don't tell you. If Question 1 passes, it will never be
implemented. It's just a law, and the Legislature will repeal it, as
they can with any law — you know, to save us from 1999-like devastation.
But maybe, just maybe, they
will also get the message that we are sick of having far too much of our
money wasted.
Taylor Armerding is
associate editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
Impact too taxing
We understand the
temptation by some to vote for Question 1, especially after we got wind
yesterday of a report by Auditor Joseph DeNucci on the apparent
mismanagement of funds by another state agency.
But that audit of the
Massachusetts Cultural Council wasn’t the only item to land in our
in-box yesterday. We also have a new analysis of the impact that
eliminating the income tax would have on our economy - and it is
alarming in the extreme.
The report by Global
Insight, commissioned by four business groups, found the loss of $12.5
billion in revenue would be a “disabling blow” to state and local
government services. That’s obvious to most people.
The report details how the
loss would effectively close credit markets to state agencies, cities
and towns, so the school now under construction in your neighborhood
would remain a hole in the ground and the bridge now closed to traffic
would stay that way. “The cost to Massachusetts’ residents will increase
substantially in the form of higher tuition payments, new [tolls] and
other user fees - expenses that will more than offset the gain from
paying no income tax for most households,” the report states.
But the point lost on some
people is that it wouldn’t just be public dollars that would dry up. As
the study notes, when the state is no longer investing in education and
infrastructure, private businesses will bolt - and take their jobs with
them.
DeNucci’s report about the
Cultural Council and its use of funds for new software and an “online
cultural marketplace” - funds that DeNucci says should have been
returned to the state - is the kind of thing that might inspire some
voters to give Beacon Hill a wake-up call. But if Question 1 passes,
we’re all in for a rude awakening.
The Salem News
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Vote yes on Question 1
By Robert Kelly
There is nothing new about
taxpayers getting angry about a bloated government that permits public
servants to gorge themselves at the public trough.
Proposition 2½ was passed
in the 1980s as a direct response to legislators who arrogantly
continued to tax, spend and gorge. Social engineers had turned the
necessary power to tax, without which government can not function, into
a tool that corrupted them and the system. So personnel compensation
policies, infrastructure, and education, etc., are now in serious
disrepair.
Prop. 2½ wasn't sold as
good tax policy. Instead it was meant to be a political message to
lawmakers: "Change your ways or we'll take your revenue toys away."
The controversial law has
had a positive effect. Every year communities across the state try to
get overrides, most of which fail, which means that spending is being
disciplined. And it's spending, not the lack of revenue, that was and is
the problem in Massachusetts. We have fallen prey to the socialistic
notion that perfect happiness on this earth can be attained through
organization and spending.
But the lessons of Prop. 2½
have not been long-lasting. Recent years have seen fresh displays of the
old arrogance by elected officials and judges. And the public is angry.
It is increasingly demanding reform that will streamline government,
restructure education and eliminate the repeated reports of
double-dipping and ridiculous pensions.
It's time for a complete
overhaul of government, a fresh definition of its purpose, the
implementation of new wage and fringe programs that are directly tied to
private sector practices and the implementation of a new education
program that is aimed at educating, not indoctrinating.
But to begin such a broad
program of reform is not possible until lawmakers are shaken up to such
an extent that they will be forced to listen to the people. One way to
do that, of course, is to refuse to support them with your vote.
Another way is to support
Question 1. It would drop the income tax rate to 2.65 percent in 2009,
and to zero percent in 2010. Similar to Prop. 2½, this proposal does not
pretend to be good tax policy. It is shock treatment. But unlike the
earlier proposal, the effects of which were mitigated by state transfers
to towns, this one directly hits the transferee right in the belly.
This is no crazy idea
proffered by a lunatic fringe group. A similar proposal in 2002 garnered
45 percent of votes cast. It actually won a majority vote in Barnstable
and Plymouth counties; and in the three largest counties — Middlesex,
Essex and Norfolk — it pulled 43, 49 and 45 percent of the vote,
respectively.
Does it have a chance of
passing this year? Past history, some polls, and especially the
activities of the opposition, say the possibility is real.
But while Carla Howell's
group, which organized this initiative, has raised $160,000, those
opposed have $1.5 million, two-thirds of it coming from national teacher
unions. Money of this magnitude is not raised to fight minor threats.
The Howell proposal is real and, despite the disparity in resources, its
message will ring clear to the voters: We rule and you serve — or else!
Taxpayers will be warned
over upcoming weeks that the world will end if the income tax is
eliminated. It won't. But reform will be forced and maybe, just maybe, a
new era of cleaner, better, smaller government will begin.
If you want reform, vote
against every candidate who refuses to support Question 1. If you vote
no, you're supporting the status quo. Think and act.
Robert Kelly of Peabody
writes regularly for the Opinion page. He is the author of of "The
National Debt of the United States 1941 to 2008, 2d ed"
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A Boston Globe editorial
No on Question 1
The Globe published a
lengthy editorial strongly opposing Question 1 on Sept. 28, and nothing
in the interim has changed our view. In fact, the current economic
crisis only underlines the case against eliminating the state income
tax. Question 1 would starve state government of 40 percent of its
revenue - more than $12 billion - and give the biggest breaks to the
richest taxpayers. It would pressure communities to make up for lost
revenue, almost surely by raising property taxes. Services ranging from
the MBTA, to fuel aid, to local police would be slashed just when
residents need them most.
Proponents claim that state
government is full of fat and incompetence. But Question 1 would require
such extreme cuts that the government could fire every state employee -
every prison guard and social worker - and still have to find another $7
billion.
Business groups, charities,
unions, churches, municipal governments, and legislative leaders in both
Democratic and Republican parties are united in saying that Question 1
goes way too far. We hope the voters of Massachusetts will join them in
rejecting this reckless and destructive idea.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Same old story from No on 1 set
By Margery Eagan
It’s always the same story
around here. First to take it on the chin in tough times are housebound
seniors who need Meals on Wheels, the legally blind, the mentally ill
and, of course - pardon the expression, Howie - the children.
In other words, those who
can afford it least get hit hardest.
But we never get any
systemic reform of what’s truly costing us. And it’s not the old, the
blind or the preschoolers - not 18 years ago when the public sector
unions warned against cutting back the state income tax rate, saying “It
goes to far!”
Not today, when the
anti-tax cut crowd has another catchy slogan: “Vote No On Question 1 (to
end the income tax). It’s a risky idea.”
Yesterday I asked “No on 1”
spokesman Stephen Crawford if the group has any reform suggestions.
“That’s not our role,” he
said.
Why not?
Yesterday, after testifying
on Beacon Hill about budget cuts after the Wall Street disaster, tax
watchdog Michael Widmer said he thinks this fiscal mess is a perfect
“opportunity for real reform,” particularly of major budget-busters such
as pension and health care costs. They account for a whopping 70 percent
of local budgets, he said.
Question 1, if passed,
would take more than $12 billion, or nearly 40 percent, from the state’s
budget. Yet cities and towns joining the state’s health insurance pool
could save $2.5 billion over 10 years. But almost none of them have
joined the pool because local unions don’t want to. The state won’t make
them (why not again?) and local leaders are stuck.
In fact, part of the
selling point in Brookline, which just passed a Proposition 2½ override,
was the expectation that local unions would buy into the state pool and
save the town $3 million. What happened? Guilt-fueled voters, already
paying some of the highest property taxes in the state, passed the
override to pay even more. And then? Guilt-free unions voted against
joining the state.
Too late now, you gullible
Brookline voters you.
The Vote No on 1 set has
millions to fight the Yes on 1 crew - led by the ever-energetic Carla
Howell, who has about 25 cents.
The Wall Street fiasco
makes her chances of prevailing worse than they already were. Yet the
same old story and refrain is wearing thin, isn’t it? Just keep on
paying as the scams keep coming, no fixes in sight.
Asked how much of Vote No’s
money comes from unions, Crawford would not say. The answer, as the
Herald disclosed last month: two-thirds comes from two big teacher
unions.
Enough said.
Associated Press
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Unions pour fresh millions into Question One fight
BOSTON - Unions hoping to
convince voters to kill a ballot question that would eliminate the state
income tax are pouring fresh millions into the campaign in the weeks
before Election Day.
Between Oct. 2 and Oct. 15,
the Coalition for Our Communities raised $2.4 million, according to
records filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
The Committee for Small
Government, which supports the measure, raised less than $26,000 during
the same period, more than a third of it from donors outside
Massachusetts.
The $2.4 million raised by
opponents includes $1.5 million from the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and $750,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based National
Education Association. All told, the group has raised $4.6 million.
The Berkshire Eagle
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Income tax initiative sparks heated discussion
By Trevor Jones
LENOX — The contentious
debate Question 1 has sparked was on display at a Town Hall meeting
yesterday and included accusations of government ineptitude and a state
representative threatening to end his time in the Legislature if the
measure passes.
State Rep. William "Smitty"
Pignatelli convened speakers for and against the Nov. 4 ballot question,
which would cut the state income tax from 5.3 percent to 2.65 percent in
2009 and eliminate it completely in 2010. The referendum question is
binding, meaning if voters approve it, it will become law.
Pignatelli, who strongly
opposes Question 1, said the forum was intended to clear up public
misconceptions about it.
Michael Widmer, president
of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan organization
that tracks government spending, outlined the risks; and Kamal Jain from
the Committee for Small Government, the group behind Question 1, spoke
in favor of the initiative.
Widmer outlined a what he
called a "havoc and chaos" scenario in Massachusetts if Question 1
passes. Eliminating the income tax and the $12.5 billion it generates
will result in cuts of more than 70 percent to most state-run programs,
such as prisons and courts, human services, transportation, parks,
colleges and universities, and state employees' pension and health care
benefits.
"It would usher in a period
of havoc and chaos across the state," said Widmer.
Widmer said it would not
only have a negative impact on state services, but also disrupt the
financial stability of residents and local businesses, affecting "the
quality of life in the Berkshires and the entire commonwealth."
Budget cuts on such a scale
would put the Legislature in an impossible position, Pignatelli said.
If Question 1 passes, the
state representative said it would force him to reconsider his role
there.
"I'll announce it's my last
term," said Pignatelli about what he would do if the question becomes
law.
Compounding the problem
Widmer said eliminating the
income tax would only compound problems for the state, which he expects
will already have to cut up to 10 percent in local aid in 2009 due to
decreased revenues.
But for Jain, a proponent
of Question 1, major cuts and potential chaos are needed to get the
state going on the right track. Jain said he believes most state
spending is wasteful and that cutting the state's tax revenues would
force lawmakers to reprioritize expenditures.
"We cannot continue to
borrow ourselves into debt," said Jain. "When you've run out of money,
you need to stop spending."
Meanwhile, unions hoping to
convince voters to kill a ballot question that would eliminate the state
income tax are pouring fresh millions into the campaign in the weeks
before Election Day.
Between Oct. 2 and Oct. 15,
the Coalition for Our Communities raised $2.4 million, according to
records filed with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
The Committee for Small
Government, which supports the measure, raised less than $26,000 during
the same period, more than a third of it from donors outside
Massachusetts.
The $2.4 million raised by
opponents includes $1.5 million from the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and $750,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based National
Education Association.
All told, the group has
raised $4.6 million in cash and another nearly $520,000 in "in kind"
donations for a fundraising total of more than $5.1 million.
Supporters, by comparison,
have raised a total of $497,009 in cash and another $1,900 in "in kind"
donations for a fundraising total of nearly $499,000.
Jain said the state is
headed in the wrong direction, with residents leaving the state and a
rapidly increasing debt. He said the best way to help struggling
families is to allow them to keep more of their money.
"We believe this is the
best thing to do for Massachusetts, especially right now with a bad
economy where people can't even afford to pay their mortgages," said
Jain.
"We can all do a better job
with how we spend our money, but to say that 40 percent to 70 percent is
wasteful is sending the wrong message," Pignatelli later responded.
'Resist those temptations'
Widmer argued Question 1
would hurt the people Jain spoke about in the long run.
"I understand the
frustration of individuals that want to vote 'yes' and send a message to
legislators," said Widmer. "We strongly urge voters to resist those
temptations because the consequences would be worse than what we already
are facing."
Widmer said to make up for
the shortage of income tax, the state would eventually have to increase
fees and raise property or sales taxes, which would have a
disproportionately adverse impact on lower income residents.
"The very people that might
be attracted to this are the very people who will be most adversely
impacted," he added.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Let ’em Spellane it to taxpayers! Vote Yes on 1
By Howie Carr
Today’s poster boy for a
yes vote on Question 1 to abolish the state income tax is reprobate Rep.
Robert Spellane of Worcester.
Spellane, who at the State
House holds the extremely important job of vice chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, is in a heap of trouble. He is being sued
by a bank that let him skip payments for a year on a $340,000 home loan.
Last year he was found guilty of diverting $50,000 from his campaign
account for personal use.
In 2004, this deadbeat
Democrat filed legislation to retroactively raise the state income tax
to 5.95 percent and he has played golf with convicted felons such as
Tommy Taxes Finneran.
And now we find out that at
the age of 38, Spellane has left his 46-year-old wife to take up with a
blond, 27-year-old former “TV reporter” who, after a nationwide search,
has been hired by an insurance-industry lobbying group.
According to the Worcester
Telegram, the name of the solon’s galpal is Brianne Mallaghan, who less
than a decade ago was attending Burncoat High School. Her title at the
American Insurance Association is “director of public affairs.” I kid
you not - the state rep’s alleged girlfriend is in charge of “public
affairs.”
When the lobbyists hired
Brianne, they put out a press release saying they’re trying to improve
their “perception among legislators” and that “Brianne is
well-positioned to help influence this debate.”
Well-positioned? You can’t
make this stuff up. If the Republicans had a candidate on the ballot
(they don’t), Spellane’s seat would be an automatic pickup.
Perhaps some of you are
wondering why the “embattled” Spellane is married to a woman eight years
older than himself. Did I mention Susan Spellane’s father owns an
insurance company? If you have any further questions, ask John Kerry.
A few years ago, Mrs.
Spellane called my radio show. I was pointing out that her husband
shouldn’t be consorting with crooks like Felon Finneran. She phoned to
tell me how hard Spellane worked - once, the missus said, he’d even had
to miss a trip with their four children to Storyland because of his very
pressing public affairs on Beacon Hill.
If a guy will tell his own
wife a story about Storyland, he’ll probably tell her other stories as
well. Calls to both Spellanes and the well-positioned director of public
affairs were not returned. Remember, Spellane and the other tax-fattened
hyenas on Beacon Hill beg you not to abolish the income tax. They need
your money to support their unspeakably depraved lifestyles.
Vote yes on Question 1.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Illegal political banner in Southie being grounded
By Edward Mason
The city is removing an
illegal banner mysteriously unfurled across a South Boston main drag
urging residents to vote against three ballot questions.
The red-on-white banner at
Broadway and I Street reads: “Common Sense Vote No 1, 2, 3” - referring
to the ballot questions to scrap the income tax, remove criminal
penalties for small pot possession and outlaw greyhound racing.
Dot Joyce, a spokeswoman
for Mayor Thomas M. Menino, said an anonymous city resident objected to
the banner in a call to the Mayor’s Hotline.
“When we receive
complaints, we take them down,” Joyce said.
Joyce said banners crossing
streets are illegal and typically only allowed if, as in the North End
and South Boston, they advertise a charitable event. An adjoining banner
promoting a fund-raiser for the Kaitlyn Keaney Scholarship Fund, named
for a Boston police officer who died this summer, will remain.
State Rep. Brian Wallace
(D-Boston) said the banner “pushed the envelope” for what is allowed in
Southie. And it has caused a buzz because no one knows who put it up.
