CLT UPDATE
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Reports and recommendations on CLT's potential
demise
Barbara Anderson, whose
single-minded opposition to tax increases has influenced Massachusetts
cities and towns for three decades, is running short of funds and may be
on the verge of involuntary retirement.
"I'm fed up," she said yesterday.
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, is
citing a slump in donations as the key factor in the likely closing of
the Marblehead-based operation. CLT has already lasted more than 30
years, longer than most grass-roots movements, she said. Many original
supporters have simply died off....
A sometimes frustrated Anderson explained yesterday that efforts to
expand the organization's base have met with indifference, despite the
savings brought by 2½.
"So many businessmen are afraid to be seen in public with us," she said.
"We are so hated and so controversial on Beacon Hill. ... For 30 years,
I ran around to these business groups, and they never join. They just
take us for granted."
They aren't the only ones. A pilot fundraising effort targeted at
Danvers residents, for example, did not generate enough money to pay for
the cost of the mailing.
Misinformation has also been a barrier. A potential donor explained that
he would not back CLT because it supports a graduated income tax,
Anderson complained. It doesn't. "Where did he get that idea?"
Worse, she said, "people surprisingly sometimes think we're funded
by the government."
The Salem News
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dwindling funds may lead to demise of anti-tax group
If you think your property taxes are high, imagine what they
might be without Proposition 2½.
Yet prior to 1980, when an fledgling organization called Citizens for Limited
Taxation launched its successful campaign to limit how much a city or town could
collect from property owners each year, mayors, selectmen and school committees
simply decided how much money they needed and sent out the bills....
CLT, despite operating on a shoestring budget (its four-person staff makes a
combined $140,000 a year), finds itself in a fiscal fix of its own, the result
of the loss of a few major donors and a decline in contributions generally.
Like newspapers, CLT plays as critical watchdog role. Its particular target is
government spending and tax policy, and there's no question some politicians
would love to see it go away. But we'd all be the poorer literally and
figuratively if that were to happen.
A Salem News editorial
Thursday, October 22, 2009
If you think your property-tax bill is high now ...
Proposition 2½ has provided a measure of fiscal discipline on
municipal leaders, who sorely need it. While they still spend too freely, Prop
2½ at least sets an upper limit on their power to tax.
Contrary to the assertions of some Prop 2½ opponents, that limit is not
absolute. Communities can decide, through the override process, to tax
themselves more to pay for needed projects. They simply need the backing of the
majority of voters to do so.
Citizens for Limited Taxation has fought the good fight on behalf of
Massachusetts taxpayers. Yet this year CLT finds itself in a fiscal fix of its
own, the result of the loss of a few major donors and a decline in contributions
generally.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Thursday, October 22, 2009
CLT plays important watchdog role
This year, the CLT finds itself in a fiscal fix of its own
(Times, Wednesday, Oct, 21), thanks to the loss of a few major donors and a
general decline in contributions. Indeed, many city and town officials across
Cape Ann and around the state may be salivating at the prospect of the
organization's demise. But the truth is, CLT continues to play a critical
watchdog role across the state, and we would all be literally poorer if it
disappeared.
This 30-year-old grassroots organization is now in the midst of a fund-raising
drive to stay afloat. Let's hope Anderson and her colleagues get the cash and
the show of support, they need and truly deserve.
A Gloucester Times editorial
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Key taxpayers' advocacy group deserves our support
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Greetings activists and supporters:
It's been a hectic few days here at CLT, both with
planning the annual brunch on November 15th and dealing with the
questions. Since the
Boston Herald report was published, based on Sunday's
CLT
Alert sent to you, our membership, our phones have been ringing off
the hook with calls from media and others. And some new
contributions have been coming in due to the notoriety and situation,
and a new ideas/suggestions . . . more on that will follow.
Some former-members and others have contacted us,
asking what CLT does for them, and what a contribution to CLT is worth?
I'm tiring of answering these, but have generically responded to many
comments to news stories with the following:
See how much CLT has saved you -- EVERY YEAR --
on JUST your auto excise tax ALONE, since dropping it from
$66/$1,000 assessed value to $25/$1,000. Like the rental deduction
on our state income tax returns if you're a renter like me, the
excise tax cut is an oft-forgotten part of Proposition 2-1/2.
Never mind the other taxes CLT has dropped or gotten rid of, putting
more money in your pocket (e.g., the 2000 income tax rollback from
5.85% to 5.3%, repeal of the Dukakis "Surtax," etc.) -- or the ones
it has prevented over the decades. Think JUST what you save on your
AUTO EXCISE TAX alone.
EVERY YEAR since 1980 and passage of its Proposition 2-1/2 you and
your family have been paying LESS THAN HALF of what you would have
been paying, on every vehicle you've owned in the past 29 years,
thanks to CLT and its members.
For example, if you drive a car with an assessed value of $1,500,
you now pay $37.50 each year to your municipal government. Before
Prop 2-1/2, you'd be paying $99.00 annually. You save $61.50 --
EVERY YEAR -- thanks to CLT and its members.
Now imagine the shape CLT would be in, if everyone CLT has worked
and saved so much for over more than three decades contributed just
a quarter of their savings, even 10 percent of it -- even one
percent?!?
Conversely, think how much worse off we'd be today, were it not for
CLT and its members . . .
SEE:
http://cltg.org/cltg/Prop_2/excise.pdf
CLT went through this death spiral eleven years ago.
We thought it was the end, and it almost was. We were resigned to
it, almost -- just as we were almost resigned this week. But
supporters came to our rescue in 1998 and allowed us to continue the
fight for average taxpayers.
-- A CLT BLAST FROM THE PAST --
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 9, 1998
Under-funded tax activists may go out of business
Antitax group giving up?
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
Thursday, June 11, 1998
Tax-and-spenders gleeful
By Jon Keller
The Boston Globe
Thursday, June 11, 1998
http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg98-2/cltg98-06-11.html
Somehow CLT pulled out of the nose dive and was able
to keep battling, thanks to the support that followed from old, and new
members.
One member has just offered a "matching contribution"
for every new member recruited.
We asked you members to try recruiting your family, friends, and
neighbors back in February. The response was -- well, weak.
We keep that option open with every Update that we've sent out since.
Still, the response has continued to be weak.
Folks, every taxpayer in the state is riding on your
coattails, and we recognize that.
The question right now is, what to do?
Fold and let what comes happen, or somehow keep
struggling.
I reported that Michael J. Widmer of the so-called
Mass.
Taxpayers Foundation received a salary of $375,000 in 2006 (last
recorded I could find). According to the
latest record I
could find, Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget
and Policy Center (Formerly TEAM, affectionately known as "Tax
Everything And More" when Jim Braude ran it) himself earned $107,536 in
2008. Of the $895,690 the MBPC
pulled in for that year, $510,860 went to "salaries, other compensation,
and employee benefits."
For purpose of comparison, CLT's executive director,
Barbara Anderson. earned/earns $20,800, and the three (soon to be two)
current staffers will accept the difference to keep working for you, the
average taxpayer. Today each of us on average works for $35,000 a
year.
We're sure not doing it for the money -- as some have
suggested in various blogs and newspaper comments sections.
The Big Question ----- Does anyone care?
More importantly, do enough care enough -- or
should CLT, as some have suggested, just go away?
The biggest question that few (but the editorials)
have absorbed is, what happens when and if CLT is . . . NO MORE?
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Salem News
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Dwindling funds may lead to demise of anti-tax group
By Alan Burke
Barbara Anderson, whose single-minded opposition to tax increases has
influenced Massachusetts cities and towns for three decades, is running
short of funds and may be on the verge of involuntary retirement.
"I'm fed up," she said yesterday.
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, is citing
a slump in donations as the key factor in the likely closing of the
Marblehead-based operation. CLT has already lasted more than 30 years,
longer than most grass-roots movements, she said. Many original
supporters have simply died off.
"We're still here for another six weeks," said Anderson, who is also a
Salem News columnist. A fundraising brunch is scheduled for Nov. 15, she
said, and the organization's fate hinges on strong returns from the
event.
In 1980, Anderson spearheaded the drive to pass Proposition 2½, a
statewide measure limiting the ability of cities and towns to raise
property taxes beyond 2½ percent per year. It won despite dire
predictions of economic chaos.
Today, legislators as diverse ideologically as Senate Majority Leader
Fred Berry, D-Peabody, and state Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, agree that
Proposition 2½ will survive even without Anderson's lobbying efforts.
"I think there are enough citizens up there to keep an eye on 2½," Hill
said. Yet, he added, Anderson's value has been to fight back on several
fronts against a tax burden that is crippling the economy and driving
people from the state.
For example, in 2000 she led a successful ballot measure to roll back
state income taxes although the Legislature declined to fully
implement it.
"Barbara Anderson is the best," Hill said.
Even if Proposition 2½ remains untouched, Berry believes Anderson's
absence will have an impact.
"I don't agree with Barbara on much," he said. "But I always respected
her leadership abilities."
On the other hand, he added, "She's not the focal point anymore. ... So
many other voices are carrying the same message."
Berry, who was in office when Proposition 2½ passed, cited the efforts
of the Legislature and then-Gov. Ed King in providing state aid that
helped cities and towns and Proposition 2½ itself survive.
Citing the current difficulty in passing tax-limit overrides needed by
cash-starved cities and towns, Berry joked that he won't attend the CLT
brunch.
A sometimes frustrated Anderson explained yesterday that efforts to
expand the organization's base have met with indifference, despite the
savings brought by 2½.
"So many businessmen are afraid to be seen in public with us," she said.
"We are so hated and so controversial on Beacon Hill. ... For 30 years,
I ran around to these business groups, and they never join. They just
take us for granted."
They aren't the only ones. A pilot fundraising effort targeted at
Danvers residents, for example, did not generate enough money to pay for
the cost of the mailing.
Misinformation has also been a barrier. A potential donor explained that
he would not back CLT because it supports a graduated income tax,
Anderson complained. It doesn't. "Where did he get that idea?"
Worse, she said, "people surprisingly sometimes think we're funded
by the government."
With four employees, including Anderson, CLT runs on $140,000 per year.
Anderson, who collects Social Security, pays herself $10 an hour.
Programs and legal bills can add to the costs. She contrasts CLT with
the more tax-friendly Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, whose
director, she says, earns a salary greater than her entire budget.
Anderson cites her own home, with unfinished shutters on one side, as an
example of her pay-as-you-go attitude. "I don't go into debt for
anything. I have no credit card debt." Similarly, she declines to run
CLT without money on hand.
More than 4,000 CLT members gave $270,000 in 2007, while 3,500 gave
$245,000 last year. So far this year, fewer than 3,000 contributors have
given roughly $175,000.
Opposition to taxes and government is centered around Washington, and
not Beacon Hill, Anderson said. "The national debt is the biggest
problem in our country's history, except maybe the Civil War."
The Salem News
Thursday, October 22, 2009
A Salem News editorial
If you think your property-tax bill is high now ...
If you think your property taxes are high, imagine what they might be
without Proposition 2½.
Yet prior to 1980, when an fledgling organization called Citizens for
Limited Taxation launched its successful campaign to limit how much a
city or town could collect from property owners each year, mayors,
selectmen and school committees simply decided how much money they
needed and sent out the bills.
Twenty-five years later, CLT executive director Barbara Anderson (who
also pens a weekly column for this newspaper) decided to find out how
much the taxes on her Marblehead home would have been without Prop. 2½.
For the 10 years prior to 1980, her property-tax bill had been
increasing an average of 8.8 percent a year. Increases in the 25 years
after the historic vote averaged 5.4 percent, even with several
overrides thrown in.
Her tax bill in 2005, the year the study was conducted, was $3,109.
Without Prop. 2½, the study showed her bill would have been $6,710.
Multiply the difference by every homeowner in the state and the savings
are staggering.
Yet this year, CLT, despite operating on a shoestring budget (its
four-person staff makes a combined $140,000 a year), finds itself in a
fiscal fix of its own, the result of the loss of a few major donors and
a decline in contributions generally.
Like newspapers, CLT plays as critical watchdog role. Its particular
target is government spending and tax policy, and there's no question
some politicians would love to see it go away. But we'd all be the
poorer literally and figuratively if that were to happen.
The Eagle-Tribune
Thursday, October 22, 2009
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
CLT plays important watchdog role
If you think your property taxes are high, imagine what they might be
without Proposition 2½.
Yet prior to 1980, when Citizens for Limited Taxation launched its
successful campaign to limit how much a city or town could collect from
property owners each year, mayors, selectmen and school committees
simply decided how much money they needed and sent out the bills.
Back in 2005, CLT Executive Director Barbara Anderson (who also writes a
weekly column for this newspaper) decided to find out how much the taxes
on her Marblehead home would have been without Prop 2½.
For the 10 years prior to 1980 her property-tax bill had been increasing
an average of 8.8 percent a year. Increases in the 25 years after the
historic vote averaged 5.4 percent, even with several overrides thrown
in.
Her tax bill in 2005 was $3,109. Without Prop 21βΡ2, the study showed,
her bill would have been $6,710. Multiply the difference by every
homeowner in the state and the savings are staggering.
Proposition 2½ has provided a measure of fiscal discipline on municipal
leaders, who sorely need it. While they still spend too freely, Prop 2½
at least sets an upper limit on their power to tax.
Contrary to the assertions of some Prop 2½ opponents, that limit is not
absolute. Communities can decide, through the override process, to tax
themselves more to pay for needed projects. They simply need the backing
of the majority of voters to do so.
Citizens for Limited Taxation has fought the good fight on behalf of
Massachusetts taxpayers. Yet this year CLT finds itself in a fiscal fix
of its own, the result of the loss of a few major donors and a decline
in contributions generally.
Like newspapers, CLT plays as critical watchdog role. Its particular
target is government spending and tax policy, and there's no question
some politicians would love to see it go away. But we'd all be the
poorer if that happened.
For more information on how you can help CLT continue its good work go
to www.cltg.org.
The Gloucester Times
Thursday, October 22, 2009
A Gloucester Times editorial
Key taxpayers' advocacy group deserves our support
If you think your property taxes are high, imagine what they might be
without Proposition 2½.
Yet, prior to 1980, when Citizens for Limited Taxation launched its
successful campaign to limit how much a city or town could collect from
property owners each year, mayors, selectmen and school committees
simply decided how much money they needed and sent out the bills.
Back in 2005, CLT executive director Barbara Anderson decided to find
out how much the taxes on her Marblehead home might have been without
Proposition 2½. For the 10 years prior to 1980, her property tax bill
had been increasing an average of 8.8 percent a year. Increases in the
25 years after the historic vote averaged 5.4 percent, even with several
overrides thrown in. Her tax bill in 2005 was $3,109. Without
Proposition 2½, the study showed, her bill would have been $6,710.
Multiply the difference by every homeowner in the state, and the savings
are staggering and that seems especially true for Gloucester and other
Cape Ann residents, considering home assessments and values over that
time frame.
This year, the CLT finds itself in a fiscal fix of its own (Times,
Wednesday, Oct, 21), thanks to the loss of a few major donors and a
general decline in contributions. Indeed, many city and town officials
across Cape Ann and around the state may be salivating at the prospect
of the organization's demise. But the truth is, CLT continues to play a
critical watchdog role across the state, and we would all be literally
poorer if it disappeared.
This 30-year-old grassroots organization is now in the midst of a
fund-raising drive to stay afloat. Let's hope Anderson and her
colleagues get the cash and the show of support, they need and truly
deserve.
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
|
