CLT UPDATE
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Question 3: A philosophical dilemma
| |
|
A major business-backed group sounded alarm bells
Wednesday over the potential impact of Question 3, the ballot
initiative that would slash the sales tax to 3 percent from 6.25
percent and drill an estimated $2.5 billion hole in next year's
state revenue base, on top of an already-expected $2 billion gap
between expected revenues and spending levels.
A new report released by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concludes that the question’s
passage would force deep cuts in local aid, higher education, public
safety, human service and capital spending programs....
Labor unions, led by teachers’ groups, have amassed a huge war chest
to oppose the question. In August, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, the National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers and the national branch of Service Employees
International Union combined to provide $1.2 million to fight the
proposal. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and the Massachusetts
SEIU added $10,000 to the effort in March. The group has about
$867,000 in cash on hand, having spent more than $400,000 this year
on consulting fees.
By contrast, Howell’s group amassed about $159,000 in 2009, spending
the bulk on signature-gathering efforts to place the question on the
ballot. This year, the group raised about $72,000 and has about
$17,400 remaining.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Biz group warns of deep service cuts if sales tax cut passes
Thousands of Massachusetts teachers, police
officers, firefighters, and other municipal employees would be laid
off, property taxes would rise, and students at the University of
Massachusetts, state colleges, and community colleges would pay more
if a proposal to cut the state’s sales tax passes, according to a
new analysis by a respected budget watchdog group.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the resulting massive
spending cuts would eliminate or erode a wide range of services —
from education and public safety to health care and human services —
that for decades the citizens of Massachusetts have counted on the
government to provide,’’ said the report, released yesterday by the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation....
Carla Howell ... said the foundation, which she described as a
“business lobby group,’’ had shown its “contempt for the everyday
taxpayers who have had to cut family budgets by 20 percent and more
while politicians lavishly grew state spending.’’
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Watchdog group warns against cutting state sales tax
[Rep. Karyn Polito, Republican nominee for state
treasurer] also said she would work to raise the sales tax to 5
percent if voters approve a ballot question that would slash it to 3
percent. Polito opposed a move supported by Gov. Deval Patrick and
Democrats in the Legislature to raise the sales tax to 6.25 percent
last year, but she said cutting it to 3 percent would be “too low.”
Polito supports the ballot question, calling it the only way to
lower the sales tax rate.
“The only way we can get it back to 5 percent is for the people to
vote yes on Question 3, which is to roll it back to 3 percent, so
that we can put pressure on Beacon Hill to get the sales tax back to
5 percent. That’s my position,” Polito said, adding that the income
tax would not have been cut to its current rate, 5.3 percent, had
voters in 2000 not approved a ballot question calling for it to be
cut to 5 percent. If voters reject Question 3, she said, state
leaders will interpret that as “the people think raising taxes is
okay.”
State House News Service
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Polito pitches plans for sales tax, threatens to block borrowing
Republican Charles Baker said Thursday that the
“best way” to repeal last summer’s sales tax hike is to elect him
governor, dismissing an alternative approach offered by Republican
Rep. Karyn Polito, the party’s nominee for state treasurer, who
believes voters should back a ballot question slashing the sales tax
to 3 percent.
Polito and Baker both want to see the state’s sales tax rate
returned to 5 percent after lawmakers hiked it to 6.25 percent in
the summer of 2009 to balance the state budget....
Polito argues that she’s speaking to political reality: Democrats
control the Legislature on Beacon Hill by a wide margin, House and
Senate leaders have shown no interest in a broad-based tax cut in
decades, and in recent years they’ve repeatedly used procedural
maneuvers to block votes on such proposals.
Without sending a message in the form of passing the ballot
question, she argues, there’s no hope of a sales tax cut of any
size.
“The only way we can get it back to 5 percent is for the people to
vote yes on Question 3, which is to roll it back to 3 percent, so
that we can put pressure on Beacon Hill to get the sales tax back to
5 percent. That's my position,” Polito said during a radio
appearance on WRKO Thursday morning. She argued that the state
income tax would not have been cut to its current rate, 5.3 percent,
if voters had not approved a 2000 ballot question that called for an
even deeper cut to 5 percent....
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said Polito’s path is the only way to achieve a tax
cut in the short-term.
“You could change the entire legislature and also elect Charlie and
Karyn. That’s another alternate route, which isn’t going to happen
this year,” she said. “We’re trying to move in that direction.”
Anderson lamented that backers of the sales tax cut hadn’t opted to
simply push for a rollback to 5 percent, which she said would pass
easily. Libertarian activist Carla Howell, leading the ballot drive,
last year proposed cuts to 5 percent, 4 percent, 3 percent and 2.5
percent as ballot questions before opting for the 3 percent option.
Anderson said she worried that if voters reject the question, Beacon
Hill leaders will view it as a prelude to additional taxes, although
no legislative leaders have discussed such a move.
“The only choice, as Karyn said, is to vote for what’s there or
we’ll get nothing,” Anderson said. “CLT’s position is the same as
Karyn Polito’s. It’s the fastest way to do something that should
have never passed in the first place that’s really hurting the
border communities. We don’t know for sure that Charlie’s going to
win … You have to vote yes.”
Anderson added, however, that she had “no doubt” Baker could get his
agenda passed if he wins, especially “if enough challengers win to
scare the rest of the incumbents.”
State House News Service
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Baker not on board with Polito tax cut strategy
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
As you can see from the State House News Service
reports, Question 3 is causing a dilemma for our Revolution 2010
candidates. It's not just Charlie Baker and Karyn Polito: It's
positioning our legislative candidates too.
In the final SHNS report, both Charlie and Karyn are right.
He, as governor, will have to implement the sales tax cut if
Question 3 passes; he will have to do it in two months after being
elected. So his position is honest, yet different from Karyn's and
Barbara's.
There are no options for CLT. CLT must support a YES vote on
Question 3. If voters don't vote YES, our sales tax will stay
at 6.25 percent forever, or until they raise it again.
If voters vote NO, the Legislature will know -- again -- that it can
get away with anything.
Unless, of course, voters vote out the incumbents and governor who
increased the sales tax last year.
This has been CLT's focus this year -- Revolution 2010.
This is one reason why we didn't do a petition drive ourselves. The
other reason is that today even when you win a ballot campaign, the
Legislature just refuses to do what the voters demand. We are
still waiting for our 5% income tax rate from our successful
2000 campaign.
So this was and is the year to replace the legislators, governor,
and treasurer who ignore us. And the plan can work: We have
excellent candidates for the constitutional offices
and for many legislative seats.
Then along came Carla Howell. Again. Not just
legitimately repealing an outrageous 2009 sales tax hike, which we
think would have passed, but insisting on dropping the rate
to 3%, which is difficult for many if not most candidates to
support.
Many of them, those who will have to implement it two months after
passage and taking office, are recommending a NO vote and promising
to make 5% income and sales tax rates a priority when they win.
Others are recommending a YES vote "to send a message," then saying
it will have to be changed by the Legislature to 5% -- which puts
them in the awkward position of being accused of "not respecting the
will of the voters."
We have also heard from some of our usual supporters who prefer 5%
to 3%, leading us to think that the majority of voters would prefer
that option too, were it available.
But it is not and here we are.
I wonder as I did in 2008: Why can't Carla work within a
doable paradigm and perhaps finally win something?
Why must she be perceived as so extreme that her cause always
loses?
When will Carla ever win a campaign for us, win any
campaign whatsoever?
Carla always brings us to the edge, then over it. Rolling back
the income tax isn't enough; it must be abolished entirely.
CLT won a rollback of it on the 2000 ballot. The Legislature ignored
the voters' will in 2002, "froze" the 1989 income tax hike at 5.3
percent where it remains. We understand why "reasonably" phasing-in
tax cuts doesn't work either.
Carla lost abolishing the income tax in 2002 then again in 2008, not
that the sitting Legislature then would have honored it. The
Legislature took that voters' message -- defeat of her proposal --
as encouragement to raise the sales and other taxes last year.
Wonderful.
Now she's back for another election cycle, proposing not only
rolling back the 25% sales tax increase to 5 percent but dropping
the rate to 3 percent.
The echo of "it goes too far" that defeated CLT's first tax rollback
campaign of 1990 -- CLT's only ballot question loss -- is not
too distant a refrain.
Leave it to Carla. She has put the entire "Revolution 2010" at risk,
basically for nothing since if we don't elect a new governor and new
legislators, her ballot question -- should it pass -- will be
ignored, repealed.
CLT can't stay neutral
Do we drop our ongoing demand for the 5% income tax rate to make
room for the 3% sales tax rate?
Do we tell CLT activists to prepare to fight the
many overrides that will be on local ballots when state local aid is
cut?
Carla Howell has a poor track record: She has never won
anything -- for us taxpayers, for her candidacies for elective
office, or for her movement of "Small Government Is Beautiful." She
needs to win this one. She can do this if she offers to
support a change when and if she wins to a 5% sales tax rate and a
5% income tax rate.
Yes, we must support a YES vote on Question 3. If we were creating a
state from scratch, it'd certainly look a lot more like New
Hampshire, with maybe very low constitutionally-limited income and
sales taxes to keep property taxes low.
But this ballot question is dropped onto the Commonwealth we already
have.
CLT and many others including the energized Tea Party movement are
supporting candidates against targeted incumbents. After decades of
ballot success and experience -- CLT has won 8 out of 9 tax
ballot questions -- we are convinced that if we don't change the
'ruling class' we honestly can't change anything in the long
run.
Carla Howell and her ballot question are making this mission more
difficult.
Each new candidate is now being asked how they'll vote on Question
3.
There is no good answer: Every response, regardless of which
way, leaves the candidate open to exposure. We at CLT must wrestle
with this as well.
If the voters endorse Question 3, is that a mandate -- or a message?
If a future legislature overturns or amends the result, is that a
violation -- or to be expected?
If Question 3 is defeated, will Carla's latest failure be a
green light for higher taxes, as it apparently was the last time,
with the same old Legislature happy to pass go?
We tell you this so you will understand why good candidates may
disagree or sound ambivalent about the issue; so you'll understand
and not hold it against them.
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Biz group warns of deep service cuts if sales tax cut passes
By Kyle Cheney and Michael Norton
A major business-backed group sounded alarm bells Wednesday over the
potential impact of Question 3, the ballot initiative that would
slash the sales tax to 3 percent from 6.25 percent and drill an
estimated $2.5 billion hole in next year's state revenue base, on
top of an already-expected $2 billion gap between expected revenues
and spending levels.
A new report released by the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concludes that the question’s
passage would force deep cuts in local aid, higher education, public
safety, human service and capital spending programs.
“It is impossible to overstate the enormity of the consequences of
reducing state revenues by $2.5 billion when programs have already
been cut by $2 billion and with the state facing another $2 billion
shortfall next year,” the report concludes.
Proponents of the question, which is polling favorably, say the tax
cut will boost commerce and enable residents to keep more of their
income. Lead organizer, libertarian activist Carla Howell, rejected
the report's findings.
“This business lobby group, which represents some of the state’s
biggest tax consumers, has issued their latest comedy illustrating
why they share the legislature’s utter incompetence – if not
outright betrayal of taxpayers – when it comes to identifying and
eliminating government waste,” she said in an email. “Their latest
screed pleads ignorance of the tens of billions of dollars in
government waste, pork, patronage, overspending and sweetheart deals
in the state’s $52 billion in yearly spending.”
The foundation notes that the cut would come after “the most severe
two-year decline in tax collections in the state’s history” – a
$3.24 billion drop to $17.6 billion from $20.9 billion between 2008
and 2010.
The report also noted that “since the beginning of the fiscal
crisis, the state has depended on one-time funds to fill large
budget gaps – $3.1 billion in 2009, $2.5 billion in 2010, and $1.6
billion in 2011,” according to the report. “Most of the one-time
money is from two sources – approximately $4.1 billion in federal
stimulus dollars and $1.7 billion from the state’s stabilization or
‘rainy day’ fund.”
In the last two years, the state has cut $700 million in support for
cities and towns – including $500 million in unrestricted aid and
$190 million in Chapter 70 education aid – $225 million in education
programs, $400 million in human services program, $42 million in
tourism promotion programs and $22 million for state parks and
beaches, according to the analysis.
In addition, the report concludes, the likelihood that the state
will spend recently received federal Medicaid and education funds
this year means next year’s projected deficit may increase by
another half-billion dollars.
Labor unions, led by teachers’ groups, have amassed a huge war chest
to oppose the question. In August, the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, the National Education Association and the American
Federation of Teachers and the national branch of Service Employees
International Union combined to provide $1.2 million to fight the
proposal. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and the Massachusetts
SEIU added $10,000 to the effort in March. The group has about
$867,000 in cash on hand, having spent more than $400,000 this year
on consulting fees.
By contrast, Howell’s group amassed about $159,000 in 2009, spending
the bulk on signature-gathering efforts to place the question on the
ballot. This year, the group raised about $72,000 and has about
$17,400 remaining.
The Taxpayers Foundation warned that even if the question fails,
state officials face continuing budget problems.
“There is a larger fiscal reality that state leaders have only begun
to understand and address,” the report says. “Massachusetts is
entering a permanent new period, even when the fiscal crisis abates,
in which state revenues will not be sufficient to support all the
programs, and employee benefits, that have been the hallmark of
state and municipal governments in Massachusetts for decades.”
The report highlights constitutionally and legally obligated state
spending on the Medicaid program, debt service, local education aid,
the MBTA, the Massachusetts School Building Authority and pension
costs, which together eat up about half of the state's $27.6 billion
budget. Setting those accounts aside, the state would be forced to
axe as much as $4.5 billion from the remaining half of the budget
considered “discretionary.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the resulting massive
spending cuts would eliminate or erode a wide range of services –
from education and public safety to health care and human services –
that for decades the citizens of Massachusetts have counted on the
government to provide,” according to the report.
The sales tax rate is 6.25 percent after the Legislature and Gov.
Deval Patrick raised it from 5 percent last year. State tax
collections, working off a deflated fiscal 2010 base, are up 9.5
percent over the first two and a half months of fiscal 2010.
In a second email, Howell added, “This lobby group's sole concern
for the tax consumers which it represents shows its contempt for the
everyday taxpayers who have had to cut family budgets by 20% and
more during the latest recession - while politicians increased total
state spending.”
The issue has become campaign trail fodder, although all four
gubernatorial candidates have come out against the ballot question.
During a Suffolk University debate between the candidates for
lieutenant governor, Republican Richard Tisei noted that it took
Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, nearly two weeks to say definitively
that he’d “respect the will of the voters” if Question 3 passes.
Lt. Gov. Tim Murray said that if voters support Question 3, “we will
do that,” but he warned of consequences if it passes.
“The revenue we receive pays for local aid. It pays for Chapter 70
that keeps teachers in the classroom,” Murray said, adding, “If you
cut that much, you’re talking about a whole host of programs being
completely wiped out.”
Paul Loscocco, running on the ticket with Independent Tim Cahill,
said polls showing voters support Question 3 is “a sad commentary”
on their view of government.
“Part of it is a response to the fact that Beacon Hill … raised the
sales tax in the middle of a recession,” he said. “It’s like jumping
into a swimming pool without knowing whether water is in the pool or
not.”
Loscocco added that if the voters pass Question 3, “we will honor
that,” but he warned, “It will change the government-as-usual in
Massachusetts in a fundamental way.”
Green Rainbow lieutenant governor candidate Rick Purcell said
passing Question 3 would “hurt the poor communities in the state of
Massachusetts” and put police officers and firefighters’ jobs in
jeopardy.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Watchdog group warns against cutting state sales tax
By Martin Finucane
Thousands of Massachusetts teachers, police officers, firefighters,
and other municipal employees would be laid off, property taxes
would rise, and students at the University of Massachusetts, state
colleges, and community colleges would pay more if a proposal to cut
the state’s sales tax passes, according to a new analysis by a
respected budget watchdog group.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that the resulting massive
spending cuts would eliminate or erode a wide range of services —
from education and public safety to health care and human services —
that for decades the citizens of Massachusetts have counted on the
government to provide,’’ said the report, released yesterday by the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Question 3, which will go before voters on the Nov. 2 ballot, would
reduce the state sales tax rate, which stands at 6.25 percent, to 3
percent on Jan. 1.
Proponents say it would curb overspending by the state, create jobs,
and give each taxpayer nearly $700 annually.
The MTF, in its report, “Question 3: Heading Over the Cliff,’’ said
that cutting the tax would create a $2.5 billion deficit in the
state budget, on top of a $2 billion deficit that is already
projected for next year.
With half of the state’s $32 billion budget legally committed, the
$4.5 billion in reductions would have to come from $16.9 billion in
discretionary spending. That would mean across-the-board cuts of
28.4 percent, the foundation said.
The report said the cuts would “seriously compromise the core
services provided by local government — education and public
safety’’ and would fall most severely on cities and poorer
communities.
Carla Howell, of the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, which is
advocating for the cut, said in an e-mailed statement that the
report was a “comedy’’ that ignored “tens of billions of dollars in
government waste, pork, patronage, overspending, and sweetheart
deals’’ in the state budget.
She said the foundation, which she described as a “business lobby
group,’’ had shown its “contempt for the everyday taxpayers who have
had to cut family budgets by 20 percent and more while politicians
lavishly grew state spending.’’
State House News Service
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Polito pitches plans for sales tax, threatens to block borrowing
By Kyle Cheney and Michael Norton
Rep. Karyn Polito, Republican nominee for state treasurer, would nix
any government borrowing deal she deems unaffordable, even if such a
plan has the backing of the Legislature and the governor, she said
Thursday.
“The treasurer is the chief borrowing officer. My signature is
required on any official statement for more borrowing in the
commonwealth,” Polito said during an interview on former House
Speaker Tom Finneran’s WRKO radio show. “I’m not going to lay down
my signature, Tom, if I don’t think we can afford it … The
Legislature passes the bond bills as the authorization. But you need
the check. The executive and the treasurer can check the
Legislature.”
Polito slammed the Patrick administration for raising the state’s
yearly borrowing cap from $1.2 billion and extending debt repayment
terms. Patrick and his aides have described their borrowing as
responsible and based on an analysis aimed at keeping state debt and
borrowing at affordable levels.
State debt in Massachusetts ranks second in the nation, she said,
and if elected Polito said she’d quickly call for a moratorium on
new capital projects except in emergencies. She also called for
passive pension fund investment management, a move she said would
reduce fees paid to scores of active fund managers.
Polito also said she would work to raise the sales tax to 5 percent
if voters approve a ballot question that would slash it to 3
percent. Polito opposed a move supported by Gov. Deval Patrick and
Democrats in the Legislature to raise the sales tax to 6.25 percent
last year, but she said cutting it to 3 percent would be “too low.”
Polito supports the ballot question, calling it the only way to
lower the sales tax rate.
“The only way we can get it back to 5 percent is for the people to
vote yes on Question 3, which is to roll it back to 3 percent, so
that we can put pressure on Beacon Hill to get the sales tax back to
5 percent. That’s my position,” Polito said, adding that the income
tax would not have been cut to its current rate, 5.3 percent, had
voters in 2000 not approved a ballot question calling for it to be
cut to 5 percent. If voters reject Question 3, she said, state
leaders will interpret that as “the people think raising taxes is
okay.”
While state treasurers have historically stayed out of the tax
debates between members of the legislative and executive branches,
Polito said she would “work hard” as treasurer for a 5 percent sales
tax rate.
Her Democratic opponent, Steve Grossman, told the News Service
Thursday morning that Polito’s position amounts to “Beacon Hill
doublespeak,” urging voters to vote for Question 3 but saying she’ll
urge lawmakers to overturn it if it passes.
“As painful as it would be to implement Question 3, if it passes, I
think those of us who serve in leadership positions have to do the
very best we can to implement the will of the people,” Grossman
said, adding that he hopes the question fails because of its
potential impact on the quality of life for Bay State residents.
Polito, he said, “turned herself into a rhetorical pretzel” on the
issue.
Grossman said Polito’s warning that she’d reject borrowing she
disapproves of represents “gamesmanship.” He said he would “be at
the table speaking up, speaking up for living within our means at
all times” during borrowing decisions. “Never, ever, ever am I going
to commit to borrow money we can’t afford,” he said.
Grossman said Wednesday he would work to cut taxes "when the economy
recovers."
Asked by Finneran to name $1 billion in budget cuts, Polito said a
3.5 percent cut across the state budget -- with the exception of
state aid to cities and towns -- would save $800 million. She said
permitting city and town administrators to unilaterally design
health plans for their workers would save between $100 million and
$200 million, and she said putting Medicaid enrollees into managed
care plans would save another $100 million to $200 million.
State House News Service
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Baker not on board with Polito tax cut strategy
By Kyle Cheney and Michael Norton
Republican Charles Baker said Thursday that the “best way” to repeal
last summer’s sales tax hike is to elect him governor, dismissing an
alternative approach offered by Republican Rep. Karyn Polito, the
party’s nominee for state treasurer, who believes voters should back
a ballot question slashing the sales tax to 3 percent.
Polito and Baker both want to see the state’s sales tax rate
returned to 5 percent after lawmakers hiked it to 6.25 percent in
the summer of 2009 to balance the state budget. But Polito said the
Democrat-controlled Legislature on Beacon Hill would never move to
reverse the increase and would only be spurred to action if voters
forced the issue by passing the steeper sales tax cut, known as
Question 3.
Gov. Deval Patrick, whose position was backed in a new report from
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, has warned of a fiscal
“calamity” if Question 3 passes, describing devastating cuts in
human services, public safety and education that could be necessary.
But he, Baker and Independent Tim Cahill have pledged to support the
will of the voters should they adopt the big tax cut.
Polito argues that she’s speaking to political reality: Democrats
control the Legislature on Beacon Hill by a wide margin, House and
Senate leaders have shown no interest in a broad-based tax cut in
decades, and in recent years they’ve repeatedly used procedural
maneuvers to block votes on such proposals.
Without sending a message in the form of passing the ballot
question, she argues, there’s no hope of a sales tax cut of any
size.
“The only way we can get it back to 5 percent is for the people to
vote yes on Question 3, which is to roll it back to 3 percent, so
that we can put pressure on Beacon Hill to get the sales tax back to
5 percent. That's my position,” Polito said during a radio
appearance on WRKO Thursday morning. She argued that the state
income tax would not have been cut to its current rate, 5.3 percent,
if voters had not approved a 2000 ballot question that called for an
even deeper cut to 5 percent.
If voters reject Question 3, she said, state leaders will infer that
“the people think raising taxes is okay.”
Question 3 has polled favorably. A Suffolk University-WHDH poll of
500 registered voters, taken last weekend, showed 51 percent in
favor and 42 percent opposed. A State House News Service poll of 400
Massachusetts adults, taken Aug. 29-31, found 54 percent in favor of
the tax cut and 44 percent opposed.
Baker, like all of his gubernatorial rivals, has opposed Question 3,
saying it would be too deep a cut amid a weak economy. He and
Independent Cahill have made reducing the sales tax to 5 percent a
major part of their pitch to voters. It’s a move Baker said would
take pressure off consumers and businesses.
Asked about Polito’s strategy, Baker, a veteran of Beacon Hill tax
battles dating to his tenure in Republican administrations, said
during a press conference Thursday: “The best way people can send a
message on reducing the sales tax back to 5 percent is by electing
[running mate] Richard Tisei and me.”
Cahill, the Independent candidate, said the existence of debate
about whether to implement the voters’ decision is “everything that
is wrong with the two party system.”
“They are already discussing ways to manipulate and ignore the vote
before people head to the polls in November,” he said in a statement
to the News Service. “As Governor I will work hard to roll back the
state sales and income tax to 5%. In the interim we should not be
negotiating the will of the voters.”
Asked about Polito’s strategy, Baker chuckled.
“I think voters who want to get the sales tax to 5 percent should
vote to elect me and Richard Tisei as governor and to elect a whole
bunch of new faces to serve on Beacon Hill come January,” he said.
But Baker’s former boss, Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci, believes
Polito has a point.
“Her strategy is the quickest way to get it back to 5 percent,” he
said in a phone interview. “If it’s cut back to 3, I’m sure [the
Legislature] can vote to put it back to 5.”
Cellucci knows firsthand the power of the ballot initiative. He led
the successful drive in 2000 to cut the income tax from 5.85 percent
down to 5 percent, but watched from afar as lawmakers froze the rate
at 5.3 percent in 2002 without ever fully implementing the cut.
Cellucci said he had been pushing lawmakers to roll back an income
tax increase passed during the Dukakis administration.
“When they would not do that was when I decided to take the ballot
route,” he said.
Cellucci agreed that Baker would have a shot, if elected, to push
through sales-tax-cutting legislation, but said it would take more
time than forcing the issue through the ballot.
“He’ll prepare a budget that allows it to get it back to 5 percent,”
he said. “That one will take a little longer.”
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said Polito’s path is the only way to achieve a tax
cut in the short-term.
“You could change the entire legislature and also elect Charlie and
Karyn. That’s another alternate route, which isn’t going to happen
this year,” she said. “We’re trying to move in that direction.”
Anderson lamented that backers of the sales tax cut hadn’t opted to
simply push for a rollback to 5 percent, which she said would pass
easily. Libertarian activist Carla Howell, leading the ballot drive,
last year proposed cuts to 5 percent, 4 percent, 3 percent and 2.5
percent as ballot questions before opting for the 3 percent option.
Anderson said she worried that if voters reject the question, Beacon
Hill leaders will view it as a prelude to additional taxes, although
no legislative leaders have discussed such a move.
“The only choice, as Karyn said, is to vote for what’s there or
we’ll get nothing,” Anderson said. “CLT’s position is the same as
Karyn Polito’s. It’s the fastest way to do something that should
have never passed in the first place that’s really hurting the
border communities. We don’t know for sure that Charlie’s going to
win … You have to vote yes.”
Anderson added, however, that she had “no doubt” Baker could get his
agenda passed if he wins, especially “if enough challengers win to
scare the rest of the incumbents.”
Asked whether she envisions lawmakers cutting the sales tax, Rep.
Ruth Balser (D-Newton) said tax cuts are possible “if the economy
gets better and revenues increase.” She pointed to a slew of tax
credits, exemptions and deductions that passed in the 1990s –
Cellucci described that period as the largest collection of tax cuts
ever endorsed by the Legislature – but said she doesn’t envision a
similar scenario “in the very near future.”
Balser added, “I think it’s irresponsible for public leaders to call
for a cut to 3 percent. To support that as a manipulation to work a
deal, to work a compromise in the middle, that’s irresponsible. It’s
my hope that the voters will weigh in and reject it and say we need
essential government services. Hold taxes where they are until such
a time as we can afford to cut them.”
If Question 3 passes, the sales tax would be lowered Jan. 1, 2011.
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|
