CLT UPDATE
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A Tale of Two Taxes
| |
[Carla] Howell, in a 15-minute debate on New
England Cable News, said if voters pass Question 3, which would cut
the sales tax to 3 percent from 6.25 percent, the lower tax burden
on businesses would spur job creation.
But Michael Widmer, president of the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, countered that
the question's passage would force layoffs of teachers, police and
firefighters, and lead to "chaos" at the State House, where
lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick raised the tax from 5 percent last
year....
Although Question 3 has polled favorably among
Massachusetts voters, the opposition, funded entirely by
well-resourced unions, holds a staggering fundraising advantage as
the race enters the final four weeks....
Widmer, whose organization is backed by major
Massachusetts businesses and health care companies, said the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation's members would see tax benefits
from the passage of Question 3, but that the group opposes it
because of "the impact this would have on services."
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Debate on Sales Tax cut testy, opponents have $$ heading into ad
season
Unions have pumped more than $1.3 million into
the fight against a statewide ballot question designed to lower
Massachusetts sales tax rate from 6.25 percent to 3 percent.
The bulk of the money has come from teachers
unions, including more than $560,000 from the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, the state’s largest teachers union, and another half
million dollars from the National Education Association.
The American Federation of Teachers, a smaller
union, has chipped in more than $50,000. A non-teacher union, the
Service Employees International Union, contributed $150,000 to the
campaign.
A spokesman for the group, the Massachusetts
Coalition for Our Communities, said the coalition hopes to raise
even more to launch television ads before Election Day....
The battle is a replay of Howell’s attempt two
years ago to eliminate the state income tax with a ballot
initiative.
Many of the same groups, including the teacher’s
unions, were part of a coalition that dumped nearly $7 million into
a campaign to convince voters to reject the cut.
Associated Press
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Unions pump $1.3M into Mass. sales tax cut fight
Members of Associated Industries of
Massachusetts’ board were polled on Question 3 on Friday and the
group said there was “overwhelming opposition” to the question,
which is polling favorably among voters. AIM board members expressed
concerns about the state’s ability to maintain public services if
the question is approved and concerns about the state’s credit
rating.
“Question 3 is an extreme measure that would
irreparably harm the Massachusetts economy by doubling the projected
state budget deficit and threatening services such as education and
public safety upon which employers rely to run their businesses,”
according to AIM President Rick Lord.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Biz group takes 'AIM’ at Question 3, sales tax reduction
The predictions of doom and disaster are well
underway. . .
For those who were around in 1980 when
Proposition 2½ - which capped property taxes - was on the ballot,
the arguments will all sound familiar. The business and political
establishment opposed that too. The Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation was against it, so was every public employee union in the
state, especially teachers....
And the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation -
which, let’s not forget, opposed Proposition 2½ and has rarely met a
tax hike it didn’t like, is, of course, predicting the end of
civilization as we know it.
The projected $1 billion cut in revenue this year
should the tax rollback pass would exacerbate a $2 billion
“structural deficit,” Mass. Taxpayers insists.
Any guess how we acquired that “structural
deficit?” ...
That’s the message of Question 3. Taxpayers and
voters are just fed up with lawmakers who listen more to special
interests, more to public employee unions, more to advocates than to
those paying the bills.
Sometimes voters have to shout to be heard. This
is one of those times.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Yes on Question 3
Gov. Deval Patrick said he prefers a “progressive
income tax,” rather than a flat tax while answering questions during
a breakfast event Wednesday morning sponsored by the North Shore
Chamber of Commerce at Danversport Yacht Club....
The last time voters were asked their preference
to move to a progressive income tax was in 1994, when the ballot
question was overwhelmingly defeated 70 percent to 30 percent ...
The Lynn Daily Item
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Patrick touts progressive income tax
Patrick made a speech Wednesday morning to the
North Shore Chamber of Commerce at the Danversport Yacht Club.
Responding to a general question about rising taxes from a member of
the audience, Patrick said it would require a “multi-year campaign”
to switch to progressive income tax.
“Personally, I’d like to see a progressive income
tax and not a flat income tax. That’s where I’d like to see us go,”
Patrick said.
The governor’s remarks to the North Shore Chamber
of Commerce were not the first time he has expressed interest in a
graduated tax system, similar to those employed by other states and
the federal government.
In the summer of 2009, Patrick told the News
Service, “What we have in Massachusetts is a number of wealthy
people who would be willing to contribute more - not all of them,
but certainly [some] have the capacity to contribute more - to
relieve some of the pressure on the working poor.''
State House News Service
Wednesday, October 5, 2010
Patrick again talks up progressive income tax, but says he won't
pursue it
CLT was founded in 1974 to fight a proposed
graduated income tax. We defeated it then and four more times over
the decades since, and we will fight it again. However, the easiest
way to deal with this is to not re-elect Governor Patrick.
CLT NEWS ADVISORY
Wednesday, October 5, 2010
Did someone say he wants a graduated income tax?
It's become a common campaign-trail refrain from
Gov. Deval Patrick: I support lowering taxes. But it always comes
with a crucial caveat: "when the economy recovers."
For Patrick - and other Democrats who have
employed it - the line is a political win-win. It's a quick response
to Republican critics who deride him as a cheerleader for higher
taxes, and it leaves enough wiggle room to avoid a firm commitment.
"The time will come to talk about rolling back
the tax rates, and we should," Patrick said at a gubernatorial forum
on human services last week. "But the time is not right now." ...
"You know, I've taken $4.3 billion out of state
spending and you can believe I'm hearing the howls from folks whose
programs have been affected, and I hear that because I understand
that there are human beings behind those line items.
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
GOP scoffs at Dems' support for tax cuts "When economy recovers"
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Taxes are back in the news, big-time:
Question 3, cutting the sales tax to 3 percent, and now; Governor
Patrick's preference for a graduated income tax, again. If he's
somehow, for some reason, re-elected and pushes for it, this will be
the sixth time it's on the ballot -- the fifth sequel to "The Tax
Trap" since the mid-70s.
When questioned on it this morning on WTKK's
Eagan & Braude Show, Gov. Patrick responded: “I don’t think
the time is right for anyone to be talking about new taxes.”
Of course it's not, in his mind. He's
fighting to get himself re-elected! The right time will come
if he succeeds, wins another four years in the corner office to
further oppress taxpayers.
Before I comment on Question 3 -- cutting the
sales tax to 3 percent -- let's examine another of the governor's
recent (and common) claims:
"You know, I've taken $4.3 billion out of state
spending and you can believe I'm hearing the howls from folks whose
programs have been affected, and I hear that because I understand
that there are human beings behind those line items."
Note the cautious choice of words; from him we
get always a judicious use of the language. "I've taken $4.3
billion out of state spending."
Let's take a look-back at recent history since
Patrick became governor:
|
State lawmakers
have approved a $25.7 billion budget for next year,
boosting spending 7.5 percent over this year ...
The Boston Globe
July 1, 2006
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2006/06-07-01.htm#Globe1
(The above was the last budget under
Gov. Romney)
In signing his first budget, Patrick
approved $26.8 billion in spending, a 4.2 percent
increase that includes millions for many of his
initiatives in public safety, health, and education, but,
notably, does not include his proposal to generate new
revenue by closing so-called loopholes in the corporate tax
code.
Without the new revenue from Patrick’s
loophole closures, the budget relies on $600 million in
one-time income and reserves, which is $50 million more than
in fiscal year 2007....
The Boston Globe
July 13, 2007
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2007/07-07-14.htm#Globe1
Including the cuts, the final budget
totals $28.11 billion, a 4.86 percent increase
in spending from fiscal 2008....
State House News Service
July 13, 2008
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2008/08-07-14.htm#Service
In signing the $27 billion budget,
Patrick issued $147 million in line-item vetoes.
At the same time, he submitted a
separate $269 million supplemental budget to fund other
initiatives, including $70 million for health care for
30,000 legal immigrants....
Associated Press
June 29, 2009
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2009/09-07-02.htm#AP
State lawmakers last night completed a
$27.6 billion budget plan for next fiscal year that
would cut local aid for cities and towns ...
The Boston Globe
June 24, 2010
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2010/10-06-24.htm#Globe1
". . . the state’s $32 billion budget . . ."
MTF Report on Question 3: Heading Over the
Cliff
September 22, 2010
http://www.masstaxpayers.org/files/MTF%20Question%203%20News%20Release.pdf
... Even as action on a $420 million
spending package moved to the Senate yesterday,
taxpayers were told of one more reason to slow this gravy
train down....
The Boston Herald
October 6, 2010
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1286824 |
Maybe I need help with my mathematics, so let's
walk through his claim of "$4.3 billion out of state spending."
Gov. Patrick signed his first state budget in
2007 -- $26.8 billion; a 4.2 percent increase over Gov. Romney's
last budget.
The so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
reports this fiscal year's budget currently stands at $32 billion --
before the Legislature is attempting to increase it by another $420
million. If this supplemental budget is passed -- as
inevitably it will be -- this fiscal year's operating state budget
will increase to almost $32.5 billion.
Patrick's first budget: $26.8 billion
FY 2011 (current) budget: $32.5 billion
According to my simple math skills, that's a
dramatic increase in state spending since Patrick has
been governor four years ago -- of $5.7 billion.
Not a cut of $4.3 billion.
Unless he's talking about cutting the rate of
proposed, potential increased spending, perhaps . . . ?
"Liars figure, figures lie"
"The time will come to talk about rolling back
the tax rates, and we should," Patrick said at a gubernatorial forum
on human services last week. "But the time is not right now."
(State House News Service -- Oct. 5, 2010)
As we said in our news advisory: "Voters won’t
fall for that again. Last time it got us higher local meals taxes
and a sales tax increase."
Remember when in 2002 the Legislature "froze" the
voters' 59-41 percent ballot mandate of 2000 to roll back the
"temporary" income tax hike of 1989? Those Bacon Hill pols set up
so-called "triggers" to allegedly determine when they'd finally
honor the voters' demand, thaw out their unilaterally imposed
"freeze." Over eight years later and even "Global Warming" hasn't
managed to warmed it up enough to pull the trigger and hit the
target. "The time is not right now," never has been since 2002, and
it never will be on Bacon Hill unless we change its make-up.
The "Trojan Horse" exposed
I was pleasantly surprised -- no, I was shocked!
-- to read today's Boston Herald editorial endorsement of Question
3: cutting the sales tax to 3 percent.
I was especially gratified to see it highlight
the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for what it is and
has always been. I've had a personal crusade against MTF for
over a decade, determined to expose it and its motives.
The same old tax-borrow-and-spend crowd is being
wheeled out to oppose another tax cut; MTF, AIM, the teachers and
public employee unions. Again they will spend millions to keep
their gravy train iron-horse galloping along the tracks.
"The more things change, the more they remain the
same."
Vote YES on Question 3, or bend over for another
quick kick in the butt -- again!
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Debate on Sales Tax cut testy, opponents have $$ heading into ad
season
By Kyle Cheney
Describing 30 to 40 percent of government spending as "pure waste,"
Carla Howell, the libertarian activist leading the voter drive the
slash the state sales tax to 3 percent, said her proposal would
create thousands of private sector jobs, a claim dismissed as
"absurd" by one of the initiative petition's leading critics.
Howell, in a 15-minute debate on New England Cable News, said if
voters pass Question 3, which would cut the sales tax to 3 percent
from 6.25 percent, the lower tax burden on businesses would spur job
creation.
But Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, countered that the question's passage would
force layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters, and lead to
"chaos" at the State House, where lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick
raised the tax from 5 percent last year.
"This is going to be an economic albatross around our neck," he
said.
Although Question 3 has polled favorably among Massachusetts voters,
the opposition, funded entirely by well-resourced unions, holds a
staggering fundraising advantage as the race enters the final four
weeks.
According to a Tuesday campaign finance filing, the Coalition for
Our Communities - Question 3's main opponent - has $1.4 million on
hand, while Howell's Group, the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes, has
$14,541, with more than $37,000 in liabilities, including a $27,000
loan from Howell.
During the debate, Widmer and Howell couldn't agree on even the most
fundamental fact: how much does state government spend?
Howell insisted that the state spends $52 billion a year, a figure
she said is reported by the state comptroller. But Widmer argued
that the comptroller's numbers account for funds like lottery ticket
purchases that have nothing to do with taxpayer dollars, and that
state spending is closer to $30 billion.
Asked by host Jim Braude to identify areas of waste that could be
cut, Howell pointed to "patronage" and "sweetheart deals" for the
pharmaceutical and film industries.
For much of the debate, Howell and Widmer took shots at each other's
credibility, with Widmer arguing that Howell has failed to identify
"anything close" to the amount of waste she claims to have
identified in state government.
"You wish," she shot back. "He backs the businesses that profit from
high state spending … This is a joke."
Widmer, whose organization is backed by major Massachusetts
businesses and health care companies, said the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation's members would see tax benefits from the
passage of Question 3, but that the group opposes it because of "the
impact this would have on services."
Widmer also predicted that if Question 3 passes, the governor and
lawmakers wouldn't allow the sales tax rate to fall to 3 percent.
According to campaign finance reports, Howell's group brought in
$6,114 in the second half of September, compared to a $630,000 haul
by the Coalition for Our Communities.
Although Howell's group largely received donations from individuals,
the coalition's funding came almost entirely from union donations,
including $200,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based AFSCME, $150,000
from the national SEIU General Fund, $150,000 from the Boston
Teachers Union, $75,000 from local branch of the SEIU and $50,000
from the Massachusetts Nurses Association.
In addition, while the bulk of late-September spending by Howell's
group - about $9,000 - went to consulting fees for Howell and her
associate Michael Cloud, the unions spent $60,000 in the last 10
days of September on "ad production."
Associated Press
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Unions pump $1.3M into Mass. sales tax cut fight
Unions have pumped more than $1.3 million into the fight against a
statewide ballot question designed to lower Massachusetts sales tax
rate from 6.25 percent to 3 percent.
The bulk of the money has come from teachers unions, including more
than $560,000 from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the
state’s largest teachers union, and another half million dollars
from the National Education Association.
The American Federation of Teachers, a smaller union, has chipped in
more than $50,000. A non-teacher union, the Service Employees
International Union, contributed $150,000 to the campaign.
A spokesman for the group, the Massachusetts Coalition for Our
Communities, said the coalition hopes to raise even more to launch
television ads before Election Day.
"We’re running a campaign," said Toby McGrath, campaign manager for
the coalition. "We’re planning on going to go up on television and
we’ll definitely do that."
So far, the group has spent about $400,000 of the $1.3 million on
consulting fees.
Backers of the question have raised far less, much of it from
individual donors.
They collected nearly $160,000 last year, the bulk of it going to
pay for professional signature gatherers to guarantee the question
qualified for the ballot. They raised another $76,000 this year, and
had less than $18,000 in their account as of mid-September.
Carla Howell, whose Alliance to Roll Back Taxes is pushing the
question, said she anticipated the fundraising gap.
"We shouldn’t be surprised that the groups that profiteer from high
taxes and high government spending are at it again," she said. "They
want to keep taxes high and feed their special interests on the
backs of taxpayers."
The initiative would reduce the sales tax rate from 6.25 to 3
percent, a move that would cost the state up to $2.5 billion in
annual revenue beginning Jan. 1.
Howell and other supporters of the question argue the state would be
able to cut that much while not affecting spending by city and town
governments.
Critics say there’s no way the state could absorb the loss in
revenue without deep cuts, including reducing local aid to cities
and towns.
McGrath said the group is made up of more than just unions. He said
business groups and nonprofit organizations also oppose the
question.
All four candidates for governor have said they plan to vote against
the question.
McGrath said the coalition is planning to hit the airwaves soon.
The battle is a replay of Howell’s attempt two years ago to
eliminate the state income tax with a ballot initiative.
Many of the same groups, including the teacher’s unions, were part
of a coalition that dumped nearly $7 million into a campaign to
convince voters to reject the cut.
They succeeded, in part by flooding the airwaves with television and
radio advertisements warning of the disastrous consequences of the
sudden loss of revenue.
McGrath said he doesn’t expect the coalition to raise as much money
this time around.
"I’m guessing we won’t be around where we were in 2008," he said.
"It all comes down to the resources and it’s not necessarily going
to be what it was in the past."
Howell, who frames the contest in David versus Goliath terms, said
this year is different, in part because of the toll the recession
has taken on voters’ pocketbooks and scandals on Beacon Hill.
"Clearly we are in a different climate now," she said. "People are
getting fed up with government waste."
Voters appear sharply divided on the question.
A recent Boston Globe poll found 46 percent of voters supporting the
question, with 43 percent opposed and the rest undecided. The
difference is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 4.3
percent.
Other polls have shown a slight majority in favor of the question.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Biz group takes 'AIM’ at Question 3, sales tax reduction
A business trade group that frequently criticizes Beacon Hill tax
policy decisions on today announced its opposition to Question 3,
which reduces the sales tax rate to 3 percent from 6.25 percent,
warning the tax cut would lead to layoffs of teachers, police, and
firefighters and tuition rate hikes and reduced course offerings in
public higher education.
Members of Associated Industries of Massachusetts’ board were polled
on Question 3 on Friday and the group said there was “overwhelming
opposition” to the question, which is polling favorably among
voters. AIM board members expressed concerns about the state’s
ability to maintain public services if the question is approved and
concerns about the state’s credit rating.
“Question 3 is an extreme measure that would irreparably harm the
Massachusetts economy by doubling the projected state budget deficit
and threatening services such as education and public safety upon
which employers rely to run their businesses,” according to AIM
President Rick Lord.
AIM also opposes Question 2, which repeals the state’s comprehensive
housing permit law. Supporters of that law claim it’s responsible
for producing much of the affordable housing found in suburbs around
the state while critics assert the law overrides the home rule
tradition of cities and towns and has led to financial windfalls for
developers.
AIM is not taking a position on Question 1, which repeals the
application of the 6.25 percent sales tax to retail alcohol
purchases.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 7, 2010
A Boston Herald editorial
Yes on Question 3
The predictions of doom and disaster are well underway.
Should Question 3 pass - that’s the ballot question which would
reduce the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent - there
will be blood in the streets, the oceans will rise and the earth
will quite likely stop spinning on its axis, or something.
For those who were around in 1980 when Proposition 2½ - which capped
property taxes - was on the ballot, the arguments will all sound
familiar. The business and political establishment opposed that too.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation was against it, so was every
public employee union in the state, especially teachers.
The only folks who were for it were the hard-pressed taxpayers who
had tired of watching their tax bills go out of sight.
Flash forward to 2010 and Question 3. Now we too would be far more
comfortable if the ballot question merely repealed the 25 percent
hike in the tax rate enacted by the Legislature. That would be a
no-brainer.
But given the choice between no tax relief at all and a measure that
would likely have to be tweaked later on - well, count us in the Yes
on Question 3 camp.
Sometimes a proposition is known by the enemies it makes - and
lining up against the tax rollback are all the usual suspects.
Unions - mostly public employee unions - have thus far built a $1.3
million kitty to pay for the coming onslaught of radio and TV ads.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association and the National Education
Association alone have already kicked in over $1 million.
Others dependent on taxpayer largess - the Massachusetts Hospital
Association, for example, is creating a campaign committee to oppose
Question 3.
And the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation - which, let’s not
forget, opposed Proposition 2½ and has rarely met a tax hike it
didn’t like, is, of course, predicting the end of civilization as we
know it.
The projected $1 billion cut in revenue this year should the tax
rollback pass would exacerbate a $2 billion “structural deficit,”
Mass. Taxpayers insists.
Any guess how we acquired that “structural deficit?”
The state spends too much!
What with unemployment high and underemployment even higher, and
people cutting back on things they buy, well, the state has just not
been able to take as much out of taxpayers’ pockets as its wants. So
the Legislature upped the rate.
Well, enough already!
That’s the message of Question 3. Taxpayers and voters are just fed
up with lawmakers who listen more to special interests, more to
public employee unions, more to advocates than to those paying the
bills.
Sometimes voters have to shout to be heard. This is one of those
times.
The Lynn Daily Item
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Patrick touts progressive income tax
By David Liscio
Gov. Deval Patrick said he prefers a “progressive income tax,”
rather than a flat tax while answering questions during a breakfast
event Wednesday morning sponsored by the North Shore Chamber of
Commerce at Danversport Yacht Club.
Patrick’s comments provoked a quick response from Republican
gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker.
“I’d like to know who Gov. Patrick plans to raise taxes on next.
He’s already begun his next campaign to raise taxes in Massachusetts
and the voters should know who’s going to be hit with his next tax
hike,” Baker said. “Gov. Patrick needs to understand that after
100,000 lost jobs, eight tax increases and $3 billion in excess
spending, voters have had enough of his tax-and-spend policies.”
The last time voters were asked their preference to move to a
progressive income tax was in 1994, when the ballot question was
overwhelmingly defeated 70 percent to 30 percent, Baker said.
Patrick’s campaign later in the day sent out a statement saying the
governor had no plans if reelected to a second term to change the
state Constitution to accommodate a progressive tax.
“The governor did not ‘outline a plan’ but simply responded to a
question about tax fairness and answered as he has in the past by
stating the obvious — a progressive income tax is more fair than our
current system, because for the vast majority of people in
Massachusetts, it means a tax cut, not a tax increase,” Patrick
spokesman Alex Goldstein said in a statement to the State House News
Service.
At the breakfast event, Democratic incumbent governor maintained his
opinion that not every road construction job site requires a
uniformed police officer to direct traffic. The 49 other states
commonly use civilians as flagmen, he said, noting that by adopting
that system in Massachusetts, between $11 million and $15 million
have been saved.
Those millions of dollars can be used for road and bridge
improvements, he said.
Patrick also opined that reducing the state sales tax rate from 6.25
percent to its former 5-percent level could result in increased
public transportation costs, higher bridge and road tolls, as well
as a spike in property taxes.
Most of the governor’s address emphasized education, innovation and
infrastructure, described as the three key components of his
administration’s growth strategy.
On education, the governor said special-needs students and those
struggling to learn the English language are stuck in the so-called
achievement gap. The governor emphasized that Massachusetts is
currently at the highest level in state history for financial
investment in public schools and the creation of other innovative
educational institutions.
Speaking of marketplace innovation, Patrick cited the growth on the
North Shore of the life sciences industry and robotics. The state
has invested $190 million in life sciences in the past two years,
funds that have leveraged $250 million in private investment, he
said.
“It’s not your father’s Route 128,” he said.
“We are the third largest center of video gaming in the country,” he
said.
The governor said robotics companies on the North Shore are
developing and manufacturing robots that can do everything from
clean a home to defuse a roadside bomb.
“We are also the largest exporter of medical devices,” he said.
The Patrick administration decision to support alternative energy,
specifically wind power, has also paid off, the governor said. The
nation’s first offshore wind farm, slated for construction off Cape
Cod, is a prime example of that initiative, as is the planned wind
turbine blade testing facility in Charlestown.
Bridges, roads and other infrastructure have been allowed to
deteriorate while taxpayer funds went to pay for the Big Dig — the
suppression of Boston’s central artery below ground, Patrick said.
The governor described the massive public works project as something
akin to doing open heart surgery on a patient while he’s playing
tennis.
State House News Service
Wednesday, October 5, 2010
Patrick again talks up progressive income tax, but says he won't
pursue it
By Matt Murphy
Despite reiterating his support for a progressive income tax over
the current flat tax, Gov. Deval Patrick Wednesday indicated that
changing the Constitution to accommodate his position would not be a
part of his second-term agenda.
The Patrick campaign sought to put distance Wednesday afternoon
between the governor and comments he made during a campaign stop in
Danvers before the North Shore Chamber of Commerce.
“The Governor has repeatedly said that there are no plans for tax
increases,” said campaign spokesman Alex Goldstein, in a statement
to the News Service. “The Governor did not ‘outline a plan’ but
simply responded to a question about tax fairness and answered as he
has in the past by stating the obvious - a progressive income tax is
more fair than our current system, because for the vast majority of
people in Massachusetts, it means a tax cut, not a tax increase.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker immediately seized
on the remarks as evidence that Patrick is planning another
post-election tax hike to deal with an estimated $2 billion budget
shortfall in the next fiscal year.
“I’d like to know what Governor Patrick plans to raise taxes on
next,” Baker said in a statement. “He’s already begun his next
campaign to raise taxes in Massachusetts and the voters should know
who’s going to be hit with his next tax hike.”
Goldstein said Patrick had no plans to file legislation in the next
four years to create a progressive income tax system, if re-elected.
"Once again the Baker campaign has sunk to distortion and
demagoguery to distract voters from Baker's record of Big Dig debt
and skyrocketing health care premiums,” Goldstein said.
Patrick made a speech Wednesday morning to the North Shore Chamber
of Commerce at the Danversport Yacht Club. Responding to a general
question about rising taxes from a member of the audience, Patrick
said it would require a “multi-year campaign” to switch to
progressive income tax.
“Personally, I’d like to see a progressive income tax and not a flat
income tax. That’s where I’d like to see us go,” Patrick said.
The governor’s remarks to the North Shore Chamber of Commerce were
not the first time he has expressed interest in a graduated tax
system, similar to those employed by other states and the federal
government.
In the summer of 2009, Patrick told the News Service, “What we have
in Massachusetts is a number of wealthy people who would be willing
to contribute more - not all of them, but certainly [some] have the
capacity to contribute more - to relieve some of the pressure on the
working poor.'' Patrick said then that the issue of changing the way
the state taxes income would have to be sorted out “in the fullness
of time.”
Rep. Theodore Speliotis, a Danvers Democrat who attended the chamber
breakfast Wednesday, said Patrick did not indicate in any way that
he intended to pursue a progressive income tax next session.
Speliotis did not rule out the possibility that one of his
colleagues would put such a proposal on the table next year, but
said he could not support it himself.
“I don’t, even though it goes against my natural inclination. I
would love to support if I had enough faith in us not hurting the
middle class. It’s one of those things intellectually that makes all
the sense in the world, but practically I don’t know if we could
pull it off,” Speliotis said.
Rep. Jay Kaufman, the House chairman of the Committee on Revenue,
told the News Service in May that he hoped to pursue “comprehensive
reform” to the state’s tax code next session, calling for “a
difficult and adult conversation about how we tax ourselves.”
"It would be my hope to do it next session," Kaufman said. "It's an
intellectual challenge first and then a political challenge next, so
stay tuned. I'm heavily invested in rose-colored glasses. I think we
can do this but we'll see."
Kaufman declined to comment when asked Wednesday to respond to
Patrick’s comments, but told the News Service in May that state and
local taxes currently are "regressive," with low-income residents
"paying the largest share of their income" on state and local taxes
and wealthier residents paying less as a percentage of income.
"I don't think you can fix this tax system in small pieces," he said
at the time.
CLT NEWS ADVISORY
Wednesday, October 5, 2010
Did someone say he wants a graduated income tax?
We heard Governor Patrick say he wants a
graduated income tax.
We suppose this is his latest plan for “property tax relief”?
LOL. Voters won’t fall for that again. Last time it got us higher
local meals taxes and a sales tax increase.
CLT was founded in 1974 to fight a proposed graduated income tax. We
defeated it then and four more times over the decades since, and we
will fight it again. However, the easiest way to deal with this is
to not re-elect Governor Patrick.
He would need to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot for
voters to approve. They may need to be reminded that the Grad Tax is
a Tax Trap.
It lets the Legislature raise tax rates one bracket at a time,
ratcheting up the entire tax burden which is already 5th highest in
the nation, per capita. Does Governor Patrick think we’re crazy
enough to give the Legislature that kind of power to “divide and
conquer” us?
That would be a “NO,” Governor.
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
GOP scoffs at Dems' support for tax cuts "When economy recovers"
By Kyle Cheney
It's become a common campaign-trail refrain from Gov. Deval Patrick:
I support lowering taxes. But it always comes with a crucial caveat:
"when the economy recovers."
For Patrick - and other Democrats who have employed it - the line is
a political win-win. It's a quick response to Republican critics who
deride him as a cheerleader for higher taxes, and it leaves enough
wiggle room to avoid a firm commitment.
"The time will come to talk about rolling back the tax rates, and we
should," Patrick said at a gubernatorial forum on human services
last week. "But the time is not right now."
However, Patrick has also gone to great lengths to portray the Bay
State economy as "on the mend and on the move" and recovering faster
than other states.
Asked Monday to reconcile those messages, Patrick laid out two
conditions that he said would lead him to support bringing taxes
down.
"I think it's got to be first of all a significantly lowered
unemployment rate," he said. The Massachusetts unemployment rate
dropped to 8.8 percent in August, with about 310,000 people
unemployed, compared to a national rate of 9.6 percent. Patrick has
recently taken to touting the 60,000 jobs the Massachusetts economy
has added in 2010 as a sign that the economy is on the right track.
The second condition also lacked a specific date, or tax cut
trigger.
"I think we also have to have the kind of conversation we always
avoid here in the commonwealth, which is, what is it we want
government to do and not do," Patrick said. "You know, I've taken
$4.3 billion out of state spending and you can believe I'm hearing
the howls from folks whose programs have been affected, and I hear
that because I understand that there are human beings behind those
line items. There's a lot of work we've all got to do, not just in
simplifying government and making it more efficient. That's the
continuing work of leadership, I think. But also in resolving some
things we want government to stop doing. And then we go from there."
A spokesman for Patrick's Republican opponent, Charles Baker, said
the governor lacks credibility on tax issues.
"After eight tax increases Governor Patrick still won't rule out
future tax increases, in fact he and his special interest allies are
now running attack ads against Charlie Baker for pledging not to
raise taxes," the spokesman, Rick Gorka, said in an email. "After $1
billion in new taxes and $3 billion in new spending it's amazing he
still thinks he has any credibility left when it comes to the
state's fiscal issues."
While Patrick isn't easy to nail down on tax cut specifics, Baker
hasn't outlined a plan to fully address a fiscal 2012 budget gap of
more than $2 billion, which would widen if Baker's broad-based
income and sales tax cuts, which he hopes to formally propose in
January, are adopted. Baker has offered a series of government
reforms and planned workforce reductions that he believes would reap
savings, but he's faced criticism that those savings wouldn't nearly
make up for the lost revenue.
Steve Grossman, the Democratic candidate for state treasurer, has
aligned himself with Patrick on the issue, saying he'd like to see
the state sales tax - hiked 25 percent last year by lawmakers and
the governor last year - rolled back to its previous 5 percent rate,
"when the economy recovers." Asked Monday to clarify his position,
Grossman linked his support for a tax rollback to economic growth
and rebuilding the state's reserves.
"I would like to see us link cuts in both the sales tax and
potentially the state income tax to economic growth and revenue
growth, as long as we have replenished the rainy day fund," he said.
"I wouldn't want to come up with a specific number or specific
formula."
Pressed about his goal for the rainy day fund, Grossman said he
would like to see it at a higher level than its pre-recession peak
of $2.4 billion - the fund is on track to finish this fiscal year at
less than $600 million.
"In the multibillion dollar range makes all the sense in the world,"
Grossman said, calling it a "top priority" to ensure that the
state's bond rating is "preserved and protected."
Grossman describes his plan as "a business-like approach to tax
policy that takes into account our needs as a society" and "the
public's desire for lower taxes."
Grossman's opponent, Republican Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury), brushed
off the Democrat's suggestion that he favors a lower tax rate.
"Steve Grossman is short on specifics, and there's a reason for
that: he has no intention of ever rolling back taxes," Polito said
in a statement to the News Service "He's invested thousands of
dollars of his own money to make sure that taxes stay high. His
supposed 'benchmarks' are also unrealistic. How does he expect the
Rainy Day Fund to ever get replenished when his own party keeps
spending money irresponsibly like they did in this week's
supplemental budget? I'm the only tax-cutting candidate in this
race. I'm a true fiscal conservative with a proven record."
|
| |
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
|
