A Taxpayer IQ Test
(What's Wrong With This Picture?)
This is the last weekend to petition -- in the City of
Boston ONLY and for signatures of Boston registered voters ONLY. All Boston petitions must be turned in to the City of
Boston registrar of voters at Boston City Hall by 5:00 PM on Monday.
We're going to give our own
Taxpayer IQ test below, from
State House News Service reports.
QUESTION: Which one report does not fit with all the
others, and why is it inconsistent with the rest?
(The answer is at the bottom
of the page.)
 |
|
Chip Ford |
Excerpts from State House News Service
Weekly Roundup (Week of June 19, 2000) and
Advances (Week of June 26, 2000) reports:
HALEY: MEDICAID GETTING OUT OF CONTROL AGAIN -- Presiding over
the release of a supplemental budget with $188 million for Medicaid, House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Haley
(D-Weymouth) said the old "budget buster" threatens the state's fiscal stability once again. Haley said the
cost of providing health coverage for the poor has begun to rise the way it did in the
late 80s.
EDUCATION SPENDING -- US Census reports that in 1997,
Massachusetts was ranked 7th nationally when it comes to per-pupil spending on education. The nation's leader was New
Jersey. Utah holds the dubious distinction of bringing up the rear of the pack. Massachusetts in 1997 spent $7,190 per
student. New Jersey spent $9,461. Utah spent $3,810. The national average was $5,873.
TEACHER RETIREMENT PLAN MADE LAW OVER CELLUCCI'S VETO -- The
House and Senate took lopsided votes to pass a plan allowing teachers with 30 years' experience to retire regardless
of age. Cellucci said the override will cause 8,000 teachers to leave classrooms in the next year;
proponents argue the benefit will attract people to the profession.
HOUSE W&M ADVANCES EARLY RETIREMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY -- As if
to confirm the fears of opponents of the teacher-retirement piece, House Ways and Means gave approval to a bill
allowing certain public safety employees to retire after 25 years of service. The Massachusetts Municipal
Association and the governor had predicted that if the teachers got new retirement
benefits, lawmakers would feel pressure from other public employee groups to approve similar plans for other employees
and the costs to taxpayers would grow.
PAID FAMILY LEAVE -- The bulk of testimony at Monday's hearing
on family leave policy will come by invitation only. The day-long forum is being conducted by a special task force on
unemployment insurance and family leave and comes at a time when the federal government is moving to let states dip into
their UI trust funds to pay 'new baby' benefits. Labor unions and women's groups support using UI money to pay
family leave benefits, arguing that all workers -- regardless of their income -- should be able to take time
off to care for a new baby.
Associated Press
Saturday, June 24, 2000
Baby benefit plan for parents
BOSTON -- New parents would be able to collect up to 12 weeks
of unemployment benefits under a plan being considered by state lawmakers.
The plan would use the state's $1.8 billion unemployment
insurance trust fund to extend benefits to parents of newborn or newly adopted children.
Supporters say the proposal is needed to help working
parents meet the needs of new children without facing a fiscal crunch.
"Under this bill, when a new child is born or a new child is
adopted, working families get the crucial time they need at home," said Sarah Nathan, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts
AFL-CIO.
Opponents say the trust fund should only be used for its
original purpose -- helping workers who have lost their jobs.
"If you expand the program to meet other social needs, by
the time you need it to pay for the benefits of laid-off workers, you don't have it," said Alan Macdonald, director of
public affairs for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
When the unemployment insurance system was first established
in 1935, most new mothers did not work outside the home, Nathan said. The proposal recognizes how much family life has changed,
she said.
The state's unemployment insurance trust fund is supported
with contributions from Massachusetts employers.
The baby benefit plan will be the subject of a public
hearing at the Statehouse on Monday.
The Telegram & Gazette
Worcester, Mass.
Thursday, June 22, 2000
Editorial: Rollback reason
Tax fairness the issue in ballot question debate
As things are shaping up, the highlight of this fall's
statewide election campaign will be a confrontation between two seasoned politicians who aren't even running against each other
-- at least not yet.
The event is the debate between Senate President Thomas F.
Birmingham and Gov. Paul Cellucci over the ballot question seeking a phased rollback of the state income tax to 5 percent.
The Legislature raised the tax rate by about 20 percent to stave off insolvency in the wake of the ill-fated
"Massachusetts miracle."
More than a decade later, with billions of dollars squirreled away in various "rainy day" and contingency
accounts, the Legislature has seen fit to grant only a tiny reduction of the supposedly temporary rate, from
5.95 percent rate to the current 5.85 percent.
An explanation more credible than dire warnings about
catastrophic cuts in state services is long overdue.
Since the recession of the early 1990s, state spending has
grown at a troubling pace, several times the rate of inflation. The fiscal 2001 budget now being completed by House-Senate
committee will set spending 6 percent to 7 percent higher than in the current fiscal year.
Taxpayers who tune in to the debate no doubt will observe
plenty of fancy fiscal footwork. Mr. Birmingham, the redoubtable advocate for the pro-tax side, can be expected to
marshal an impressive array of figures suggesting that, despite the overflowing coffers, the state can't afford the rollback.
Despite the mind-boggling complexity of state finances, the
underlying issue couldn't be more straightforward: Do Massachusetts taxpayers favor prudent, sustainable growth of
state government or continued, hyperinflationary expansion?
Past votes on state tax increases suggest voters wisely
choose the former course.
We are skeptical of government by initiative petition, which
bypasses the regular process of hearings and legislative deliberation. But referendums are justified when the
Legislature defies the will of the people -- as on the income tax rollback.
The high-profile debate between two respected state leaders
will focus on this crucial ballot question the public attention it deserves.
ANSWER to the Taxpayer IQ Test: While House Ways and Means
Chairman Paul Haley is whining that the sky is falling, that a
"budget buster" is running out of control -- a tactic our opponents will use against
a tax rollback -- the Legislature is spending like there's no tomorrow, which there won't be for the
Gimme Lobby's spending spree if we take back our tax over-payment in November.
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