CITIZENS   FOR  LIMITED  TAXATION  &  GOVERNMENT

 

CLT Update
Tuesday, October 30, 2001

Tax Rollback holding the line, so far


Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, a Newton Democrat, filed legislation Friday that would postpone for one year the voter-approved income tax cut.

But even though Creem secured support from Senate Majority Leader Linda Melconian of Springfield, the bill will likely have trouble making it through the Senate, where some senators have already lined up against it.

The Lowell Sun
Oct. 29, 2001
Senators: Don't tinker with tax cut


Voters couldn't resist the urge to give themselves a tax cut last November. Perhaps they've come to recognize that a referendum vote is a poor method of enacting tax policy, given the vagaries of the economy; certainly they realize that an income tax of some sort is the best and fairest way of funding those government services for which we're especially appreciative now that the terrorists are at the door.

The Salem Evening News
Editorial
Oct. 29, 2001


As politicians on Capitol Hill prepare a second major tax cut this year to stimulate the national economy, some politicians on Beacon Hill plot to do what they always do in an economic slowdown: raise taxes and eat the state's seed corn.

CLT Memo to the Legislature
Oct. 29, 2001


"The tax rollback is a fight waiting to happen," yesterday a Boston Globe columnist decreed. "Why can't a referendum ever be repealed?"

Adrian Walker also wrote ("The will of which people?" --  Boston Globe, Mar. 1, 2001):

"If it is destroyed, it will happen in the House where Speaker Thomas M. Finneran has never made any secret of his contempt for the law, and has long vowed not to fund it. Beyond saying the statute as written is unworkable, he has never said why he disagrees with the principle behind it, or why he finds it acceptable for a fundamental principle of democracy -- a choice at the ballot box -- to go down the drain on his watch....

"The State House is a world with its own sense of reality. First, no one thought this law would pass, then they believed it could easily be circumvented, and now the day of reckoning draws near. If only our lawmakers realized that this law isn't about the 200 of them. It's about democracy for 6 million of us."

No, he wasn't writing about our Tax Rollback, though he almost could have been. He was writing about the Clean Elections Law. Am I alone in detecting some inconsistency?

Apparently our adversaries in the Question 4 Tax Rollback ballot question campaign haven't heard the news: the election was decided last November: we won, they lost big time.

The Salem Evening News yesterday again proved that it's the very same newspapers and columnists which editorialized against Question 4 last year that are still calling for its defeat, a year next week after the voters made their overwhelming decision and it has become law.

Even the closest, most divisive and acrimonious presidential election in U.S. history has been settled; George W. Bush has finally been accepted as our president. Yet the Gimme Lobby and its media supporters still refuse to acknowledge the outcome of Question 4.

According to the Salem Evening News, we now need to overturn the voters' mandate because ... "the terrorist are at the door"? Has it no shame?

Our defense does seem to be holding, though, as the Lowell Sun yesterday reported. Support for the voters' mandate in the Senate seems to be there -- at least presently, and publicly.

Which is why CLT doggedly continues to fill sand bags and defend the ground we've taken. Yesterday we delivered the memo below to the offices of every member of the Legislature, both House and Senate.

Chip Ford


- CLT MEMO -

To:  Members of the General Court
        October 29, 2001

What part of "will of the people" do some (few, we hope) "representatives" not understand?

Despite its original opposition, CLT supports the voter-required implementation of the Clean Elections Law. We would expect all legislators who respect the voters' will on Clean Elections to be consistent, and support the voters' will on the income tax rollback as well.

Instead, some of them call for a "moratorium" on the latter initiative, which passed in 91% of the communities with a 59-41% mandate statewide.

We know they really mean to repeal the rollback. Surely they don't expect taxpayers to believe them when they promise only a "one-year moratorium"? Sorry, but the Legislature's credibility on temporary tax hikes, along with billions of our surplus tax dollars, was squandered long ago.

Too bad the Legislature didn't keep its promise on the "temporary" 1989 tax hike, and return the rate to 5% before the additional revenues enticed spending the state into another fiscal crisis. For a decade, it spent a billion dollars more a year, spent huge surpluses, enhanced itself using our money. Now some legislators' solution to the fiscal crisis they've again created is to again raise taxes.

If the rate presently mandated by law -- 5.3% next year -- is kept at 5.6%, this is obviously a tax increase.

As politicians on Capitol Hill prepare a second major tax cut this year to stimulate the national economy, some politicians on Beacon Hill plot to do what they always do in an economic slowdown: raise taxes and eat the state's seed corn.

A&F Secretary Steve Crosby has the right idea. Use some of the billions of dollars no one could find a way to squander that were stashed away in "rainy day" slush funds. These were sold as a hedge against recession (i.e., "rainy day") as an excuse for not returning the surplus to taxpayers.

Use the $300 million the state receives annually from the tobacco settlement "taxpayer reimbursement" for health-related budget items.

Pension fund? This isn't sacred anymore since taxpayers' money helped fund the kickback/racketeer scandal. It was used in 1989 by Dukakis to bail himself out: Let precedent rule.

State programs? Funded during the boom without regard to cost concerns. Find the profligacy and waste and eliminate it.

Sen. Magnani and other Democrats have a plan -- delay the tax rollback -- that reflects their sudden concern about MassPike tolls. They opposed the toll repeal on last year's ballot, and the voters -- remember them? -- voted to keep the tolls: "Toll repeal No, Tax rollback Yes."

The recession is hitting all of us, not just the government. We only wish we had done an immediate cut to 5%, instead of a "reasonable" phase down; taxpayers could use the extra money this year as an umbrella for their own rainy day.


The Lowell Sun
Monday, October 29, 2001

Senators: Don't tinker with tax cut;
Panagiotakos, Tucker oppose plan to delay
voter-supported rollback

By Jennifer Fenn
Sun Statehouse Bureau

BOSTON -- With state budget cuts and layoffs looming to make up a $1.1 billion shortfall, some Democrats are pushing to delay the income tax rollback for a year.

Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem, a Newton Democrat, filed legislation Friday that would postpone for one year the voter-approved income tax cut.

But even though Creem secured support from Senate Majority Leader Linda Melconian of Springfield, the bill will likely have trouble making it through the Senate, where some senators have already lined up against it.

Democratic Sens. Steven Panagiotakos of Lowell and Susan Tucker of Andover said the state should not tinker with the voter mandate. Question 4 on last year's ballot asked voters to roll back the income tax rate from 5.7 percent last year to 5.6 percent this year, 5.3 percent in 2002 and 5 percent by 2003.

Creem's bill would delay the scheduled rollback from 5.6 percent to 5.3 percent.

"At this time, I don't support that," said Tucker, who was one of two Democratic senators who initially supported the tax cut pushed by the Republican administration. "I think we should stay the course in rolling back the income tax and any changes should be the last resort. Before we ask taxpayers for more, we ought to improve some efficiencies in state government and root out patronage. There are better ways to deliver services and I think now is the time to implement that."

Panagiotakos, who lobbied against the rollback last year, said the voters spoke clearly. The measure was approved by 56 [sic-59] percent of the voters.

"It would be a point of last resort," Panagiotakos said. "The voters did vote it in. Until we're in a real prolonged economic emergency, we would first see if we can make the difference between cuts and the rainy day account. If that doesn't balance it, then this is something we're going to have to consider."

Acting Gov. Jane Swift's budget chief detailed a plan last week addressing the budget shortfall. Finance Secretary Stephen Crosby wants to take $300 million from the state's stabilization -- "rainy day" -- account, $200 million from the annual tobacco trust fund settlement, and cut $600 million from the budget.

Crosby said a delay in the tax cut is not an option. He said two economists have advised Swift to stick with the schedule approved by voters. If the tax cut were delayed, it would save $200 million for the state in 2002 but cost an average family of four $175.

But Crosby did admit that some programs may be axed to cut spending. In 2003, the tax cut will take $400 million from the state's coffers. Crosby said that would make up just less than one-quarter of the expected shortfall that year.

"It's material but it's not the issue," Crosby said. "This administration believes it's better to leave the $175 where it is."

Creem said that $400 million is money that could enhance the state's ability to deal with future public safety costs and the fiscal crisis, and maintain funding for education, health care, housing and human services without dipping too far into reserves.

In a letter to colleagues seeking support for the legislation, Creem said the state must respond to the new challenges.

"I understand that the voters of our state adopted the tax rollback a year ago," she wrote. "We should always respect their views as expressed in approving ballot initiatives. But we have a responsibility to adapt fiscal policy to current conditions."

Earlier this month, the Massachusetts High Tech Council released a plan calling for the state to accelerate the timetable for the tax cut. The council says lowering it to 5 percent one year sooner would put $450 million into the state's economy.


The Salem Evening News
Monday, October 29, 2001

Editorial
A strong dose of fiscal reality

Among the more encouraging missives we have received in recent days was the following "urgent message" from the Massachusetts Libertarian Party:

"We need to collect 100,000 signatures to put our Libertarian initiative to end the income tax in Massachusetts on the ballot," it declared. "We have 21 days left to collect the last 32,989 signatures."

"But we have a huge problem," it continued. "By Tuesday, October 30th, our paid petitioners will turn in another 10,000 petition signatures. We have $403.14 in the bank. We can't pay our professional petitioners on Tuesday -- unless you help. If we don't pay them, they'll quit. They'll leave."

"We may fail if you don't help right now," it concludes. "We may have to close the doors if you don't help."

Like President George W. Bush and the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, the Libertarians don't seem to realize that the boom times are over and at a time of national emergency such as the one we are currently facing, Americans fully expect that sacrifice -- including the monetary kind -- will be necessary to keep our government and our defenses up and running.

Neither Alan Greenspan's interest rate cuts nor the GOP-inspired tax policies (the latter helps the rich much more than the rest of us, but then the theory is that the benefits are supposed to "trickle" down eventually) have succeeded in reviving an economy that was in serious trouble even before the events of Sept. 11.

Unlike the federal government, however, which can simply print more money when it needs it, the state will shortly face the consequences of a serious cash shortage. Forget about eliminating the income tax; there is now a good argument to be made for delaying the second phase of the income tax endorsed by voters last fall, as well as spending down the "rainy day" fund and diverting money from the tobacco settlement to pay the state's rapidly escalating Medicaid and other health-related expenses.

We are in for a tough stretch, and the consequences of the precipitous decline in state revenues -- estimated at $1.1 billion for the 2002 fiscal year that began July 1, $1.7 billion for fiscal 2003 and $2.2 billion for fiscal 2004 -- will soon be felt at the local level. And the impact will be more akin to a deluge than a trickle.

Gov. Jane Swift and legislative leaders agree that belts must be tightened. Veteran state Sen. Fred Berry, D-Peabody, observed Friday that the delay in crafting a budget for the current fiscal year -- something for which House Speaker Tom Finneran and Senate President Tom Birmingham have come under severe criticism -- may actually prove to be "fortuitous," since the amount the state anticipated having available to spend is much less today that it was back in June when those discussions began.

Yet there are some areas, Berry noted, public safety being foremost among them, where the state simply can't cut back. In fact, he noted, the bill for State Police overtime since Sept. 11 has been running at $500,000 a month. And is there anyone out there today who thinks those security concerns are going to lessen anytime soon?

So the news that the Libertarian Party's ill-advised effort to eliminate the state's most progressive tax [is in trouble] is very much welcome here. Voters couldn't resist the urge to give themselves a tax cut last November. Perhaps they've come to recognize that a referendum vote is a poor method of enacting tax policy, given the vagaries of the economy; certainly they realize that an income tax of some sort is the best and fairest way of funding those government services for which we're especially appreciative now that the terrorists are at the door.


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


Return to CLT Updates page

Return to CLT home page