CITIZENS   FOR  LIMITED  TAXATION  &  GOVERNMENT
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation

 

CLT Update
Saturday, January 5, 2002

Gimme Lobby charitable giving and tax hikes


Let us all be aware that the state income tax rollback, opposed by 41 percent of voters last year, still puts money into the pockets of those million-plus voters. This is money they said they did not want or need....

We would hope that the opponents of Question 4 would donate their tax savings to causes they hold dear....

The tax savings is now in their pockets: What will they do with it?

The Springfield Union-News
Jan. 4, 2002
Letter to the Editor, by Chip Ford
Tax rollback opponents can donate savings to charities


Simply stated, you can't spend what you don't have. And if the Commonwealth is hemorrhaging revenue, the only fiscally sound response is to cut spending accordingly.

Just ask former Gov. Michael Dukakis the cost of waiting until it's too late.

A Lowell Sun editorial
Jan. 4, 2002
Cut spending - now!


On Dec. 29, the Springfield Union-News published a news report in which "human services advocates" decried cuts to their critical services. I responded with a letter to the editor [below] that was published yesterday.

Let's look at the irrefutable facts and apply simply logic.

According to the Secretary of State's election data:

In November of 2000, 1,055,181 voters voted "No" on Question 4, our tax rollback;

136,879 voters left Question 4 blank - ergo, they did not want or need the tax rollback.

1,541,771 - 59 percent - voted for our tax cut.

The Gimme Lobby - our opponents in the rollback campaign - have stated that the rollback will "only" save a family of four about $200 this year.

For the sake of argument, and to provide a most conservative total, let us take their tax savings as a given, and apply it to only those who voted AGAINST the rollback. If they were to each give back that "$200" this year - money they insisted they did not want or need - their charitable contribution would amount to $211,036,200.

Let's divide that by two - just in case a husband and wife both voted "No" on Question 4 and the Gimme Lobby's "family of four" rule applies. Even $105,518,100 is still a significant pocketful of loose change.

$105,518,100 - that is - if they also elect not to take the charitable deduction to which they're entitled since Question 7 also was passed by the voters in the same election.

Under the same formula, if we add in those who took a ballot but didn't vote on Question 4 - the blanks which comprised 5.01 percent of those voting - charitable contributions would be increased by an additional $13,687,900, bringing our baseline conservative total of charitable giving to "critical needs" of "the most vulnerable among us" to $119,206,000.

What will be their answer to what I asked: "The tax savings is now in their pockets: What will they do with it?"

Next, the Lowell Sun agrees with my last Update - that if the state is not bringing in the revenues it projected, then NOW is the time to reduce spending. What they miss is that we're dealing with the difference between FISCAL reality and POLITICAL reality.

When spending ultimately outstrips revenue, the pols will have their usual recourse - raise taxes, naturally - and that is their ultimate goal anyway. "Just ask former Gov. Michael Dukakis."

Chip Ford


The Springfield Union-News
Friday, January 4, 2002
Letters to the Editor

Tax rollback opponents can donate savings to charities

A Dec. 29 article in the Union-News, "Agencies beg for funding," stated: "City Health and Human Services Director Helen Caulton-Harris said that budget cuts have affected all local health and service programs."

Let us all be aware that the state income tax rollback, opposed by 41 percent of voters last year, still puts money into the pockets of those million-plus voters. This is money they said they did not want or need.

We would hope that the opponents of Question 4 would donate their tax savings to causes they hold dear. Citizens for Limited Taxation attempted to make this easier through a voluntary tax check-off on state income tax forms. Our bill was included in the House version of the state budget - but was dropped from the final version.

Still, that does not prevent private contributions to these needy causes by those who did not or "do not need or want" the tax reduction.

The tax savings is now in their pockets: What will they do with it?

CHIP FORD
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation

Return to top


The Lowell Sun
Friday, January 4, 2002

Editorial
Cut spending - now!

Memo to Acting Gov. Jane Swift:

Cut spending - quickly!

Sure, lawmakers slashed $650 million from the fiscal 2002 state budget last month, but based upon December's grim revenue figures, that $650 million may have been a case of too little, too late.

Figures released Wednesday showed that December 2001 revenues fell by $96 million from a year ago. And that's only the tip of the fiscal iceberg.

For the first six months of fiscal year 2002, state collections are down a half billion dollars from the first six months of fiscal 2001. They are even failing to meet economic projections that were severely cut back after September 11.

So what's Gov. Swift to do? She has two options.

First, she can hold tight, cross her fingers, and hope that tax revenues rebound in the spring along with the general economy, as many are predicting. But, even if the economy does rebound this spring, tax revenues usually lag behind, according to economist Nicholas Perna, whose consulting firm tracks the New England economy.

"The economy has a better chance of turning around quickly than tax receipts do. It might be a while before people realize significant capital gains, and before people start exercising stock options."

And IF the economy begins to turn around in the spring, and IF the tax coffers of the Commonwealth profit - two big IFs - that still would have little impact on a fiscal year that ends in June.

What happens if the economy doesn't begin to turn around in the spring?

Well, that's why Gov. Swift would be wise to exercise her second option and invoke emergency powers to revise revenue projections and cut spending herself, either with or without the compliance of an often dilatory Legislature.

According to Administration and Finance Secretary Stephen P. Crosby, the governor is contemplating doing just that.

Frankly, the decision should be made sooner rather than later.

Simply stated, you can't spend what you don't have. And if the Commonwealth is hemorrhaging revenue, the only fiscally sound response is to cut spending accordingly.

Just ask former Gov. Michael Dukakis the cost of waiting until it's too late.

Return to top


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