CLT Update
Saturday, February 9, 2002
Like Enron, MTF is "nonpartisan"
Boston Phoenix writer Seth Gitell and Citizens for Limited
Taxation head Barbara Anderson chat with Jon Keller about the possibility of freezing the voter-mandated income tax
rate rollback and increasing other taxes as a way to offset free-falling state revenues. They also
will evaluate the Democratic gubernatorial five-way, and continued turmoil on the MassPike
board.
"Keller At Large" airs Sunday at 9am on WB-56.
State House News Service
Feb. 8, 2002
Talk Circuit
Republicans, Libertarians and allied groups like
Citizens for Limited Taxation don't want to hear it. House Speaker Tom Finneran is the latest brave
enough to say it:
Taxes are not a bad thing. They're necessary to the
provision of the essential governmental services on which everyone has come to depend. And while it's
nice when they go down, sometimes they just can't. Sometimes they even have to go up....
A Salem Evening News editorial
Feb. 8, 2002
Tax cuts should be reconsidered
Mr. Ford [James J. Ford Jr., chairman of the
Lancaster Board of Selectmen, and absolutely no relation to me that I'm aware of! -- Chip] said the
money that would be generated by freezing the rollback is not insignificant; Lancaster would be in
line to receive $581,000 for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
The Telegram & Gazette
Feb. 7, 2002
Voters will decide on ways to cut costs
With Democrats in the Legislature preparing to raise
taxes, Acting Governor Jane Swift plans to crisscross the state to rally the public against the
move, and campaign against lawmakers who support taxes.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said
Swift is calculating that voters would rather deal with deep budget cuts than see their taxes
increase. The strategy could backfire, especially if the state's fiscal health continues to
deteriorate and cuts affect popular areas like education, he said.
The Boston Globe
Feb. 9, 2002
Swift set to take antitax stance directly to public
Vows campaign against proposals
"Nonpartisan." The media usually describes the Mass. Taxpayer Foundation as "nonpartisan" when they
don't use the descriptor "business-backed."
Some people misunderstand the word. They think nonpartisan means "not taking a position, objective,
without any interest in anything but the facts." But according to my dictionary,
"nonpartisan" is simply defined as: "not partisan; esp., not controlled or influenced by, or supporting, any single
political party."
ENRON -- the bankrupt corporation which contributed vast amounts of money to candidates of
both political parties -- was therefore "nonpartisan" by definition. But that
differentiation didn't make any difference to its stockholders and its employees' evaporated retirement savings, did it.
Yet still, today, MTF - backed and funded by Arthur Andersen LLP (Yes
that Arthur Andersen; consultant to ENRON while also its "auditor"!), Tufts Health Plan, FleetBoston
Financial, John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., Verizon, State Street Corp., Raytheon Co.
(remember its recent special interest tax cut?), Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, IBM/Lotus
Development Corp., Citizens Bank of Mass., Banknorth Mass., South Shore Savings Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, NSTAR, Modern Continental (the Big Dig construction interest), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., KeySpan Energy
Delivery New England, Cabot Corp., Sovereign Bank, Berkshire Life Insurance
Company, Ernst & Young LLP, AT&T, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Deloitte
& Touche LLP -- among a host of others -- is positioned to declare tax policy
for Joe Six-Pack, by the pols who buy into it (or vice versa)?
MTF may be "nonpartisan" in the strict sense ... but it is not impartial, without self-interest, and never has
been.
You don't see "Joe Six-Pack" anywhere on its membership
rolls, do you?
Give me a break.
CLT is nonpartisan because we support any politician of any party who takes the "No New Taxes" pledge
and means it. We are not, however, pretending to be disinterested: we fight for our
members, and for "Joe Six-Pack."
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Salem Evening News
Friday, February 08, 2002
Editorial
Tax cuts should be reconsidered
Republicans, Libertarians and allied groups like Citizens
for Limited Taxation don't want to hear it. House Speaker Tom Finneran is the latest brave enough to say it:
Taxes are not a bad thing. They're necessary to the
provision of the essential governmental services on which everyone has come to depend. And while it's nice when they go
down, sometimes they just can't. Sometimes they even have to go up.
Politicians who support a tax cut these days should be
forced to work at a minimum-wage job, ideally one of the many such jobs that carry no health insurance. They should have to
visit the local emergency room for routine health care.
They should join those men, women and children eating a meal
or two at a soup kitchen and applying for food stamps.
They should have to pray, as countless new thousands now
have to do, that their car doesn't break down, that a cold snap doesn't force them to turn up their heat, that they can skate
by without emergency just until things get a little better.
They should suffer the indignity and anxiety that the
economic downturn has brought to the people they're supposed to represent.
Voters who support tax cuts and then complain about lousy
roads, poor government service, adult illiteracy and the visible homeless, should have to spend some time with people
who are losing their tenuous grasp on a leg up so that the state and federal governments can give a
few dollars back to people whose need is not so desperate.
They might then realize that there is not much that
separates the haves from the have-nots in today's America.
For today's America is starting to look a lot like yesterday's America, specifically Ronald
Reagan's America, where huge hikes in defense spending and huge tax cuts left the
country reeling under record budget deficits. After a record-setting economic boom and budget
surpluses under President Clinton, President Bush and Gov. Swift seem inexplicably eager to
return to a starvation diet.
Bush's tax cut would cut federal government revenue by $162
billion next year. While nearly everyone agrees that defense spending must increase, the tax cut forces reductions in
services that would not otherwise be necessary. And there is no evidence that the tax cut
actually stimulates the economy; most people used last year's rebate checks to pay down
debt.
Swift, meanwhile, zealously supports a ballot referendum
that rolled back the state tax rate. The resulting loss of $700 million in revenue comes at a time when the state's budget
deficit in the current year has grown to $374 million. Sure, voters approved the rollback, but that was
in better times. With the economy now in a recession, the rollback should be
postponed.
In the end, what trickles down to cities and towns is not
affluence but expense. Someone ends up paying for homelessness, lack of health care and hunger, and its cost is not always
expressed in dollars.
The people who suffer from budget cuts or the inflationary
spiral caused by deficit spending at the federal level are children, seniors, college students, single parents, veterans,
those who are undereducated and undertrained, those who are disabled and disadvantaged.
The suffering in Massachusetts, thanks also to the Democratic-controlled Legislature which
refused to pass a budget while the economy tanked, has already started. The
continued drain on the treasury the tax cuts create, will make it worse.
When did America become so cruel? How did our spiritual
health become so detached from our material wealth? Is this really the America that Americans want? Are these really the
values we want to export?
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Worcester, Mass.
Thursday, February 7, 2002
Voters will decide on ways to cut costs
By Rebecca L'Bahy
LANCASTER -- Selectmen yesterday approved six warrant articles
for a special town meeting scheduled for March 4.
The meeting, which will be at 7 p.m. in the Mary Rowlandson
School auditorium, seeks to cover a budget shortfall brought about by state cuts.
Meanwhile, James J. Ford Jr., chairman of the Board of
Selectmen, confirmed last night that he will not seek re-election in May....
In another matter, selectmen opted to postpone a decision on
whether to support a freeze of the rollback of the state income tax. The Framingham Board of Selectmen has asked all
municipal leaders to urge the state Legislature to freeze the rollback
and give the extra money to the cities and towns.
The letter from Framingham's board says: "A freeze of the
rollback of the income tax rate offers a significant revenue source that is paid based on a taxpayer's means, not simply on
the value of one's property." Freezing the rollback would produce $500 million in annual revenue
to the commonwealth, the letter says.
Mr. Ford [James in no relation to me! -- Chip] said state
Rep. Patricia Walrath, D-Stow, told him the state was facing its biggest revenue shortfall in 20 years. Mr. Ford said the
money that would be generated by freezing the rollback is not insignificant; Lancaster would
be in line to receive $581,000 for the fiscal year that begins July 1.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, February 9, 2002
Swift set to take antitax stance directly to public
Vows campaign against proposals
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
With Democrats in the Legislature preparing to raise taxes,
Acting Governor Jane Swift plans to crisscross the state to rally the public against the move, and campaign against
lawmakers who support taxes.
When the House and Senate discuss tax hikes in the coming
weeks, Swift will take her case directly to the people, said James Borghesani, Swift's press secretary. She has said she
will veto any attempt to delay the voter-approved income tax rollback, as well as veto any tax
increase. That means two-thirds of the Legislature would have to support a tax
increase for it to prevail.
"She's going to wage a full and thorough campaign against
them," Borghesani said. "She'll make this part of her daily message. At a time when people need money in their pockets, at
a time when we need new ideas, all we seem to be hearing about from the Legislature is new
taxes."
House and Senate leaders are considering a host of tax
proposals, in addition to the freeze of the income tax cut, including an increase in the cigarette tax, a hike in the
gasoline tax, a higher capital gains tax, and an elimination of state tax deductions for charitable contributions.
Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, who is running for
governor, has announced his support for a delay in the income tax cut and for a 50 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette
tax. Combined, those measures would give the state about $400 million more in revenue to
help close a budget gap that could reach $2 billion next year.
Birmingham, a Chelsea Democrat, said he will happily debate
Swift over the need to consider new taxes. Her refusal to do so, he said, will result in an "evisceration" of various
state programs.
"It doesn't get her a chapter in 'Profiles in Courage,'"
Birmingham said. "It's the easiest thing in the world to be in support of tax cuts. But the fact is that it's not responsible
at this point. Two billion dollars - this isn't crying wolf."
With the election fast approaching, Swift appears to be
reprising a role that worked well for former governors William F. Weld and Paul Cellucci: the fiscally conservative Republican
chief executive standing up against the Democratically-controlled Legislature. But unlike her
GOP predecessors, Swift is facing a recession and a colossal drop in revenues that are
forcing damaging budget cuts in health care and social services.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said
Swift is calculating that voters would rather deal with deep budget cuts than see
their taxes increase. The strategy could backfire, especially if the state's fiscal health continues to
deteriorate and cuts affect popular areas like education, he said.
"There are serious consequences for doing this," Widmer
said. "It is a gamble, given the severity of the revenue decline. But it's clearly a calculated gamble."
A recent Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll suggests that voters don't
support Swift's position on taxes. Half of 400 voters surveyed favored freezing the income tax rate, which is at 5.3
percent, rather than see it decline to 5 percent as schedule next Jan.
1. About three-fourths of voters polled said they would support increasing the cigarette tax to $1.26 per pack.
Swift took a "no new taxes" pledge shortly after taking over
as acting governor last spring, and she has restated her antitax stand repeatedly since then. Borghesani said Swift
considers holding the line on new taxes a key piece of her economic recovery proposal, alongside
economic incentives for businesses and job training.
Democrats control more than enough seats in the House and
the Senate to override Swift's vetoes. With the numbers working against her, Swift will work to recruit enough Democrats
to sustain her antitax stands. As the year progresses, she will probably campaign against
some who oppose her - and in favor of some who stand by her.
However, Swift is not ruling out campaigning against
Republican lawmakers, if they move to support taxes.
Birmingham plans to gauge Senate support for tax increases
next week, and the Senate could take up several tax proposals within the next few weeks. House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, has said he will allow House members to
choose from a range of tax proposals during a week of debate scheduled for late April and early May.
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
|