The Sun Chronicle
Attleboro, Mass.
Saturday, January 30, 2002
Swift has to make a better case
by Ned Bristol
A little perspective, please. The tax-hike hounds are in
full cry now that Acting Gov. Jane Swift has proposed her budget and the state isn't going to be able to come up with as
much money as all the special interest groups want.
To hear the protesters and politicians it's unconscionable
for the state to continue with the voter-mandated reduction of the state income tax when some wants may go unmet.
"This is not leadership. It is not even reasonable," said
Senate President Thomas Birmingham of Swift's refusal to delay next year's rollback in the income tax from 5.3 to 5 percent.
He and House leader Thomas Finneran both say tax hikes must
be considered in next year's budget.
Reading the papers you might think Swift had slashed the
budget -- and that all the pain was being inflicted on the vulnerable poor and the beleaguered cities and towns.
Well, some inconvenient facts are being overshadowed by the
headlines. Such as:
So what is Swift's "slashing: next year? The big casualties
cited so far are dental benefits for the poor -- how many workers have full dental coverage? -- and stop-smoking
programs, hardly a health emergency.
Instead of caving in on taxes, Swift proposed to actually
set some priorities and fund 99 percent of what the state takes care of now.
She's hoping the voters will support her this fall as they
did the income tax rollback in 2000. That statewide referendum passed by a 60-40 margin so the odds should be on her side.
At least for now, she is backed up by most logical legislators who say the will of the voters
must be respected and that the rollback will help pull the state out of recession
as residents spend the money they're saving on taxes.
But the special interests that fought the tax rollback and
now see a way to beat it are clearly making headway.
And they may ultimately win because they have succeeded in
framing the debate in terms of a budget deficit and cuts in human services, as opposed to proper management of a very
healthy state budget that ballooned during the 1990s.
Also, Massachusetts residents are generous. They don't want
others to suffer. Many feel they can get along without the tax cut, which amounts to about $150 a year for a typical family.
Massachusetts is still comparatively well off. There may be
a recession but it's not like the one in the early 1990s. The state unemployment rate is 4.2 percent -- what used to be
considered full employment -- while the national rate is 5.8 percent. Massachusetts was
worse off than the rest of the country in the last recession.
Another indication of the state's prosperity is the healthy
rate of consumer spending despite the recession and the terrorist attacks.
Sales tax revenue in 2001 was nearly equal with 2000. More
people were eating out more often. And lots of people had the money to take advantage of those zero-interest car deals
last fall. Auto sales were up 8 percent for the year.
Now that the economy appears to be on the upswing, the
public may well decide -- and they may particularly be inclined to say so when questioned by pollsters and reporters -- that
they are willing to give up their tax cut to help the less fortunate. The Democrats running this fall
are counting on that.
Her prospects of winning a term as governor in her own right
will be improved if she can do a better job of explaining how she can manage the budget without a tax increase in a way
that will benefit the economy, taxpayers and even those who depend on state government in
the long run.
That's a tall order in Massachusetts
Ned Bristol is editor of the Sun Chronicle.
Return to top
