Marblehead selectmen reacted with predictable horror at the
bad news state Rep. Doug Petersen gave them last week: aid to municipalities from state coffers is not going up and may
very well go down.
Petersen told selectmen in both Marblehead and Swampscott,
as well as readers of last week's Reporter, that the fiscal 2003 state budget is about $2 billion in the red. And, he said,
even if the income tax rollback approved overwhelmingly by voters in a 2000 referendum
were to be "deferred" until an economic recovery comes around, the budget will still be more
than $1.5 billion out of balance. A total of 67 percent of Marblehead voters supported
Question 4, the income tax rollback, which was slightly higher than the 60 percent
statewide total.
Petersen said he wants feedback about delaying the income
tax rollback, by phone, mail, or e-mail. Bill Woodfin, chairman of selectmen, said Marbleheaders should also make their
feelings known to selectmen and School Committee members.
Woodfin thanked Petersen for not "sugar-coating" the
situation and noted that "even at the rosiest projection, Marblehead is $326,000 in the red, with no pay increases to
(town) employees." He admitted Marblehead, like most cities and towns, "has become more and
more dependent on local aid" from the state.
Selectmen Jeff Shribman said he'd like to be sure that if
the income tax reduction is delayed, the $459 million in additional revenue the state collects will really go to cities
and towns, not somewhere else.
"If we knew the towns would be getting the money, our
response (to a delay in income tax rollback) might be different," Shribman said.
Petersen said he thought legislators might be willing to
commit themselves to that tactic, but said he could make no guarantees.
Selectman Harry Christensen also seemed reluctant to play
with the results of a 2-1 landslide vote in the referendum.
"The referendum results were clear and to ignore the wishes
of the voters would be obnoxious and condescending," Christensen said. "However, many who voted in favor might
have been unaware there would be a consequence. Nevertheless, the people have spoken."
Petersen, who has been arguing vigorously that the wishes of
voters in a separate referendum about "clean elections" must be honored, said he is "very reluctant" to go against the wishes
of the voters, but still wants to know if many have changed their minds.
"My feelings would be different if I get a sense the people
have a different sentiment today," he said. "But people have a right to run their government into the ground if they so
choose."
Petersen said Medicaid remains a colossal problem for state
government and admitted that one attempt by the legislature to solve the problem -- Medicaid now costs $6 billion a year,
one-quarter of the entire state budget -- has been a failure.
He said legislators raised cigarette taxes to pay for
Medicaid for children and seniors, thereby theoretically reducing the need for state money to compensate hospitals for
free care. However, free care was not reduced at all, he said, while the cost of Medicaid rose.
Woodfin said selectmen should not shy away from the local
budget crisis and leave the Finance Committee to wrestle with the problem alone.
"Good leadership is shown not in good times, but in troubled
times," Woodfin said. "And we are going to have a difficult time. We like to say the Board of Selectmen makes policy
decisions, so we should be sending signals to the Finance Committee. We need to decide
sometime in the next two weeks what areas (of the town budget) we're going to cut.
"Make no mistake: we're going to have to make cuts. Call the
selectmen and the School Committee and make your feelings known," he advised the audience and local TV viewers.
Selectmen delayed a decision on a request by Framingham
selectmen to endorse a "freeze" in the income tax rollback, awaiting input from citizens. Framingham officials calculated
that if the freeze is adopted and all of the additional income tax is returned to municipalities on a
strict per-capita basis, Marblehead would get $1.6 million.
Legislators rarely distribute funds on a per-capita basis,
however, usually preferring to give large amounts to urban areas through various formulas.
The Marblehead Reporter
February 13, 2002
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
No need for a poll
To the editor:
Why is Representative Petersen asking the selectmen to poll
the citizens of Marblehead on our support for a "temporary" tax increase by denying the will of the people on Question 4?
And why is the Marblehead Reporter editorializing in support of such a move?
I don't recall a request for a poll before either of them
came out in support of funding Clean Elections. In fact, the primary stated reason for funding Clean Elections is that the
people have spoken and that the Legislature should honor the outcome of the vote. Why is Question
4 different?
The answer is that it's not different. This is an issue of
principle and consistency. During their respective elections, I was opposed to welfare for politicians (a/k/a Clean Elections)
and supported Question 4. However, now that they're both the law of the land, I believe the
Legislature should honor the will of the people on both ballot initiatives. My mother taught
me that to do anything else would make me a hypocrite.
Maybe the selectmen would do better to take a poll of
Marbleheaders to find out how we feel about hypocrisy from our local newspaper and elected officials.
Dave Rizzo
Marblehead
A call for consistency
To the editor:
Last week's Reporter carried an article in which Rep. Doug
Petersen said he wants a reading from his electorate about "suspending" the income tax rollback. Hi, Doug, read this: More
of your constituents voted for the income tax rollback than voted for your Clean Elections
initiative.
I voted "no" on Clean Elections because I didn't think
taxpayer dollars should be used to fund candidates, but after the voters spoke I defended their right to be obeyed on both
issues. The same consistency from you would be nice. After all, Clean Elections will cost the
state money that could also be used for local aid.
The income tax rollback phases out a 13-year-old "temporary"
tax hike, which could have been repealed easily in the mid-90s. You chose to wait until you were forced by the voters
to finally give it up. Surely you don't think that we are foolish enough to believe that freezing
the rate would be "temporary"!
We support local aid, too; but if you don't get state
spending under control now, you never will until there is a real fiscal crisis, leading to serious local aid cuts. Stop
reading and get to work!
Barbara Anderson
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Marblehead
State needs to be more business-like
To the editor:
I was disappointed and surprised to read about Rep.
Petersen's "considerations" of his solutions to balance FY 2003's budget. It appears that his only answer is to increase
taxes all kinds of taxes! Apparently, he might even favor negating the strong mandate from his
electorate to roll back the state income tax to 5.0 percent.
It's quite certain that some extra source of money will be
required. Some tax increases are probably inevitable, but to balance the scales, how about an equal amount of budget cuts?
When a business is in financial trouble, it cuts costs and reduces people. Although the state is
not a business, there is no reason it cant's act business-like.
Talking about rollbacks, perhaps to show some good faith
Rep. Petersen should recommend a rollback of the last pay increase the House voted themselves.
Irving G. Block
Marblehead
Time to jettison legislators
To the editor:
Your encouragement to support the suspension of the "income
tax rollback" has been duly noted. Alas, I cannot support your viewpoint, hence I have let Rep. Petersen know where I
stand on that issue.
The road to solve the problem of "tax shortfalls" is for the
Commonwealth to exercise good fiscal responsibility. The best solution is by cutting all the massive waste, pork and ridding
itself of the political "hackarama" that infests the State House and budget.
Getting indigent people off the welfare rolls and making
them productive members of society and contributing to the tax base will be of great benefit to the Commonwealths tax
problems.
It's time the citizens of the Commonwealth woke up to the
fact that their freedoms and liberties are slowly being eroded and taxed to death by the "sociocrats" in the State House.
Instead of throwing tea in the harbor, as they did in 1773, we should "jettison" the lot of them
from the State House and start anew.
James C. Full
Marblehead
