The Boston Herald
Saturday, March 23, 2002
A Boston Herald Editorial
Romney's tax pledge
Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitt Romney got off to a
good start this past week, sounding, well - would you believe it - like a Republican.
Romney went on record early and emphatically saying he would
not support either a freeze in or a reversal of the voter-mandated income tax rollback.
"The easy way to fix any problem is to go to the people and
say you have to pay more money, but that's not what the job of management is," Romney said. "That's my pledge. We
are not going to raise taxes. We are not going to walk away from what voters are in favor of
doing, which is bringing tax rates down."
Politicians who say what they mean, mean what they say and
respect the will of voters are a rare breed, but now we know not an extinct one.
Return to top
The New Bedford Standard Times
Saturday, March 23, 2002
State may let cities, towns raise car tax
By David Kibbe
Ottaway News Service
BOSTON -- Faced with the prospect of state aid cuts that could
reach 10 percent next year, some legislators in the state House of Representatives are offering cities and towns a
partial solution: increasing the local excise tax on cars.
Currently, the tax is $25 per $1,000 of a motor vehicle's
value. A House committee has recommended giving municipalities the option of increasing the tax by $5 per $1,000 of
value. That would mean an additional $50 a year for the owner of a car
worth $10,000.
First, the tax hike would have to be approved by the
Legislature.
Then, cities and towns would decide individually whether
they want to raise the excise tax. The money goes directly to the municipality, even though it is authorized by the state.
The proposal is already getting mixed reviews. In Fall
River, Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. said the increase could generate an additional $1 million, but he didn't know how
seriously it would be considered. Fall River faces a $25 million shortfall next year, including a projected
$14 million cut in state aid.
"The excise tax may be part of the mix," Mr. Lambert said,
adding it would be one of many areas to be studied.
New Bedford Mayor Frederick M. Kalisz Jr. outright rejected
any notion of hiking the car tax, calling it "unacceptable."
"I don't think that would be a responsible approach on the
part of the state to pass on that local option," Mayor Kalisz said. "The taxpayers have been asked to bear the brunt of
property revaluation, and the tax bills have soared as a result of that."
Mayor Kalisz has told department heads to cut their budgets
by 18 percent. He said staffing in the police and fire departments was a priority and would stay the same.
The excise tax suggestion was made by a special Working
Group on Local Aid that was formed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. The committee estimated than a statewide
increase in the excise tax would generate up to $130 million in new revenue
for municipalities. The excise tax hasn't been raised in 20 years.
The idea has not come up in the Senate, although state Sen.
Mark C.W. Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat who chairs the Senate Ways and Means Committee, supports giving
local governments flexibility on such issues.
"I am not signing on to this excise proposal and have not
even seriously considered it," Sen. Montigny said.
Other options from the House committee included incentives
for early retirement in cities and towns, rolling back a bonus program for police officers who take college classes, and
increasing the gas, cigarette and capital gains taxes.
Rep. Finneran's spokesman, Charles Rasmussen, couldn't say
whether there would be enough support in the House to take up the excise proposal.
Legislators are expected to debate a range of tax issues in
the House and Senate this spring.
"I think it's fair to say that every single spending and
revenue source needs to be reevaluated," Sen. Montigny said.
Legislative leaders are quick to point out that aid to
cities and towns soared when the state economy was booming. In the past decade, education spending increased $2 billion, or 11
percent per year. General government aid rose by $400 million, or 4 percent a year, while
inflation was about 3 percent.
The Legislature is expected to seriously consider at least
freezing the income-tax cut that voters approved two years ago. The state faces a $2 billion budget gap next year.
Geoff Beckwith, the executive director of the Massachusetts
Municipal Association, thought the excise tax proposal would be well-received in the current climate.
"Certainly, I think local officials across the state would
be very open to the idea," he said. "It's an idea that warrants serious consideration. We feel it should not be used as a
vehicle for reducing local state aid, but rather as a way to shore up revenue for cities and towns."
State Rep. Demetrius Atsalis, D-Hyannis, who served on the
working group, said critics were overreacting to the suggestion of raising the excise tax.
"We're not saying we're giving the OK, the blessing to say
this is what we want," he said. "We are giving you the option. If you want to go forward and raise it by $5, you can do it."
Return to top
The Lawrence Eagle Tribune
Friday, March 22, 2002
An Eagle Tribune editorial
Too much is never enough
OUR VIEW
The Massachusetts Legislature will extract more taxes from citizens, one way or another.
If you can't get the money out of one pocket, take it from
another.
That's the credo of the Massachusetts Legislature, which is
endlessly creative in seeking new ways to tax citizens. This same Legislature, mind you, is struck dumb when asked to come
up with ways to cut spending.
The Legislature is considering freezing the rollback of the
"temporary" state income tax at 5.3 percent or increasing it to 5.6 percent. Another plan would cut the personal exemption in
half.
The bottom line is: You, Mr. and Mrs. Citizen, simply don't
pay enough taxes to pay for all the wonderful things the Legislature wants to do. Every proposed cut would be
"devastating" to one group or another. "Children will suffer," don't you know.
The latest proposal comes from a committee appointed by
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. The state is reducing the amount of aid given to cities and towns to supplement
their own bloated budgets. But of course this will cause undue suffering
and hardship and so forth. So the recommended solution is to increase the cap on excise taxes assessed by
communities.
Excise tax is paid on vehicles to the communities in which
they are registered. The current cap on excise tax is $25 per $1,000. That means a person owning a car worth $10,000 pays
a maximum of $250 in excise tax.
The proposal would increase the cap to $30 per $1,000,
raising the maximum tax on a $10,000 vehicle by $50.
It doesn't matter to the average citizen whether it's his
income or excise taxes that go up. Either way, it's a tax increase. It all comes from the same wallet.
The problem is that this is a permanent tax increase to deal
with a temporary revenue shortage caused by the now-ended recession. There is every indication that the state's
economy will begin to grow again, if only legislators can exercise some
short-term fiscal discipline.
When a family has a temporary revenue shortage, it makes do
with less for awhile.
But not our legislators. When money's tight they know where
to get more and more.
It comes right out of our pockets. Hitting citizens with a
raft of tax increases during tough economic times is just wrong.
It's time we said, "Enough!"
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Friday, March 22, 2002
A Lowell Sun editorial
Tax-y drivers
Our distinguished friends in the General Court of the
Commonwealth are at it again. Last week, it was House Speaker Tom Finneran who said the Legislature was considering raising
the state income tax from 5.3 percent to 5.6 percent, despite the will of the voters, as
expressed in a 2000 referendum, that the rate be reduced to 5 percent in 2003.
This week, it's Majority Whip Lida Harkins who is seeking to
balance the state budget on the backs of Massachusetts taxpayers -- particularly those who drive.
In anticipation of local aid cuts caused by declining
revenues -- as well as fiscal mismanagement and excessive spending -- Rep. Harkins has proposed raising local
automobile excise taxes by $5 per $1,000 of the value of the automobile.
The excise rate is now $25 per $1,000. So a two-income family driving two moderately priced cars to work
might have to pay $150 more per year in excise taxes.
Add that to the .3 percent increase "proposed" on the state
income tax bill -- an expense taxpayers shouldn't have to pay if the Legislature were to honor the voice of the voters --
and you can see that working-class people are going to get their pockets picked. This is only
the beginning, however.
Two weeks ago, the leadership of the Democrat-controlled
Legislature put out a list of 16 taxes it had under consideration for raising new revenues. Two have now made it to
the front of the class, but don't expect them to be the last.
In this state, the sad fiscal story always remains the same.
The only way the Legislature can manage consumption is not by spending privation, but by excessive taxation.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 24, 2002
Swift wants to put budget up for debate
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Acting Gov. Jane M. Swift is challenging her Beacon Hill
rivals to a series of town-meeting-style budget debates, in her first attempt to retain relevance during her
lame-duck months.
In a letter to House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate
President Thomas F. Birmingham, Swift acknowledges that lawmakers have ignored her no-new-taxes stance, and
flouted her proposals on Lottery prize payouts, tobacco settlement money
and pension funding.
The three top leaders, who together must address a budget
deficit closing in on $3 billion, ought to explain their positions to the public and face questions from citizens and
the media, Swift said.
"Let us agree to disagree - but to take our case in a
reasoned manner to the public," Swift says in her letter.
Swift broached the idea - one part of a five-prong "fiscal
recovery plan" - at a meeting with the legislative leaders on Tuesday.
Birmingham, a gubernatorial candidate who has proposed
holding historically private budget negotiations in public, said he's "game" to take the stage with Swift and
Finneran.
"I am not at all embarrassed or apologetic about the values
that inform my budget decisions," he said.
Beacon Hill's three power figures rarely appear together in
public, although they do meet privately on a weekly basis.
If nothing else, Birmingham said, public debates "may have
appeal just as theater."
Swift also suggests that the state's fiscal straits are too
dire for the legislative branches and the administration to keep working at secretive cross-purposes.
If the three staffs shared information through a "collaborative" budget process, it would be
easier to find savings and government efficiencies, Swift argued.
"Instead of three entities all working alone, why not bring
the top House, Senate and Administration (budget) analysts together," Swift says.
That idea is far less likely to fly - given the territorial
brinkmanship that's characterized budget negotiations between the House and Senate in recent years.
Birmingham expressed skepticism, despite a disclaimer that
"I don't want to slam the door on anything."
"I don't want to encroach on the legitimate role of the
members of the Senate in informing our policies," Birmingham said.
Swift also proposes that the three leaders hustle to agree
by April 5 how much money the state has to spend in the coming year.
That would allow the state to quickly - by April 15 - let
local officials know how much local aid to expect, Swift said.
In the short term, with the state facing a $534 million
shortfall in the current fiscal year, Swift demands that lawmakers either approve her solutions - dipping into the rainy
day fund and shortchanging the pension fund - or come up with a few of their own.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Sunday, March 24, 2002
A MetroWest Daily News editorial
Excise tax hike for cities, towns
To the people working to hammer municipal budgets into
balance, the immediate task is to weed out whatever spending cities and towns can live without. But the problem, they say,
is on the revenue side. The new growth that expanded the tax base year after year through the
'90s slowed to a crawl last year. An increased local share of Lottery receipts, phased in
over five years, has peaked. With the news from Beacon Hill only getting worse, the question is
no longer whether local aid will be cut, but how much.
Cities and towns have few options for making up that lost
revenue, all of them unpleasant. Local officials are looking at new trash fees, charging students for busing and school sports
and raising property taxes through Proposition 2½ overrides.
A working group appointed by House Speaker Tom Finneran has
come up with a handful of proposals that might help a little on the municipal side, including changing the way overlay
accounts are counted under Proposition 2½ and loosening the rules governing municipal
construction. One of its proposals deserves serious consideration: Allowing cities and towns
to raise the motor vehicle excise tax.
The excise tax has been capped since 1980 at $25 per $1,000
of value. The proposal would allow cities and towns to raise it by $5 per $1,000. It's a modest increase unless you are
buying an expensive car, but people buying expensive cars presumably can afford it.
The increase wouldn't solve every municipality's budget
problems. Framingham, for instance, would gain $1.3 million from the increase. That's not enough to close the $7 million
gap facing town officials, but it would be a big help.
There are other advantages. Unlike a fee for trash collection or school activities, excise taxes
can be deducted on federal tax forms. Poorer people, whose cars, if they have
them, are worth less, will keep paying less. And the money goes directly to cities and towns without
having to wait for a legislative appropriation.
With a budget crisis growing at both the local and state
levels, there are no easy solutions. But if the Legislature can't give cities and towns the money they need to maintain
services, at least it can provide tools for raising the money locally. A small excise tax increase, enacted
by local option, is a reasonable response to today's harsh fiscal realities.
Return to top
To: The MetroWest Daily News
Re: Your editorial of this date
(Published Mar. 28, 2002: "Excise is an imposed tax
increase")
Dear editor:
In your editorial ("Excise tax hike for cities, towns,"
March 24), you recognized "The new growth that expanded the tax base year after year through the '90s slowed to a crawl
last year." That's a good start.
But you went downhill from there: "Cities and towns have few
options for making up that lost revenue."
That revenue -- local aid from the state -- nearly doubled
since 1990, along with most municipal budgets.
Wouldn't the prudent response be living within one's means
once the gravy train stopped chugging along?
Since the auto excise component of Proposition 2½ reduced
the rate from $66 to $25 per $1,000, total revenue to the state's municipalities leaped from $112 million in FY '82 to
$534 million by FY 2000, according to the Division of Local Services. A 500 percent revenue
increase is hardly a crisis.
"Poorer people, whose cars, if they have them, are worth
less, will keep paying less," you surmise, but in my experience an increase in the rate of any tax means that everyone, wealthy
and poor alike, will be paying more. Isn't that the intended purpose of an increased tax?
Finally, "A small excise tax increase, enacted by local
option, is a reasonable response to today's harsh fiscal realities," you concluded. Unlike a Proposition
2½ override, an excise tax increased without voter approval is not an
option, it is imposed.
Chip Ford
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Return to top
