PS. The first Taxpayer Protection Pledge was returned to us in
yesterday's mail, signed by Libertarian Party candidate for governor Carla Howell. Thank you
Carla.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 29, 2002
A Boston Globe editorial
Romney's realism
Congratulation to Mitt Romney for resisting the cheap
political gimmick of the no-new-tax pledge. This dubious New Hampshire import has put Massachusetts Republicans in a fiscal
straitjacket for too long, and Romney is wise to see that the revenue crisis is severe enough
to require that every tool be at the state's disposal.
Barbara Anderson's entreaty that the pledge is meant only to
be a deterrent to the Legislature is laughable. She and her soldiers at
Citizens for Limited Taxation work hard to destroy the careers of politicians who won't take the pledge, and it is
refreshing to see Romney decline to submit to this barely concealed blackmail.
Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who is running for the
Democratic nomination for governor, obviously scored with a series of radio ads attacking Romney for failing to face
reality on the fiscal crisis. He should declare victory and stop complaining now that Romney
is "waffling" on the tax issue. We consider Romney's comments, made twice this week, in
Springfield and Lynnfield, to be his authentic position. "I am not in favor of increasing taxes,"
he told a Globe reporter, but "at this stage, I am inclined ... not to enter into a
written pledge of some kind, and that's true on this and other issues."
If that's just a matter of keeping his options open, it is
still wiser than closing them shut.
No one likes to increase taxes, but extreme circumstances
sometimes require unpleasant solutions. What Romney needs to do now is apply his much-vaunted business sense to the
budget crisis and tell the voters how he would solve it. If he thinks a projected $2 billion
deficit for the fiscal year beginning in July can be closed without raising taxes, how would he
do it? Where would he cut services? How many state workers would be laid off?
Candidates who are serving in office now are struggling with
the real business of closing the budget gap. They are required to declare themselves on cuts and taxes; to be judged as
equals, Romney and the others need to do more than kibitz from the sidelines.
The voters want to hear Romney's philosophy of government.
Does a society operate best when it gets out of people's way or do all citizens share a responsibility to provide for their
less fortunate neighbors? Are there any limits to what the market can achieve? Where is the
line between profligate pork-barrel spending and essential services? This is a debate
Massachusetts desperately needs to have this year.
The state budget is a public document - the governor's
proposal for next year's spending is available online - and it is not too soon for Romney to pore through the hundreds of
programs and line items looking for economies. Every real solution he identifies will benefit
the state, whether he becomes governor or not.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, March 28, 2002
FRAMINGHAM - State Rep. Susan Pope, R-Wayland, yesterday called
for the abolition of Proposition 2½, becoming one of the first Republicans in more than a decade to speak
out against the voter-approved property-tax law.
"I personally think the time has come to do away with
2½," said Pope, who also serves as a Wayland selectman. "I think it has outlived its usefulness, and I think we have to
look seriously at that."
Pope made her comments at a MetroWest Growth Management
Committee legislative caucus, where several lawmakers discussed anticipated cuts in local aid with area officials.
State aid may decrease as much as 10 percent in fiscal 2003
because of the state's growing budget deficit, they said.
Backers of the landmark law say Prop 2½ has helped keep
regressive property taxes in check, while opponents - usually municipal officials - say it has hampered their ability to
provide critical services.
Pope said town costs have risen to such a degree that local
officials need more flexibility to raise revenue.
Both Wayland and Sudbury, two towns represented by Pope, are
facing overrides this spring to deal with rising school costs, as are several other MetroWest towns. Sudbury
passed its override Monday.
"I think 2½ has outlived its time," Pope said. "Inflation
has gone above 2½. I think it really hamstrings the towns on what they can do. I think local officials will agree, and
that's what you have to look at for towns," said Pope. "I would like to see (Prop
2½) abolished outright."
Passed in a statewide vote in 1980, Proposition 2½
limits the growth in revenue from property taxes in a city or town to no more than 2.5 percent over the previous year. Exempt
from the cap is added land value from the past year's construction projects, known as "new
growth."
The only other way to breach the 2.5 percent cap is to gain
voter approval for a debt exclusion or an override.
Pope's proposal won cautious support from a few attendees at
the MetroWest forum.
"Why would anyone be opposed to at least lifting 2½
to 3 or 3.5 percent?" said Bob Eisenmenger, a veteran member of the Natick Planning Board.
But the leader of the Proposition 2½ movement, Citizens
for Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson, said
in a telephone interview that attempts to change the law are unfounded, and doomed to failure.
"This is why we were called 'Taxachusetts.' It was because
our property tax was way out of proportion with the rest of the country," said Anderson. "It's nicely under control (now), and
we certainly never want to go back to the pre-1980s."
Anderson said adjustments to allow towns to keep revenue
from new growth have "far exceeded inflation over the years." She also said local aid from the state was boosted
dramatically to compensate for initial Proposition 2½ reductions.
But other MetroWest officials, while slow to back Pope's
call to abolish the property tax cap, argued that state officials need to give towns more flexibility to generate other
local revenue.
Among the suggestions were regional impact fees on developers to help pay for road and
school costs in adjoining towns, and a deed transfer tax on property sales to benefit
local schools.
Impact fees are one-time fees charged primarily to home
builders to try to offset the added costs that towns, especially town schools, face when new residents move into
town, increasing the school population and need for other town services. So far, towns that have
charged impact fees have seen them struck down in court.
"When (Republican lawmakers) say 'no new taxes,' they're
just kidding you," said Milton Gilbert, another veteran Natick official. "There will be more taxes on the local level. The
reality is there is only one solution, and that is to leave it to the communities, but give them
more options."
State Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham, sounded a cautionary
note about raising property taxes, saying they are regressive and often hit politically active senior citizens the
hardest, including homeowners whose houses have risen significantly in
value over the years.
"Even though they have a nice asset ... they are being
'tax-evicted' from their homes. That's a concern," Magnani said.
"Unless we have a significant increase in the size and
eligibility of the Circuit Breaker (tax break for eligible seniors), then property tax overrides are not going to pass
because of who goes to the polls, and the real ability to afford them," Magnani said.
Ed Bates, who serves on Ashland's comprehensive planning
committee, said "impact fees ought to be a local option" but noted that similar measures, such as the Community
Preservation Act, are often especially unpopular in working-class towns.
"Affluent communities take advantage more often of local
options," Bates said. "There is a downside for us to be aware of."
And Ted Welte, the president and CEO of the MetroWest
Chamber of Commerce, said impact fees are often misapplied.
"As long as they're directly linked to the impact of a
particular development, (they) can be very useful as a public policy tool," said Welte. "But, unfortunately, they're often
just thrown into a bucket and have no relevance to a benefit to that particular development."
Although Welte said the chamber has no official position on
Proposition 2½, he also said abolishing the law, as Pope suggested, is unlikely.
"I don't think you'll ever see it," said Welte. "I honestly
don't believe the will of the people is there to make any changes in Proposition
2½."
Also at the panel, Holliston Selectman Andrew Porter asked
Beacon Hill lawmakers to recognize the urgency of notifying towns as soon as possible about any major cuts or added
state mandates.
"You better not tell us in September, because then we're
dead," Porter said.
And while a House working group on local aid has proposed
allowing towns to raise the automobile excise tax by $5 per $1,000 of assessed value, other tax hikes on the state level
could also be under consideration.
State Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham, said the state had
granted tens of millions of dollars worth of corporate tax breaks to banks and other industry groups over the last
decade that may be reconsidered.
"Some of these cuts ... they're on the horizon as well," she
said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 28, 2002
Cigarette tax hike weighed
Legislators seek Medicaid funds
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
With state lawmakers appearing unlikely to make cuts in
health coverage for the poor, momentum is building for a proposal to increase the state's cigarette tax by as much as $1
per pack to pay for medical care.
The proposal would give Massachusetts the highest tobacco
tax in the nation, and the price of a pack of cigarettes here could top $5.
Legislators have been struggling to come up with ways to
curtail the soaring costs of Mass Health, the state's Medicaid program, which accounts for one-quarter of state spending and
has been growing by 10 percent annually. However, a House committee charged with
revamping Medicaid is expected to recommend no major cuts next week and say that the
state must honor its commitment to people who need the care.
The cigarette tax represents an increasingly popular revenue
stream to deal with the shortfall, said state Representative Rachel Kaprielian, a Watertown Democrat who has actively sought
a cigarette tax increase. Lawmakers are discussing a tax increase of anywhere from 50 cents
to $1.
"It's very important that we continue to have health care
for people who need it," she said. "There's a nexus between this tax and the cost of health care. And there's the extra
added bonus of fewer smokers. But it's a collective decision. Every member has to decide... what is
reasonable."
The advocacy group Health Care for All is holding a lobbying
day and rally today to push for the tax. The group is also releasing a report arguing that Medicaid cuts cost far more
than they save, since taking services away from people costs government more down the line,
when patients show up in emergency rooms.
"Medicaid does what it's supposed to do, and it's very
cost-effective for the Commonwealth," said Michael Miller, Health Care for All's policy director.
An increase in the cigarette tax has the support of the
chairmen of the House and Senate Ways and Means committees, and polls indicate that most voters support a cigarette tax
increase to pay for health care programs. A cigarette tax increase appears likely to be among
the first passed by the Legislature this spring, though Acting Governor Jane Swift has
promised a veto, and it's unclear if the Legislature has the votes to override her veto.
Massachusetts taxes cigarettes at 76 cents a pack - the 11th
highest amount in the nation. An increase of $1 a pack would exceed New York's tax of $1.50 per pack.
Advocates say a $1 per pack increase would give the state
close to $300 million in extra cash to put toward health care needs. And according to a new study by the American
Cancer Society, it would lead to people saving hundreds of millions of
dollars in health-care costs because of reduced smoking.
Some fears have been expressed that a tax increase of $1 per
pack could jeopardize tobacco tax revenues, since smokers could be attracted out of state or to the Internet for
cigarettes.
"You're going to be chasing lots of smokers up to New
Hampshire, feeding their tax revenues at the expense of our own," said David G. Tuerck, executive director of Suffolk
University's Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research. "At first blush, it looks like a
poorly crafted idea."
Because of Swift's promised veto, two-thirds of House and
Senate members would have to support a cigarette tax increase for it to become law. Senate Ways and Means chairman
Mark C. Montigny said he can't yet be sure whether the votes are there,
but his personal support for the measure is unequivocal.
"We feel very, very strongly that we must do the cigarette
tax, and 50 cents is a minimum," said Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat.
State Representative Harriett L. Stanley, the West Newbury
Democrat who is leading a House task force seeking reductions in Medicaid costs, agreed. Her committee plans to tell
the full House next week that Medicaid benefits should not be scaled back and that she is
leaning toward a tobacco tax increase to pay for the rising costs.
The House is scheduled to debate the cigarette tax and other
tax proposals the week of April 29.
Return to top
