Will she or won't she?, that is the question.
You may have noticed, if you read very carefully, that the
Herald headline this morning -- "Anti-taxers blast Swift" was a tad exaggerated. All of us who were asked about what the Globe
called "Swift softens stance on tax rollback" were very careful in our response -- as I intend to be again when I tape Jon
Keller's TV-56 show this afternoon (for broadcast on Sunday morning).
I said that I had no reason to assume that the Governor
would break her "no new taxes" pledge to the people of the commonwealth, then gave several reasons why I didn't think she
would. It seems to me that Chris Anderson and the others said much the same thing. How the Herald got from there to the
headline I don't know.
On the other hand, the reporters who were at her press
availability yesterday may have picked up on something that the rest of us just hope isn't happening.
It's possible that Mitt Romney's refusal to take the pledge
may have created a climate that lets the Gov. Swift think she doesn't have to keep hers.
But if she plans to run again, why not stick to her guns,
let the Democrats refuse to cooperate with her spending cuts, let Mitt if he wins deal with the ongoing spending crisis, then
come back when the kids are older and say, see, I was the taxpayers' friend and kept my word; all those other things I
did wrong were the result of youth and inexperience, which are no longer a problem.
Well, that's what I would do, anyhow.
While we wait to see if she stays with the pledge, we can
enjoy the speech she gave to the Massachusetts alleged Taxpayers Foundation the same day she announced she wasn't
running again.
TEAM Education Fund
NEWS RELEASE
April 10, 2002
CONTACT: Jim St. George, 617-426-1228 x102
Jeff McLynch, 617-426-1228 x103
New Report Shows Massachusetts Fails to Measure Up;
Revenue, Spending Well Below Other States
A report released today by the TEAM Education Fund shows
that revenue and spending levels in Massachusetts have fallen significantly over the past twenty years and are now well
below most other states. The report, Measuring Up - Taxes and Spending in Massachusetts,
uses state and local data from the U.S. Census Bureau for fiscal year 1999 (the most current
data available) and compares Massachusetts to other states on the basis of the amount of
revenue generated through various methods and on the basis of the amount of spending
devoted to various program areas. It also uses state and local data for
fiscal year 1979 to contrast tax and spending levels in Massachusetts over two decades time.
Measuring Up finds that, over the past 20 years, Massachusetts has cut both revenue and
spending more than any state in the nation. Between FY79 and FY99, total state and
local revenue in Massachusetts, as a share of personal income, fell by 8.6 percent, while,
nationally, it grew by 12.2 percent. Over the same period, state and local spending as a
share of personal income dropped by 12.0 percent in Massachusetts, but rose by 11.5
percent across the country as a whole.
As a result, Massachusetts' standing relative to other
states has fallen precipitously over the past 20 years. As Measuring Up points out, in FY79, Massachusetts ranked 14th in
the nation in terms of total state and local spending as a share of personal income. In FY99, it
stands 42nd. Of particular note, spending on K-12 education in Massachusetts,
as a share of personal income, plummeted from 7th in the nation in FY79 to 49th in FY99. In fact,
Measuring Up reveals that Massachusetts spends less as a share of income on K-12
education, on higher education, and on education overall than virtually every other state - it
ranked 49th in all three of these categories in FY99.
In addition, Measuring Up demonstrates that total state and
local revenue - which includes taxes as well as fees, charges, and tolls - constitutes 14.2 percent of personal income in
FY99, significantly below the national level of 15.3 percent and a smaller share of income
than in all but eight states. In addition, the report shows that total taxes are slightly below
the overall national level and 29th out of the 50 states.
"The data presented in this report make it clear that
excessive spending is not the cause of the current fiscal crisis," said Jim St. George, Executive Director of the TEAM
Education Fund. "As this report shows, what's really to blame is insufficient revenue. The Legislature
and the Governor must address this first if they want to restore fiscal stability and
to improve the state's ability to invest in the future."
Copies of Measuring Up may be obtained by calling the TEAM
Education Fund at 617-426-1228.
Return to top
CLT NEWS RELEASE
TEAM: What is it, nuts?
April 10, 2002
Contact: Chip Ford - (781) 631-6842
Barbara Anderson (508) 384-0100
TEAM, the special interest tax-and-spend advocacy group
affectionately known among taxpayers as "Tax Everything And More," has issued another of its "educational"
tax-and-spend advocacy reports. This one, titled "Measuring Up - Taxes and
Spending in Massachusetts" reaches conclusions that defy even a basic understanding of the
commonwealth's fiscal situation and insults a reader's intelligence.
"The data presented in this report make it clear that
excessive spending is not the cause of the current fiscal crisis. As this report shows, what's really to blame is
insufficient revenue," said Jim St. George, Executive Director of the TEAM "Education" Fund.
With this peculiar statement, St. George makes it clear why
education, run by one of TEAM's primary sponsors, the Mass Teachers Association, is in trouble.
The state budget almost doubled over the last decade, during
which the state saw annual billion-dollar revenue surpluses. We
all know this; we all wrote about it.
Relying on simple common sense and having read George
Orwell, we recognize that "spending is not the cause," etc. equates with "war is peace" and other
bass-ackwards propaganda. The state budget has gone from $4 Billion to $23 Billion in the
period that TEAM cites.
A few basic facts (not intended to confuse TEAM):
-
Addressing education spending as "a percentage of personal
income" is absurd. Our state spending is 7th highest per-student in the nation. If the Pied Piper pranced through
and took all the kids away, we could still have a high or low level of education spending
relative to personal income, but it wouldn't be educating anyone. Nor is TEAM with this
new report.
Our state is not experiencing a revenue crisis. It's a
spending crisis for those who cannot break the habit of spending a billion dollars more every year ... or receiving it.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 11, 2002
Anti-taxers blast Swift
by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Acting Gov. Jane M. Swift's sudden retreat from her
no-new-taxes pledge yesterday drew rapid fire from anti-tax activists and political supporters who said it would undo a
12-year Republican legacy.
The acting governor yesterday dropped her frequent critiques
of Democrats as eager to hike taxes and her refrain that all tax hikes or new levies would be vetoed out of hand.
Despite twice signing a no-tax pledge, including one a year
ago that featured a giant cutout copy of the pledge at a press conference, Swift would only speak of a "goal" to keep taxes
down.
"I want to keep taxes low but I also want to meet our
responsibility to produce a budget on time," Swift said. "What I'm saying is that it's important that all parties are coming
to the table and negotiating in good faith."
Swift's tax talk was dubbed worse than former President
George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" promise and a move that could cripple her political return and sully the legacy of the last
three GOP governors.
"All Bush did was make a statement he went back on - this is
something she signed, it's cast in stone," said Chip Faulkner of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "Once you take the pledge, you take it - whether you're a lame duck or not."
Supporters scurried to meet with Swift, hoping she might not
waver.
"We don't know what the 'it' is yet but, once we know,
there'll be plenty of time to throw darts," said Christopher R. Anderson, president of the anti-tax Massachusetts High
Technology Council.
Swift and her aides made it clear the administration has
drastically reversed course, refusing to repeat the "no new tax" mantra she inherited from Gov. Paul Cellucci a year ago
yesterday.
Swift said she doesn't regret taking the no-new-taxes
pledge, but she refused to publicly state her current position on taxes. Instead, Swift repeated simply that she will not
negotiate through the press.
Administration and Finance Secretary Kevin Sullivan admitted
taxes would be on the table.
"It's certainly something we're not going to lead with,"
Sullivan said. "If you begin to raise all kinds of taxes on people, you tend to begin to grow government."
Sources close to Swift said the idea of caving amid a $300
million budget gap has been tossed around a handful of high-level staff meetings, fronted mostly by Chief of Staff
Stephen P. Crosby. The sources said Crosby argued that tax hikes are inevitable and that ceding to
Democrats will prompt movement on other Swift budget priorities, like cuts to the
payouts of state Lottery winnings and in to state pensions.
Several sources said political considerations were made,
with many advising that Swift wouldn't recover if she gave in after years of arguing with Cellucci and former Gov. William
F. Weld against hikes.
"You leave no option available in the future to her - none,"
said an administration source familiar with the tax debate. "Is it worth more to get the budget done? Who will remember
that?"
Barbara Anderson, the vocal leader of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said Swift is sunk if she signs tax hikes into law.
"If she's planning to ever come back as a candidate, she'll
be in a very bad position having broken her word to the people of the Commonwealth," Anderson said. "I can't believe she'd
do that if she was planning to run for office again."
The move, less than a month after Swift decided not to run
for election, even prompted open rebellion from within the administration.
Robert Costrell, research director for Swift's Executive
Office of Administration and Finance, said Wall Street and the business community are keeping a sharp eye on the
"signals" the state sends about the direction of tax policy.
"Are we headed back to Taxachusetts or not?" Costrell asked.
"That has a powerful effect on the reputation here."
Republicans, for years used to following the Corner Office's
anti-tax agenda, said Swift, as recently as last week, was adamantly opposed to hikes.
"She took pains to mention that she had taken a no-new-taxes
pledge and that she intended to live up to it," said House Minority Leader Francis L. Marini (R-Hanson). "Maybe she's
had a change of heart. If she has, she hasn't told me about it."
State Rep. Bradley H. Jones Jr., (R-Reading), said Swift
would "absolutely" court rebellion if she considers permanent tax hikes.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran was skeptical of the shift.
"I've seen no evidence whatsoever of any softening on her
part," Finneran said. "She remains resolute on this issue, at least to this moment."
Christopher Anderson, president of the high tech group, said
business leaders wouldn't budge on opposition to permanent hikes.
"She certainly doesn't have any political risk given the
decision she made (not to run for election)," he said, "(but she has an opportunity to exercise pure leadership absent the
worries of how this plays in the polls."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 11, 2002
Swift softens stance on tax rollback
Stresses need for balanced budget
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
In a significant shift, Acting Governor Jane Swift yesterday
refused to rule out supporting tax increases and suggested that she may not oppose a freeze of the voter-approved income tax
if the Legislature approves it.
Asked if she would veto any tax increase that reaches her
desk, as she has previously vowed, Swift yesterday declined to respond, saying several times that she is negotiating such
issues with legislative leaders. In the past, she has relished opportunities to reiterate her
commitment to resist tax hikes and to make sure the income tax drops to 5 percent next year
as scheduled.
"What I'm saying is that it is important that all the
parties are coming to the table and negotiating in good faith, and I'm not going to negotiate through the media," Swift said
yesterday, her first anniversary as acting governor. "My goals are not ambiguous at all. It is to
keep taxes low. But I also believe we need to make sure that we get a budget done on
time."
The Globe reported yesterday that Swift is quietly preparing
to agree to a freeze of the income tax rollback and possibly other tax increases in exchange for concessions from
Democratic leaders on some of her priorities for meeting the state budget
deficit, including a delay in pension funding, reduction of prize payouts from the state lottery, and using more of
the state's annual payment from a tobacco lawsuit settlement.
Swift's softening on the tax issue could dramatically
reshape the current budget discussions on Beacon Hill. Legislators are grappling with a budget gap of more than $700
million this year and $2 billion next year. They had expected Swift to veto any tax increase, which would
require them to muster a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to
enact the increase. That's a difficult threshold given the potential political backlash over taxes.
If Swift doesn't veto new taxes, only simple majorities will
be needed in both chambers. Administration officials say a third possibility has also emerged: Swift could still veto a
particular tax hike but give her word that she won't make political hay out of the issue, or
attack its proponents, potentially making more House and Senate members comfortable
with supporting the tax.
The reports of Swift's shift startled some yesterday.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and Government, said she is concerned that the acting governor's move will embolden the heavily Democratic
Legislature to raise taxes in a number of different areas. Besides a freeze or an increase in the income tax, Democratic
leaders are considering raising the taxes on cigarettes, gasoline, and capital gains to help balance the
budget.
"Without her veto, the Commonwealth is doomed," Anderson
said. "It's possible she's angry at all of us and is going to leave us with a tax increase."
Still, Anderson said she believes Swift is committed to
resisting tax hikes - a pledge she put in writing shortly after assuming the corner office. Swift may simply be positioning
herself in talks with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Thomas F.
Birmingham, putting more pressure on them to give in on key points by demonstrating her
willingness to do likewise, Anderson said.
Return to top
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
On anniversary, Swift suddenly mum
about her position against taxes
By Helen Woodman
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, APRIL 10, 2002 ... Jane Swift spent her
one-year anniversary in office as acting governor changing her tune on the all-important question of whether to shift
her position on taxes.
For months Swift has scheduled almost daily news conferences
or speeches in which she railed against the call by Democratic legislators to delay the next phase of a voter-mandated
income tax rollback or to hike other taxes in the ongoing struggle to balance the state's
budget for this fiscal year and the next. And in recent weeks Swift has insisted her position
hasn't changed, despite the state's deepening budget woes.
But on Wednesday morning, the Boston Globe reported Swift
was prepared to join those who want to keep the income tax rate at 5.3 percent rather than let it fall to 5 percent on Jan.
1, 2003, as scheduled. And there was word that she might even learn to live with a hike in
the cigarette tax and not lobby to sustain a certain gubernatorial veto.
But Swift was mum on both counts when confronted by
reporters following Wednesday's meeting of the Governor's Council. And her typically caustic comments about tax-and-spend
Democrats were gone.
"I will not negotiate through the media," she insisted. "My
goal remains to keep taxes low, to finish a budget on time and negotiate in good faith." Swift will meet later this week with
top legislative leaders, she said, as they continue to try and agree on a revenue estimate for fiscal
2003 and on how much money cities and towns should get in state aid during that year
that begins July 1.
Swift's comments came as she celebrated her one-year
anniversary as the state's top officeholder. It was on April 10, 2001 that Gov. Paul Cellucci resigned to become US
ambassador to Canada and Swift made history. She then became the first woman to serve as
governor of Massachusetts - acting or otherwise. And a month later, Swift delivered twin
girls and became the first governor to give birth while in office.
An hour after Swift met Wednesday with reporters, her chief
fiscal aide was optimistic that a consensus could be reached on revenue numbers and how to balance the budget. "The fact
we're facing these issues in April is a good sign," said Administration and Finance Secretary
Kevin Sullivan. "There's a sense in the building people want to try and fix this problem
together."
Of reports that administration officials may have softened
their opposition to any change in the income tax rollback, Sullivan said: "To say unilaterally it's this or that, would be
unfair. It's certainly something we're not going to lead with," Sullivan said, adding that, "If you begin to
raise all kinds of taxes on people, you tend to begin to grow government."
Sullivan maintained the state has been able to maintain one
of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation because it has tried to create an economic climate that appeals to businesses.
A steady 4.4 percent unemployment rate is due to an economic climate that is welcoming to
businesses, he said.
Liberal lawmakers, advocates for the needy, and supporters
of additional outlays for education and health care have been calling for months for higher taxes to prevent cuts in
popular programs. Each time, Swift has pledged to veto any tax bill to
hit her desk.
On Tuesday, four major business organizations formally
announced they support a fiscal 2003 budget-balancing package that includes $700 million in new revenues, most likely from
taxes; $700 million in spending cuts and the use of $500 million from the state's reserves,
which currently hold $2.7 billion.
Business leaders want Beacon Hill leaders to resolve the
budget problems quickly. "The budget gap is so large that a multi-year solution requires additional revenues as well as
spending cuts and sacrifice by all parties," according to a statement by Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Business
Roundtable and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF).
MTF President Michael Widmer on Wednesday said Swift's new
public posture on taxes is the right move. "That's a very encouraging sign," said Widmer. "As our numbers and analyses
have made clear, the only way to close a gap of this magnitude is to move on both the
spending and revenue fronts. If there's some willingness to open that door there, it may be
possible to reach some agreement among the three leaders and that would be
enormously positive."
With three months left in this fiscal year, the year-end
deficit is estimated at between $800 million and $1 billion. The projected gap between revenues and spending next year is
estimated at between $2 billion and $3 billion.
Return to top
Speech by Governor Jane Swift
to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
Thank you for inviting me to join you this afternoon. As you
have for almost 70 years, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is playing an important role in the fiscal debates
we are having on Beacon Hill. Given that the Legislature has yet to offer any concrete budget
proposals, Michael Widmer and this organization have been my "loyal opposition" for the
past several months. To your credit, you are actively working to shape what I believe is a
moment of great decision in the Commonwealth's history. I see two very stark choices: We
can reverse the progress of the last 12 years; or we can continue to build on the state's solid
economic foundation with pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-family policies.
The issues we are talking about are familiar to all of us.
We faced many of them almost a dozen years ago. And because we made the right decisions then, we are better off today.
While we face a severe fiscal situation once again, this time, the Massachusetts economy is
fundamentally healthy, resilient, and diverse. Crisis forced us to develop good habits of fiscal
discipline. And crisis woke us up to the benefits of competitive tax policies.
In the last decade, we've reduced per capita spending growth
to the ninth lowest in the nation, and we cut taxes 42 times for businesses to promote job creation and stability for
Massachusetts families. We've made important investments in the state's infrastructure. And
we aggressively built up our reserves to an impressive 3.1 billion dollars. Both Wall Street
and Main Street have confidence in our ability to manage public dollars fairly and
responsibly. Massachusetts has seen nine bond upgrades.
Under three consecutive Republican governors, state
government has worked hand-in-hand with the business community to attract a diverse array of industries to Massachusetts. We
no longer rely on a few large employers. Defense systems and computer mainframes have been
eclipsed by an explosion of technology, health care, and financial services companies, as
well as thousands of small to medium-sized businesses. A 1997 New York Times article summed
up our success: "This region has transformed itself through pluck and brains No miracle of
growth this time."
These aren't abstract achievements. They translate into a
higher quality of life and good jobs for Massachusetts families. Even in this recession, we have the lowest
unemployment rate of any industrial state. And it remains below the national average where it's been for the last six
years.
Beyond the numbers, though, the experience of the last
fiscal crisis and the recovery that followed had a profound impact on the political culture in Massachusetts. The
"Taxachusetts" moniker undermined the confidence of a proud people. Both Democrats and Republicans
realized that it is fiscal discipline and not runaway spending that enables
government to meet society's most pressing needs in the long term. And we came to a bipartisan consensus that
tax cuts not tax increases generate growth and jobs.
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation played an important role
in fostering this new understanding. The state's business leaders were ardent advocates of tax cuts, particularly
when it came to those that helped create a more prosperous commercial climate. Who could
blame them? They had witnessed a total failure of leadership on Beacon Hill in the late 80s
when it took the Governor and the Legislature almost two and a half years to agree on the
magnitude of the crisis.
Ultimately, their solutions were irresponsible short-term
borrowing and a series of job-killing taxes: Capital gains increased from five to six percent. The gas tax jumped a full
10 cents to 21 cents. And the Legislature sought to impose a sales tax on hundreds of professional
services your services that was only repealed with the election of a Republican
Governor and 16 Republican Senators. Most damaging, the personal income tax increased from five
percent to a high of 6.25.
The result was devastating. Between 1988 and 1992, we lost
400,000 jobs. Per capita, this was the highest job loss in the nation.
These events shaped my first years as a state Senator. And
they are shaping the way I view today's fiscal problems. When I see a list of 16 possible tax increases coming out of House
Ways and Means totaling almost 2 billion dollars, the sense of déjà
vu is horrifying, particularly when you comb through the list and realize that most of them hit hard working
middle class families.
My top concern right now is that we not repeat the mistakes
of the past, particularly as Massachusetts emerges from this current recession. Instead of raising taxes, I've come up
with a pragmatic fiscal plan that cuts spending, utilizes the state's reserves, and taps new
sources of revenue over a four year recovery period. Allow me to briefly walk through these
ideas with you.
As always, our first step is to reduce spending. You'll
remember that four days after learning that January revenues were down 18.4 percent, I used my 9-C authority to cut spending
by 155 million dollars. For fiscal year '03, the cuts will have to be deeper. I've proposed a total
of 1.2 billion dollars, with each agency contributing between three and five percent in
savings. I have asked the Legislature to free our managers from the expensive stranglehold of
earmarks and line item constraints, so they can use common-sense management practices
to find savings in places that least impact services.
To close the books on this fiscal year, I am proposing that
we use 400 million dollars from our reserves, which now total 2.5 billion dollars. I'm including the funds Massachusetts
receives each year as part of the tobacco settlement in that number. Like many other
governors, I see no reason to let these dollars sit and earn interest while they can be used to
help provide medical care to children and seniors.
Under my plan, we'll use 800 million dollars next year, then
another 860 million over fiscal years '04 and '05. Some of my assumptions may change, but with full structural balance
achieved, we will still have 440 million dollars left in the bank for emergencies and future
shortfalls. If you add to that our ability to leverage future tobacco dollars, the total is
over 1.5 billion dollars.
To fill the budget gap, I've proposed tapping two new
revenue streams, both of which I view as common sense alternatives to raising people's taxes. By refinancing the
state's pension obligation to the year 2028, we free up 134 million dollars annually. During better days, we
took the opportunity to speed up the contributions to 2018. But we can
no longer afford to be that aggressive. Other states, including California, North Carolina, and Maryland have
already taken this step. And the agencies that rate state bonds have specifically and
repeatedly approved the move.
Second, it's time to reign in our Lottery system. By
changing the prize payout by eight percentage points, the state sees an additional 274 million dollars a year. There is no need
for Massachusetts to have the highest prize payout in the country a full 71 percent particularly
when the system has strayed from its original mission. Just in the last three
years, the Lottery took in an additional 700 million dollars, but aid to cities and towns has only received 13
percent or 90 million dollars of those funds.
I propose reducing the prize payout by just eight percentage
points, which will generate 274 million dollars for local aid. This number is based on the Lottery's own projections when they
explored this option in 1989. It takes into account an eight percent decline in sales that may
occur. With these changes, Massachusetts will still be the 4th largest prize state in the
country. With money in short supply, I see no need to maintain a distinction that is really no
distinction at all.
Together, these two proposals pension refinancing and
Lottery restructuring would bring in more combined than freezing the income tax and raising the cigarette tax. These
proposals show that Massachusetts has choices when it comes to balancing the budget. The answer
does not have to be tax increases. In fact, tax increases are an easy solution that
produce long and short-term problems for our economy and our families. I thought we had learned
this lesson a decade ago.
Here is where MTF and I part company. Sometimes good minds
disagree.
I find MTF's proposals potentially damaging and to some
extent disingenuous for very specific reasons: First, any plan to increase taxes, particularly when we have reserves
available is unwise. Taking money away from small businesses and families
endangers the Commonwealth's chances of enjoying a full and robust recovery. But to propose increasing
the income tax to 5.6 percent or halving the personal exemption is not just bad
fiscal policy; it is grossly unfair to those who can least afford to pay. Halving the personal exemption I find
regressive at best.
These proposals also beg important questions: Why is this
organization aggressively advocating for a plan that is not only fiscally unsound, but flirts dangerously on the edge of
self interest? If raising taxes is such an excellent idea, where are the proposals to eliminate the
myriad of business tax cuts and credits that have contributed to growth and prosperity
throughout the last decade?
They don't exist, and for very good reasons. They hurt the
state's competitiveness our ability to create and maintain good jobs. Raising business taxes would hurl us right back to the
economic Stone Age. But so would increasing the income tax. The families of Massachusetts
have every right to a tax rate that allows them to thrive that allows them to raise their children
with their own hard-earned money. To quote a line from Ronald Reagan, we need to focus
on "those millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning and send the kids to
school ... go to work ... try to keep up the payments on their house pay
exorbitant taxes." Massachusetts still has the highest per capita income tax rate in the country. And we are sixth
highest in terms of tax as a percentage of income. These numbers don't
help us attract and keep good workers.
And you and I know that the income tax is also a small
business tax. Two hundred and sixteen thousand small businesses would be hurt by raising income taxes. This includes the
self-employed, who pay taxes based on the personal income tax schedule. And the
shareholders of over 9,000 Subchapter S corporations, who pay taxes on the net income of
the company whether or not they see the profits. These small businesses are
the economic engine of our Commonwealth. They have provided the diversification I spoke about earlier,
the diversification that is now protecting us from the harsher winds of recession
blowing through other states. Taxing them at a higher rate places jobs and stability at risk.
Families and small businesses should not be asked to pay a
disproportionate price when there are workable, reliable funding streams available that ask no more of any citizen, rich
or poor. I expect such proposals from the Legislature. In more ways than one, that body is
stuck in a time warp. But what MTF has done is use its excellent reputation to legitimize their
tax frenzy.
I spoke earlier of cultural change and MTF's role in
creating an innovative new mind set to Beacon Hill. And the business community's role in spreading it throughout the
Commonwealth. That's why you've stood by smart policies like the MCAS graduation
requirement. Now is not the time to waiver on the fiscal, economic and tax strategies that
have served us so well.
