NEWS RELEASE
Friday, October 18, 2002
CLT Announces Ballot Question Recommendations
Contact: Barbara Anderson - 508-384-0100
Chip Ford - 781-631-6842
In the October issue of The Activist News, CLT's membership
newsletter that will be reaching over 8,000 of its members next week, CLT and CLT's 2½ PAC have released candidate endorsements
and ballot question recommendations.
The newsletter in its entirety is also now available in PDF
(Adobe Acrobat) format on our website, www.cltg.org.
2002 Ballot Questions
CLT's Recommendations:
Vote YES, YES, YES and YES!
QUESTION 1
LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Eliminating State Personal Income Tax
A YES VOTE would eliminate any state personal income tax for
income or other gain realized on or after July 1, 2003.
A NO VOTE would make no change in state tax laws.
CLT has been uncomfortable about the numbers used by proponents in their ads; ie., the last Dukakis
budget was more than $10 billion, and employment predictions attributed to the
Beacon Hill Institute are extrapolated out of context. Three million taxpayers will not each gain $3,000 if Question 1
passes; Carla Howell has recently corrected that to "an average of $3,000."
Though we CLT staffers will save about $2,000 each, and
doubt politicians will embrace a libertarian concept of a state budget that is $9 billion less, we have three reasons to vote
"Yes!"
1) Expression of our disapproval of the legislative vote to
repeal our very reasonable phase-down to 5%;
2) A "No" vote will be interpreted by Beacon Hill as a fondness for high income tax rates and an offer to
pay even more;
3) A "Yes" vote will send a message that voters will not tolerate hiking the
present 5.3% rate again to 5.6%, 5.95% as the Mass. Mayors Association is calling for ... or even more.
CLT says vote YES on 1
QUESTION 2
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
English Language Education in Public Schools
A YES VOTE would require that, with limited exceptions, all
public school children must be taught English by being taught all subjects in English and being placed in English
language classrooms.
A NO VOTE would keep the recent law to put more flexibility
into the present bilingual education system.
This really does seem obvious: that immigrant children should be assimilated as Americans as soon as
possible, giving them their chance at the American dream. The Legislature made
its recent changes only under pressure from the initiative petition, and we would expect the state to slip back into the
failed bilingual ed habit if this measure fails.
If you need another reason to vote Yes, the Massachusetts
Teachers Association is the main opponent of this petition, preferring to employ more teachers to teach kids in their
native languages. This costs taxpayers more money to accomplish less.
CLT says vote YES on 2
QUESTION 3
A NON-BINDING ADVISORY QUESTION
Taxpayer Funding for Political Campaigns
A YES VOTE would advise that the voters favor taxpayer money
being used to fund political campaigns for public office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
A NO VOTE would advise that the voters do not favor this.
In 1998, CLT advised a No vote on the initiative petition
for "Clean Elections" on exactly the above grounds: that taxpayer money should not be used to fund political campaigns
of people with whom the taxpayer may disagree. We have somewhat changed our mind as we've seen how much the Legislature
hates this law and its encouragement of competition for their seats, and we didn't really mind our tax
dollars being used by Warren Tolman to tell voters just how bad things are on Beacon Hill.
But primarily, the "Clean Elections" petition passed with a
larger vote than even our tax rollback. To be consistent, we must support respect for the will of the voters. Question 3,
placed on this year's ballot, is the Legislature's cute attempt to change the discussion from overall reform to just the
funding mechanism and get voters to reverse their 1998 decision. If Finneran gets away with this, he will do the same
thing to us someday.
CLT says vote YES on 3
QUESTION 4
A NON-BINDING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION
(Placed on 18 local ballots by CPPAX, a CLT ally on government reform issues)
A YES VOTE would direct the local legislator to vote against
retaining Tom Finneran as Speaker of the House.
A NO VOTE would leave the decision of who shall be the Speaker
of the House to the local Representative.
Finneran was the force behind the biggest tax increase in
state history this year. He has done everything in his power from "freezing" our rollback, repealing the charitable
deduction, and rephrasing "Clean Elections" (above) to destroy the initiative petition process. He has tried to change
Proposition 2« and raise our property taxes. As House Speaker he will be coming back for a bigger bite of democracy and
taxes next year.
Because he is able to talk people into thinking he is a
fiscal conservative, he is more dangerous to taxpayers than an admitted liberal would be. His stranglehold on power should
never have reached this point, and must be loosened.
CLT says vote YES on 4
– 30 –