Limited Taxation
Post Office Box 408     Peabody, Massachusetts   01960     (508) 384-0100
E-Mail:       Web-page:

CLT Update
Thursday, August 5, 1999

Did you catch our Barbara Anderson last night on New England Cable News' NewsNight with Margie Reedy? Barbara ate Jim St. George of the Tax Equity Alliance for Massachusetts alive, showing him up as pathetically clueless with the history of the "temporary" tax increase, the "rainy day" stabilization fund, and his silly attempt to tie our proposed tax cut and the state surplus with the proposed federal tax cut and the $6 trillion national debt.

It must be tough trying to argue recent state history when you were living someplace else while it was happening and haven't a clue what you missed -- like St. George. Especially when you're confronted by an expert who was here, like Barbara. He's got a lot of boning up to do if he hopes to ever fill Jim Braude's shoes.

She really staggered him with her closing assertion that CLT is prepared to "prosecute to the fullest extent of the law" anyone we catch trying to sabotage in any way any of our petitions in the upcoming drive.

"We wouldn't do anything like that," he responded with a smirk.

She quickly pointed out that they'd spent two million bucks (the new figure, recently brought to our attention by a well-placed insider) to keep us off the ballot last time and we wouldn't put anything past them.

Below you'll find my little letters-to-the-editor duel with the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Haley, over the House's proposed Registry fee increases.

What's with these tax-and-spenders? It's a full-time job just trying to keep them honest, or at least exposed.

It seems the only way the tax-and-spenders can fight is by lying and deceiving. Either they're consummate liars, take us all for fools, or are just plain stupid! Maybe it's all three.

CFord-Sig2.gif (4854 bytes)

Chip Ford

If you are not already on the CLT mailing list and wish to help us get the required signatures to put the tax rollback on the2000 ballot, please click here.

The Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Signing on to a tax cut
A Boston Herald editorial

While House and Senate leaders bicker over their stripped-down version of a tax cut, Gov. Paul Cellucci is taking his case to the people.

The governor will join forces with Citizens for Limited Taxation in a petition drive to put an income tax cut measure on the ballot in November 2000.

Cellucci, Citizens for Limited Taxation and this newspaper have long maintained that reducing the state's income tax rate from 5.95 percent to 5 percent isn't just the smart thing to do (it will be good for the economy), it's also the right thing to do. The increase, put into effect a decade ago, was supposed to be temporary - just something to help bail the state out of a tight fiscal situation.

Well, the fiscal crisis has long since passed, but the "temporary" tax lingers on.

Yesterday was merely the beginning of a long and difficult process of getting this petition on the ballot. Assuming the attorney general and secretary of state sign off on the wording of the petition, volunteers will likely begin collecting signatures by mid-September. They'll have about two months to gather at least 57,100 signatures. In fact, with some strict new standards imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court about exactly how those petitions must look to those who sign them, proponents will likely have to gather at least 100,000 signatures to make sure they have enough valid ones.

That's a formidable task, but it's one that each and every voter can help with come this fall by -- literally -- signing on.

The Boston Herald
Monday, August 2, 1999

Letters to the Editor
There are no free fees

I'm writing in response to your editorial on registry fees ("Sen. Birmingham got this one right," July 29). The Registry has an official and legitimate function in keeping track of who is on the roads and who should or shouldn't be. If the services of the Registry are provided at no charge, that doesn't mean the public is not paying for it. They are, but indirectly through their taxes.

If user fees are not reinstated, the operation of the Registry will have to be funded in the state budget. That would amount to $55 million less for those who want to expand education and health care o those who want to carry the day with further tax cuts.

Which is better, only those who use the services paying for them or everyone paying? Which is better, free registrations and licenses for all drivers or an income tax reduction for everyone with a job? The position supported by the Senate president and governor would result in the burden being shared by every taxpayer whether they own a car or not.

-- Rep. Paul R. Haley

The Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 4, 1999

Letters to the Editor
Response to Haley

In his letter ("There are no free fees," Aug. 2), Rep. Paul Haley (D-Weymouth) made the ridiculous statement that, "If user fees are not reinstated, the operation of the Registry will have to be funded in the state budget."

The Registry, with its $57.6 million annual operating budget, now rakes in over $300 million more that its cost of providing its service. The House wants to reimpose auto registration fees with the expectation of collecting an additional $70 million to $100 million, to spend on roads. This is clearly illegal.

Registry fees should be lowered to not more than the cost of providing the service.

-- Chip Ford, Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:

Return to CLT Updates page