HINGHAM -- A November ballot question that would reduce the
state income tax rate to 5 percent gives voters a chance to guide the state's fiscal future, a pair of lobbyists on either
side of the initiative agreed in a debate last night.
Speaking to a packed hall at the Hingham Community Center,
proponent Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said the state should honor a promise made
by legislators a decade ago -- that a 1989 tax increase was temporary.
She added that the only way to control the Legislature's
spending is to cut into the state revenue stream.
James St. George, executive director of Tax Equity Alliance
for Massachusetts, countered that the state could better spend the roughly $1.2 billion annually that would go to tax cuts on
targeted tax cuts for needy groups, improvements in education and health care, and to retire
state debt.
Anderson appeared to score the most points with the largely
tax-averse crowd that included residents from several area towns.
The debate on Question 4 was hosted by Hingham's Republican
Town Committee, and Anderson earned hearty cheers after most of her comments.
Anderson took pains to lay out the history of the late 1980s
fiscal crisis that led to tax increases. She said legislators would not back the tax hike until legislative leaders promised
that it would be temporary, but that the ballot question is needed because a new generation of state
leaders will not move rates below 5.75 percent.
She billed the question as necessary to keep a promise and
suggested that lawmakers' would irresponsibly spend any extra money they had, twice alluding to the all-night budget debate
in April at which legislators allegedly slept and drank while votes were made.
"When the money is there, the politicians will spend it.
They can't help themselves," Anderson said to chuckles in the hall.
St. George said the rate reduction would mean only about 50
cents a day for average taxpayers but that the loss from state coffers would imperil the progress made in the last five
years in the state's schools and health care system. He said Questions 4 and 6, which would
create a tax credit for tolls and auto excise taxes paid, would cost the state about $2
billion a year.
"I think it's fiscal fantasyland that says you can cut $2
billion without consequences," he said. "The progress we're making will not continue as it should."
St. George said that while the tax increase was billed as
temporary, maintaining the tax rate was not a broken promise but a change of policy. He likened it to the decision by
then-Gov. William Weld to void a promise of universal health care made by Gov. Michael Dukakis and
the Legislature.
"Every change in policy is not a broken promise," St. George
said.
One resident asked who was funding the campaigns for the
question. St. George said most of the opposition money was coming from individuals in small amounts.
He conceded that the largest slice was coming from teachers,
eliciting snickers from some in the audience who saw a link between St. George's pro-education rhetoric and teacher
contributions.
He countered that the governor's campaign for the question,
a separate account from that of Citizens for Limited Taxation, had collected $360,000 and only one gift was less than $1,000.
He painted the question as one that would disproportionately benefit the rich.
In response to another question, Anderson attacked the idea
that education or health care would suffer because of Question 4, noting that opponents described apocalyptic scenarios in
the debate over Proposition 21/2 but that legislators adapted to the new situation.
She added that state revenues would still grow each year
even with the tax rollback, just not as fast.
Gov. Paul Cellucci has thrown his support behind the measure, which most Democratic leaders
oppose. Political observers believe Cellucci's credibility could ride on whether
the question passes and expect him to use the issue to distance himself from his Democratic challenger in
2002.
Before the debate, St. George said that voters in early
polls supported Question 4 by a significant margin but that as they learned more about the consequences opposition would
grow.