A PROMISE TO KEEP: 5%
A Ballot Committee of Citizens for Limited Taxation

 

The Haverhill Gazette
Weekly Editorial

October 26 - November 1, 2000

Beware of 2 of 3 missiles aimed at Statehouse 
By Gerry Molina


Questions 4, 5 and 6 line up on the Nov. 7 ballot like missiles aimed at the state legislature. Trouble is, only the Question 4 rollback of the state income tax to 5 percent  is valid.

The other two missiles would turn right around and explode among the electorate at large.

Question 4 does away with the income tax surcharge imposed by the legislature during a fiscal crisis 11 years ago. The crisis is long gone. Repealing the surcharge has not gone very far on Beacon Hill. Even Democratic state Reps. Brian S. Dempsey and Harriett L. Stanley, who represent Haverhill, say they will vote in favor of rolling back the income tax from 5.95 to 5 percent over three years.

Stanley says the cut will hit "pork barrel" legislation but not education aid. She knows the state can do without that money.

Question 5 would require health insurance carriers to guarantee certain rights to their patients and providers. It would also prohibit conversion of non-profit hospitals, HMOs and health insurers into for-profit entities until comprehensive health care coverage is enacted in Massachusetts. This summer the legislature created a patient's bill of rights, making the first half of the question irrelevant.

The second half would set off the kind of health care revolution in Massachusetts that Bill and Hillary Clinton couldn't manage nationwide. Sounds great but who would pay? Everybody's premiums would go through the roof and many companies would drop health care as a benefit. Question 5 might also affect Haverhill's efforts to pass Hale Hospital over to someone who could do a better job of running it.

Question 6 invites you to deduct tolls and state motor vehicle excise taxes from your state income tax bill. Tolls and excise taxes are user fees of long standing. Those revenue are spent on road maintenance. In fact, excise taxes come back to Haverhill and other communities for that purpose. Socked by both Questions 4 and 6, the legislature would have to cut spending appreciably. It would likely resort to cuts in local aid, placing more fiscal responsibility for education reform on the shoulders of cities and towns.

The Gazette urges a "yes" vote on Question 4 and "no" votes on Questions 5 and 6. 


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: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml