The Massachusetts political establishment is horrified--voters might
actually pass a proposition abolishing the state income tax. The
personal income tax rate is 5.3%, and the state capital gains levy
peaks at 12%. Under the proposition the tax would be cut 50% on Jan. 1,
2009 and eradicated on Jan. 1, 2010. These exactions currently raise
about 40% of the state's budget revenue--27% if you count all of the
Bay State's off-budget spending.
A similar measure was on the ballot six years ago. With almost no
promotion it garnered a 45% yes vote, stunning politicians. The measure
got a majority in a third of Massachusetts towns. An earlier
proposition--a mild one--had appeared on the ballot in 2000. It cut the
income tax to 5% from 5.75%. It passed. But state legislators thumbed
their noses at the voters, lowering the rate only to 5.3%--a graphic
example of the growing disconnect between citizens and the political
culture.
Naturally, opponents predict the direst of circumstances if the measure
passes, even though the state legislature will probably treat the
referendum the same way it did the previous tax cut initiative.
The reason the measure stands even a chance of passing is not that Bay
State citizens are selfish (even though each would enjoy on average an
additional $3,700 of income) but that they are angry. This is an attack
on political establishments there and throughout the U.S. that
routinely put their own interests above those of their constituents:
lavish government pensions with payouts that would bankrupt private
companies; resistance to genuine reform in Medicaid spending, which has
become the biggest item on virtually every state's budget; ever more
pork-barrel spending; and ever more obsequiousness to rapacious special
interests.
It's telling when one of the most liberal states in the Union, with two
extremely liberal U.S. senators and a House delegation with nary a
Republican, is on the verge of a tax rebellion.
Bay State voters--go for your proposition. Your pols didn't enact your
polite initiative of a small income tax reduction. Maybe they'll wake
up when you whack them with a 2-by-4.
Massachusetts is about the last place one would expect a tax revolt,
but that's what's brewing in Beantown. The state board of elections
recently certified that citizen activists have gathered the 125,000
signatures required to qualify an initiative for the November ballot to
eliminate the state income tax.
The Small Government Act would repeal the 5.3% income and wage tax, as
well as the state capital gains tax, which reaches as high as 12%. The
ballot initiative would replace the $12.5 billion in taxes with . . .
nothing. "One of the points here," explains Carla Howell of the
Committee for Small Government that is driving the referendum, "is to
force the state legislators to start cutting the bloated state budget."
The political shock of having no income tax would force the pols on
Beacon Hill to make the difficult spending choices they now refuse to
make.
The referendum may seem the longest of long shots in a state
represented by some of Congress's biggest spenders. But the same
initiative was on the ballot in 2002, and though the political
establishment roared with laughter through Election Day, the measure
got 45% of the vote. This time pro-tax forces such as the Massachusetts
Teachers Association are planning to spend millions of dollars warning
of Armageddon.
They have cause to be worried. A Fabrizio poll for Citizens for Limited
Taxation discovered that the average Massachusetts voter believes that
41 cents of every state tax dollar are wasted. Coincidentally, that's
the share of the state budget funded by the income tax. One big drain
is a pension program that doles out billions each year to
double-dipping pensioners and state workers retiring at taxpayer
expense in their late 40s or 50s.
Nine U.S. states have no income tax, including such economic climbers
as Florida, Nevada, Tennessee and Texas. These states are doing fine
funding schools, hospitals and police without the income levy. Over the
past decade 330,000 Massachusetts residents have packed U-Haul trailers
and left -- more
than have even fled Michigan -- and many have gone to no-income-tax New
Hampshire.
"The idea here is to stop being on the defensive in fighting against
big government and to start taking the political offensive," says Ms.
Howell. She says the tax repeal would give every Massachusetts worker a
5% after-tax pay raise, or about $3,000 extra income per family. That's
attractive when Census data show that, after inflation, state budgets
nationwide are up 18% since 2005 while paychecks have remained flat.
The forces of the tax-and-spend status quo will descend on this
initiative like British troops after the original Boston tea party, but
somebody has to make an effort to stop the relentless growth of
government.
Boston Herald - Howie
Carr: "Two Americas: One gets zilch and the other filches"
Boston Herald.com
Two Americas: One gets zilch and the other filches
By Howie Carr | Wednesday, August 20, 2008
John Edwards was right: there are two Americas. They’re just not the
two he was talking about.
The two Americas are Public Sector America and the Dreaded Private
Sector America.
In DPS America, it’s not the Great Depression, but things are not good.
Workers are being laid off, bought out, cut back, outsourced and RIFed.
Those who remain are getting hit with higher health-insurance premiums,
discontinued retirement plans, a deflated stock market and ever-rising
property taxes on plummeting property values.
But it’s still morning In Public Sector America. Let the good times
roll. Nine percent pay hikes, free cars and gas, endless overtime, a
three-day weekend every month, fake disability pensions, plus you get
to steal everything that’s not nailed down.
This isn’t a democracy we’ve got in Massachusetts, its a kleptocracy.
Memo to the public-sector unions: forget $5 million to defeat Question
1. You may need $10 million to buy enough ads to keep the hackerama
going in November. Either that, or instruct your members not to keep
getting arrested at the rate of one a day.
Question: how do you tell a public employee in Massachusetts?
Answer: the red dye on his hands.
It’s not just the daily rip-offs, it’s the size of the thefts. It used
to be, whenever a T employee got caught stealing, the scandal was
called “Quartergate,” because they were grabbing change. But this guy
Gilberto Carrasquillo, the T’s hack du jour, was allegedly pocketing
10s and 20s at Kenmore Square. This $70,000-a-year parasite was so
flush with dirty money that he could even leave behind a marked sawbuck
or two, just for appearances sake.
Back in the 1940s, a mayor got indicted for taking 10 bucks for a curb
cut. Now the perps can’t be bothered with anything less than a
double-sawbuck.
Oh, and it appears that Carrasquillo is related to one of those crooked
cocaine cops now cooling his heels down in the federal pen down in
Oklahoma City. You remember those guys, the boys from the Boom Boom
Room. They were taking tens of thousands of dollars to protect drug
dealers who turned out to be undercover feds.
Again, consider the unprecedented levels of corruption. Twenty years
ago, the feds bagged BPD detectives for grabbing a few free meals at
Cafe Budapest. These filthy cops were getting filthy rich on a
protection racket that wasn’t paid details.
But at least the G-men threw the book at Nelson Carrasquillo. Check him
out on the Bureau of Prison’s Web site and you’ll see that they don’t
even have a release date listed for him. That’s heavy.
But did Nelson Carrasquillo’s kinsman learn anything? Hell no. Because
this is Massachusetts, the Grease-A-Few-Guys state. Until he got fired
Monday, Gilberto had 22 years in - one more, baby, and he could have
hit the road too. But no, he had to stick his hand in the till.
Gilberto Carrasquillo had an excuse, of course, an alibi. They all do.
He “only” robbed the fare box four times.
They can’t help themselves. None of them. Same with Sen. Marzilli. The
district attorney brooms his first sex-assault case, and a couple of
days later, he drives his Prius to Lowell and pervs four women in two
hours.
I am still perplexed by John Buonomo, the reprobate register of probate
in Middlesex County. As I’ve told you, we here at the Herald literally
tipped him off that we’d been told there was a crime wave going on in
his office. After receiving two tips about rampant thievery in his
office in East Cambridge, we called and asked him if he knew anything
about it.
No, he said. Then he tiptoed down the hall to steal some more money,
some of which he then cleverly stashed in a box under the desk in his
own office.
He couldn’t help himself.
Here’s another difference between the Public Sector and the Dreaded
Private Sector:
In the DPS, everyone is acutely aware of surveillance cameras. Buonomo,
Carrasquillo, the indicted Mass Pike toll takers - not so much.
Or maybe they think the hacks have figured out that if you’re
connected, you can always get everything straightened out, no matter
how sordid it is. Am I right, Carl McGee? Hey, look at all the state
reps who’ve been bagged for OUI and then re-elected. Hey, look at the
city councilors who’ve been arrested and then elected to the state
Senate.
Not only that, but you serve in the Legislature while not even living
in the city you’re supposed to be representing. You can go for a tax
break in some other town, and nobody indicts you, or even hits you with
a fine, you’re just allowed to announce that you won’t be seeking
reelection.
Glenn Beck, CNN:
Massachusetts Group Calls for End to State Tax
Massachusetts Group Calls for End to State Tax
Aired August 5, 2008 - 19:00:00 ET
BECK: ...First, let me -- let me put this in a way that Frankenstein
and politicians can both understand. Low taxes good. High taxes bad.
The people in Massachusetts just seem to get that, and I never thought
I would say that, but they have figured it out in Massachusetts. I
swear, it slipped through a worm hole earlier today.
Citizens have now gathered in Massachusetts 125,000 signatures to get
an initiative on the November ballot that would eliminate the state
income tax. It would repeal 5.3 income and wage tax. It would also cut
the state capital-gains tax that can get as high as 12 percent.
So how do they plan on replacing the 12.5 billion dollars in lost tax?
They don`t. This is a crazy notion. This is Massachusetts. They have
this crazy notion that they can cut their government`s allowance, and
the political geniuses will then have to think a little harder and a
lot smarter before they go spending anybody`s money. Wait a minute,
hang on. Oh, yes, Frankenstein. Remember, low spending good.
Overspending bad.
Carla Howell is the president for the Center for Small Government and
chair of the Committee for Small Government, a group behind the
initiative. What the hell are you doing? It`s Massachusetts. I mean,
this makes sense to me but not in Massachusetts. This doesn`t -- does
this have a chance of succeeding?
CARLA HOWELL, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SMALL GOVERNMENT: It made a lot of
sense to 885,000 voters when we ran this ballot initiative to end the
state income tax back in 2002. This year there could be a lot more who
say they`re fed up, they`re going to the polls and voting yes on
Question One in Massachusetts to end the state income tax.
BECK: OK. I mean, you should be canonized if you can pull this off in
Massachusetts. But let me just -- let me just say this. You -- you`ve
tried this before. It didn`t succeed. But since that time, people have
been leaving the state -- it`s like New Jersey. People are leaving the
state in droves. Who`s left there? All the people who are like, "Oh,
the income tax is insane here." Who`s left? It`s like you and the
Kennedys.
HOWELL: We lost some good people. That`s for sure. But really there are
still quite a few people here. There`s 3,400,000 workers and taxpayers
in Massachusetts who stand to benefit tremendously if we end the income
tax. They`ll each get back an average of $3,700 every year when we end
the income tax.
BECK: OK. So how are you seriously going to sell this to one of the
most socialist states in the union? I mean, you know, next to
California. You just put in universal health care, that Romney-care,
which is just a nightmare mess now. How are you going to convince
people to take less from the government and give less to the government?
HOWELL: Most people don`t need to be sold. It`s a matter of just
letting people know that it`s on the ballot, to make sure they go to
the polls and vote. I have absolutely no doubt that a majority of
people, even in Massachusetts are in favor of this. There`s no question
in my mind about that. It`s a question of whether they`re going to go
to the polls and vote on November 4. I hope they do.
BECK: So what is the -- what is the opposition like for this? I mean,
seriously, in Massachusetts you`ve got to be a pariah in the power
centers. You know what I mean? You`re in the state with the Kennedys.
HOWELL: Well, the opposition is going to be substantial. They`re going
to spend millions of dollars trying to defeat our initiative. But the
good news is that, first of all, most people want to end the income
tax. You don`t even have to sell them on it. But also there`s been a
lot of publicity in Massachusetts about government waste. Unbelievable
story after story of government waste.
BECK: Give me some -- give me some of the waste.
HOWELL: And people are fed up.
Well, the Big Dig they said was going to cost $2.3 billion. It ended up
being ten times that amount. It`s now over $22 billion.
The government employee pensions are absolutely out of hand -- out of
control. A lot of people in the private sector aren`t even getting
pensions anymore except for what piddling annuities they can expect,
maybe, from Social Security some day, whereas the government employee
pensions are guaranteed. They`re retiring in their 40s and 50s. Some of
them are double dipping, getting a pension and then working for another
government agency and collecting two salaries.
BECK: Oh, my gosh.
HOWELL: And people are disgusted with this. They just signed off
another $3 billion in spending for more government employee pensions.
That`s just one example. There`s been a long list of them, and people
are getting fed up. And they should.
BECK: Carla, I have to tell you, I think while our government is still
ready to go off the deep end with bigger government, socialized
programs, everything else, I have a sense that more and more states are
starting to say, "You know what? I don`t think so."
I think the cure, as it always does, the cure is going to come from the
local and state as the people just try to fix their own state and say,
"This is insane. I`ve seen this enough." And then the government`s in
real trouble if they don`t follow what`s happening in these states.
NY Times -
"Massachusetts Proposal Would Repeal Income Tax"
NY Times
September 28, 2008
Massachusetts Proposal Would Repeal Income Tax
By PAM BELLUCK
GRAFTON, Mass. — Given the opportunity to get out of paying state
income tax, who wouldn’t jump at the chance?
Certainly
Ruth Gregoire would. Ms. Gregoire, 71, a retired employee of a fire
sprinkler company, dipped into chocolate ice cream at Swirls and Scoops
and pronounced the no-tax idea “very nice.”
Lakis Theoharis, 56,
the owner of the nearby Pepperoni Express, said: “I’m for the repeal of
the tax. To me, the smaller the government, the better for the
citizens.”
And Rich Masterson, 39, a trucking company supervisor, said, “I would
love to see that!”
That
view is exactly what most state and local officials in Massachusetts
are afraid of. Amid the whirlwind presidential election, Massachusetts
has a ballot contest of its own this November that could drastically
alter — some would say cripple — state government.
At issue is
Question 1, which would eliminate the state income tax. It would save
the average taxpayer about $3,600 a year. Annual revenue from the tax
is about $12.5 billion, roughly 45 percent of the state’s budget of
about $28 billion.
“These are tough times for everyone as it is,
and if Question 1 passes, things will become exponentially more
difficult,” said Leslie A. Kirwan, the Massachusetts secretary of
administration and finance.
Ms. Kirwan added that because some
state programs cannot legally be cut, others would face cuts of 60
percent or more. The loss of billions of dollars from Question 1, she
said, would devastate state services.
Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, has called the ballot measure “just a
dumb idea.”
And elected leaders across the state are worried.
“The
knee-jerk reaction would be, ‘That’s a great idea because it means more
money for me,’ ” said Brook Padgett, chairman of the Board of Selectmen
in Grafton, a town of about 17,000 near Worcester, which he said would
lose 25 percent of its budget because of state cuts. “It would affect
everybody — schools, police, municipal services, snow plowing. I
couldn’t begin to tell you what we would do.”
Although Massachusetts is still often tagged with its “Taxachusetts”
reputation, its recent history is more nuanced.
In
2000, voters approved a phased rollback of the income tax rate from
5.75 percent to 5 percent. The Legislature froze the rate at 5.3
percent in 2002, permitting further reductions only if economic
conditions allowed.
In 2002, a ballot measure to scrap the
income tax received hardly any public attention. But to the shock of
elected officials, it netted 45 percent of the vote statewide and a
majority in nearly a third of towns.
Now, with the withering economy, opponents fear that Question 1 will
have even more traction.
Health
care workers, small-business owners and unions are especially concerned
about that prospect. A new group, the Coalition for Our Communities,
has raised $1.3 million, about $1 million of that from national
teachers’ unions, and plans television advertisements and direct mail
campaigns against the repeal.
Karen White, director of campaigns
and elections for the National Education Association, which has given
$750,000, said the “reckless proposal” would have “dire consequences
that will put education at risk, health care at risk, public safety at
risk.”
She added: “We’re prepared to commit more money if we
need to. We’re going to do what we need to do to make sure that we win
this one.”
The pro-repeal effort, which gathered 11,000
signatures to put the measure on the ballot, has much less money —
about $25,000 left to spend, disclosure reports show.
“Politicians
at the state and local level are overwhelmingly against us,” said Carla
Howell, chairwoman of the Committee for Small Government, who ran for
governor in 2002. “Everyday voters are much more inclined to end the
income tax.”
Question 1 would cut the tax by half the first year
and eliminate it the next year, and Ms. Howell said the state could
compensate by cutting lucrative employee pensions, paring bureaucracies
and spending wisely.
“We don’t have to cut any essential
services or any government programs that are providing a benefit to the
people of Massachusetts,” Ms. Howell said. “All we have to do is cut
government waste.”
Some voters who wanted taxes lowered to 5
percent have decided to support Question 1 to show their anger at the
state, said Barbara Anderson, director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which advocated 5 percent but is now producing bumper
stickers that read “Hell Yes! Question 1.”
“It’s the only game
in town, it’s the only question on the ballot, it’s the only chance for
us to express our outrage,” Ms. Anderson said. “The more we looked at
it and realized that other states get along very well without an income
tax, like New Hampshire, you start dreaming.”
The 5.3 percent
income tax rate is far from the nation’s highest, and, according to the
Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan group, Massachusetts, which used to rank
second in combined local and state tax burden, now ranks 23rd.
Only
seven states have no income tax, but while ballot questions on sales
and other taxes are common, those proposing income tax repeals are
rare, said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union,
which supports the Massachusetts measure. North Dakota has a ballot
measure this year to halve the state income tax.
“There aren’t
many places where you can initiate an income tax repeal from the
citizens that haven’t already done it,” Mr. Sepp said.
Still,
even before the anti-repeal campaign has begun in earnest in
Massachusetts, there are many voters who think Question 1 is a bad idea.
One
poll, conducted by 7News/Suffolk University, found 36 percent in favor
of eliminating the tax and 50 percent opposed. Another poll, conducted
by WBZ-TV, was closer: 45 percent favored scrapping the tax, 47 percent
wanted to keep it.
“If it passes, you’re looking at least double
or triple whatever your property taxes are now,” said Mike Kozlowski,
who owns a garden store in Worcester.
Beth Piknick, a Cape Cod
nurse who is president of the state nurses’ association, said: “This is
really, really dangerous and extremely short-sighted. Unfortunately
what happens is the populations that are most vulnerable get it first —
the disabled, the elderly, the poor.”
In Grafton, where voters
were evenly divided on repeal in 2002, people like Henry Cyr, 63, a
retired Air Force officer, said, “The trauma to our financial system
would just be too great.”
And Marcia LeBlanc, 66, a school bus
driver, said: “I don’t think it’s a good idea. How are they going to
pay for state services?”
State Representative George Peterson of
Grafton, a Republican who voted for repeal in 2002, declined to say how
he would vote this time.
“If we lose $12.5 billion, can I build a responsible budget with that
loss in revenue?” Mr. Peterson asked. “No, I can’t.”
But
he suggested that if the repeal passed, even though it is technically
binding, the Legislature might be forced to find a way around it and
pass a new law setting taxes at the 5 percent rate voters asked for
eight years ago. “I’m telling my constituents, if you want to send a
message that we have a budget that is out of control, send me that
message.”
Income-tax abolition move should be taken seriously
As
the Legislature scurried to put the finishing touches on its $28
billion spending plan for fiscal 2009 last week, a move to cut off
state government’s principal source of revenue, the income tax, was
getting under way. The possibility of the initiative swelling into a
full-blown taxpayer revolt is one lawmakers should not take lightly.
An
initiative petition with more than 15,000 certified signatures, modeled
on a similar measure in 2002, would end the state income tax. The
signatures, certified by local city and town officials, were filed with
the secretary of state on Wednesday by Carla Howell, erstwhile
Libertarian Party candidate for governor.
The petitioners’
assertion that a “yes” vote on the ballot question would result in an
average annual tax windfall of $3,600 per taxpayer and create “hundreds
of thousands of new jobs” in the next two years may be pie in the sky,
but some taxpayers may find it a tempting dish. In 2002, an
abolish-the-income-tax ballot initiative came within 5 percentage
points of passing.
If the petition were to succeed, the impact
would be felt in virtually every aspect of state and municipal
finances. Because a large proportion of state spending is for locked-in
expenses — debt service, Medicaid obligations, negotiated salaries and
benefits and the like — a variety of other revenue sources certainly
would be tapped. Even Proposition 2 1/2, which for a generation has
kept regressive property taxes in check, would be at risk.
While
some state budget trimming likely would ensue, the first items on the
chopping block would be apt to be state aid on which municipalities and
school districts depend, in some instances, for more than half of their
annual spending.
This year, the feeling of economic uncertainty
— prompted by a chaotic housing market, soaring gasoline and heating
fuel costs and steadily rising municipal tax bills and fees — is if
anything more intense today than it was six years ago. Moreover, the
fast-tracked $1 increase in the cigarette tax hustled through the
Legislature last week may be seen by some taxpayers as another
harbinger of many “revenue enhancements” to come.
As in 2002,
Massachusetts voters may conclude that speculative reductions in their
tax obligations are not worth the fiscal chaos in state and local
government that would ensue. But taxpayers need concrete evidence that
their representatives at the Statehouse are serious about cutting
duplication and bureaucracy, developing efficient ways to deliver
services, ending unsustainable personnel and pension policies and
rooting out waste. In the end, the most valuable ally of the
anti-income-tax group could be the politics-as-usual crowd on Beacon
Hill.
Cape Cod Times: "Join
anti-income tax campaign"
Cape Cod Times Join anti-income tax campaign
May 29, 2008 6:00 AM
Persistent
people are effective out of all proportion to their actual numbers. A
fine example of this is Carla Howell, former Libertarian candidate for
governor, and her ballot campaign to end the Masssachusetts income tax.
I
freely admit I am becoming confused by the array of petition drives
available to Massachusetts voters, but here's how this one works.
Howell's "TaxEnders" submitted about 100,000 signatures to the
secretary of state for the first phase of signature collection. Of
those, 76,084 signatures were valid, exceeding the required 66,593,
triggering the next step, which was for the Legislature to take up the
measure before the first Wednesday in May. No vote was taken, so now
the TaxEnders must collect an additional 11,099 valid signatures by
June 18 to put the measure on the November ballot — and these signers
must be different from those who signed the petition the first time.
If
the question passes, it goes into effect without any action by the
Legislature. The lowest estimate of taxpayer average savings by the
department of revenue is $3,180 for a family of three that owns a home.
State
income tax — and the accompanying revenues — would not disappear
overnight. The rate would be cut to 2.65 on Jan. 1, 2009, and then
eliminated Jan. 1, 2010.
This is not the first time such an
initiative has been tried. In 2002, Howell's Committee for Small
Government had a similar ballot initiative, which received an
unexpected 45.3 percent, helped by the anger of the voters over the
failure of the Legislature to comply with the 2000 rollback of the
income tax rate to 5 percent.
Ending the income tax wouldn't
leave the state penniless — out of the $28 billion budget, about $19
billion would remain. At that, the legislated budget is only a fraction
of the true state spending. The CAFR — Consolidated Annual Fiscal
Report — which accounts for all state spending, including federal, bond
and other funds, pegs the annual state budget at about $40 billion.
At
first, this seems extreme, but the first state budget I worked on in
1999 was $19 billion. That was the tail end of the dot-com boom in the
1990s — as our then-Sen. Henri Rauschenbach was fond of saying, money
came over the transom faster than they could spend it. To prop up the
higher tax rate, Tom Finneran created the Rainy Day Fund, fully funded
it and still had money left over. So Senior Pharmacy, day care slots,
and myriad new programs were created — never to go away. One year the
state actually increased the personal exemption on the income tax to
return tax revenues, as it hadn't found a crevice to hide it. Next
year, they raised the cap on the Rainy Day Fund so that wouldn't happen
again!
What if the Legislature had been honest and admitted that
the emergency was over and the rate could be reduced? Perhaps when the
crisis did come in 2002, after the dot-com boom collapsed and they
really were out of money, they could have gone back to the voters to
say: "We kept our word. We raised the rate, the emergency ended and we
lowered it back. Now, times are hard again, and we need another
temporary hike." Instead, we had terrible cuts, forcing the state to
tell people that MassHealth could no longer pay for dental fillings,
only extractions, so please call back after your tooth abscesses.
I
worked on six state budgets, beginning at $19 billion and finishing at
$25 billion. Now, we're at $28 billion, the Life Sciences bill has been
gutted and filled with pork, and the governor just asked for his staff
to be increased by 80 percent.
Abolition may seem extreme, but
self control is absent, with casino gambling proposed instead. Howell's
TaxEnders need your signature to let you vote in November, so sign the
petition and let's see how both fare.
Cynthia
Stead's column appears on Thursdays. She serves as Cape and Islands
State Republican Committeewoman. E-mail her at cestead@gmail.com.
'If
Massachusetts voters vote "Hell, Yes" on Question 1 on November 4 and
it passes, the state income tax will drop to 2.65 percent on January 1,
2009 and then to 0 percent on January 1, 2010. This gives the state a
year to adjust their budget.
While many state employees will
lose their questionable jobs, millions of taxpayers will have an easier
time paying their mortgages, their car payments, their weekly fillup at
the gas station, and most importantly in Massachusetts, they will be
able to afford to heat their homes this coming winter.
The
average savings for taxpayers is $3,700. Divide the state income tax of
$12.7 billion for 2009 by the 3.4 million taxpayers. It has been
estimated that the cost of heating your house this winter will be about
$3,000.
State expenditures have become so onerous that it has
really begun to hurt the average citizen's ability to afford the basics
of life. I spent five months examining 10 years of Massachusetts
budgets and have documented my findings at: http://www.abetterframingham.org/state-finances.html
The
2009 state income tax revenues represents only 40 percent of the $32
billion state budget. If you add in other state revenues and the
quasi-independent state agencies (MBTA, MWRA, MCCA, Mass Pike, etc...),
you have to ask yourself why we pay over $5,000 per capita (6.4 million
men, women and children) for state government and is this enough state
government? Where does this money go? How is is spent?
Rep. Swan owes more than $33,000 in property taxes to his hometown, some dating back to 1991.
For
his achievements, Rep. Swan is today’s poster boy for the Vote Yes on
Question 1 campaign to abolish the state income tax. As you know,
Question 1 is endlessly described in TV spots and newspaper editorials
as “reckless” and/or “risky.”
Giving yourself a 5.3 percent pay
increase - how reckless is that? Putting an end to the kleptocracy that
is Massachusetts state government - who needs that kind of risk?
Rep.
Swan, who is 75, is extremely concerned about the lack of revenue in
his hometown. It’s for the children, you know. On Friday, Swan even
attended a meeting in Springfield to discuss the dire revenue situation.
Swan
brought his concern to City Hall, but apparently what he did not bring
was a check for the $33,395 he owes in property taxes. Calls were
placed Friday to Rep. Swan’s offices in Springfield and Boston, but
they were not returned.
During the primary, the Dem promised to
begin paying down his debts, but since winning he “has yet to turn over
a dime,” as the Springfield Republican newspaper put it last week.
Try not to let it destroy your faith in the integrity of the Massachusetts General Court.
Now,
I know that in modern journalism, you’re not supposed to ever criticize
a liberal. Instead the pack goes after such guys as Joe the Plumber.
Joe the Plumber owes $1,100 in taxes - now there is a national story,
unlike the hundreds of dollars in unpaid parking tickets Barack Obama
owed Somerville for 20 years, until he began running for president in
2007.
So here’s Swan, using the traditional deadbeat Democrat defense.
“I was under the assumption I was paying the taxes,” he told the Republican. “That’s how I got behind.”
So
he “assumed” he was paying, even though he wasn’t. The city didn’t send
him a bill so he figured, don’t worry, be happy. Hey, if you’re in the
Legislature, you don’t have to pay taxes. If they don’t pay their “fair
share,” the hacks call it an oversight. If you don’t pay, you have the
right to remain silent.
During rush hour tomorrow, as you drive
to your real job, in the rotaries you’ll see gangs of pinky-ring
public-sector union thugs holding Vote No on 1 signs. God forbid the
hacks should be stopped from stealing $12.5 billion from us every year
- there won’t be enough money to pay for their phony-disability
pensions.
Wall Street Journal -
Tax Report by Tom Herman: "A Tax Revolt Is Quietly Brewing In Some
States"
TAX REPORT By TOM HERMAN
A Tax Revolt Is Quietly Brewing In Some States
August 20, 2008; Page D1 Wall Street Journal
And to think they used to call it "Taxachusetts."
On
Election Day, Massachusetts will vote on whether to eliminate its state
income tax. Advocates hope victory in a place long thought of as a
free-spending liberal bastion will pave the way for similar initiatives
in other states over the next few years. Critics insist a yes vote
would lead to fiscal disaster.
PODCAST
Tom Herman discusses dozens of state tax and spending proposals that
could be on the plate this fall and some Web sites that monitor their
progress.
While Americans are focusing on the presidential and
congressional races, voters in Massachusetts and other states will
decide the fate of dozens of state and local tax and spending issues.
It's
still unclear precisely how many of these issues will be on ballots on
Nov. 4. Some still haven't received final approval from state officials
or may face challenges in court. But Kristina Rasmussen, director of
government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union, a nonprofit group
based in Alexandria, Va., estimates there are more than 60 ballot
measures that would have "some significant impact" on taxpayers.
Oregon
voters, for example, will decide whether to allow taxpayers to deduct
an unlimited amount of their federal income taxes on their state
returns. Nevada is expected to vote on a constitutional amendment that
would restrict property-tax increases. North Dakota voters may vote on
whether to chop the state's personal income tax in half. And Minnesota
will vote on a proposed amendment to its state constitution to raise
the state sales tax by three-eighths of a percentage point, with the
money going to protect the environment and to benefit the arts.
These
and other battles come at a time when many states are struggling to
cope with tough economic times. As the national economy's growth rate
has slowed to a crawl, growth in state tax collections generally has
withered, intensifying budget strains. "Many states have reduced their
revenue forecasts, some many times," said a recent report by the
National Conference of State Legislatures, a Denver-based group. "In a
number of states, collections are even below the lowered expectations."
Since
that report was issued last month, "the news has gotten even worse" in
several states, says Arturo Pérez, fiscal analyst at the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
A recent report by the Nelson
A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public-policy research arm
of the State University of New York, paints a similarly gloomy picture.
The report said state tax revenue rose only 1.7% in this year's first
quarter from the same quarter in 2007. That was the third quarterly
growth-rate decline in a row -- and the slowest pace in five years.
Besides
tax and spending issues, voters will pull the lever this fall on a wide
range of questions involving social issues, including abortion,
affirmative action and same-sex marriage, says Jennie Drage Bowser of
the National Conference of State Legislatures. She says more than 123
questions already have qualified for ballots around the nation, with
many others awaiting final approval. Most have come from state
legislatures or from citizen initiatives.
Here is a look at a few of the most high-profile tax battles:
Massachusetts.
The issue is whether to erase the state's income tax in two phases. The
5.3% tax would be sliced in half next year and then disappear entirely
the following year. Advocates of repeal are hoping for support from
voters worried about tough economic times and angered by bloated
government spending. Six years ago, a similar proposal attracted 45% of
the vote.
Eliminating this tax "will mean less money in the
hands of politicians and will give back an average of $3,700 to each of
3.4 million workers and taxpayers in Massachusetts -- not just once but
every year," says Carla Howell of the Committee for Small Government, a
nonprofit citizen group battling to repeal the tax. "There are tax-cut
activists around the country who are very interested in what we're
doing here," she says. "If it does well, we may see copycat initiatives
in 2010 and 2012 across the country."
Grover Norquist, president
of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington-based coalition of taxpayers
and taxpayer groups opposed to tax increases, agrees. The Massachusetts
vote, officially dubbed "Question One," "could be a model for the
future" in many other states, he says.
Critics of the proposal
say passage would be a major blow. "It would be an absolute disaster
for the state," says Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, a Boston public-policy research group funded
primarily by employers.
If adopted, "this extreme measure would
throw the finances of state and local governments into chaos and
inevitably lead to major increases in property and sales taxes," Mr.
Widmer says.
The state income tax in Massachusetts generated
about $12.5 billion in the latest fiscal year, out of a state budget of
around $28 billion, says Bob Bliss, a spokesman for the state revenue
department. State officials haven't said what they'll do if the repeal
proposal wins approval and becomes law.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval
Patrick, a Democrat, has been "very clear" in his opposition to repeal
of the state income tax, says Rebecca Deusser, a spokeswoman. "A cut of
this magnitude would severely reduce the ability of the Commonwealth to
provide the services that citizens and taxpayers have come to expect
from their state government," she says.
"Best guess: It will go
down" to defeat because of voter fears that approval would lead to
"evisceration of key programs," says Douglas Schoen, a political
consultant and author based in New York.
Most states have a
state income tax. Seven, including Florida, Texas, Washington and
Nevada, have none. Two other states -- Tennessee and New Hampshire --
don't tax wages and salaries but do tax investment income, such as
interest and dividends.
Oregon. Few states allow taxpayers to
deduct federal income taxes on their state income-tax returns. Oregon
is one of them, but it imposes limits on the amount that can be
deducted. On state returns for 2008, that limit is generally $5,600 (or
$2,800 for a married couple filing separately), says a revenue
department spokesman.
In November, voters will decide whether to
remove those limits and allow unlimited deductions of federal income
taxes on state returns.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, is
opposed to the measure, a spokeswoman says. Other critics say the
measure, if enacted, wouldn't benefit most Oregonians and would blow a
big hole in the budget.
Nevada. Voters are focusing on a
proposed constitutional amendment that would impose a new cap on
property-tax increases. Generally, the measure would cap property tax
at 1% of the taxable value of the home for the 2003-04 fiscal year, and
would also limit property-tax increases to only 2% a year (or the cost
of living, whichever is less), until the property is sold.
Voters
would have to approve the proposal not only this year but also in 2010
in order for it to become effective. Nevada's secretary of state
recently certified the proposal for inclusion on the ballot, but it
still may face a legal challenge. A spokesman for Gov. Jim Gibbons, a
Republican, says the governor "hasn't taken a position at this point"
on the proposal.
"We need stable and predictable property
taxes," says Sharron Angle, a former state legislator who heads We the
People Nevada, which drafted and is advocating passage of the
amendment. She says many voters have complained that their property
taxes have risen even though home values have declined. She also says
there is interest in several other states, including Arizona, in
proposing similar property-tax caps.
Other states. In North
Dakota, efforts are being made to place a proposal on the ballot that
includes cutting personal income-tax rates by 50%. Colorado will vote
on whether to increase the state's sales tax to fund services to people
with "developmental disabilities." The state may also vote on major
changes to its taxpayer bill of rights law and the manner in which the
state funds public education through 12th grade.
In Maine,
voters may decide on whether to roll back new taxes on beer, wine and
soda. And in Allegheny County, Pa., Friends Against Counterproductive
Taxation, a group led by restaurant and bar owners, is trying to place
on the ballot a proposal to substantially reduce a stiff tax on
alcoholic drinks, dubbed the "drink tax."
"This is as many
serious tax measures on the ballot as we've seen" in many years, says
Americans for Tax Reform's Mr. Norquist. For more information, see the
Web site of the National Conference of State Legislatures
(http://www.ncsl.org/). Also check out http://www.stateline.org/, a
nonprofit online news site that reports on state policy and politics
and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit organization.
Boston Herald - Howie
Carr: "Convenient timing for phony Pike plan"
BostonHerald.com Convenient timing for phony Pike plan
By Howie Carr | Friday, September 19, 2008
Gov.
Deval Patrick is becoming to state government what the cartoon
character Wimpy was to Popeye. He will gladly fire a Mass Pike toll
hack next year, or maybe in 2010, for a “No” vote on Question 1 today.
We’re
expected to believe that Deval is serious about getting rid of toll
takers at the Pike. Please, Deval, we were born at night, but not last
night.
Odd, isn’t it, how state government suddenly comes up
with these reforms now that there’s a referendum question on the Nov. 4
ballot to abolish the state income tax. And that the proposals are all
aimed at wildly unpopular public-sector abuses. The late Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan used to call these phony pre-election crackdowns “boob
bait for the bubbas.”
Remember, these trial balloons are being
floated by the same guy who just two years ago was promising you
“property tax relief” if you elected him governor. How’s that one
working out for you?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
A
few days ago, Deval was holding a public hearing on police details.
Granted, the use of civilian flagmen would be restricted to state
roads, which are only 10 percent of the total, and just on the ones
with lower speed limits. And then of course the flagmen will have to be
paid “prevailing wage” to minimize any real savings.
But rest
assured that you will see at least one civilian flagman, on at least
one state road, before Nov. 4. They need a photo op for the media, to
show how “serious” they are about doing something.
The cops, of
course, are in on this police-detail gag. Deval pretends to crack down
on them, and the cops pretend to believe him. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
In a few weeks, the hack unions will start running TV spots saying Vote
No on Question 1.
There’s no need to abolish the state income
tax, the TV spots will say. Your state government has heard you. Look
at what we’re trying to do with the toll takers (B roll of Allston and
128 toll plazas) and police details (fat cops yelling in Gardner
Auditorium).
Taxpayers, your state government gets it. Vote No
on Question 1. It goes too far. And what about the children? This ad
authorized by Local 782, the International Pinky Ring Brotherhood of
Payroll Patriots [team stats] for Phony Disability Pensions at Age 45
PAC.
Stand by for more insincere cosmetic gestures. At the State
House these days, it’s all about Question 1, and how to stop it. Next
they’ll be unveiling some phony reform proposal on state pensions.
The
reality is, there’s only one way to really do something about any of
the above abuses, and that’s by voting Yes on Question 1.
Take
$12 billion away from the hacks and you wipe the smiles right off their
puffy faces. Spending money is fun. Spending other people’s money is
even more fun. No money - that’s like being in the Dreaded Private
Sector, which is definitely no fun.
Even if Deval et al. wanted
to crack down on the toll hacks, do you really think the Legislature
would permit a hack holocaust at the Pike? Do you know how many
relatives and friends of State House politicians are or have been
employed at the Pike, not just at the tollbooths, but at 10 Park?
If
the administration was really interested in putting an end to this
nonsense, they would tear down the toll booths and propose an increase
in the gasoline tax. It costs less than a penny to collect a dollar in
tax at the pump. At the tollbooth it costs maybe 30 cents to collect a
dollar.
But what do you expect when your toll takers are making
$70,000-plus with overtime and health benefits and a pension for the
exact same unskilled job that a 16-year-old at the supermarket is paid
minimum wage to perform?
That’s “public service,” baby. I just
hope if they ever do fire the toll hacks, they don’t forget to pat ’em
down on their way out the door.
Boston Metro: Michele
McPhee - "Time for the taxpayer to speak up"
Boston Metro
Published 2008-08-18 04:07
McPhee: Time for the taxpayer to speak up
What does it take for the Massachusetts taxpayer to say enough is enough?
Does
our outrage come when the Middlesex County Clerk of Probate Courts is
caught red-handed, on camera, allegedly pocketing dollar bills he stole
from the copy machine? That suspect, John R. Buonomo — who earns a
measly $111,000 a year — is facing misdemeanor theft charges but
declared that he plans to run for re-election.
Do we stamp our
collective feet when a Democratic Senator like Jimmy Marzilli is
accused of being a sexual predator who physically and verbally
assaulted at least a dozen women — on taxpayer time — but continues to
collect his full pay check two full months after he allegedly gave cops
in Lowell a bogus name (I’m Representative Marty Walsh) and took off
running. Hey, it’s the Massachusetts way. Marzilli’s pals, like
Governor Deval Patrick, are helping him bolster his taxpayer-funded
pension.
Do we protest when MBTA General Manager Dan Grabauskas
— who has now earned the moniker Dan “Grab-Our-Cash” — gives his fat
cat executives a 9 percent raise just two weeks after he groused that
the T is in such tough shape commuters are looking at a “hefty” fare
hike? Two weeks after he told the lawmakers on Beacon Hill that he is
going to have to insist on a bailout package to fix the $8.2 billion
deficit. Grab-Our-Cash also thinks it’s a terrific idea to commute to
the Transportation Building from his tony Ipswich home in a Ford SUV
hybrid.
Guess those delays on the commuter rail these days are too much for Grab-Our-Cash to bear.
Come
on Massachusetts. We have now slipped into a mode that victims of
domestic violence find themselves after they have been repeatedly
beaten and berated. We accept the unacceptable; make excuses for our
elected officials and clench our eyes shut to the abuse inflicted on us
by the people responsible for managing our money.
Repealing the
state income tax come November may not be the solution. After all, we
are the Bay State and the folks in charge will find new and innovative
ways to stick it to us. But it would certainly send a message that
enough is enough. Remember that old slogan “Make It In Massachusetts?”
Well, I think we should invest in a new one. “Bend Over and Take It in Massachusetts.”
The Michele McPhee Show can be heard on 96.9 FM WTKK weeknights 7 to 10 p.m. and Saturdays 9 a.m. to noon.
The Daily Collegian
Editorial-"Abolish the income tax"
The Daily Collegian Abolish the income tax
By: John Glaser, Collegian Columnist
October 16, 2008
A
recent New York Times article on the coming Massachusetts ballot
initiative to repeal the state income tax quoted the Massachusetts
secretary of administration and finance as saying, "These are tough
times for everyone as it is, and if Question 1 (the income tax repeal)
passes, things will become exponentially more difficult."
This
staggeringly foolish argument belies the facts and is based upon the
premise that the Mass. state government is the singular reason any
citizen is on their feet at all.
It presumes that the state is
one of the leaders of the nation in prosperity and progress due only to
the beloved, beneficent governing institution presiding over it. The
idea that excessive and increasing government revenue is what keeps the
citizens of Massachusetts afloat is simply unsupported by the evidence.
The
annual revenue from the state income tax is about $12.5 billion and the
passing of this initiative would ostensibly eliminate that amount of
the annual budget. Many in opposition to this repeal say it would be a
devastating loss in essential governmental services, but these claims
are far from realistic.
While the official budgetary documents
claim the annual budget is currently $28.5 billion, that number is
inaccurate. State government expenditures also include non-budgeted
spending, capital spending, expendable trust spending and others that
are excluded from the statutory budget.
With these taken into
account, the budget elevates to about $47.3 billion. The repeal would
thus leave $34.8 billion in the annual budget, which is comparable to
what it was in 1999 (that chaotic era of medieval anarchy). Which
essential governmental services can't be taken care of with $34.8
billion?
On the other hand, the repeal would leave the average
Massachusetts taxpayer with an average $3,700 of their own money left
in their own pockets; a potentially dramatic difference in yearly
income at a time when people are strapped for cash.
But even
this is a distraction from the overall point. The notion that higher
government spending is a causal factor in a stable and well-serviced
public is fundamentally flawed. It can easily be exposed as such with
an objective surveillance of the hindrances that excessive government
intervention confers on the people.
With an overly
interventionist state government driving the cost of living up with
programs like urban rent control, which the overwhelming majority of
economists agree is harmful and drives up costs, and the monopolization
of the inner-city schools, which leaves the youth in a dreadful state
of educational underachievement, cutting spending can only help.
Additionally,
a 2007 Census Bureau revealed that between 2000 and 2007 the rate of
poverty in Massachusetts remained virtually flat, despite the broader
declining economic circumstances on a national scale.
It takes
examples of government waste like the Big Dig, excessive pensions for
government employees and the multitude of bloated bureaucracies in the
Commonwealth to see how dispensable the state income tax is.
Police
details at construction sites (Mass. being the only state in the Union
that has deemed this an essential governmental service) cost $94.3
million annually. Cut the fat, and we can comfortably afford the
elimination of the income tax.
The budget is not taken up with money spent on essential government services, but rather an impressive amount of pork.
Aside
from wasteful spending, a more precise understanding of the system
would lead people to realize that the government rarely has "the
children" and "the needy" as high priorities.
Rather, government
employees, lobbyists, special interests groups and the like subsume the
bulk of budget allocation, despite the idea of many that the state
government is wholly a manifestation of charitable public endeavors.
Seven
other states in the Union have no income tax and two apply the tax only
to interest and dividends. And, while the naysayers in Massachusetts
would have you believe otherwise, those states are not struggling to
get by. Massachusetts should follow suit this November.
An
elimination of the state income tax in Massachusetts is not only the
logical, pragmatic thing to aim for, but it is the moral, just thing.
Help minimize the adverse effects of the heavy hand of government and
give the people back what they earn each year. Vote Yes on No. 1.
John Glaser is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at jwglaser@student.umass.edu.
Daily News Tribune:
"Taxpayers win with Question 1"
The Daily News Tribune Wolfe: Taxpayers win with Question 1
By Harold Wolfe
Sept 16, 2008
Opponents
of Question 1 (the net consumers of our tax dollars) miss the whole
point behind Question 1 and erroneously believe that we should somehow
replace the state income tax with other monies.
The state loses
$12.7 billion of OUR monies that they would have spent as they pleased
and we the taxpayers gain back $12.7 billion of OUR monies to spend as
we please. This is not a trade or a swap.
The state government LOSES, the taxpayers GAIN. Period. End of discussion.
Why is this difficult to understand? We are overburdened.
Given
the high price of oil, people complain about the cost of heating their
house and filling up their car. But please take a few moments to add up
all your annual taxes. Your federal income taxes, state income taxes,
local property taxes and all the sales taxes and gas taxes you paid.
Divide this number by 12. Compare your MONTHLY TAX BILL with your
monthly heating bill or gas bill.
Public sector unions (the
losers) will try to compensate with requests for overrides against the
taxpayers (the winners). Good luck to them.
We taxpayers outnumber you public sector people who ravenously spend our hard earned $12.7 billion in your frivolous ways.
In
1904, NINE years before the federal income tax was created, Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated "Taxes are what we pay
for civilized society."
In my humble opinion, there was more civilization back then.
Letter to the editor: LWV should skip the propaganda on Question 1
October 20, 2008
To the editor:
There's not much surprise in the letter from the League of Women Voters urging us to vote "no" on Question 1.
The
nearest of the non-income-tax states is neighboring New Hampshire. The
letter from the League does not help us understand how it is that the
sky-is-falling consequences sure to follow from an abandonment of an
income tax in our commonwealth are not to be found in New Hampshire or
in any of six other states that rely on other sources of revenue to
survive, and indeed sometimes to thrive.
The League writes, for example:
"Infrastructure
will deteriorate further with less money for roads, bridges and public
transportation systems. This means more crumbling roadways, potholes,
and repair bills for drivers and a greater risk of train derailments
and unsafe bridges."
I have often driven in New Hampshire, and I
have noted, with some chagrin, that the quality of the roads there,
subjected to worse weather than our own, is almost invariably superior
to that of our own. Indeed, the difference is noticeable as soon as the
state line is passed. I do not typically read newspapers from those
other states, and that may be the reason I have seen no reports of
train derailments or unsafe bridges there. I have read of such things
occurring in Minnesota, most recently and dramatically, which is
perplexing because of state income tax rates there of between 5.35
percent and 7.85 percent.
Nor have I seen any such reports of
out-of-the-ordinary civic chaos in Texas, Florida, South Dakota,
Nevada, Washington or Wyoming.
My point is a simple one.
Spare
us, please, the lurid descriptions of the prospects for a civic
Armageddon if we vote to declare our independence from state income
taxation. Give us some credit for understanding that it is up to us to
decide, on the rare occasion when we have something to say about the
taxes imposed upon us, whether we want a government of yes-we-can or of
no-maybe-we-shouldn't. It is right and just for us to question whether
we want to have our hard-earned dollars taken from us to support
feel-good programs that, while offering some benefit to society as a
whole, inevitably involve mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility and
overpayment to and for the financial advantage of those who are
supposed to be our civil servants but who think of themselves instead
as our masters.
The League of Women Voters has a proud, if
sometimes uneven, tradition of trying, at least, to promote our
education on civic matters. It is disappointing to see it so readily
abandon that fine tradition in favor of talking-points memos in the
transparent disguise of a concerned letter to the editor.
We deserve better of the group. Education, yes. Shrill propaganda, no.
TaxAnalysts.com:
"Income Tax Repeal to Appear on Massachusetts's November Ballot"
TaxAnalysts.com
State Tax Today and State Tax Notes August 13, 2008
Income Tax Repeal to Appear on Massachusetts's November Ballot
by Karen Setze
Proponents
of a Massachusetts ballot initiative (Question 1) to repeal the
individual income tax say its passage in November would cut government
waste, but opponents counter that it would decimate public services and
potentially lead to a constitutional crisis.
Date: Aug. 13, 2008
In
addition to helping select the next U.S. president, Massachusetts
voters in November will determine whether their commonwealth continues
to collect individual income taxes.
The initiative, which will
be labeled Question 1 on the ballot, would reduce the personal income
tax rate to 2.65 percent for 2009 and end the tax completely beginning
in 2010.
The Committee for Small Government sponsored the ballot
question. One of the founders of the committee is former Libertarian
gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell. Howell and the committee put a
similar question on the 2002 ballot, which was defeated, but by a
margin much narrower than expected. (For coverage of that election, see
State Tax Notes, Nov. 11, 2002, p. 369, Doc 2002-24874 [PDF], or 2002
STT 216-18 2002 STT 216-18: News Stories.)
To get the current
proposal on the November ballot, the committee first had to submit
petitions with more than 65,593 validated voter signatures. When the
legislature declined to consider the question, proponents had to submit
an additional 11,099 signatures by June 18. More than 15,000 signatures
were submitted, ensuring the question would appear on the ballot.
The
larger purpose for ending the income tax is "to make government
smaller," Howell told Tax Analysts. "This will take $12 billion out of
the hands of the politicians up on Beacon Hill and provide an average
of $3,700 to each of the 3 million workers and taxpayers in
Massachusetts."
Essential services won't have to be reduced if
the government cuts waste and overspending, Howell said. "What the
politicians need to do and refuse to do is go over the budget line item
by line item" to trim the waste. "It's reasonable to assume," she
added, that there's waste in every department and every level of
government.
Also, the money not sent to the commonwealth's
treasury as income tax will be spent and invested in Massachusetts,
which will stimulate the economy and create more jobs, Howell said.
"We've already seen evidence that our proposal is cutting spending," she said.
The
legislature had passed a measure (H 4959) to spend $3 billion
increasing the pensions of state employees, and Gov. Deval Patrick (D)
had planned to sign it, Howell said. But the bill's passage came "on
the heels of story after story about abuses in the pension system," she
said. The Boston Globe reported on the generous amounts of the pensions
available to state employees, and about "double-dippers" -- employees
who had retired and were drawing their pension while also working at a
second state job, Howell said.
Ultimately, the governor vetoed the bill.
Opposition
Michael
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said voter
approval of the income tax repeal would be "catastrophic. The
individual income tax provides $12.5 billion of a $30 billion budget."
Eliminating the income tax "would decimate state and local government,
requiring drastic, drastic cuts" and many layoffs, Widmer said.
The
commonwealth's annual spending totals $47 billion, since there are
whole categories not included in the official budget, Howell said, so
income tax revenue represents a smaller share than sometimes portrayed.
"If
every state employee was eliminated, and all of their salaries and
benefits were ended, it would save $5 billion, meaning you'd still have
to find $7.5 billion to cut," Widmer said.
If approved by
voters, the question would become commonwealth law, which could be
repealed by the legislature, Widmer said, though he doubted that
lawmakers would fully restore a tax ended by the voters. "They would
probably increase other taxes," he predicted. The other taxes and fees
would be less progressive, and "harder on low- and middle-income
taxpayers," Widmer said. "You would likely see major increases in
property taxes" as local governments try to make up for the loss of
commonwealth grants.
Passage of the question could even bring on
a constitutional crisis, since some commonwealth functions like public
education are "constitutionally mandated," Widmer said. "It would be a
virtual blood bath."
Also campaigning against the ballot
question is the Committee for Our Communities, whose backers include
prominent business people such as Peter Guzzi of the Greater Boston
Chamber of Commerce, along with the Massachusetts Teachers Association
and other public employee unions, said committee spokesperson Stephen
Crawford. "Things are tough, but this proposal would make it worse."
The
official language of the current ballot question "has yet to be
drafted," but it will be done as a joint effort by the offices of the
attorney general and secretary of the commonwealth, said Brian McNiff,
spokesperson for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin (D).
Karen Setze ksetze@tax.org
The Salem News-Our
View: "Brophy's claims turn outlandish"
The Salem News Online
Our view: Brophy's claims turn outlandish
Tue, May 20 2008
Perhaps
Peabody's John Brophy is simply misunderstood. Maybe he has larger
ambitions than simply returning to his job at fire headquarters.
Certainly
by his recent actions — refusing to submit to a physical exam and
claiming he needs more time to complete a plumbing job in Malden, after
having won a long legal battle to get his firefighter's job back — it
would appear Brophy has other plans.
He already has a colorful
nickname — "the dozing dispatcher" — as a result of his having slept
through a 911 call back when he was on the job. But even greater
celebrity is within his grasp.
Why, Brophy could easily become
the poster child for Citizens for Limited Taxation, the Committee for
Small Government and other organizations that believe government
spending, particularly when it comes to wages and benefits, is out of
control. It's a major reason the Committee for Small Government, headed
by former Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate Carla Howell, is
collecting signatures in an effort to get an initiative petition on
this November's ballot calling for the abolition of the state income
tax.
With $12.7 billion less to spend, Howell and her supporters
figure, the commonwealth would have no choice but to drastically reform
its current personnel practices.
What personnel practices? Well,
there's the language in the Peabody firefighters' contract that allowed
Brophy to get his job back even after falling asleep on the job,
failing a drug test and getting in a fight with a superior officer at
the scene of a fire. (Of course, Brophy's defenders as well as an
arbitrator found there were mitigating factors in all those incidents;
but shouldn't Peabody taxpayers be able to expect more of those in
public-safety positions?)
Fire Chief Steve Pasdon, who'd
accepted the courts' decision ordering Brophy restored to his job with
back pay, is understandably running out of patience with his renegade
firefighter. And he'll ask Mayor Michael Bonfanti, at a hearing
scheduled for today, to uphold the most recent suspensions he's handed
Brophy for his refusal to report for duty. If there are grounds for
termination, the mayor should exercise that option.
Meanwhile,
Brophy has filed an action in Superior Court seeking to block the
latest disciplinary actions and give him three months to report for
duty so he can complete a plumbing job for which he contracted at the
Malden Senior Center.
Brophy's latest actions are nothing short
of outrageous. Should he win this round, however, we suspect it will
only hasten the day voters decide to finally call a halt to the
giveaways that some on government payrolls regard as their due.
Boston Globe:
"Activists hope to abolish state income tax"
NEW ENGLAND IN BRIEF - THE BOSTON GLOBE July 2, 2008 BOSTON
Activists hope to abolish state income tax
As
lawmakers prepare to ratify the second-largest tax increase this
decade, activists hoping to abolish the state income tax have secured a
spot on November's ballot for a binding initiative petition. With
11,099 certified voter signatures needed, activists led by Carla Howell
have turned in 12,771 and plan to submit more to Secretary of State
William F. Galvin's office before today's 5 p.m. deadline. "It looks
like they're going to be on," said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for
Galvin. (State House News Service)
Boston Herald:
"Voters to weigh in on income tax"
Voters closer to weighing in on income tax
By Hillary Chabot Boston Herald Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A
measure to repeal the state income tax vaulted another hurdle yesterday
after the state verified enough signatures to place it on the ballot.
“In
the face of $4.50-a-gallon gasoline, skyrocketing heating oil costs,
exploding home foreclosures and 28 straight years of property tax
increases on Massachusetts homes, ending the income tax will give
desperately needed financial relief to Massachusetts families,” said
Carla Howell, chairwoman of the Committee for Small Government.
The group gathered more than 15,000 signatures so voters could weigh in on the question on Nov. 4.
Secretary
of State William Galvin’s office certified more than 12,000 signatures
yesterday, topping the 11,099 needed to get on the ballot.
Howell
said the group will turn in more signatures tomorrow. According to
Howell, the measure would save the average taxpayer $3,600 a year.
Voters
nearly passed a similar measure six years ago, and they succeeded in
passing a ballot question in 2000 to gradually roll back the income
tax. The measure up for vote is meant to prevent lawmakers from
stopping the repeal like they halted the rollback in 2002.
The Sun Chronicle:
"So long, income tax?"
So long, income tax?
BY MAITE JULLIAN FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Massachusetts'
voters will be asked Nov. 4 whether to eliminate the state income tax.
Until then, opponents and supporters will be campaigning hard to
convince voters.
With ballot signatures certified last week for
the proposal initiated by the libertarian group Committee for Smaller
Government, the push to repeal the state income tax is officially on.
And it creates a lot of opposition.
If the proposal passes, the
state would lose $12 billion a year, a 40-percent cut in annual revenue
that opponents say would gut local aid to communities across
Massachusetts.
"We already have a $1 billion shortfall in the
budget with the state income tax," said Michael Widmer, president of
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which opposes the repeal.
"Without the tax, it would be a $13 billion shortfall."
If local
legislators, cities and towns and major interest groups are opposed to
it, they all concede there is a good chance the proposal will be
approved by voters fed up with rising living costs and gasoline prices.
"This
is a very difficult time for many people," Widmer said. "And that's the
problem. I take it very seriously because if it passes, it will be a
huge problem." A similar proposal in 2002 got 45 percent of the vote.
Widmer
said that even if there was also a recession that year, there was not
the surge in prices that people face today. And that could make a
difference.
Geoffrey Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts
Municipal Association, said repeal of the income tax would have an
"extraordinary impact," especially on cities and towns already
struggling with their budgets.
"It would make a very bad situation an unimaginable one," he said.
But
Carla Howell, president of the Committee for Smaller Government who
filed the petition for the second time, said the state will survive
without the income tax.
"When we end the income tax, politicians
on Beacon Hill will still be collecting $17 billion in other taxes and
revenues," she said.
Her group collected more than 20,000
signatures to support the proposal, far more than the 11,099 needed to
place it on the state's general election ballot in November.
Howell said she is optimistic about the vote's outcome.
"We
have a good chance to get it passed," she said. "We've been hearing
from people collecting signatures that a lot of people are enthusiastic
about that."
Howell said hundreds of volunteers will focus on a grass-roots effort.
"We
encourage volunteers to go to our Web site, send links to their
co-workers and friends to learn about the state income tax and our
campaign, write letters to newspapers editors, call and talk on the
radio, put up yard signs," she said. "We don't have a specific plan
yet, but we'll be calling out to volunteers to end the state income
tax."
It's shaping up to be an epic battle.
Already,
opposition is mobilizing in the state, led by the Coalition for Our
Communities, a group comprised of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, several
communities, non-profits, businesses and individuals.
The
AFL-CIO is calling on all unions to join the coalition and urges on its
Web site to oppose "the decimation of local aid to cities and towns,
and the inevitable property tax increases to provide the necessary
funding for our schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical
services and transportation infrastructure."
State officials and
legislators also vowed to fight against the repeal, along with interest
groups such as the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield.
Beckwith said that although the municipal
association won't directly campaign against the proposal because it is
not a political organization, it will comment on implications of the
repeal.
"We'll do educational work on it," he said. "We will be
informing anyone interested in listening about the impact of such a
measure."
Widmer said his organization will start work on an
analysis on the impact of the measure as soon as the state budget is
complete next month.
"Convenient timing
for phony Pike plan" Howie Carr
BostonHerald.com
Gov.
Deval Patrick is becoming to state government what the cartoon
character Wimpy was to Popeye. He will gladly fire a Mass Pike toll
hack next year, or maybe in 2010, for a “No” vote on Question 1 today.
We’re
expected to believe that Deval is serious about getting rid of toll
takers at the Pike. Please, Deval, we were born at night, but not last
night.
Odd, isn’t it, how state government suddenly comes up
with these reforms now that there’s a referendum question on the Nov. 4
ballot to abolish the state income tax. And that the proposals are all
aimed at wildly unpopular public-sector abuses. The late Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan used to call these phony pre-election crackdowns “boob
bait for the bubbas.”
Remember, these trial balloons are being
floated by the same guy who just two years ago was promising you
“property tax relief” if you elected him governor. How’s that one
working out for you?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
A
few days ago, Deval was holding a public hearing on police details.
Granted, the use of civilian flagmen would be restricted to state
roads, which are only 10 percent of the total, and just on the ones
with lower speed limits. And then of course the flagmen will have to be
paid “prevailing wage” to minimize any real savings.
But rest
assured that you will see at least one civilian flagman, on at least
one state road, before Nov. 4. They need a photo op for the media, to
show how “serious” they are about doing something.
The cops, of
course, are in on this police-detail gag. Deval pretends to crack down
on them, and the cops pretend to believe him. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
In a few weeks, the hack unions will start running TV spots saying Vote
No on Question 1.
There’s no need to abolish the state income
tax, the TV spots will say. Your state government has heard you. Look
at what we’re trying to do with the toll takers (B roll of Allston and
128 toll plazas) and police details (fat cops yelling in Gardner
Auditorium).
Taxpayers, your state government gets it. Vote No
on Question 1. It goes too far. And what about the children? This ad
authorized by Local 782, the International Pinky Ring Brotherhood of
Payroll Patriots [team stats] for Phony Disability Pensions at Age 45
PAC.
Stand by for more insincere cosmetic gestures. At the State
House these days, it’s all about Question 1, and how to stop it. Next
they’ll be unveiling some phony reform proposal on state pensions.
The
reality is, there’s only one way to really do something about any of
the above abuses, and that’s by voting Yes on Question 1.
Take
$12 billion away from the hacks and you wipe the smiles right off their
puffy faces. Spending money is fun. Spending other people’s money is
even more fun. No money - that’s like being in the Dreaded Private
Sector, which is definitely no fun.
Even if Deval et al. wanted
to crack down on the toll hacks, do you really think the Legislature
would permit a hack holocaust at the Pike? Do you know how many
relatives and friends of State House politicians are or have been
employed at the Pike, not just at the tollbooths, but at 10 Park?
If
the administration was really interested in putting an end to this
nonsense, they would tear down the toll booths and propose an increase
in the gasoline tax. It costs less than a penny to collect a dollar in
tax at the pump. At the tollbooth it costs maybe 30 cents to collect a
dollar.
But what do you expect when your toll takers are making
$70,000-plus with overtime and health benefits and a pension for the
exact same unskilled job that a 16-year-old at the supermarket is paid
minimum wage to perform?
That’s “public service,” baby. I just
hope if they ever do fire the toll hacks, they don’t forget to pat ’em
down on their way out the door.
By Lindsey Parietti/Daily News staff The MetroWest Daily News Posted Jun 11, 2008 @ 12:46 AMLast update Jun 11, 2008 @ 12:50 AM
FRAMINGHAM — House
Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said he does not see the state carrying out a
repeal of the income tax - even if voters approve the binding ballot
measure in November.
"I'm against doing it and I find myself
hard-pressed to say that I would try to completely implement an
elimination of the income tax," DiMasi told a Daily News editorial
board yesterday.
"I can't see myself doing that in the future,
but I know people are hurting and I know people want to send a message
maybe at some point in time that their taxes are too high."
The
citizen-sponsored initiative to repeal the state's 5.3 percent income
tax has cleared the initial hurdles and will appear on the ballot this
fall as long as its sponsor, Wayland-based Campaign for Small
Government, collects 11,099 signatures by next Wednesday.
Voters narrowly defeated a similar proposal in 2002, with 40 percent voting for the repeal and 48 percent voting against it.
DiMasi
called ending the income tax, which would take $11 billion away from
the state's $28 billion budget, a Draconian move. He said he did not
know how the state would avoid implementing the repeal, if it passed.
"I'm
hoping that the people of Massachusetts don't vote that way, and I'm
asking them not to vote that way. ... It would devastate the services
the state provides as well as services that the cities and towns
provide," he said.
As the two-year legislative session nears its
end - lawmakers wrap up official business on July 31 - DiMasi said the
he expects the House to take up legislation that would have states cast
their Electoral College votes for the presidential candidate with the
most popular votes. When enough states pass the the legislation to
control the Electoral College then the interstate compact takes effect.
The
House will also authorize environmental, transportation, information
technology and a handful of other borrowing bills in this session, he
said.
DiMasi said he wanted to reform mandatory minimum criminal
sentencing, but doesn't expect it to happen this session because "a lot
of people don't want to be that aggressive."
Instead, the
Legislature is likely to pass some form of Gov. Deval Patrick's
proposal to reform criminal background checks by limiting employers'
access to an offender's record, DiMasi said.
The House may or
may not take up a campaign finance reform bill that would decrease from
$200 to $100 the maximum campaign contribution that lobbyists are
allowed to make, he said.
Despite butting heads with Patrick on
casinos, local meal and hotel taxes, ending a telecommunication tax
exemption and many of the governor's other proposals, DiMasi said he
was happy with the accomplishments this session.
"I think we
accomplished a great deal," he said, naming legislation that awaits
final approval including a green energy bill, a $1 billion life
sciences bill and education reforms.
"We have many things that we can be proud of," he said. "I have like 10 or 15 pages that I could give you."
When
asked if the improved relationship between DiMasi and Patrick could be
attributed to Patrick's silence on recent ethics allegations that the
speaker has used his influence to benefit friends, DiMasi said, "No, no
I don't think that at all."
"I thought we got along at the beginning and I think we get along now," he said.
DiMasi
has come under fire for accepting a $250,000 mortgage, which he
recently repaid, from friend Richard Vitale, who was allegedly paid by
ticket brokers to push a ticket resale bill through the house without
registering as a lobbyist.
The state GOP has also asked the
Ethics Commission to look into reports that DiMasi pressured
administration officials to award a state contract to software company
Cognos, and that he killed legislation blocking a Fall River liquefied
natural gas project, which his friend Jay Cashman later benefited from
by selling the property for $14 million.
DiMasi wasn't shy about
calling Patrick out on his early missteps such as expecting taxpayers
to foot the bill for costly drapes and the lease for his new Cadillac.
DiMasi
waved a mock-up of Car and Driver magazine featuring "Cadillac Deval"
at last year's St. Patrick's Day political roast and, a month later,
showed reporters the worn furnishings in his own office. "That was
fun," DiMasi said yesterday. "Well, ... it wasn't fun. It was poking
fun, that's it. It wasn't serious." "We're very supportive of each
other. I really feel that way. We personally like each other very much.
There's no question in my mind. The only issue that really caused a
problem was the casino issue."
Lindsey Parietti can be reached at lindsey.parietti@cnc.com.
Boston Herald: Monday
morning briefing - "perfect storm developing"
Boston Herald - The Monday morning briefing By Casey Ross Monday, June 23, 2008 The Lone Republican
by Holly Robichaud
A
perfect storm is developing for passage of the income tax repeal.
People are feeling the pinch at the pump and are angry. With the
Legislature consistently failing to roll back the income tax to 5
percent as promised, no sales tax holiday in August, no property tax
cuts and no reforms passed for pensions or police details, you can
expect that Massachusetts voters are going to repeal, repeal, repeal.
New Hampshire has been able to survive and thrive without an income
tax. We can do it as well.
Metro International"
"Fall ballot looking big"
Fall ballot looking big
Pot fines, income tax, dog racing to likely be voted on in November
Campaigns
to end the state’s income tax, ease marijuana laws and phase out
commercial dog racing have all gathered enough signatures to earn
binding questions on the November ballot, officials said yesterday.
Today
is the deadline to file 11,099 signatures of certified voters with town
and city hall offices, which must validate the authenticity of the
voters and their addresses before turning them over to the state by
July 2. Groups also had to submit signatures last year to trigger
hearings and debate over the issues at the Statehouse.
The Committee to Protect Dogs, which is seeking to ban Greyhound racing, announced yesterday it had filed 45,000 signatures.
Meanwhile,
the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, has turned in more than
20,000 signatures. The measure would decriminalize the possession of
small amounts of marijuana by only allowing adults caught with up to
one ounce of it for personal use to be hit with a civil infraction and
a fine. The move would save $29.5 million in law enforcement costs and
prevent at least 7,500 new CORIs every year, according to Whitney
Taylor, the committee’s campaign manager.
“I am confident we should be making the ballot,” Taylor said yesterday.
On
the income tax question, Carla Howell, chair of the Committee for Small
Government, said more than 22,000 raw signatures were being counted and
filed yesterday.
Metro Published 2008-06-18 05:12 Greg St. Martin
AP: "Senate Pres
attacks income tax question"
Senate President Murray attacks proposed income tax question
By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer | June 12, 2008
BOSTON
--Massachusetts is marching through the nation's fiscal storm, but its
progress and future are threatened by a November ballot question
proposing to eliminate the state income tax, Senate President Therese
Murray said Thursday.
The Plymouth Democrat told a Greater
Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast that repealing the 5.3 percent
rate -- a proposal from Libertarian Carla Howell that nearly won
approval in 2002 -- would trigger property tax increases and sharp
local aid cuts.
"People have to realize that it is a binding
initiative that would lead to debilitating cuts in local aid, including
education and public safety. That would mean laying off teachers,
police and firefighters, closing schools and shutting down road
projects," Murray said.
"All we have to do is look at Florida, for example: no income tax, but their property taxes are a cause for revolt," she added.
Chamber
President Paul Guzzi quickly signaled his support, saying his group and
others from the business community would voice their opposition to the
question. The state derives $12 billion out of its roughly $27 billion
budget from income tax receipts. Eliminating the income tax would cut
the budget back to its 1995 level.
"It's irresponsible and it goes too far, and reasonable people understand that," Guzzi said.
Anti-tax
activists are working to gather 11,000 signatures needed to get the
question on the fall ballot after gathering 66,000 to clear a first
legal hurdle. A similar question got 45 percent of the vote six years
ago.
The question proposes to eliminate taxes on wages,
interest, dividends and capital gains. Supporters say that would give 3
million taxpayers an average of $3,600 annually.
In a statement
on the Web site of her group, the Committee for Small Government,
Howell wrote: "This $3,600-a-year increase in your take-home paycheck
means more family money to spend, save and invest. And, statewide, it
will create hundreds of thousands of jobs."
Howell did not immediately return an e-mail seeking reaction to Murray's criticism.
In
her speech, Murray revealed the Senate would pass Gov. Deval Patrick's
$1 billion life sciences initiative Thursday, allowing him to sign it
before he, Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi travel to San
Diego next week for a national biotechnology conference.
"This is a very competitive business and I think we've got the best package," she said. "We have cash and we have bonds."
She
said $120 million in film industry tax credits are generating about
$500 million in business for the state, and she expects Massachusetts
to be the site of at least one Hollywood sound stage soon. But Murray
said she would not support any more tax breaks until construction has
been completed and work is under way.
"I think if they get in
the ground, they get up and running, they want to come back to us and
talk about post-production tax breaks, I'll be all ears," she said.
On
a political note, the state's first female Senate president gave voice
to a challenge confronting Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential
nominee-in-waiting, as he seeks to gain votes from supporters of
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Murray, a staunch backer of Clinton, said she was disappointed Clinton had failed to become the nation's first female president.
Asked by Guzzi who she would support now, Murray refused to even utter Obama's name as she gave him a lukewarm endorsement.
"We
thought that certainly in my generation that that glass ceiling would
have been able to break by now, and it looks like certainly in my
lifetime, I will not see a woman president, and that is not lost on me
or on many other women of a particular age group, or younger, or men,"
she said. "So, yeah, I'm disappointed -- but I'm a Democrat."
Whichever
way voters lean on Question 1 — the proposal to eliminate the state’s
income tax — it’s important they have a clear understanding of the
state’s fiscal landscape. It has been clear for some time that
Massachusetts’ problem isn’t raising revenue, but spending it wisely.
A
recent report by the National Tax Foundation appears to show the
state’s 5.3 percent tax on personal income is not so heavy. The report
notes Massachusetts ranks just 23rd in the nation in combined state and
local taxes.
But that is only part of the story. The Bay State’s
relatively high incomes mean that per-capita individual income tax
collections for 2005, the last year in the study, stood at $1,506 per
person, third highest in the nation.
Math alone ensures that
this state’s highly paid workers will pay more in taxes of all kinds.
Nationwide, after all, the IRS reports that the top quarter of earners
pay more than 86 percent of all income taxes. The more pertinent
question is whether those taxes are spent wisely.
The picture
must also consider the business community. Massachusetts, with the
fourth highest rate of corporate taxation, and ranked 34th for overall
business tax climate, can clearly do more to encourage commerce. Given
high energy costs, the state must further streamline permitting
procedures and emphasize the advantages of a highly educated and
productive work force. Such investments will pay off handsomely in
valuable jobs and tax revenues.
For voters, Question 1 comes
down to hard questions. Those embittered by the Legislature’s long
refusal to return the income tax to 5 percent must consider the risks
of eliminating it altogether. But those who blithely assume tax
revenues will always find a way to catch up to Beacon Hill spending
should take a careful look at the state’s debt obligations, and the
billions in bond issues authorized in the past Legislature session.
Massachusetts
may no longer merit the moniker “Taxachusetts” but that only reinforces
the need for fiscal discipline. Lawmakers and the governor must move
away from budgets that routinely outstrip revenue projections. Had such
thinking ruled Beacon Hill in recent years, voters would not be facing
the all-or-nothing choice of Question 1.
Copyright 2008 Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp.
SouthCoastToday.com-LTE:
"Question 1 would cut wasteful public spending"
LETTER: Question 1 would cut wasteful public spending
August 13, 2008 6:00 AM
After
reading The Standard-Times editorial promoting fear and hysteria over
Question 1 on the November ballot to eliminate the state income tax,
let us explore why there is strong support to repeal the state income
tax. Low taxes good. High taxes bad. Low spending good. Overspending
bad.
In 1999 the state budget was $35 billion. In 2007 it was
$49 billion. Repealing the state income tax will roll back the state
budget to the 1999 level. To the 3.4 million workers and taxpayers this
will mean an average of an extra $3,700 in their pockets each year. It
takes billions out of big-government Massachusetts and puts it in the
hands of people who earned it. In productive hands, this excess could
create thousands of new jobs in Massachusetts.
The Legislature
will be forced to streamline and cut waste. For example, one big drain
is the state pension system that doles out billions each year to
double-dipping pensioners and state workers retiring at taxpayer
expense in their late 40s and 50s. There is no plan to reform.
Government employees must utilize 401(k) plans like the private sector.
Nine
U.S. states have no income tax, including economic leaders Nevada,
Tennessee, Texas and Florida. These states are doing fine funding
schools, hospitals and police without the income tax levy. Over the
past decade, 350,000 Massachusetts residents have packed up and left,
many to no-income-tax New Hampshire.
Question 1 will make the
Legislature be accountable to Massachusetts taxpayers, not to
government employees, lobbyists or special interest groups that profit
from high government spending. People are realizing that "the children"
and "the needy" are not high government priorities.
Less
government and no income tax will attract private, productive
businesses and individuals to our state. Pro-tax forces will spend
millions of dollars to warn voters of the coming Armageddon. But let us
realize a vote for Question 1 is an effort to stop the relentless
growth, waste and corruption of big government.
Stop being defensive in the fight against big government.
DAVID ROSENBERG, Dartmouth
Boston Herald -
"Faneuil Hall event set to rally campaign vs. state income tax"
Faneuil Hall event set to rally campaign vs. state income tax
Boston Herald
By Associated Press | Monday, September 29, 2008 |
A
campaign to scrap the state income tax is planning to launch a series
of rallies to drum up support - and cash - at historic Faneuil Hall
this weekend.
The Committee for Small Government, which supports
a ballot question that would end the state income tax, hopes to
kickstart its campaign with the rally Saturday.
Even though the
committee has the easiest political pitch of the election - a promise
of an average $3,600 back in the pockets of each Massachusetts taxpayer
- it has only $8,000 in its war chest as of Sept. 22. Its opponents,
the Coalition for Our Communities, on the other hand, boasted more than
$1.2 million cash on hand, including $1 million from national teachers
unions based in Washington, D.C.
“There’s no question that it is
David vs. Goliath. Our opposition is going to spend millions on
advertising against us,” said committee leader Carla Howell, who
debated former state treasurer Shannon O’Brien in Weymouth last week.
The coalition is holding its own series of statewide rallies, said spokesman Steve Crawford.
“We
are trying to get the message out and build support for a campaign to
fight this reckless proposal,” Crawford said, adding TV advertising
will play a part in the campaign.
Critics say the question,
which would eliminate about 40 percent of state revenues, would have
disastrous results, particularly when the state is already facing tough
fiscal times.
WeeklyDig.com: "The
ballot question to chop off a hunk of your taxes"
The ballot question to chop off a hunk of your taxes
www.WeeklyDig.com
By Alyssa Martino
So
maybe the push for a state income tax repeal doesn't look quite as
captivating or gutsy as its counterpart campaigns to end dog racing or
legalize marijuana. But this seemingly dry topic, with its arguably
devastating or revolutionary consequences, might just steal the
spotlight of this year's Massachusetts ballot questions.
It
would give, on average, a $3,600 tax refund to 3.4 million
Massachusetts workers. The ballot question is binding, so if the
majority of Massachusetts residents vote in its favor, the tax relief
would begin immediately, with a 50-percent decrease in the income tax
rate beginning on January 1st, 2009, and the remaining 50-percent
abolished one year later. As a result, Massachusetts would join nine
other states that don't tax paychecks: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South
Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, with New Hampshire and Tennessee
taxing only dividend and interest income.
Efforts to halt the
income tax in Massachusetts have been spearheaded by the Committee for
Small Government. Chaired by Michael Cloud (a senatorial candidate on
the Libertarian ticket in 2002) and Carla Howell (the Libertarian
senatorial candidate in 2000, and the gubernatorial candidate in 2002),
the group is no stranger to the ballot. Though their 2002 tax repeal
initiative ultimately failed—with 885,683 voters for the repeal and
1,070,668 against it—its capture of 45.3 percent of the vote made the
measure a closer call than expected. "Many believed there wasn't any
support whatsoever for our ballot initiative," says Cloud of this
previous attempt. Yet both sides of a widening divide seem to take this
year's tax repeal efforts much more seriously after the question's 2002
results.
Despite opposition from legislative leaders, the income
tax question was added to the ballot after the Committee for Small
Government collected 76,084 signatories certified by the state
Elections Division in December '07, and another 15,913 in June '08. The
ballot question, if passed into law, would decrease current state
revenues by at least 40 percent, since income tax will account for
roughly $12.7 billion of the $28.1 billion state budget in 2009.
These
numbers are staggering to the Coalition for Our Communities, a group of
municipal organizations, labor unions and businesses who seek to defeat
the referendum. Steve Crawford, the coalition's spokesperson, warns
that "The magnitude [of the tax repeal] is such that it'll have a
devastating impact on our state's future."
Michael Widmer,
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, adds that the
$12.7 billion from income tax revenues are not directed toward any
particular program, but go toward a variety of infrastructure needs,
including public education, prisons, police, state parks, Medicaid and
human services, to name a few.
Proponents of the repeal argue
that the initiative is especially necessary given today's struggling
economy, and this may improve the bill's chances with voters who are
financially struggling. "Taxpayers really need a tax cut! This is not,
'Gee I wish I had it,'" Cloud says. "We need to recognize how bad
things are ... A lot of families are just a few thousand dollars from
losing their homes. The tax refund money would go to pay off credit
card debt, student loans, foreclosures. This money could be used to pay
for $4.50-a-gallon gas!"
Widmer strongly opposes the repeal, yet
worries that unhappy citizens may vote for it merely to "send a
message" of dissatisfaction to the government. "When the conditions are
such that people are being squeezed, as they are today in most every
aspect of their lives, the conditions are right to support something
like this," he explains.
Other benefits boost the bill's appeal,
explains Howell. "Businesses—unless they profit from state government
spending in some way—are more inclined to set up shop in a state like
Texas, with no income tax, than they are in Massachusetts," she says.
As a result "ending the income tax will create hundreds of new jobs, it
will stop the exodus of tax payers to other states, and provide an
opportunity for workers and businesses to stay in the state."
One
study done by the Beacon Hill Institute in 2000 estimated that cutting
the state income tax rate from 5.8 percent to 5 percent over the course
of three years (the current rate is 5.3 percent) would have resulted in
75,000 new jobs. Cloud himself believes that since the 2008 proposition
would cut the income tax by a significantly larger percentage (seven
times this number by his calculations), it would result in several
hundred thousand new jobs over time.
The Massachusetts
communications director for the American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) , Tim Sullivan, laughs
openly at the claim that a tax repeal would increase jobs, proclaiming
that the Beacon Hill Institute's research has a politically
conservative slant. "That is absolutely backasswards logic," he says.
"They haven't had an objective, fact-based study in their history!" The
Beacon Hill Institute's mission, as cited on its website, is "grounded
in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free
markets."
The AFL-CIO is a member of the Coalition for Our
Communities, but Sullivan insists this isn't simply a union issue.
"We're citizens first and taxpayers first. The fact that we're union
members means that we kind of understand that we're all in this
together ... we believe in collective bargaining, and that's what
government is," he says. "Obviously, police officers, firefighters,
teachers and municipal employees all rely on taxes for their salaries
and benefits."
But Cloud suggests some of these
government-funded jobs are unnecessary, citing the price tag on public
school systems. "We believe these prices are ridiculously high," says
Cloud, offering private education and homeschooling as better
alternatives. "A parochial school gives a better education, has a lower
dropout rate, but only spends $3,100 per year."
Howell and
Cloud's fight for the tax repeal is centered around their faith in
small government. "Big government often harms the very people that it
is intended to help," says Howell. "It forces people to give up
hard-earned income to pay for wasteful bureaucracy." Howell and Cloud
also view small government as an opportunity and incentive for people
and businesses to grow, and save their money to support their families,
pay off debt and live "the kind of lives that they want to," says
Howell.
Crawford is less optimistic. "The impact that this would
have on our state's economy is frankly unknown," says Crawford. "But
it's certainly not good."
Widmer is slightly more apocalyptic.
"This is so sweeping, this would create political and fiscal chaos," he
says. "In simple terms, this is 40 percent of your budget, so every
agency would sustain a 40 percent cut." Opponents of the bill see a
lose-lose situation, with only two courses of action upon its passing:
dramatically reducing all programs across the board, or raising
property or sales tax in order to make up the difference.
Massachusetts
Senate President Therese Murray attacked the initiative to abolish
income taxes in her June 12th Chamber of Commerce speech, looking to
Florida's high property taxes and their effect on the real estate
market there. "According to a Zogby poll conducted last year," she
said, "unreasonable property taxes are the major reason why 37 percent
of Floridians are considering moving out of the state." In some
districts, where Floridians have yet to qualify for state property
tax-caps, residents have seen their property taxes increase more than
100 percent over the past several years. But to make up for an income
tax repeal with a property tax increase, the Massachusetts Legislature
would have to address Proposition 2 1/2—a ballot initiative that went
into effect in 1982—which currently limits the state's property tax
increases.
Murray also voiced concerns about the inequity of
those who might profit if the ballot passes. "By eliminating the income
tax and destroying services, or by raising property and sales
taxes—low-and mild income residents suffer the most."
The ballot
question's defenders are convinced that the legislature can find money
elsewhere to make up for the repeal. "The state spends $8-$14 billion
off-budget ... this is the dirty little secret the state legislators
don't want to talk about," Cloud says. MassINC—a public policy think
tank—confirms that off-budget spending occurs, with findings that in
2006, the state's budget was $25.6 billion, while state spending
totaled $37.5 billion.
Cloud believes that taxpayers' dollars
subsidize unnecessary spending, including the expansion of state tax
breaks for the film industry. "They're squandering money on a scale
that's unheard of!" he exclaims.
Howell agrees, claiming that "government agencies, by their nature, are wasteful and unaccountable."
Cloud
calls for more government transparency to stop off-the-books spending.
"If there was a corporation who engaged in these practices,
legislatures would call for hearings and transparency. They ought to be
doing the same thing with themselves! Taxpayers should be able to look
and say—'Oh, this is being well-spent.' That's how you get people
involved and have practical democracy."
Cloud cites a 1978
California law, Proposition 13 (aka the "People's Initiative to Limit
Property Taxation"), as a successful example of transparency eliciting
government efficiency. After reducing property taxes by 57 percent on
average, Cloud states that "everyone watched the state and local
government with careful eyes"—as a result, police facilities and other
services were not impacted, he explains.
But Murray argues that
tax money is not wasted, but that it's important in sustaining and
improving necessary public services. "Municipalities are already
struggling to maintain their local budget. Rip out 40 percent of the
state revenues they rely on and watch our schools and local services
fall apart. It's really that simple." Sullivan concurs, saying, "There
isn't an enterprise in the world that has 40 percent frivolous waste."
Bob Bliss, communications director at the state's Department of
Revenue, adds that "cities and towns get about $5 billion in various
forms of state assistance."
The Committee for Small Government
faced a challenging timeline of gathering signatories in order to make
their way onto the ballot. However, the group may still face an uphill
battle till Election Day concerning money. "We've spent everything we
have to-date just to get on the ballot," says Howell. Despite likely
fundraising and donations, the Committee for Small Government will be
hard-pressed to generate an advertising campaign budget that is
comparable to their opponents.
Sullivan knows that the decision
is ultimately up to voters. "The Legislature doesn't get to vote on
this, the people do. And I think people are going to choose schools and
clean drinking water and parks that are clean and safe for our kids to
play in," Sullivan says. "Taxes are like the membership fee to society,
and as long as they are fair—which they are—people will understand that
they get a lot in return."
Nonetheless, Cloud believes that
voters "are hungry for some breathing room" in today's economy. The
deadline to register to vote is October 15th. "Hungry" or not, cast
your ballot on November 4th.
Oberdorfer: Vote Yes
on Question 1
Oberdorfer: Vote Yes on Question 1
Belmont Citizen-Herald
By Tony Oberdorfer
Tue Oct 14, 2008, 06:00 PM EDT
Belmont, Mass.-
The
case made by Phyl Solomon in last week's Belmont Citizen-Herald against
repeal of the state income tax would have more credibility if she and
others hadn't consistently fought against any and all attempts made
over the years to restrain the unhealthy growth of government spending.
Our new Senior Citizen center boondoggle is a wonderful recent example
at the local level.
The misleadingly-named Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, headed by Belmont's own Michael Widmer, is also
spreading untruthful scare stories of what will happen should Question
1 be approved. Their analysis is flawed, to say the least.
While
Gov. Patrick now talks about cutbacks in the state budget, he has
regularly come up with unsound new spending schemes since taking office.
Let's
not be taken in by unscrupulous politicians whose main interest is
their own reelection. There is a huge amount of fat that can and should
be removed from the state budget without people dying in the streets.
Eliminating the state income tax seems to be the only way to force the
issue.
Tony Oberdorfer Fletcher Road
Letter-"Why I'm
voting yes on Question 1"
Why I'm voting yes on Question 1
Daily News Online
October 16, 2008 03:57 am
To the editor:
After reading Carey Lambert's letter (Oct. 7) urging a "no" vote on Question 1, I am more energized than ever to vote "yes."
His
main argument, it seems, is that if we take away the revenue that the
income tax generates, then the politicians, given a choice between
essential services and their own perks, will keep the perks.
That
is a sad commentary indeed — not on the politicians, but on us. We are
the fools who keep putting the same scoundrels back in office. In a
one-party state, that ruling party — whether Democrat, Republican or
Communist — is going to prove the truth of Lord Acton's dictum about
the corrupting influence of absolute power.
Imagine if the
colonists who staged the Boston Tea Party had harbored second thoughts:
"If we deprive the British of this revenue, they will cut services. I'm
all in favor of freedom, but ... ."
Well, there should be no
"but"; it is time to take action to cast off our dependence and reclaim
our economic liberty. As long as the spigot of state income tax revenue
remains wide open, our state legislators have no incentive to make wise
choices.
There is plenty of money for services, favors and
perks, which means there is too much money flowing out of our pockets
and into state coffers. Mr. Lambert's "better start" entails a demand
for "transparency and accountability" from state government officials,
but without an accompanying decisive action, such a demand is as
toothless as a U.N. resolution.
Let's make a fresh start:
abolish the state income tax and watch closely what the pols do. If
any, even all, behave according to Mr. Lambert's prediction, vote them
out.
Each
dollar a person earns is available for three possible positive
dispositions. The earner can spend it, invest it or freely give it away.
All three choices drive economic growth.
Here
in Massachusetts, protests against Question 1, an initiative to
eliminate the state income tax, hinge almost exclusively on one static
number, 12 billion, as in the number of dollars the state will "lose"
if the initiative passes.
But those dollars will not be lost. They will be found, by the people who earn them.
Matt Kinnaman of Lee writes his column every week for the Transcript.
It’s
always the same story around here. First to take it on the chin in
tough times are housebound seniors who need Meals on Wheels, the
legally blind, the mentally ill and, of course - pardon the expression,
Howie - the children.
In other words, those who can afford it least get hit hardest.
But
we never get any systemic reform of what’s truly costing us. And it’s
not the old, the blind or the preschoolers - not 18 years ago when the
public sector unions warned against cutting back the state income tax
rate, saying “It goes to far!”
Not today, when the anti-tax cut
crowd has another catchy slogan: “Vote No On Question 1 (to end the
income tax). It’s a risky idea.”
Yesterday I asked “No on 1” spokesman Stephen Crawford if the group has any reform suggestions.
“That’s not our role,” he said.
Why not?
Yesterday,
after testifying on Beacon Hill about budget cuts after the Wall Street
disaster, tax watchdog Michael Widmer said he thinks this fiscal mess
is a perfect “opportunity for real reform,” particularly of major
budget-busters such as pension and health care costs. They account for
a whopping 70 percent of local budgets, he said.
Question 1, if
passed, would take more than $12 billion from the state’s budget. Yet
cities and towns joining the state’s health insurance pool could save
$2.5 billion over 10 years. But almost none of them have joined the
pool because local unions don’t want to. The state won’t make them (why
not again?) and local leaders are stuck.
In fact, part of the
selling point in Brookline, which just passed a Proposition 2 override,
was the expectation that local unions would buy into the state pool and
save the town $3 million. What happened? Guilt-fueled voters, already
paying some of the highest property taxes in the state, passed the
override to pay even more. And then? Guilt-free unions voted against
joining the state.
Too late now, you gullible Brookline voters you.
The Vote No on 1 set has millions to fight the Yes on 1 crew - led by the ever-energetic Carla Howell, who has about 25 cents.
The
Wall Street fiasco makes her chances of prevailing worse than they
already were. Yet the same old story and refrain is wearing thin, isn’t
it? Just keep on paying as the scams keep coming, no fixes in sight.
Asked
how much of Vote No’s money comes from unions, Crawford would not say.
The answer, as the Herald disclosed last month: two-thirds comes from
two big teacher unions.
Letter to the Editor
-"Vote yourself a pay raise!"
Vote yourself a pay raise!
Letter to the Editor
Lexington Minuteman
Wouldn’t you like to choose how to spend the thousands of dollars the state takes from you every year?
Back
in 2002, 45 percent of the electorate voted to repeal the state income
tax. This Nov. 4, we get another chance to keep our hard-earned money
and send a message to our state government to reduce spending, increase
transparency, and set priorities that are in the best interest of all
residents.
The doomsayers predict Armageddon if Massachusetts
loses its income tax. Last time I checked, nine states, including New
Hampshire, Florida, Texas, and Washington, do not have income taxes.
They have not fallen off the edge of the earth. Neither will
Massachusetts.
In 2007, commonwealth economic output was $360
billion. Income tax collected was $11.4 billion, or only 3.1 percent of
state GDP, which covered only one quarter of Massachusetts’ $44.9
billion of spending (source: CIA World Factbook and Commonwealth of
Mass. Statutory Basis Financial Report).
Lexington’s per capita
household income is about $120,000. Repealing the 5.3 percent income
tax would prevent the state from taking about $6,300 each year from the
typical household. That’s a lot of money!
The fear-mongers say
that this is reckless. Au contraire — the repeal phases in over two
years, providing plenty of time to reprioritize.
According to
the 2008 Lexington Financial Summit (http://tinyurl.com/6kq74e), we
received about $9 million in local aid from the state, which covers
only about 6 percent of the $146 million our town gorged on last year.
Even
so, Lexington ran up a $4.7 million surplus in fiscal year 2008,
expropriating an astonishing extra $16.2 million from Lexington
taxpayers since 2004 (that’s $1,500 per household). There’s plenty of
money sloshing in Lexington’s coffers, and it is not clear where it all
is (see page 15 of the document above).
So, even if local aid
were completely cutoff, which is highly unlikely because of Gov.
Patrick’s campaign pledge to lower property tax burdens, the town could
easily adjust by using the extra millions collected each year, and
reducing the rate of budget growth to Proposition 2 1/2 levels (these
combine to about $9 million annually). No cuts would be required, under
sound fiscal policies, and certainly no overrides could be justified.
Don’t
listen to the “Anti” people; all they want is your money. Vote yourself
a pay raise. You earned it, you should keep it. Please vote “yes” on
Question 1.
David Moschella Lexington
The Boston Globe - Jeff Jacoby - A resolution: Abolish the income tax
Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe A resolution: Abolish the income tax By Jeff Jacoby Globe Columnist / December 30, 2007
ON
ELECTION DAY five years ago, 885,683 Massachusetts citizens voted for a
ballot measure to abolish the Massachusetts income tax - a 45 percent
level of support that shocked the state's political establishment,
which had expected the question to go down to ignominious defeat, not
come within a few percentage points of passing. So when Libertarian
leader Carla Howell launched a new effort to junk the income tax
earlier this year, the powers that be made it clear that this time they
would do everything they could to discredit it.
In August,
Howell's Committee for Small Government filed its updated ballot
language, and Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
wasted no time pouring scorn on it. (Its name notwithstanding, the
Taxpayers Foundation is a business lobby that often opposes broad-based
tax relief.) Howell's proposal is "absolutely unreasonable," Widmer
snorted. "Essentially she's trying to repeal the 20th century."
Undeterred,
tax-repeal supporters collected 100,000 voter signatures on initiative
petitions, well above the number required to move the measure forward.
So Governor Deval Patrick is cranking up the rhetoric. He told the
Associated Press last week that undoing the income tax is "just a dumb
idea" that would utterly devastate Massachusetts.
"Patrick said
he has lived in places with no taxes, including the time he spent in
Darfur 30 years ago," AP's Steve LeBlanc reported. "He says there were
also no bridges, no good roads, and no public safety there.
'Civilization costs something,' he said. 'If we could have something
for nothing, which is the fiction that has been sold by the right for
some time now, then we wouldn't have a $19 billion upkeep backlog for
the roads and bridges.' "
If that is Patrick's best case for
preserving inviolate the state income tax, maybe he shouldn't be
tossing the word "dumb" around quite so freely.
To begin with,
Massachusetts without a personal income tax would not be a "place with
no taxes." It would be a place with corporate income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, meals taxes, hotel taxes, excise taxes, workers'
compensation taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, gasoline taxes,
cigarette taxes, wine and liquor taxes, motor vehicle taxes, and real
estate transfer taxes, not to mention the taxes ("license fees")
imposed on a vast array of professions and occupations. The $11 billion
collected in personal income taxes accounts for only 40 percent of
state revenue. Take that away and the government of Massachusetts still
helps itself to more than $16 billion a year. That's not exactly "no
taxes."
It's not exactly Darfur, either. What a shameless
comparison. Even Patrick cannot possibly believe that the misery and
horror of Darfur is caused by insufficient taxation. A ballot
initiative to repeal the state income tax is not an invitation to
choose between life as we know it today or a life of poverty,
lawlessness, and war. To suggest that those are the stakes is both
ridiculous and disgraceful.
"Civilization costs something," the
governor says, echoing the 1904 dictum of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society."
Maybe so.
But in Massachusetts lately, taxes are also the price we pay for Big
Dig corruption, for larcenous public-employee pensions, for state-owned
golf courses, and for wretched public schools. Higher taxes are no
guarantee of a more civilized society.
As a matter of fact, when
Holmes defended taxes as the price tag of civilization, there were no
federal and state income taxes. Massachusetts didn't begin taxing
incomes until 1916, which means that for most of its history, the Bay
State survived - even thrived - without an income tax. As Howell's
ballot proposal advances, the fearmongers will shrilly warn that voting
yes will plunge us into the Dark Ages. Like all addicts, those hooked
on high taxes are terrified by the prospect of giving up their drug.
They cannot imagine how much better they will feel when they learn to
live without it.
Eliminating the state income tax would reduce
government spending by about $11 billion, shrinking the budget to its
1995 level. But that $11 billion would not be lost. It would be back in
the private sector - back in the hands of the men and women who earned
it, and who are far more likely to spend, invest, or donate it wisely
than the bloated state bureaucracy it goes to now.
Nine states -
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, and Wyoming - have no income tax. In 2008, Massachusetts
has another chance to make it 10. Last time, the repeal campaign came
close. Next year, let's put it over the top.
MySouthEnd.com: "Why this liberal supports repealing the income tax"
Whether
you think the Massachusetts state government is too big, too small, or
the right size, this liberal makes the case for why Yes on 1 is needed
to clean out the waste and "restart" state spending.
You
are about to vote on Question 1: Elimination of the income tax. I am a
card-carrying, unrepentant, far-left goody-two shoes bleeding heart
liberal. Radical, even. Yet I plan to vote for Q1.
I am not a
"small government" advocate. Nor is my aim to keep a few thousand more
dollars in the taxpayers’ pockets (including mine) because "times are
tough." Nor do I claim that taxpayers "know how to spend that money
better than the government does." Nor do I believe we should force poor
people to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." My motives
are the reverse. I think our government is too small for the services
we need, and must be funded to do all the socially necessary things
individuals, and the so-called(until recently) "free markets," cannot
do. But without some big change, we won’t get the government we need,
no matter how much money we put into it.
In fact, I believe the
state is awash in money. The endless media revelations (and we can
hardly imagine what’s not being exposed) of waste, fraud and abuse
("WFA") show how much of our money our officials can throw away and
still stay in office. Uncontrolled Big Dig costs. Billions in corporate
welfare ("business incentives"), with no accounting, never mind
disclosure, of how much they cost us and what they yield. Public land
giveaways to developers. Shameless retirement-pay abuse, even after
exposure. Cronyism in contracts, earmarks, and hiring. A growing
hack-ocracy. One hundred fifty million dollars to a business lobby
called the Greenway "Conservancy" for work that costs $12 million. One
hundred million dollars a year to the film industry, although everyone
knows it does nothing for economic development (It’s just a "fun
thing," one high-level official explained to me). The I-Cubed program,
giving $250million to mega-developers for construction loans on their
"public infrastructure" - like parking garages, recreational
facilities, and landscaping. And so on.
And this barely
scratches the surface. I can’t vouch for the Q1 supporters’ opinion
survey claiming 41 percent of our money is wasted - but I wouldn’t be
shocked if a study confirmed it.
How do they get away with it, when we’re so "strapped" for money?
They
collect vast pools of taxes without regard to documented needs, so they
can burn huge amounts of money on WFA and still provide enough - just
enough - public services to prevent open revolt.
Now there’s
another crisis and the cuts have started. Of course, the first things
to go are the services to the blind, the elderly, police and parks.
That’ll teach you to cut taxes!
Candidate Patrick promised if elected to cut a billion in WFA to fund services. Why doesn’t he cut WFA first?
We are told that Q1 is risky.
We
hear that our state credit rating could fall, making it hard to fund
state capital needs. One local observer fears it might even have
unintended ripple effects, potentially endangering the government
credit system at large.
We hear that local aid will be cut, and
local property taxes will go up. Well, not in Boston. Our property
taxes are at the maximum allowed by law. (And Boston’s government WFA
is a scandal in its own right.)
We hear that the most urgently
needed human and infrastructure services will suffer most. Well, that’s
the point. These needs are at the bottom of the legislature’s priority
list. Not every legislator’s list, but this legislature as a whole. And
that will be true no matter how much we give them in taxes: genuine
public services will get crumbs. So we have to send a message that
we’re not going to tolerate this outrageous misuse of our money any
longer.
But, we’re told if we want to send a message, do it another way.
I
think we’ve tried to do it another way. In 2000, we voted for a binding
initiative to roll back the state income tax over three years from
5.75percent to 5 percent, the rate before the 1989 tax hike. In June
2002,the Legislature decided to freeze the rate at the current 5.3
percent. That November, 46 percent of the voters supported repeal of
the state income tax altogether. That was ignored.
And I’m sure that this Q1 vote will also be ignored.
I
spend most of my time trying to send messages to politicians. I do
research, I send letters, I beg for meetings with even the lowliest of
staff ("Oh, please, sir, just a few minutes of your time to look at my
five-year study!"). I just can’t think of any other ways to send a
message.
Except to t’row da bums out. And to do that, we need to
know who da bums are. And to do that, we need information we don’t have
and can’t get.
I think the only way to get our money directed to
our real public needs is to cut the cash pipeline and force politicians
to make choices - in public view. Poor children or wealthy
corporations: let’s see what they do when they can’t serve both, and
t’row out da ones who choose wrong.
So the first step is transparency, as candidate Deval Patrick promised.
I
will vote against Q1 if the legislators, advocates, and citizens who
oppose the tax cut demand that the legislature and the Governor’s
Office be made subject to the Public Record Law and the Open Meeting
Law (no more back-room deals); that all public documents be posted on
the internet; and that we establish zero-based budgeting, so every
year, every expenditure has to be publicly proposed and justified.
Our
elected officials keep ignoring public messages at their peril. History
teaches that, at some point, pent-up public wrath will really do some
damage. Transparency and accountability are the preventive measures
against that outcome.
Shirley Kressel is a landscape architect
and urban designer, and one of the founders of the Alliance of Boston
Neighborhoods. She can be reached at Shirley.Kressel@verizon.net.
