|
From the Los Angeles Times: Ballot Initiative would repeal the state's levy on income. By Elizabeth Mehren, times Staff Writer, September 29, 2002 BOSTON -- A ballot initiative that has received scant public notice could permit voters here to enact a revolution Nov. 5th, banning state income taxes in the commonwealth known as "Taxachusetts." Supporters, who hail mainly from the state's small Libertarian Party, say the measure would wrest spending power from profligate bureaucrats and place budget control where it belongs: in the hands of the people. Detractors, including the entire state Legislature, say that passing the bill would paralyze state government by stripping Beacon Hill of its primary funding source. Even by the standards of tax rebellion, the bill is so bold that few expect it to pass. But its mere presence on the ballot signals a triumph for the Libertarian Party, which has long espoused an anti-tax philosophy in Massachusetts and which collected about 13,000 signatures to place the proposal before voters. The initiative's existence also reflects a creeping cantankerousness among some segments of the always unpredictable Yankee electorate. Carla Howell, the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, has made ending the state income tax the centerpiece of her campaign. Stressing the potential effect of the initiative in a state that annually derives $9 billion -- 40% of its operating budget -- from state income taxes, Howell said: "There probably is not a voter alive who has had the opportunity to vote on something like this." Her most outspoken foe is Michael J. Widmer, the president of a nonprofit, nonpartisan group called the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. He agreed that the ballot question is "far and away the most sweeping tax cut proposal ever to reach this state's ballot--and perhaps the most sweeping proposal of its kind in any state." The bill is so revolutionary, Widmer added, that "it would repeal the 20th century." In particular, Widmer charges that the measure would destroy the state's public education. Howell counters that abolishing state income taxes would "dramatically benefit schools in Massachusetts" by ending involvement from state legislators. Just as important, according to Howell, banning state income taxes would force Massachusetts to reexamine what she considers runaway state spending. "We need to take a close look at what we are already spending $23 billion on," she said, referring to the state's annual budget. "This is the only plan that will work." Not one Beacon Hill lawmaker has endorsed the measure, which one state senator said would turn Massachusetts into "the Idaho of the East Coast." Herman B. "Dutch" Leonard, a professor of public management at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a student of tax revolts, said the measure "is not the kind of policy proposal that serious people take seriously--and maybe that's the problem." Although a late-summer poll showed 37% of voters supporting the initiative, Leonard called the proposed income tax ban "a sleeper" that has generated little attention. But with voter turnouts averaging less than 30%, the bill could entice cranky citizens sick of wondering what the state does with the money extracted from their shriveling paychecks, Leonard said. As shown by California's passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, "property taxes tend to produce the most resistance," Leonard said. But income taxes also raise citizen ire, Leonard said, "because you file an annual return that shows exactly what you paid--and you wonder, what did I get for all that?" Libertarian Howell, a 25-year veteran of private-sector work in management and engineering, made such disgruntlement the rallying cry of a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2000 against Ted Kennedy. As a candidate for governor, she blasts the "arrogance" of a government that assumes it knows best how to spend citizens' money. She especially targets fat in state education budgets, such as "solid oak paneling being used [in schools] when pine would do just fine." After studying free-market economics, Howell concluded that "government central planning destroyed the Soviet economy, and the same principle applies here. Government central planning is destroying schools in Massachusetts." The very simplicity of Howell's proposal is why Widmer, for one, fears that some citizens may embrace it. "The electorate is in a sour mood because of everything that is happening in the world -- Sept. 11, the economy, the stock market," Widmer said. "When people are unhappy, they often want to send a message." The rocky history of high tariffs produced the moniker "Taxachusetts," an insult hurled at then-Gov. Michael S. Dukakis by George Bush when both were running for president in 1988. Personal income taxes have been a fundamental revenue source for more than half a century, and eliminating those funds would carry enormous consequences, Widmer said. Leonard, the tax historian said, "Maybe people are in denial about this possibility, about what it would actually mean." |
