|
Question 1: Much-needed relief or
recipe
for disaster?
By Jay Turner
Citizen Staff
With all eyes
on the state of the economy as Americans gear up to choose their
first new president in eight years, voters in Massachusetts will
be faced with another difficult and potentially life-altering
decision — whether to eliminate the current 5.3 percent state
income tax.
Known by most
state residents as Question 1, this legally binding ballot
initiative would first cut the income tax in half in 2009, and
then eliminate it altogether beginning in 2010.
Supporters of
the measure, led by Libertarian Carla Howell and her Committee
for Small Government, have indicated that the average annual
savings per taxpayer would amount to $3,700 — a figure that is
sure to be enticing given today’s fear-ridden economic climate,
and perhaps especially so for voters in communities like Canton,
where just last May they agreed to pay higher property taxes by
approving a $4.5 million Proposition 2 ˝ override.
Howell, who
finished fourth in the 2002 gubernatorial race and collected
nearly 12 percent of the vote in her 2000 run for the U.S.
Senate, is also the author of the 150-word “Yes” argument in the
voter information booklet that was recently mailed to all
residents.
Calling for an
end to wasteful spending by state lawmakers, Howell argues that
approval of Question 1 would create “hundred of thousands” of
new jobs in the state, while not resulting in higher property
taxes nor requiring cuts of any essential government services.
But a number
of opponents, including virtually every state legislator,
believe that Howell is just plain wrong, and even worse, that
her plan would only exacerbate the recession that many believe
is all but inevitable by lopping off 40 percent of the state
budget, and as a result, impacting every community across the
Commonwealth.
“I’m fiscally
moderate to even conservative, and even I think Question 1 is
too extreme,” said state Senator Brian Joyce, who represents
Canton.
Although he is
a Democrat, Joyce said he takes great pride in the fact that he
has never once voted for a tax increase and constantly searches
for new ways to deliver services to the taxpayer “better, faster
and cheaper.” But when it comes to this year’s income tax
initiative, he said it is simply too irrational to even
consider.
“It’s taking a
meat cleaver and smashing the services that keep our most
vulnerable citizens safe,” Joyce said.
Citing an
October 6 report released by the non-partisan Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, Joyce said the state, after accounting for
five legally mandated programs, would be forced to make
across-the-board cuts of more than 70 percent, stemming from a
$12.5 billion loss in total revenue.
The report,
entitled “The Enormous Consequences of Question 1,” goes on to
say that the “$3,700 cited by proponents is an average, but the
benefit is heavily skewed to the wealthy,” with those making
less than $50,000 saving an average of just $850. For added
perspective, the report also notes that laying off all 68,000
state employees would save only $5.3 billion, which is less than
half of the amount that the state would be required to cut.
“Essentially
you could shut off the lights of state government and go home,”
said Joyce, while adding that the state is already facing deep
cuts in the current fiscal year as a result of an anticipated $1
billion budget shortfall caused, at least in part, by the recent
financial crisis.
Noting that
the state every year must pass a balanced budget, Joyce said the
legislature is currently discussing whether to give the governor
emergency powers to make cuts as early as January. And while
those cuts may offer residents a taste of what could lay ahead,
Joyce said they would pale in comparison to the consequences of
eliminating the income tax.
As for
Howell’s contention that a “Yes” vote on Question 1 would
provide new jobs, Joyce said it would also eliminate jobs,
including those that are created from government spending, such
as the $3 billion road and bridge bill signed by Governor
Patrick in August.
In addition,
according to the MTF report, at least one of the unintended
consequences of Question 1 would be higher property taxes, which
in many cases would offset people’s income tax savings, and
would, as Joyce pointed out, hurt the many seniors who are
“house rich but cash poor.”
Then there are
towns like Canton and neighboring Randolph, which would face
quite an uphill battle trying to raise taxes again after having
passed an override so recently.
Despite the
potential challenges, town Finance Director Jim Murgia predicted
that override requests would still pour in, while the benefits
of the override passed in May would disappear.
Murgia, who
spoke to the Finance Committee yesterday on the potential
impacts of Question 1, said Canton would stand to lose 50
percent of the approximately $7 million in state aid it
receives, which would translate into across-the-board cuts of
roughly 8 percent.
“That’s a
pretty steep cut,” Murgia told the
Citizen last
Thursday. “Obviously, residents saw the pain of cutting budgets
by 5 percent (in fiscal year 2008) to pass a $4.5 million
override.”
Murgia said
Canton could also lose the $500,000 to $600,000 it typically
receives in Chapter 90 road money — a loss, he said, that would
affect the quality of life for all residents.
“There are a
lot of problems this would cause for cities and towns,” he said.
Not everyone
in Canton sees it Joyce’s or Murgia’s way, however, and that
includes former School Committee Chairman John Bonnanzio, the
architect of the recent override campaign.
Although
mindful of being perceived as inconsistent, Bonnanzio, a
fiscally conservative Republican, said he supports Question 1
primarily as a way to “force new spending priorities and better
accountability,” and to expose the state legislature as an
“unmitigated, corrupt mess.”
“This
dysfunction stems partly from the fact that there’s no
countervailing balance of political power in the State House,”
wrote Bonnanzio in a letter to the
Citizen.
“There’s no ‘good cop, bad cop.’ So the only way to force fiscal
discipline on a bunch of out-of-control spenders is to take
their credit card away — and that card is called the income
tax.”
Bonnanzio said
he would rather have the town of Canton take more of residents’
money because Canton is “expertly managed.” He offered as an
example the last two rounds of contract negotiations with town
workers, when they accepted raises of zero percent and two
percent (on average) at a time when inflation has been closer to
4 percent.
“That’s an
amazing accomplishment,” he said. “That’s fiscal discipline.”
Bonnanzio did,
however, warn that legislators would try to “punish voters by
stripping them of local aid for schools and many other programs
and services.” He said they also might try to do what they did
in 2002, when they ignored a voter-approved income tax rollback
to 5 percent by freezing it at 5.3 percent.
Regardless of
their course of action, Bonnanzio said the people still hold the
ultimate trump card — their votes —which they could use in the
next election if their politicians “pull that nonsense.”
But Senator
Joyce said he and his fellow lawmakers will have no choice if
Question 1 were to be approved, and in that case, the cuts would
not be punishments, but matter-of-fact realities. He also said
he understands why voting “Yes” for Question 1 would be
tempting.
“I get it,”
Joyce said. “I understand people are hurting. [My wife] Mary and
I have five kids and we’re struggling to pay two college
tuitions. We’re hurting like everybody else.”
Yet Joyce said
he is also hopeful that an educated electorate would know enough
to vote this measure down, if for no other reason than the fact
that a repeal would be self-injurious.
Either way,
the decision promises to be a tough one. At least one poll,
conducted by Survey USA in late September, had 34 percent of 679
likely voters certain to oppose Question 1 and 31 percent
certain to support it, with 35 percent still undecided.
Factor in a
margin of error of 3.8 percent and one could safely call
Question 1 a toss up at this point.
***
The election is on
November 4.
October 16, 2008
Return
to Past Articles Page
|
