34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
News
Area may lose $18M from Question 1
Top Headlines That estimate comes from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a non-partisan organization funded by business, which is fighting the referendum to eliminate the state's income tax by 2010. The income tax accounts for 40 percent of the state's revenue. However, the organization says, the state spends a large portion of its $28 billion budget on non-discretionary items. These include such costly expenses as federal requirements for Medicaid and constitutionally-mandated education aid to local schools. As a result, the organization estimates that all other budgets would have to be reduced by 71.1 percent by 2010, when the phase-in of the income tax elimination would be complete. The organization then estimated what a 71.1 percent loss in state aid would mean to each of the state's 351 cities and towns. In the Attleboro area, the total loss in revenue would be $18.9 million annually, according to the organization. Leading the way would be Attleboro, where an almost $5.5 million cut in state aid would represent a more than 5 percent loss in revenue for the city. "Those kinds of cuts could not be absorbed by the city of Attleboro without devastating effects to services that we provide to the citizens of Attleboro," said Barry LaCasse, the city's director of budget in administration. The foundation report said no Chapter 70 aid to local schools would be cut because of the state's constitutional requirement. However, LaCasse said schools still would be affected if Question 1 passes. "There are other expenses that the city pays for that are not covered under the Chapter 70: transportation, facility maintenance, capital improvements to the schools," he said. Mayor Kevin Dumas and all area legislators, as well as all candidates for state legislative seats in the area, are opposed to Question 1. MIKE KIRBY can be reached at 508-236-0344 or at mkirby@thesunchronicle.com.
Post Your Comments Spamalot01 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:28 PM: " Folks, if you want change, vote out the incompetents who you believe (and can prove) are wasting tax money. Not every public servant or elected official is corrupt just as not every public servant or elected official is an honourable and decent person. Look at the voting records of every state senator and representative, Dems and Reps alike. IF they voted for "earmark" items, including special funding that benefited your own city or town, then vote them out. That's how you enact change. Wholesale tax-gutting hurts innocent victims (mentally & physically handicapped residents of state hospitals come to mind immediately) as well as the corrupt. Until everyone recognizes that the true villains here are those who won't vote out long-established elected officials who abuse their office simply because they fear loss of power from seniority, then the true culprits and greatest impediment to governmental reform will permanently be found in the nearest mirror. Vote out every incumbent in this election, vote against Question 1, then hold the newly-elected's feet to the fire on spending abuses and transparency on how spending is decided. It's not as easy as Voting yes on Question 1, but it's the right way to make the change. " Roger Williams wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:11 PM: " Those that cry the loudest and worry the most are those that believe that their existence is derived from Beacon Hill, when in fact, the opposite is true. We continue getting ripped off by politicos who supervise Big Dig operations, overly expensive, inefficient, and long drawn out municipal construction and repair projects. Question 1 is a great way to put an end to it and reverse big, unresponsive government that continues to take more and more of the fruit of our labors. The tyrants, via a sympathetic media, will continue to barrage us with with images of doom and gloom, however, the doom and gloom is hanging over them. We are perfectly able to govern ourselves and revert political control to local government who will also be forced to carry out the efficiency agenda demanded by taxpayers. " hope2008 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 3:38 PM: " I have the utmost respect for police and fire - so this is not personal...People have become hostile to unions because we cant afford to support them. I am all for unions in the private sector, as long as the company they work for, pays the benefits. Why should I have to pay for benefits for union workers - pensions etc, when I cant even afford to take care of my own family? It is not my responsibility. This is why people are becoming more anti-union. As far as the argument that union employees can do the right thing because they cant get fired for political reasons - it is also true that we taxpayers have to continue to pay the salaries of horrible employees that would be fired in the public sector. Unions once held their members to a much higher standard - not anymore. Speaking for myself - I cant afford your benefits or pensions. I lost my 401 recently. Any union members want to help me? Lastly, please do not infer that unions are not political. Because they have become so political, they have hurt their image. my opinion. I am voting yes on question 1. " HARRY HINDSIGHT wrote on Oct 13, 2008 2:08 PM: " I don't know about Attleboro, but in Seekonk, once one is hired on the police or fire department, there are no more agility tests. So as long as you pass a physical, they don't care how many Scott packs you go through fighting a fire because one is out of shape ( yes, round is a shape, but not here), or if you can still run a mile after a criminal. As for teachers, sure they have to take so many hours or credits per year, but there is no performance measure. Some may have lost the drive or abiltiy to teach, but what is the way to tell if a teacher can still teach? " realist wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:42 PM: " Cops are protected by civil service, as are firemen. The problem with state unions is they protect the undeserving and punish those who excel in their fields. " publius wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:39 PM: " Well, as a public union member I think you would be seriously underserved by getting rid of unions, at least in the public safety area. Right now a Police Officer can make a decision based on the facts, without the threat of being fired for arresting the "wrong" person (politically connected) or in some cases, not arresting or charging someone because someone who is "important" wants it to happen. Unions make that independence possible, at least in the public safety arena. As far as question 1, I think we would be better served by redirecting 1/2 the income tax directly to the cities they come from. Right now local aid is a Robin Hood like ponsi scheme (take it in as income tax and redistribute it to the rest of the state). This redistribution is based on political clout, not need or where it comes from. If your rep or senator is on the outs, you don't get as much. Attleboro has 82 cops. They go all out during their shifts. Many weekends they make up to 30 arrests (read the Attleboro District Court docket on a Monday morning). " realist wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:06 PM: " Can you imagine the savings if we had a volunteer or part time legislature? Sure it would be a lot of rich or retired people. They would probably be a lot more careful about spending people's taxes than those that never had real jobs. The state payroll is rife with politicians relatives, people who have never worked a real job (served as interns since college etc) and people who are just marking time. We'd save a fortune getting rid of unions. " dandydon wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:05 PM: " WE ARE HEARING THE SAME OLD THREATS AND BALONEY FROM THE SAME OLD PEOPLE. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS HAD THEIR CHANCE TO GRANT OUR WISH TO LOWER IT TO 5% AND TOLD US OUR VOTE DOSEN'T MATTER. NOW WE WILL NOT ONLY VOTE TO LOWER IT TO ZERO, BUT IN THE PROCESS WE ALSO VOTE TO GET RID OF THE PEOPLE THAT GOT US IN THIS MESS.IT IS TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE AND TAKE OUT THE TRASH TALKERS. " kevin h. wrote on Oct 13, 2008 10:37 AM: " Boo Hoo! It's time to get everybody out of the wagon and see who really isn't fit to pull their weight. " or
|
publius wrote on Oct 13, 2008 5:38 PM:
The safest job in state government is being a rep or senator. Look at them now. They are getting ready to give unprecidented, and I might ad, unconstitutional budget cutting power.
They are completely abdicating their responsibilities as the people who set the budget by preparing to give a hatchet to the Governor to do what they don't have to courage to do. The same Governor who will be out of here come January if Obama wins.
If you have the temrity to vote yes on 1, you should also vote against whomever your rep and senator are, if they are opposed at all.
Go ahead, vote yes. The live with it. "