Vote no on Question 1
Sunday, October 19, 2008 2:58 AM EDT
Question 1 on the Nov. 4 ballot looks awfully appealing.
Vote "Yes" and you could help eliminate the state's 5.3 percent income tax. Essentially, taxpayers would be voting themselves a raise, a tempting offer in these days of rising prices and plummeting stock values.
But like most things that seem too good to be true, this referendum would do far more harm than good to Massachusetts. We strongly urge a "no" vote on Question 1.
The measure was placed on the ballot by the Committee for Small Government, led by Libertarian activist Carla Howell. Using high-profile cases of government waste - overspending on the Big Dig, police details and government workers going on disability, such as a Boston firefighter who trained for a body-building contest after claiming he had a bad back - Howell claims the state can easily lose the nearly $12 billion in revenue that would be lost by the elimination of the income tax.
However, even fiscal conservatives such as Republican state Reps. John Lepper of Attleboro and Betty Poirier of North Attleboro are opposed to Question 1. They say there is no way to cut nearly 40 percent of state spending without cutting heavily into basic services.
"I advocate for judicious cuts," Poirier said, " but not with reckless abandon."
We agree. Yes, there are glaring examples of government waste we'd like to see eliminated. Besides the ones listed by Howell, bringing public workers' health insurance and retirement benefits in line with the private sector would top our list.
But Question 1 just goes too far. The education of your children, the safety of the community where you live and the condition of the roads you drive would be greatly diminished if Massachusetts were to lose $12 billion a year in revenue.
Here are some even scarier scenarios.
Question 1 does nothing to prevent the Legislature from adopting an income tax to replace the one eliminated by taxpayers. The ballot question could, in fact, be giving the heavily-Democratic Legislature - one rightfully criticized for its tax-and-spend ways - a blank check to rewrite the tax laws.
Another scenario would have the Legislature bumping up the state sales tax or overhauling or even eliminating the state law known as Proposition 2 1/2, which caps property taxes. Sales and property taxes are regressive and could force shoppers in our small state into spending in more tax-friendly states or push seniors on limited incomes out of their homes.
Taxpayers of Massachusetts have every right to be upset about the way their money has been spent at times. However, Question 1 goes much too far in trying to correct the problem and should be rejected.
View Comments » No comments posted.
« Hide Comments
Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:38 PM:
And shooting someone who is attacking you is NOT vigilante justice; it is self-defense. Last time I looked, self-defense was a lawful response to attack and generally a good thing. Next time someone tries to rob or rape you, why don't you be a good liberal and just take it? I, on the other hand, will shoot first and ask questions later. "
vladimir1 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:47 PM:
doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:14 PM:
vladimir1 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:17 PM:
You know what's cool about Anna's fronteir justice? If she has her way, her zealous support of her perceived 2nd ammendment rights might mean that the convenience store thug she so badly wants to plug might just shhot back! Just think, gunfights all over town - now that's entertainment!
Oh ah Doug? You're a f**king idiot. "
rock bottom wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:02 PM:
doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:06 PM:
doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:58 PM:
Spamalot01 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:15 PM:
Spamalot01 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:10 PM:
Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:56 AM:
Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:51 AM:
You get me a paper copy of the line itemized budget and I'll find items to cut. You can forward it to me via the Sun Chronicle. They have my address. "
doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:57 AM:
doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:48 AM:
ben123 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:25 AM:
BillB wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:21 AM:
That's the traditional answer to the problem. I know there is all this fat that can be eliminated, only the pundit never specifically identifies it. Let me offer some examples. Shall Attleboro operate two Fire stations instead of four, and layoff half the Firefigfhters. That works until someone has a medical emergency that requires a 3 minute response from a trained paramedic to save his/her life.
I suippose we could also lay off half the Police Officers, but what happens when some thug robs a convienence store, and it takes the Police a hour to respond. The cash is gone, and the clerk is bleeding from being pistol whipped.
Since the Library is viewed as "Non Essential" it could be closed, since the majority of citizens can get their info at home on the internet. Apparantly those that need the library don't matter. Then there are the thousands of needy folks that depend on government assistance from everything from medicine to shelter that get left out.
If you can point in specific terms how Attleboro can cut its budget by $4 millionm, and still deliver all the essential services, then you may win me as a convert, but not until then. "
Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 20, 2008 9:44 PM:
If you could provide the entire budget for Attleboro, all line items, I'm sure anyone savvy in business management could find the money. Further, I am confident that 15 positions could be eliminated without any perceptible effect on the essential role of government. In other words, government is loaded with fat, and it needs to be streamlined back to the essential functions of government. As for the school budget, more money does not translate into better performance. School bureaucracies are part of the same disease. I'm sure the schools could do as good a job as they already do with budget cuts. However, you present a red herring. There is no need for draconian cuts in essential services if Question 1 passes and I hope it does. There's plenty of waste and fat to cut, even in the school budget. "
BillB wrote on Oct 20, 2008 12:44 PM:
I don't want to pay any more taxes than I have to either, but
This past June, The Attleboro City Council was presented a budget that included level funded "General Government" local aid of $7.1 million, and this budget called for 15 layoffs. If we assume that the 40% cut in state revenues (from Question #1) resulted in a 40% cut in local aid, that would translate to $2.84 million cut in the general government budget, and a 40% cut to the school local aid (called Ch 70) of $30 million would be a cut of approximately $12 million.
I would be interested in knowing what area of the general government budget would you cut to account for $2.8 million, and how would you approach cuts in the school system to eliminate $12 million? "
doug wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:08 AM:
doug wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:02 AM:
ben123 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:12 AM:
kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:38 AM:
VOTE YES ON QUESTION ONE. "
Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 PM: