34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
Opinion

Vote no on Question 1




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.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:38 PM:

" All due respect, spamalot, this was a far better and stronger country when people felt shame about anything. We live in a shameless, narcissistic society, fostered by socialists and sustained by baby boomers, and we are worse off for it. My family was very poor when we came to America, and we received help from friends to get us started. To rely on the government for anything was indeed, a shame. To be poor is nothing to be ashamed of but to a be parasite on society is.
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 - thanks for getting back to me on that. "

doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:14 PM:

" vladimir... you just said it all about yourself!! No response needed!!! "

vladimir1 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 7:17 PM:

" And just think if question 1 passes..we'll be on the same level as those homeless bums cluttering our public ways, contributing nothing and happy to do it.
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:

" if question 1 passes on nov 5 i will be in my employers office changing my w4 to 15 dependents. i won't be waiting for the pols to find a way to worm their way out of enacting it. let the 2nd revolution start here and start now "

doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 3:06 PM:

" When there was embarassement being on welfare there was also motivation to get off. We didn't have homeless cluttering our public ways either! First hand observation says to me that there are those out there who refuse work because they can "do better on welfare".. There are those out there who are just plain lazy!!! "

doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:58 PM:

" spamalot.... Now your getting the idea! "

Spamalot01 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:15 PM:

" Anna DeMarinis wrote: "...the owner should just shoot him dead." Vigilante justice is no justice. Society is made of laws for a reason, and it's not that neo-conservative nostrum about denying individual freedom. It is about maintaining some degree of order and securing everyone's rights, no matter how good or despicable the individual may be. Equal protection under the law. Do the scum of the Earth deserve punishment? Dam*n right they do. However, if the only enforcement of justice is rough justice just to avoid the costs of doing it right, then that is no justice. Remember, even the law-abiding may have need of their day in court. Unless, of course, people want to be summarily shot for tresspassing just because they chased their own pet onto their neighbor's property. "

Spamalot01 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:10 PM:

" doug wrote: "Some of us remember when public welfare was handled locally by cities and towns. That also was a time when being on welfare was an embarassement ... not a way of life." Public humiliation for the crime of being poverty-stricken and in need of assistance. What a cultural advancement for society! What next? Shall we resurrect Blue Laws so the police can break into your home to make sure you aren't doing something naughty with your spouse. How about public pillories for adulterers. Debtors prisons and poor houses ought to be brought back so we can punish those who aren't fortunate enough to be middle class. Pure selfishness and class warfare? If so, then join the ranks of those who placed their executive compensation above the needs of their companies and their customers. You want to reduce government waste, then do the leg work, find it and force your elected officials to cut it out (remember Clinton finally eliminating the National Tea Board during his government reform attempts before he got caught up in satisfying his own needs?). Don't gut everything and harm folks who really do need help, including the elderly, disabled veterans and the poverty-stricken. A scalpel is a more effective tool than an axe, unless what you're trying to do is kill rather than cure. Remember, what gets cut today won't be there if you yourself need it tomorrow. "

Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:56 AM:

" By the way, for that thug in the convenience store, the owner should just shoot him dead. We'd save hundreds of thousands on judges, prosecutor and public defenders' fees, feeding/ sheltering and clothing them while in jail, not to mention utility bills... "

Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 21, 2008 10:51 AM:

" BillB:
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:

" Ben123, Trained officers doing secretarial work sounds a lot like trained officers as flagmen. Trained officers should be doing only what they were trained for! "

doug wrote on Oct 21, 2008 9:48 AM:

" BillB, You sound scared. Our elected officials have used this tactic time after time after time. Most often it works. They NEVER mention cutting the costs of running the state! It's always services to the people that are to suffer. Unfortunately a lot of us believe them....so the party goes on! It's time to see what our elected officials are made of....cut the money supply and lets see how creative they can get. As everyone knows we have allowed the growth of government to the point that it is the largest employer in the state. Very likely to be the least efficient as well. They have NEVER had the motivation to GET TO WORK. The only motivation we can give them is to cut off their $ supply. It is being said that our property taxes will rise...well, we do have prop 2 1/2! This will give us local control over how much money we want for what services. Logical isn't it? Some of us remember when public welfare was handled locally by cities and towns. That also was a time when being on welfare was an embarassement...not a way of life.We have allowed this overstuffed beaurocracy to sit on our wallets long enough. It's time to stop it!! Yes on Question 1!!! "

ben123 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Hey, City Council let me offer some examples of FAT in this City. 1-Chief 2- Captains 3-Lieutenants 4-Sergents and 2- Patrolmen doing a job of a Secretary all with the Quinn Bill,Working Days 3/4 of above don't leave the building. "

BillB wrote on Oct 21, 2008 1:21 AM:

" Anna,
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:

" BillB:
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:

" Anna, Kevin, and Doug

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:

" The "judicious cuts" Rep. Poirier advocates have not happened and I don't believe they will unless the taxpayer gets tough.....it's time for we the people to get tough. They have had their chance and failed. "

doug wrote on Oct 20, 2008 10:02 AM:

" It's easy to see that talk does not work. Either our state legislators wil not cut spending or they don't know how! The only way to cut spending is to cut the money supply. They are threatening us once again with cutting services. A very typical scare tactic.If they in fact do that....they may loose their jobs in the following election.So be it!!!Vote YES on question 1! "

ben123 wrote on Oct 20, 2008 8:12 AM:

" Just remember WE (the people) voted 8 years ago to roll it back,and what happen? Nothing they spit in our faces.Vote for Question 1. "

kevin h. wrote on Oct 20, 2008 7:38 AM:

" A NO vote is a vote for more of the same, which leaves only "Change" in your pocket. Tell the legislature to start over again with a clean sheet of paper while we all watch so they don't cheat again. Flush the toilet!

VOTE YES ON QUESTION ONE. "

Anna DeMarinis wrote on Oct 19, 2008 8:32 PM:

" Until voters start using clubs on our legislators, there will be no fiscal sanity on Beacon Hill. I rarely disagree with Re. Poirier, but in this case, I do. Vote FOR Question 1 and make the government learn to live within a budget. Gov. Coupe deVille has already started mouthing budget cuts but this is just a ploy to stop Question 1. If it were to fail, the budget cuts would miraculously disappear. Vote FOR Question 1. They'll ignore us anyway.... "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or