-- Programs and Services -- Contact InformationHomepage
Question One will hurt
seniors
There has been much discussion about Question One and the impact its passage would have on Massachusetts’ residents. Below, Senator Benjamin Downing, and Representatives Denis Guyer and Smitty Pignatelli offer their views.
From Senator Benjamin B. Downing
On November 4, 2008, voters statewide will be asked to weigh inon three binding ballot questions. Perhaps the most critical is Question One, an initiative petition to eliminate the state personal income tax. If adopted, Question One will reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would completely eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
If ratified, state revenues would be reduced by $12.7 billion a year, a figure that represents nearly 40% of Massachusetts’ operating budget. The Governor is constitutionally bound to ensure the state ends each fiscal year without a deficit; such a steep drop in revenue would force state officials to eliminate more than $12 billion in spending to ensure a balanced operating budget. This would cripple vital state programs and services and place our most vulnerable citizens at risk.
The state is constitutionally or contractually obligated to pay for certain items annually in its operating budget, such as Medicaid, pensions and debt service. Since these items must be funded, passage of Question One exposes programmatic and administrative accounts to major funding reductions in this and future fiscal years.
Income tax is the largest revenue source used to craft the state budget, which funds programs and services critical to seniors including Prescription Advantage and access to health care, elderly nutrition programs and home delivered meals, heating and utility bill assistance, public safety services including state and local police, fire, and EMT assistance, transportation assistance, road maintenance and safety, caregiver support programs, and senior housing assistance programs.
If Question One is adopted, state policy-makers will have no choice but to dramatically scale back spending in these areas. I find this to be extremely troubling. Massachusetts’ citizens deserve to take pride in our “common wealth” of superior public infrastructure, senior services and public safety systems. Question One increases the vulnerability of citizens who rely on these programs.
For all of these reasons I believe Question One must be defeated. While state bureaucracy continues to focus on implementing efficiencies and best practices so as not to waste precious resources, every citizen should be confident of uninterrupted access to the programs and services they rely upon. I urge you to vote “No” on Question One.
From Representative Denis Guyer
About six years ago, I was sitting in my office at Crane and Company when two co-workers returned from lunch and proudly proclaimed they had just voted for the elimination of the Massachusetts income tax.
This was long before my career as a State Representative, but I was serving as a Dalton Selectman and knew then what the consequences would be locally with such a cut to our state revenue. Did they know this? I asked. Did they know that if this passed it would mean a drastic reduction or outright elimination to many state-funded programs I knew they cared about? Did they know that education funding from elementary right on up to our community and state colleges would be cut? Did they know that the cut in local aid to our communities would eventually mean an increase in their property taxes? And even with that increase in local property taxes enough wouldn’t be made up and it would still mean less police on the streets, less firefighters, less help for our seniors, less to invest in our infrastructure to keep Massachusetts competitive?
Oh yes, they said. They absolutely knew it all, but they were certain the question would never pass and their votes – just two out of millions – were simply protest votes to send a message to Boston to cut state government fat, namely the Big Dig.
They were right – but just barely. That question failed, but garnered roughly 45 percent and almost passed. My co-workers were in a sense playing Russian roulette with their votes. Wanting to send a message about what they perceived to be wasteful state spending but at the same time hopeful that the majority of the electorate would not totally agree with them.
If the question were to pass this year here is what would happen: The law would begin to take effect January 1, 2009. Legislators and the Governor would need to cut $12 billion out of our $30 billion state budget. This would mean the across the board elimination of many state programs: cut to state aid to local communities, the furlough of thousands of state employees, fewer cops, plow trucks and pothole fixed, larger class sizes, and school programs eliminated. It would mean less help for: seniors, people with disabilities, our environment and almost no help in the form of grants to our local employers to create jobs. In effect, we would be trying to run our 2009 state government with 1995 revenues.
Those supporting the elimination of the state’s income tax often say there is plenty of waste in state spending; however, rarely do they offer specifics about what they mean by wasteful spending. Whenever they do cite examples, the amounts are small, never coming close to what would be cut by Question One. Not once have Question One’s advocates approached me as a legislator to present me with details about where the bloated pool of $12 billion in fat lies waiting to be cut from our state budget. I would love to see their list. Instead they use catch phrases like “cut waste and improve efficiency in state government.” I say a serious proposal requires serious proof, not just slogans.
So, I am asking you to vote “No” on Question One since the consequences are too dire and will have tragic consequences for all of us and for our children. Times are tough, why would we want to make them worse?
From Representative Smitty Pignatelli
It is often said that when the going gets tough, the tough get going, and its no news to anyone these days that we’re living in economically challenging times. It is during these times that we must make responsible decisions to ensure that the essential services we care about remain intact. That is why, on Election Day, I will vote “No” on Question One, opposing a reckless and irresponsible proposal that aims to eliminate more than $12 billion - approximately 40 percent - of the state budget, while driving up local property taxes and drastically reducing funding for critical services.
Currently, the Commonwealth provides many essential and welldeserved services for seniors: senior centers serve as community gathering places, home health aides ensure that folks can stay in their homes, Meals on Wheels brings not only food, but comfort to seniors who need it and many other services exist to ensure that they remain safe, healthy and happy.
A $12 billion reduction in state funding would have immediate and severe consequences on our cities increasing property taxes while putting other municipal services such as transportation, infrastructure maintenance and public safety at serious risk. In fact, when we really examine the effect this reckless proposal would have in our backyards, the results are astounding. Take, for example the Town of Lenox. Lenox has been poised to receive approximately $1,032,276 in state aid in Fiscal Year 2009 – funds that go toward a variety of services for our senior citizens. If the state income tax were to be eliminated, $668,137 – more than 65% of state aid – would be cut from the town budget. We simply can’t afford these kinds of reckless cuts.
Times are tough enough. Instead of making the situation tougher we must gather together, as so many great generations have before, and vote “No” on Question One.
Editor's Note: See related article on page 2.