News

Question 1: Cut waste? Or cut 'through the bone'?

By Alan Burke
Staff writer
Published: October 6, 2008

Question 1 on the November ballot will give voters a chance to eliminate the state income tax. Ironically, the belief politicians would never allow that may grease the way for its passage, according to one state representative.

Proponents are arguing that when it comes to state spending enough is enough, and eliminating an estimated 40 percent of Beacon Hill's revenue will curb obvious abuses.

"I have witnessed the state government in action," says Paul Ziolkowski of Beverly, "and I feel there's a lot of waste and cronyism. ... I feel they could easily cut back on spending."

Opponents, including a lot of legislators and local government officials, are predicting dangerous consequences for all sorts of public services, including police, fire and schools, if Question 1 passes.

One of those legislators, state Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers, concedes that Beacon Hill itself may have given voters a free pass on this issue. Citizens might approve Question 1 in the hope of sending an anti-tax message to elected officials — but also in the belief that if it passes none of those terrible predictions will come true because the Legislature and governor will quickly move to moderate the measure or even make it null and void.

Speliotis adds a word of caution to the voters. The Legislature might not behave in the way they expect. "If the size of the vote is significant (in favor)," he says, "it's going to be taken a lot more seriously."

Those who expect the Legislature to undo a yes vote on Question 1 have some history on their side. Voters used the initiative petition to roll back the income tax in 2000 from roughly 5.8 percent to 5 percent. Beacon Hill stepped in to halt the process at 5.3. A measure to fund election campaigns with state money passed in 1998, but the Legislature declined to provide the needed dollars, effectively overriding the voters' decision.

For his part, state Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem, says flatly that if Question 1 wins he would be in favor of undoing it. "If it should pass there is no way I or anybody else is going to stand for a 40 percent loss in revenues. Something's going to have to go up."

Passage would mean a loss of $11 billion for the state, according to Keenan. "Eleven billion doesn't cut to the bone. It cuts right through the bone." He predicts losses for schools and other essential services — like state highways. "I couldn't be any more strongly opposed."

The loss of state aid, says Peabody Mayor Mike Bonfanti, "does have dire consequences." Stressing that he is not telling people how to vote, Bonfanti calculates what passage will mean in a city already strapped for cash.

"Losing 40 percent of state aid," says Bonfanti, "that equates to the Fire Department and Police Department budgets."

"There is no worse tax to cut than the income tax," adds Speliotis. "It's the only tax that deals with the person's ability to pay." Meanwhile, he says, since the 1980s Massachusetts' tax burden has fallen substantially relative to other states. "We're no longer Taxachusetts."

One of the organizers in the campaign to eliminate the income tax, Ziolkowski distributes lawn signs from his Beverly home. Under the leadership of former Libertarian candidate for governor Carla Howell, this is the second time the issue has appeared on the ballot. In 2002, with almost no campaign, it received 45 percent of the vote.

Ziolkowski is not daunted by suggestions that any "yes" vote will be made moot by Beacon Hill. "They will ignore it," he predicts. "But at least the people will have spoken."

Dennis Corrigan of Boxford, another supporter of the measure, describes himself as a "tax refugee" from Canada. He is taken aback by the suggestion that any "yes" vote will be ignored. "I think that's overbearingly cynical that they would not listen to the people."

Government is too big, Corrigan continues, state aid to cities and towns too generous and examples like police details illustrate the problem. "The proceeds of the state income tax would be better off in the hands of the taxpayer than the state government," he says.