In Our Opinion: State ballot questions
Ballot measures are not a desirable way to write state law, and that's particularly true with the three questions that will face Massachusetts voters on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Question 1 would cut the state's personal income tax rate to 2.65 percent as of Jan. 1, and eliminate it altogether the following year. This is a radical idea that would decimate state and local services, while producing a greater reliance on the property tax to finance services, programs and institutions vital to our everyday lives.
State residents currently pay a 5.3 percent tax on their income. Paying taxes is never fun, but they fund services the public expects, and proponents of Question 1 promise much more than they can deliver. They suggest that three million Massachusetts taxpayers would save an average of $3,600 a year and that the Legislature would still have ample revenue to finance essential state operations. That's simply not the case. The proponents' claims have been disputed by a number of organizations, most notably the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The income tax accounts for 40 percent of state government's revenues. There are legal mandates that prevent the state from cutting the $12.5 billion allocated for education in the annual budget. The cuts, then, would have to come from the other $19.5 billion in the state's budget; the Taxpayers Foundation estimates that programs funded under that part of the budget would have to be cut across the board by 70 percent.
The foundation also predicts that, for the next seven years, Question 1 would prevent the state from investing in capital improvement programs for transportation, higher education, courts, parks and economic development. Meanwhile, Massachusetts would likely see its credit rating downgraded. Question 1 would also lead to a sharp reduction in aid to cities and towns which, in turn, would require an increase in property taxes to offset any loss of income tax revenue, or cities and towns would have to radically cut spending on schools, police, fire, snow plowing and other public services.
In short, Question 1 would halt or cripple services at the state and local level and create a financial crisis of enormous proportions at a time when the state and the nation are already facing serious economic problems.
There's no question that we could all benefit from greater fiscal restraint on Beacon Hill, but this kind of extreme ballot measure is no solution. Budget reform is too complicated to undertake with this kind of meat-ax approach. We urge a No vote on Question 1.
Question 2 deals with the possession of marijuana. It proposes to eliminate criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana, and instead treat it as a citable offense with a $100 penalty, similar to a speeding ticket. It would also prohibit the state or local government from imposing penalties - such as loss of unemployment benefits, student financial aid, or housing assistance - for anyone found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.
There is a need for a national discussion on antiquated drug laws that contribute to an overpopulation of America's prisons. It is also clear that America would benefit from a stronger emphasis on rehabilitation and diversionary programs. Question 2, however, would put Massachusetts at odds with federal laws and it is not the appropriate vehicle for achieving reform. Its passage also risks sending the wrong message to young people that smoking marijuana is OK. We oppose Question 2.
Question 3 would ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts, following in the footsteps of seven other states that have passed similar measures. The public, though, is already casting a vote of sorts, as seen by the decline in attendance at the state's two dog racing tracks in Revere and Raynham.
Proponents of the measure say that greyhound racing is cruel, and that the dogs are subjected to inhumane conditions, including cages that are too small. Opponents suggest that the greyhounds are treated well, and that racing is a source of good jobs and entertainment for many state residents.
The long-term future of greyhound racing in Massachusetts may be in doubt given the decline in attendance, but Question 3 supporters have not made the case to force the tracks to close down now. The Gazette recommends a No vote on Question 3.
Comments
Income tax and the "$3600" refund
Another issue that has not been discussed much is the fact that a typical income tax payer would get a much smaller cut in their taxes than the "average", because most income taxes are paid by people who earn much more than average.
The income tax is the only state tax that spreads the burden of government up to those that can most afford to pay the tax. Sales and property taxes fall most heavily on people who live from one paycheck (or Social Security check) to the next.
So, even if you feel that the state should cut its revenue by 40%, this ballot measure is the wrong way to do it, unless you prefer for people who can least afford it to bear the heaviest burden for government services.
And in fact, the only study that made a serious effort to figure out how the state could accomodate the axing of the income tax proposed getting back one-third of the revenue by increasing the sales tax from 5% to 7%, and eliminating the exemption for food.
And that would only cover one-third of the revenue gap.
I don't think it is appropriate to cut the income tax and tax food instead, certainly not in Massachusetts.
1, 2, 3
no, yes, yes
The issue on Q3 is more than the opponents are addressing. Litters are made of more than dogs which run well. The non-performing dogs are often put down, I understand. That's why the alternative to voting Yes on Q3 is to adopt a greyhound.