I was recently involved in another blog debate, and thought it was worth passing on an excerpt from it, as it answers a recommendation from opponents of Question One: That instead of attempting to repeal the state income tax we elect new legislators who’ll recognize and address our concerns.
Their solution is, “Work the changes you want through the system.” I asserted that here in “The Birthplace of Liberty” this is currently not possible. An important part of this discussion follows:
“Chip, question: What are we going to do, if we pass this law and our political hacks refuse to innact [sic] it like they did before? Would the taxpayer be lawfully in the right to refuse to have any state tax withheld or not pay the taxes?
“This is not a democracy, we have a representative form of Government. Is there anything that says as a Representative they have to vote the will of the people? …”
I replied:
Nope, not a thing. Our legislators can do pretty much as they please — and they do. Our only recourse is to replace them when they run for reelection — but that’s near-impossible in Massachusetts. Many brave and dedicated souls have tried, but few have succeeded — so much so that fewer attempt this exercise in futility each election cycle.
Consider the following:
Our “full-time” legislators collect $58,000 a year base salary, taxpayer-funded of course. This is automatically adjusted every two years, so it might be higher now than when I last looked.
Our “full-time” legislators have been on vacation since the end of July, when they suspended formal sessions until after the election. They are “in the district” campaigning for reelection full time, at taxpayer-expense, especially if they are one of the few who have opposition.
Any challenger for an incumbent’s seat is working 9-5 to support their family, campaigning only in his or her free time.
Legislators begin the day after their election raising campaign funds for the next election — spend the next two years non-stop building up a campaign war-chest for their reelection campaign. Two years of fundraising, not to mention the advantage of “name recognition” over any upstart and insolent challenger two years down the road.
Challengers only begin to raise campaign expenses when they decide to run.
A specific case, state Senate President Therese Murray:
The Associated Press recently reported that, though unopposed in this upcoming election, she has accumulated $300,000 added to her campaign war-chest, just this year:
“Senate President Therese Murray is running unopposed in the primary and general elections, but still raked in more than $300,000 in campaign donations this year.
“The donations came from lawyers, CEO’s, union officials, mortgage bankers and homemakers. Most were from outside her Plymouth district, according to a review of campaign finance records.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/politics/view/2008_09_08_Senate_President_Therese_Murray__unopposed__but_raises__300_000/
When she was last challenged in 2004, by Republican novice Tim Duncan, out came the battalion of union thugs to threaten and intimidate his family, disrupt his fundraising event.
To read this citizen-challenger’s own personal account and see photos and a video of the confrontation, go to:
http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2004/04-05-25.htm
So, challenging and defeating a tax-borrow-and-spend legislator carries significant personal risk, along with massive disadvantages. And we wonder why so few choose to run for office against the entrenched?
The only solution is to vote out any incumbent who is not satisfying your view of how goverment should be, every time without exception, taking every opportunity whenever you find a challenger to that incumbent on your ballot. So far that has not worked either, though we have tried to assist the underdog heroes and heroines through CLT’s 2 1/2 PAC.
Over 34 years we’ve tried everything. Nothing has significantly changed The System here in Massachusetts — besides our Prop 2 1/2 — a political culture quite unique across the United States.
See: http://cltg.org/cltg/clt2008/08-09-09nr.htm#memo
With passage of Question 1, at least voters will get the pols’ attention that we’re “mad as hell and not taking it any more.” If the pols give us the Beacon Hill middle finger salute once again, sooner or later voters will reach the necessary critical mass and throw the bums out. The question is, will that happen before the pols bankrupt the state and us taxpayers? Either or both are not too far off any more.
See: http://cltg.org/time_bomb.htm
Tags: Income Tax Repeal, Question 1, Question One
September 13th, 2008
It’s now post-Labor Day, and as November approaches so too does the election – and our choices for what government will look like in the future, both across the fruited plain and within the confines of Massachusetts. Campaign Season ‘08 is off and running.
Here in the Bay State – “The State of Permanent ‘Fiscal Crisis’” – we know one thing for sure: Come November 5th the voters will have decided whether we have a state income tax to be raided by every special interest from Pittsfield to Provincetown, or will have abolished it and taken back never-ending political spending on never-ending “unmet needs.”
Will taxes go down – or will taxes go up?
That’s what Question 1 on the November ballot will decide.
On the ballot in 2000 was our question to roll back the state income tax to 5 percent, its historic and traditional rate until 1989 when the Dukakis administration and the Democrat Legislature hiked it “temporarily” until it reached 6.25 percent a year later. With their overwhelming vote, the voters dropped it from 5.85 to 5 percent incrementally by 2003. The Legislature, giving voters the now-familiar Beacon Hill Middle-Finger Salute, “froze” it “temporarily” at 5.3 percent in 2002 – where it has remained ever since.
As a sop tossed to taxpayers and voters, they established a set of arcane rules by which the “frozen” 5.3 percent rate would gradually diminish until reaching the voters’ mandated 5 percent rate. We taxpayer activists shook our heads and cynically laughed at the prospect of that ever occurring, even when and if all the Legislature’s criteria ever happened to be met – like all the stars and planets coming together in unique alignment.
See: http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg2002/
That was over six years ago. We were asked why we were so “cynical,” if you can believe it. Six years later our cynicism has proven itself to be the proper response, the ONLY response, once again.
Nelson Benton, editor of the Salem News, in his weekly opinion column of Aug. 29 reported: “State revenue figures had reached the point where the income-tax rate might have been adjusted downward from the current 5.3 percent to 5.25 percent, according to a formula put into effect in 2002. But that was before adjusting for inflation. So, no surprise — it’s not going to happen.”
No surprise at this address. We “cynics” told you it’d never happen back in 2002.
Six years later and the state’s in yet another “fiscal crisis.” This state is ALWAYS in a “fiscal crisis” – the “crises” grow bigger every year, after the Legislature spends the annual revenue surpluses of some additional billion dollars, then borrows more on top of that to spend on yet more programs to address insatiable “unmet needs.”
In 2002, during that “fiscal crisis,” the Legislature increased the state budget to over $23 billion – with “The Largest Tax Increase In State History,” according to the Boston Globe no less. http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg2002/02-07-23.htm#Globe
By comparison, the budget just passed in July increased state spending to $28 billion, an increase of $5 billion (FIVE BILLION DOLLARS) over the six years during which the last step of the voters’ tax rollback mandate has gone ignored – we’re STILL paying the 5.3 percent income tax rate.
How did we ever get “so cynical”?
Our same critics now are arrayed to oppose Question 1 and will pour millions into their campaign striving for its defeat. They warn of doom and gloom, their only and predictable strategy, and wonder how voters ever got so cynical about government.
If you aren’t asking for more of the same, the only thing you CAN do is vote for Question 1 – because already the tax-borrow-and-spend crowd is looking at the NEXT tax hike if voters are so foolish as to squander this opportunity.
The State House News Service reported on Aug. 28 (”New state budget $1 Billion out of balance, leader says fall session possible”):
“The news makes for a fiscal quagmire for Patrick and Democratic legislative leaders as they look ahead to fall elections. And it likely means continued focus on budget balancing, including potential spending cuts and additional new taxes, and difficulty during the 2009-2010 legislative session paying for investment-based priorities like education, transportation and the 2006 law expanding access to health insurance.”
On November 4 at your polling place, you’ll get to make your decision: Lower or higher taxes – black and white. “YES” on Question 1 will provide for lower taxes. “NO” on Question 1 will provide the green light for more and more taxes, more of the same governing. Make sure you cast your vote, for it will pave the way for the future – the state’s, the special interests’, and your own.
Tags: broken promises, income tax, Question One Question 1, repeal
September 2nd, 2008
