Why I'm voting "YES" on Question 1

The stated purpose of this blog is to address local issues, i.e., issues that are local to Falmouth. I don't comment on regional, state or national issues because I don't want to lose focus. However, I've also stated that this blog is an avenue for me to set the record straight, and so I will.

Simply by virtue of being elected, I am a member of the Cape Cod Selectmen's and Councilor's Association (CCSCA). In a letter to the Cape Cod Times, the CCSCA stated, "The association has voted to recommend a NO vote on Question 1." Because I'm a member of the CCSCA, one might assume that I also recommend a "no" vote. In fact, I don't.

What follows is a letter I submitted to the Cape Cod Times. I had not planned on submitting anything, but when I learned of what the CCSCA had submitted, I felt the need to pen a rebuttal. Unfortunately, the Times' deadline for such letters had passed, and so they did not publish it.


Judging by the response of every Massachusetts politician from Provincetown to Pittsfield, you'd think the proposal to eliminate the income tax was tantamount to inciting a revolution. However, before we start joining their Chicken Little dance, let's stop and think.

1) Unlike the grassroots Citizens for Limited Taxation, which supports Question 1, the board of directors of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which opposes Question 1, reads like a "Who's Who" of corporate executives. It's hard to give much credibility to an organization that is basically a mouthpiece for companies like Raytheon, which benefit from all those corporate tax loopholes.

2) Question 1 does not require any budget cuts or increases in property tax. It would only eliminate the income tax as a source of revenue.

3) There is waste. Faced with a revenue shortfall, $1 billion was cut from the state budget in just a few short weeks. This included dozens of earmarks totaling tens of millions of dollars and more than $1.1 million from the governor's own office budget.

More cuts could be made. Citizens for Limited Taxation estimated that at least $2.3 billion could be cut from the state budget. The "Little Dig" - a one mile tunnel for the MBTA Silver Line - may cost upwards of $1 billion. Indeed, just passing Question 1 would cut the size of the Department of Revenue, since the need to process millions of income tax forms will be gone. A few million here, a few billion there, and before long we've balanced the budget without an income tax.

4) Tax loopholes could be closed. The excise tax on boats is based on length and age, but automobiles are taxed on market value. Assessors across the state have been trying to get this changed for years without success.

Our sales tax has dozens of exceptions that could be eliminated. For example, in Connecticut, clothing under $50 is not taxed, but here in Massachusetts that figure is $175. Clothing is a necessity, but if you can buy jeans for $25 at WalMart, who benefits from a $175 exemption?

5) Income tax is not the only source of revenue. The sales tax could be increased. The more you spend, the more you pay; six percent of $175 is $10.50, but 6 percent of $25 is $1.50. Only the rich buy $175 jeans.

Our legislature could find other sources of revenue, such as taxing the $35 billion endowment of Harvard University, which is nearly as large as the $40 billion profit Exxon-Mobil made last year. If we're going to impose windfall taxes, this should be fair game too. How about spreading some of that wealth around to our public universities?

6) Eliminating the income tax will stimulate our economy. With hundreds or thousands of additional dollars in our pockets, we'll be able to make those mortgage payments and stay in our homes, or purchase things like new, more fuel efficient cars.

Finally, if you don't like Question 1, remember that our government is to blame. After we voted for a roll-back of the "temporary" 5.95 percent income tax to 5 percent, the legislature stopped at 5.3 percent.

As other states and the federal government were projecting 1 percent revenue increases this year, our legislature optimistically projected revenues to increase by 3.8 percent, and then increased the budget by 5.2 percent. In other words, they couldn't give us the tax cut they promised - and we demanded - because they wanted to spend more.

If our representatives had actually represented the people, they wouldn't be running around like headless chickens now.


In addition to this, I would also refer you to a column by Cynthia Stead, in which she notes that Governor Patrick found $435,265 in this year's budget to fund what is essentially a redundant office in Washington, D.C., but could not find $32,000 for The Audible Local Ledger, a reading service for the blind.

By itself, this last example should be enough to convince you of the waste and misplaced priorities in government spending. I recommend voting "Yes" on Question 1.