Guest Column: A Harmless Protest Vote? Not Really ...
 |
About six years ago, I was sitting in my office at Crane & Co. when two co-workers came back from lunch and proudly proclaimed that they had just voted for the elimination of the Massachusetts income tax.
This was long before my career as a state representative had started, but I was serving as a Dalton selectman and knew then what the consequences would be locally to 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 that 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 all of that. But they were certain the question would never pass and their votes, just two in millions cast that day, were simply protest votes to send a message to Boston to cut the fat in state government, namely the Big Dig. The people across the state would never support this cut they said and Boston needed to get the message.
Well, they were right. But just barely. That question failed, but garnered roughly 45 percent of the vote that day and almost passed. Pundits, pollsters and political scientists are today all mostly of the opinion that the vote was about what my two co-workers had expressed to me — a protest vote, a warning shot across the bow of wasteful state spending.
So in a sense, they were playing a game of Russian roulette with their votes that day. 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. Risky business.
If Question 1 were to pass this year, here is what would happen:
The law would begin to take effect as of Jan. 1, 2009. Legislators and the governor would need to cut $12 billion out of our $30 billion state budget going forward. This would mean the across-the-board elimination of many state programs, a cut to state aid to local communities, the furlough of thousands of state employees. It would mean fewer cops, plow trucks and pothole fixers on the streets, larger class sizes and program eliminations in our schools. It would mean less help for our seniors and our people with disabilities. It would mean less help for 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 state government with the same revenue that came in way back in 1995.
The advocates in favor of eliminating the state's income tax will say that there is plenty of waste in state spending. The problem I have with them is this: They are never specific about what they mean by wasteful spending and whenever they do happen cite examples these examples usually add up to be short money, never coming close to the amount that would be cut by Question 1.
As a legislator, I have not once been approached by the Question 1 advocates with details about where the great bloated pool of $12 billion in fat lays waiting to be cut from our state budget. I would love to see their list — if they even have one. Instead, they use catch phrases like "cut waste and improve efficiency in state government" but never provide details about what that is exactly. I say a serious proposal requires serious proof, not just slogans.
So, I am asking you to vote NO on Question 1 as the consequences are far too dire to simply make it another protest vote. It is a reckless and irresponsible idea that will have dire and direct consequences for all of us and our children.
Times are tough, why would we want to make them worse?
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has recently released a report detailing the consequences of Question 1's passage.
Rep. Denis E. Guyer, D-Dalton, has been represented the 2nd Berkshire District since 2004.
