An Issue Of Voter Respect (Jeff Jacoby Assessses MA's Gub Hopefuls Stands On Tax Cut Question Alert)

A rollback of the Massachusetts income tax rate to 5 percent -- something voters mandated in 2000 by decisively approving Question 4 on the state ballot -- is said to be a key issue in the Bay State's campaign for governor. But that's not quite accurate. To be sure, the candidates have had plenty to say on the subject, especially since an August poll showed that a solid majority of likely Democratic voters want the tax reduced from the current 5.3 percent. The real question at the heart of the candidates' differing positions, though, is not "Should the income tax be cut to 5 percent?" It is this: "Should politicians treat voters' decisions with deference -- or as mere recommendations they can ignore with impunity?"

Naturally, each gubernatorial candidate claims to respect the voters. Presumably each is prepared to be treated by the voters with the same respect. With that in mind, I offer a modest proposal: Let the winner of the November election take office in accordance with his or her approach to the tax cut voters approved six years ago.

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey has consistently called for the income tax to be rolled back immediately, in keeping with the 2000 mandate. If she wins in November, therefore, she would be sworn in on the first Thursday in January, the normal inauguration day for Massachusetts governors.

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly firmly opposed the rollback until December 2005, when he suddenly shifted his position on the grounds that Massachusetts was now at the "point of having sufficient reserves" to afford a tax cut. If he wins in November, his inauguration would be delayed until December 2011, nearly five years after the date specified by law.

Businessman Chris Gabrieli spent $15,000 to defeat Question 4 in 2000 and opposes it to this day. Rather than implement the law as voters passed it, he proposes instead to gradually reduce the tax rate if revenues rise faster than inflation. His inauguration, should he win the general election, would be delayed for six years, after which he would very gradually assume office -- at first serving just one day a week, then two days, and so forth -- on a schedule tied to the economy. With sustained economic growth, Gabrieli could expect to be a full-time governor before 2020.

Former Clinton administration official Deval Patrick has maintained all along that Question 4 should not take effect. Accordingly, even if he wins in November, he would not take office.

I think that's reasonable, don't you? What's that, Mr. Patrick -- you don't agree? And neither do Messrs. Reilly and Gabrieli? But why not? If you don't consider an election victory binding when it comes to a ballot measure, why should a majority vote for a candidate be considered final? On the other hand, if you're prepared to accept the voters' judgment in choosing a governor, why treat their decision on a ballot initiative with such disdain?

For 88 years, Massachusetts voters have had the constitutional power to pass legislation at the ballot through initiatives and referenda. For nearly all that time, their legislative decisions were regarded as sacrosanct. Successful ballot measures took effect, even if political elites disliked them. It is only in the last few years that Beacon Hill has had the gall to undermine laws adopted by the people. It refused to fund the so-called Clean Elections campaign finance scheme that voters approved in 1998 (the law was eventually repealed through a subsequent ballot measure). And it pulled the plug on the two tax cuts voters adopted in 2000 -- Question 4's income tax rollback and the tax deduction for charitable gifts created by Question 7.

Such behavior is both outrageous and antidemocratic. Politicians who refuse to honor your vote are politicians who don't deserve to receive your vote. That doesn't mean that candidates have to agree with the outcome of an election. It does mean that, whether they agree with it or not, they will abide by it.

Is there no other course? Sure there is: Gabrieli, Patrick, or anyone else who thinks Massachusetts cannot "afford" to reduce its income tax rate by three-tenths of a percentage point can always mount a ballot campaign to reverse Question 4. Anything else -- including "freezing" the rollback at 5.3 percent, as the Legislature did in 2002 -- is dishonorable.

Ballot measures are a check and balance on political highhandedness and an important vehicle for redressing citizens' grievances. Governors and lawmakers must not be allowed to trash them at will. Those who try to do so ought to be given a taste of their own undemocratic medicine.

In 2000, Massachusetts voters adopted Question 4, on a tax cut. The income tax would be cut from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. The only candidate who wants the tax cut to take effect immediately is Kerry Healey - the only one Jeff Jacoby thinks should be allowed to take office in January. The current Democratic favorite Patrick Deval, shouldn't be allowed to be sworn in at all. Most of MA's gub hopefuls think the voters' decision shouldn't be respected. In a truly fair world, their political dreams shouldn't be rewarded either. After all voters in the most liberal state in the country did vote FOR a tax cut. Whether that's right or wrong, the politicians owe them due deference.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

I wonder why he didn't include independent Christy Mihos. Christy (who is a guy, and a former Republican) is more popular than Muffy Healey, who's an empty suit.

Reilly and Gabrieli don't matter, as both are going to be sent to the showers by voters in the Dem primary, who will anoint Clinton's quota queen Deval Patrick. Under Patrick (who is also a guy) Bay Staters can look forward to an era of race-based spoils system government.

One thing Jeff doesn't mention is that the 5.3% tax rate is the rate on EARNED income. Massachusetts calls interest and dividends and most other investment income, UNEARNED income, and taxes it at double the rate for wages and tips, or 10.6%. (The rates were 6 1/4 and 12 1/2 % before the rollback).

This usurious tax policy (Deval would call it "progressive") is murderous to business formation. Having started businesses, invested in businesses, and owned a business in Massachusetts, I would never in a million years recommend opening a business in Massachusetts.

And taxes are only one part of the poison pill Mass makes you swallow. The dead hand of regulation wraps around your neck and shakes you down nonstop.

When my brother had an idea for a startup, we made sure he incorporated and headquartered over the border, in free New Hampshire. He's in Seabrook and his head count is up to eight... eight people who might have been Massachusetts employees, if the state were not implacably hostile to commerce. (That is added to the eight or so that I let go when I closed my doors for the last time).

Their approach seems to be to stifle other businesses and live off universities and businesses that are university-dependent such as advanced IT and biotechnology. But they strangle even those cash cows with hostile regulation.

It says something about Massachusetts that not a single one of the candidates is pro-business or understands business formation. Being born into millions like Gabrieli or Healey (or did Muffy marry it? She certainly doesn't have the brains to have earned it on her own, and she's definitely loaded) is not the same thing as actually creating wealth.

Bottom line: last entrepreneur out, hit the switch.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.