richardhowe.com

John Edward, a resident of Chelmsford who earned his master’s degree at UMass Lowell and is an adjunct professor of economics at Bentley University, recently urged readers to vote NO on Question 1 and NO on Question 2 in the upcoming state election. Today he tackles Question 3 concerning the proposed rollback of the state’s sales tax.

Question 3 on the November ballot asks voters to cut the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. With one major improvement, that could actually be plausible. Until then, vote No on Question 3.

As usual, there is excessive emphasis on tax rates. The important question with taxes is not what the rate is. The problem is who pays.

In 2008, the “Small Government” forces tried to eliminate the income tax. I said at the time that if they really wanted to help low and middle-income families they should go after the sales tax.

Solving a budget crisis by increasing the regressive sales tax from 5 to 6.25 percent was not a good idea. However, lowering it back is not good enough for the people who put this question on the ballot. They claim 5 percent is too high even though that will put our sales tax rate below the national median.

Actually, the sales tax burden in Massachusetts is lowest among the 45 states that have a sales tax. That is because we wisely exempt food, and clothing up to $175, as necessities.

To perform a thorough analysis we must consider the full burden that Massachusetts taxpayers face. When you do, it is clear “Taxachusetts” is a myth.

Massachusetts ranks 31st for all state and local taxes measured relative to income. Taxes are lower in states like Wyoming or Louisiana, but incomes are much lower. The overall tax rate in 30 states is higher than ours, and most of those states provide fewer services. read more »

Ten days ago I traveled to Houston to attend the funeral of Medal of Honor recipient and Lowell native David McNerney. There’s a hotly contested race for governor down there between Republican incumbent Rick Perry and Democratic challenger Bill White, so during my 48 hours in the Lone Star State, I paid close attention to all the political activity on TV, the radio and in the newspaper.

The Houston Chronicle carried a front page story with the headline “Price tag for Perry trips $928,477”, a story that outlined the cost the state paid for security on numerous out of the country trips by Perry. In the same edition of the paper, a columnist, Rick Casey, wrote about the state’s “now controversial” emerging technology fund. Defenders said the fund was “great for Houston” but the columnist (and other newspapers around the state, apparently) criticize the fund for being “a kitty from which Governor Rick Perry rewards some of his major contributors with multi-million dollar grants.”

Picking up on this theme, television ads run by White, the former mayor of Houston, attack Perry with a script saying “Under Rick Perry, Texas is for sale” and cites declines in education and employment. The ad closed with “Bill White – he’s in it for Texas’ future.”

Perry, of course, was running attack ads of his own in which he sought to tie White to President Obama. “While Bill White was mayor of Houston, he doubled the city’s debt: Say no to Obama-style spending.” Another ad closed with “Obama and White: Wrong for Texas.” Both of the Perry ads and other ads for lesser offices repeatedly used this line: “he followed an unbusinesslike approach”, something I’ve never heard in an ad up here. (I assume polls show people in Texas feel strongly that government should be run “like a business”).

After sifting through the usual litany of national conservative talk radio, I found a local program that proved interesting. “The Alan Warren Outdoor Radio Show” very quickly got into politics by replaying a recent interview the host had conducted with Governor Perry, a lifelong hunter. The Governor said that “outdoor education is just as important as math or writing.” Perry said he has hunted since he was a small child and said that hunting was all about “managing resources and keeping populations in balance”, something he said non-hunters just don’t understand.

Finally, the newspaper carried a large legal notice about early voting, a notice that was written in English, Spanish and Vietnamese. The notice said “early voting by personal appearance would be available October 18-29” at 37 listed sites around the city.

As Dick posted last night AP reporter Glen Johnson uncovered a memo written in 1998 by gubernatorial  candidate Charlie Baker, then Governor Paul Cellucci’s Director of Administration and Finance.

Here are several astounding quotes taken directly from Johnson’s article:

As he concluded his tenure as budget chief in Massachusetts, Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker wrote a memo labeling Big Dig spending “simply amazing,” warning that it would force “draconian” cuts to other road and bridge projects — and recommending they be taken only after his boss was re-elected in 1998.

“The financing plan for transportation spending between FY 1999 and FY 2003 is starting to seem surreal,”

The state’s then-administration and finance secretary warns there is at least a $100 million deficit in the road and bridge construction budget during the first year alone, yet it “is more like” $350 million annually.

And to me the most devastating of all the quotes in Johnson’s article…

Writing Aug. 26, 1998, more than two months before his boss, then-Gov. Paul Cellucci, was up for re-election, Baker lists four remedial steps for the governor to propose “after Nov. 5th” — Election Day in 1998.

Baker advocated that the financial mess the Big Dig was causing for the state be hidden from the public until after the election in November 1998.  Yes, Charlie Baker, self proclaimed candidate for the people,  advised Governor Paul Cellucci to hide important information from the public, the taxpayers, the citizens, the voters of Massachusetts to assure the the reelection of his boss. This is a condescending, insulting attitude and a perfect example of the politics of deception.