Massachusetts voters will see three questions on their ballots Nov. 2, one of which would have a major impact on the state's finances.
The ballot questions are the result of the initiative petition process, the method by which citizens can place proposed laws or changes in existing laws before voters for approval or rejection. One question calls for the elimination of the sales tax on alcohol, another would repeal the Chapter 40B zoning law, and a third would reduce the state sales and use tax rates from 6.25 to 3 percent.
All three ballot questions are binding. If passed, they will become law — with one caveat, as noted by Brian McNiff, spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin's office.
"They become the law like any other law," McNiff said. "They could be amended if the Legislature chooses. They could simply be repealed."
The Massachusetts Legislature has a track record of thwarting the will of the voters, as expressed through ballot initiatives.
In 1998, voters passed the Clean Elections Law, which would have provided state funding to political candidates who agreed to spending limits. But the Legislature refused to release funding for the bill. Then, in 2002, the Legislature placed a confusingly worded nonbinding question on the ballot asking if voters approved of using taxpayer money to pay for political campaigns. The measure was rejected and was used in 2003 as a pretext for the Legislature's repeal of the Clean Elections Law.
In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to roll back, over several steps, the state's income tax from 5.95 percent to 5 percent. In 2002, legislators defied the voters' will by freezing the rollback at 5.3 percent.
The measure this year that likely will test legislators' trustworthiness is Question 3, which calls for the state's 6.25 percent sales and use tax to be reduced to 3 percent.
Here is a look at the ballot questions, accompanied by pro and con arguments from supporters and opponents.
Question 1: Eliminate sales tax on alcohol
This question asks voters if they wish to eliminate the current 6.25 percent Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages imposed by the Legislature in 2009. Such beverages are already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed repeal of it would take effect on Jan. 1, 2011.
A "Yes" vote would eliminate the sales tax on alcohol.
A "No" vote makes no change in current tax.
Yes on Question 1
One year ago, the Massachusetts Legislature passed our state's first ever sales tax on beer, wine and liquor, hiking it from zero to 6.25 percent. For most of our customers, that's a big increase, and the predictable has happened — business is down. I am the owner of A & B Liquors, a small package store in Methuen, and on Nov. 2, I will vote Yes on Question 1 because the sales tax on alcohol jeopardizes the future of all package stores like mine.
Since the passage, our neighbor state New Hampshire has reaped the benefits of the new tax. Their sales have increased 5 percent. Located immediately south of the border, my business has felt the burden. The customers I used to see on a regular basis, I see less frequently. They make the emergency stop to buy a bottle of wine for dinner, but they do not come here for volume purchases. Instead, they drive the extra 10 minutes into New Hampshire to purchase their alcohol, where it's tax free.
Not only are we losing those sales, but inevitably we are losing workers, too. I employ seven workers, and because of the drop in sales, I have had to decrease the hours they work from 40 per week to 30. Their take-home pay has been slashed by an average of $100 per week — that's $5,200 per year per employee.
We are thankful we have jobs, but we have all suffered a pay cut. I do not plan to make layoffs, but I've seen other owners be forced to make such decisions. In this struggling economy, now is not the time to increase the number of unemployed.
There are more than 1,600 other liquor stores like mine — family-run businesses, struggling through hard times — and we are all fighting for economic survival, like most people are right now. To stay in business, I ask that you to join us and other consumers and vote Yes on Question 1.
This essay was provided by Armen Derderian, the owner of A & B Liquors in Methuen.
No on Question 1
Question 1 on the ballot Nov. 2 asks voters to create a special tax exemption for alcohol at retail stores, and slash $110 million from a budget already facing a $2 billion deficit. It's a reckless fiscal and public health policy measure that should be voted down.
If approved, Question 1 would change the state's sales tax law to carve out a special exemption for alcohol sold at retail stores. The only items that are exempt from the state's sales tax are basic necessities like food, clothing and prescription medicines. Alcohol is not a basic necessity, and doesn't deserve a tax break.
Forty-five other states (all of the states that have a sales tax) apply it to alcohol. The Massachusetts alcohol tax is clearly in the mainstream for all states.
Every dollar of the tax goes to addiction prevention, treatment and recovery services. It will bring in about $110 million to support vital health programs.
So who's behind Question 1? The liquor industry, which raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to put the question on the ballot. They will spend millions in advertising to convince voters to "send a message" to Beacon Hill.
Proponents say residents will flock to New Hampshire and buy tax-free alcohol. Aside from the dubious wisdom of spending time and gas money on a trip to New Hampshire to buy alcohol — which in nearly all cases would cost more money — data from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue shows that alcohol sales have not changed much in the past year.
The alcohol sales tax, paid only by those who purchase alcohol, goes directly to a fund for treatment of addiction. We can't afford to repeal this tax. That is why people should vote no on Question 1 on Nov. 2.
This essay was provided by the No on Question One Committee.
Question 2: Repeal of Chapter 40B zoning law
This question would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town's zoning board of appeals, instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing.
The law makes it easier for developers in communities that do not meet a minimum affordable housing threshold to get their projects permitted.
A "Yes" vote would repeal the law allowing single comprehensive permits to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.
A "No" vote makes no change in existing law.
Yes on Question 2
When a law intended to provide affordable housing is on the books for 41 years and we remain one of the least affordable states in the country, doesn't that strike you as a failure? We recall many defective products to ensure that they are fixed, so doesn't it make sense that after 41 years of lack of progress there is something wrong and it needs to be fixed?
Chapter 40B is broken and needs to be fixed! Ten years ago, a small number of citizen activists gathered in a Braintree meeting to discuss the faults with 40B projects in their towns and the abuses they saw on the part of the predatory developers involved. That was the birth of the Coalition for the "Reform" of 40B.
In the ensuing years, they worked with legislators offering bills that were intended to make 40B a more effective and productive law. Hundreds of bills over three legislative sessions never got out of committee, and nothing changed!
In 2007, after six years of frustration and many more high-density projects imposed on towns, the organization decided that the only way change could be accomplished would be to seek repeal through an initiative petition and force the Legislature to address the deficiencies and create a more effective affordable housing program, as many other states had done. Thus was born the Coalition for the "Repeal" of 40B.
The 58,000 units proclaimed by the lobbyists that support 40B don't reflect that as many as 75 percent of these units are market rate and comparatively high priced. They also don't talk about expiring use when these affordable units revert to market rate. Currently, 18,000 of these units are due to revert to market rate over the next few years.
Proposed legislation to address and fix these glaring faults has been lobbied against by the developer and banking entities that profit significantly from 40B. The state Inspector General identified as much as $110 million in excess profits withheld from our towns and show why he called 40B a pig fest and a fraud perpetrated on our citizens.
Let's get an affordable housing plan that works and doesn't line the pockets of predatory developers. We start by voting Yes on Question 2 on Nov. 2.
This essay was written by John Belskis, chairman of the Coalition for the Repeal of 40B.
No on Question 2
The three candidates for governor don't see eye to eye on much, but one thing they do agree on is that when voters head to the polls on Nov. 2, they should vote No on Question 2.
The reason Charlie Baker, Gov. Deval Patrick, and Treasurer Tim Cahill agree on this issue is because they know that repealing the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law would reduce the availability of affordable housing for seniors and working families.
The Affordable Housing Law has created 58,000 homes across the state and is responsible for approximately 80 percent of the new affordable housing over the past decade, outside the larger cities. It is responsible for nearly all of the newly created affordable homes in Andover, Methuen and North Andover since 1997.
A new University of Massachusetts study found the Affordable Housing Law has created nearly 50,000 jobs and more than $9 billion in economic activity over the past 10 years, and that repealing this law would cost the state at least that many jobs and economic benefits in the future. At a time when we are all struggling to get back on track after the economic collapse, the worst thing we could do is get rid of a vital economic tool for our cities and towns.
The Andover Community Trust has been able to create new homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers because of the Affordable Housing Law. Other nonprofit organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, also rely on this law to help meet local needs. These groups are providing homes for teachers, nurses, police officers, social workers, retail employees and administrative staff.
A broad-based coalition of more than 1,300 civic, municipal, business, labor, housing, environmental and religious leaders, including the League of Women Voters and AARP, urge you to vote No on Question 2 on Nov. 2. Please visit our website at protectaffordablehousing.org.
This essay was written by Aaron Gornstein, executive director of Citizens' Housing and Planning Association, and Susan Garth Stott, executive director of the Andover Community Trust.
Question 3: Reduce the state sales and use tax
This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates, currently 6.25 percent, to 3 percent as of Jan. 1, 2011.
Yes on Question 3
Some 94,200 Massachusetts workers lost their jobs in 2009. What did Gov. Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts state Legislature do? They raised state government spending by $4 billion, and they raised the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent.
The result? More Massachusetts businesses were driven out of state or shuttered. More employees were laid off. More underemployed workers were given lower pay.
We must roll back taxes and cut government spending to breathe life into small businesses and create jobs.
Voting Yes on Question 3 will:
Create 33,000 new private sector jobs.
Give back more than $900 on average — every year — to every family in Massachusetts.
Force state politicians to cut government waste.
Keep shoppers in Massachusetts instead of driving them to New Hampshire's zero percent sales tax.
Attract shoppers from Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and New York.
Massachusetts families have been forced to cut their spending by 20 percent, 30 percent, or more over the last two years.
Voting Yes on Question 3 will cut total state government spending less than 5 percent. Just $2.3 billion out of $52 billion spent in 2010. It doesn't even touch the additional $22 billion spent by cities and towns.
Ballot initiatives are our most powerful tool. In 1999, the income tax rate was 5.95 percent. It's now 5.3 percent because of a successful ballot initiative launched by Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci in 2000. It has saved taxpayers $7 billion so far.
Without Yes on 3, the sales tax will stay at 6.25 percent. The income tax will stay at 5.3 percent.
Yes on 3 will force the Legislature to cut government waste. That's why the teachers union will spend millions of dollars trying to defeat Question 3. Good news — we're ahead in the polls!
Please visit RollBackTaxes.com to join the Yes on 3 campaign, to volunteer, and to donate. We need you to win on Nov. 2.
This essay was written by Carla Howell, chairman of the Alliance to Roll Back Taxes.
No on Question 3
Voter approval of Question 3 would result in across-the-board cuts of approximately 30 percent in virtually all state programs, including local aid, higher education, human services, prisons, courts, environmental protection, and state parks and beaches, according to a report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
If Question 3 passes, state leaders would face a $4.5 billion dollar shortfall in the fiscal 2012 budget — an already existing structural deficit of at least $2 billion, plus $2.5 billion of reduced tax revenues by cutting the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 3 percent. Because almost half of the state's $32 billion budget is spending that is legally required, the $4.5 billion in reductions must be spread over the remaining $16.9 billion of "discretionary" spending, which would require across-the-board cuts of 28.4 percent. State programs have already been cut by more than $2 billion since the fiscal crisis began in 2009.
In addition, since the tax cut would take effect on Jan. 1, 2011, the state would have to deal with the loss of approximately $1 billion in sales tax revenues in fiscal 2011, requiring large mid-year cuts across state government.
The cuts in local aid would result in thousands of layoffs of municipal employees, chiefly teachers, police and fire, decimating the core services of education and public safety and falling most severely on cities and poorer communities that depend so heavily on state aid.
Since state aid and property taxes are far and away the two major sources of municipal revenue, the cuts in state aid would inevitably lead to higher property taxes in many communities. This would put an added burden on many lower and middle income taxpayers.
Even with last year's increase in the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, Massachusetts still ranks in the bottom group of states in terms of sales tax burden. Of the 45 states with a broad-based sales tax, Massachusetts ranks 43rd in revenues collected per $1,000 of income and 35th per capita. Massachusetts has a very narrow base on which sales taxes are collected (e.g. exempting food, clothing up to $175, and services), which is the principal explanation for its low ranking even with a rate of 6.25 percent.
This essay was written by Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
