BHI in the news Letters to the Editor

from NewsLink, Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring 2002 Braintree volunteer program makes "no economic sense" Editor: I am writing to express my concern with the article entitled “Working off taxes” in your latest newsletter. I think the program is terrible economics and terrible social policy and am very surprised to find an article praising this program in your newsletter. For a local government to raise taxes to a confiscatory level only to then turn its senior citizens into wage slaves at minimum wage in order to save their homes is abominable. Furthermore, the work they do (according to the article) is not wanted or needed by the town to the extent that it is available; clearly an indication that the economics makes no sense. Also, to replace union jobs (even partially) at union wages with non-union workers at minimum wage is underhanded union busting, a violation of any fair-minded collective bargaining agreement. I urge you to do some logical analysis of this program as you have so brilliantly done in so many other areas of economic, political, and social policy. I look forward to a future article that really “makes sense for everyone.” Philip Belanger via e-mail Raising taxes should not be first resort Editor: I do not know whether the Beacon Hill Institute’s estimate that state tax increases will hurt the economy of Massachusetts and cost jobs is accurate. The Institute has calculated that to keep the income tax at 5.3% would cost $1.4 billion in lost wages, result in 32,000 lost jobs, and cause $244 million in lost capital spending during the first year. Other tax cuts are estimated to have equally devastating effects. What I do know is that the state does not have to risk such a scenario. If the first response of elected officials in difficult fiscal times were not to raise taxes, ways could be found to close the gap between spending and revenue, even in this financial crisis. Some relatively painless means have already been suggested – like reducing the lottery payout by $274 million, using $146 million from the tobacco settlement and taking $800 million or more from the estimated $2 billion in the state’s so-called rainy day reserves. In addition, most citizens have their own favorite pet peeve when it comes to state spending. Their suggestions may save relatively small sums but these sums add up to substantial amounts. I would eliminate all public relations and press secretaries from state agencies. It would save over $10 million a year to eliminate free and cut-rate tuition at state colleges for government employees and their dependents. These colleges belong to all the people of the state, and fairness dictates that one group should not automatically receive financial benefits for which other people must compete. The citizens of Massachusetts are not selfish. They would not mind higher taxes if they knew that all methods of increasing productivity and eliminating waste and special privileges had been addressed. And neither are our citizens stupid. They can see through the gloom-and-doom predictions that they are asked to swallow so that public officials will have an easier time extracting additional taxes. A fiscal crisis like the present deserves statesmanship and it deserves sacrifice, but that sacrifice does not have to come from the children or the poor or the sick or the elderly. Nor should it come first from the taxpayers. Peter G. Arlos Berkshire County Treasurer Pittsfield Councilman-at-large BHI replies: We don’t think things work as Mr. Belanger charges. As we see it, local government is going to extract either money or the equivalent in donated time from seniors and everyone else who pays taxes. So better that it offer a choice — pay or work — to taxpayers. Seniors often have more time than money, and, under this program, they get to choose where they’ll work. When they pay taxes, on the other hand, the government takes the money and spends the money where it wants. If Mr. Belanger can see our other arguments as “brilliant,” we hope he can see this one as at least reasonable. It is easy to agree with Mr. Arlos on the desirability of ending free tuition for state employees attending state colleges. There is little reason to believe that doing so would undermine the state’s ability to attract capable workers. And, let’s face it. This practice discriminates against private universities like Suffolk. On the other hand, we’re a little less eager to eliminate state public relations offices. Considering how difficult it is to pry information out of state officials, it’s nice to have somewhere to go where they can’t duck your questions. As for the exact economic losses the forthcoming tax hikes will inflict, the trouble is that no one else wants even to ask that question, much less answer it.

NewsLink is the quarterly newsletter of the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research at Suffolk University. © 1996-2002. All rights reserved.

HTML format revised on 9/9/02 9:05 PM