http://www.boston.com/…

A group of antitax activists launched a campaign over the weekend to abolish the state income tax, setting the stage for a contentious public battle if the measure is added to the ballot this fall.After pushing a similar initiative that almost passed six years ago, a group called the Committee for Small Government is back for another round, asking voters to end the income tax and save the average taxpayer $3,600 a year. The group, led by libertarian Carla Howell, is almost certain to gather the 11,000 signatures needed to put a question on the November ballot.

To say that state officials are worried about the prospect would be an understatement.

Community, political, and business officials are grasping for words such as “chaos,” “devastating,” and “catastrophe” to describe the scenario that would unfold if the measure passes.

Six years ago, Beacon Hill didn’t pay much attention to what seemed to be a pie-in-the-sky campaign. Confident that voters would reject the plan as folly, no one even organized a campaign to fight it.

But it almost passed, gaining the support of 45 percent of voters.

A fledgling coalition of city and town officials and union officials hired former Blue Cross Blue Shield executive and civic leader Peter Meade to head a battle against the income tax cut, and is interviewing high-powered public relations firms. Their Coalition for Our Communities plans a fund-raising and public educational campaign to combat the allure of the tax-cutting measure, which would cost the state roughly $12.7 billion - about 40 percent of the budget.

Some political observers are expecting a public tax battle the likes of which has not been seen since Governor Michael S. Dukakis was in office.

“I think back to what happened in ‘89 or ‘90. I think this would be even more contentious and chaotic than that period,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, recalling the voter effort to overturn new taxes imposed under Dukakis. “This, I think, would usher in a similar kind of period because the scale of this is so enormous.”

How would the state cut $12 billion?

That’s three times the sum the state sends cities and towns for public schools. Laying off every state employee would only save about $5 billion, said Cam Huff, a private policy consultant who studies the state budget.

An initiative petition is intended to be binding if it passes, but the Legislature has found ways to buck the will of the people in the past. In 2002, lawmakers halted a gradual income tax rollback approved by voters two years earlier, prompting howls that they were bucking an edict from the populace. And though voters passed a ballot question in 1998 that called for publicly funded campaigns, the Legislature famously refused to pay for them. Continued…

I love the gloom and doom talk. I don’t doubt that the government would absolutely drop the ball if this passes. They aren’t any good at cutting back when not under pressure why should they be any better when they are? I like that they come out and just admit the reason they want state level taxation is wealth redistribution. They bring up examples that are really ridiculous like failure to plow the roads. I grew up in a very rural area. Only very major roads were plowed by the county. Random people would plow the other roads as necessary. It’s far more cost effective to have Jim down the road with his F350 plow the local roads.

Their New Hampshire neighbors to the north don’t have an income tax and they seem to do just fine even with all the NY, NJ and MA immigrants bringing their big government beliefs. I’m sure MA would be fine after everyone adjusted back to paying for things more directly.

http://www.boston.com/…

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state’s healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years - an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program’s cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents.

“The state alone cannot support that kind of spending increase,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog group.

Even with federal backing, the state may not be able to afford the insurance initiative as designed, because the law did not make any attempt to trim wasteful health spending, said Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who specializes in healthcare costs.

Currently, 169,000 people have enrolled in the program, which is expected to cost $618 million in the fiscal year ending June 30. When it authorized the program in 2006, the Legislature estimated that about 215,000 people would eventually be enrolled at a cost of $725 million. State officials in late 2006 reduced that estimate to between 140,000 and 160,000 - a number that was surpassed last year.

“We’re paying the price of our own success,” said Widmer.

This is great. Why is it that the “state alone cannot support that kind of spending increase.”? Perhaps they have ignored reality and scarcity. My hope is that their system fails and is made the example of. They are looking for federal handouts to help out… well what would happen nationally if we had federally mandated healthcare? Print money? Take loans? Ask the IMF for cash? I don’t think any of those will work in the long run. We already have a $440,000/household debt.

http://www.boston.com/…

A proposal to abolish the state income tax received a surprising amount of support in the 2002 elections. Now, activists are reviving it, hoping to place it on next year’s ballot.

“I think our surprising and extraordinary vote in 2002 demonstrated that anything is possible, and people are going to take this much more seriously this time around,” said Carla Howell, who is leading the campaign to abolish the tax.

The proposal received 45 percent of the vote in 2002, despite critics’ warnings that it would plunge state government into chaos.

Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed budget watchdog group, said the proposal is “absolutely unreasonable” and would dry up state funding for education and healthcare. “The voters would rue the day. . . .  Essentially, she’s trying to repeal the 20th century,” Widmer said. Income taxes account for $10 or $11 billion of the state’s budget of about $27 billion, he said.

Howell — a former Libertarian candidate for US Senate, governor, and state auditor — said the cut would be a “huge benefit” for average people.

Hmmm education and healthcare… two things I definitely don’t want government involved in. ‘[R]epeal the 20th century’? New Hampshire seems to be doing fine without income taxes and state healthcare.