MA Question 3 - Debunking the 'No on Question 3' opposition.

Three days left for one of the most pivotal elections in recent history.  While the candidates have been pretty much decided the individual questions still remain a mystery to some.  Massachusetts proposes an initiative to rollback the sales tax from 6.25% to 3%.  We have discussed the reasons for why Question 3 makes sense, but it is equally important to analyze and debunk the opposition.   The millions of dollars spent by the various unions and recently health insurance giants should leave a very sour taste in one's mouth.  Bluntly put, the opposition has been purposely skewing information and using scare tactics as their primary source of advertising.

Myth #1:  Local services have been cut by 25% already.  We cannot afford more cuts. 

From the opposition's main Facebook page:

"Our communities rely on local aid to pay for schools, public safety, and emergency services. Local aid has already been cut by 25 percent in the last two years, forcing communities to reduce services. This proposal would result in further cutbacks."

Facts: 

A perfect example of the propaganda utilized by the union leadership and a sad testament to what political advertising has been reduced to.

1)  Local aid has *NOT* been cut in the past two years, at all, let alone in the past two years, this is not just a myth is it a blatant lie!!  Looking at the Comprehensive Financial Report one sees the plain reality.

Does this look like a 25% reduction?  In fact, one sees a 5% increase!  From 5 billion to 5.2 billion

2)  A vast majority of money used for local services are raised through local taxes.  As you can see on the above graphic, the Total represents total percent spending.  MA only spends about 10% of it's total spending on local services!

Myth #2:  Rolling back the sales tax will cost the state 2.5 billion


More from the opposition's main Facebook page:

"This proposal would take away $2.5 billion in state revenue. This is about half the total amount the state sends to our communities each year to help pay for public education."

Facts:

This figure does not include the increase in business activity and is a statement made to generate fear, absent of any economic analysis.  Furthermore it is a statement used to illustrate that Beacon Hill needs more revenue.

1) According to a local economic think tank BHI, the loss in revenue will be substantially smaller due to increased economic activity  

"In total, state coffers would experience a decrease in revenue of $2.084 billion, compared to a baseline projection of no tax change. Local governments would also see an rise in property tax revenues, leading to $33.43 million in increased collections."

So not is the opposition grossly overstating the cuts, but forgetting about increases in revenue on a local level that is always the primary funding for local services!

2) Revenues have been largely stagnant despite the recession.  Once again the financial report:

2009: $ 49,788 

2008: $ 50,136 

2007: $ 49,402

So if there is suddenly a budget shortfall, it is because of increased spending.  

Myth #3:  Proponents of Question 3 are using out of state donations to fund the ballot initiative. 

According to Steve Crawford the spokesman for the Coalition of our Communities the majority of money raised by the Question 3 proponents came from out of state funding, citing a figure of 62%.  

Facts: 

1)  The Question 3 finances (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZX1G91DBUw time 2:24) show that only 33% of the funding came from out of state. 

2) Coalition of our Communities is comprised of unions including major national union donors.  Here is the latest report:

With National Education Association and SEIU International on the list of donors, the opposition is attempting to cover up their own insecurities over their funding operations.

Conclusion

So while the opposition is using distortions and bring up meaningless points about funding, vote for the only thing that will *guarantee* strong economic improvement for Massachusetts.  Even if Beacon Hill refuses to cut spending that increased uncontrollably the past several years, local towns can always raise money through real estate taxes.  You should always strive to return money BACK to the local levels.  The closer the government, the better the government.  If you save $500 in taxes from buying a car, but have to pay a few more hundred in real estate taxes - the better you are!!  Remove the ability of Beacon Hill to hold you and your services hostage.   Again from Beacon Hill Institute: 

"The reduction in the sales tax would also increase the pace of the the state economy as a whole. Total employment would increase by 17,314 [loss of public service included] workers and average wages would rise, which, in turn, would increase total payroll and profits in the state, leading to an additional $60.49 million in income tax revenue. As investment and retail sales increase, and corporate income tax revenue swell, all state and local taxes would see the benefit."

Vote YES on Question 3 this November 2nd.