The tax-cutting edge

Candidates promise what the voters don't even want

As election season heats up, candidates are tempted to pander -- promising the electorate candy in the hope of votes come November.

That's exactly what Acting Governor Paul Cellucci and state treasurer Joe Malone have been up to this week in the tightening race for governor. With the news that the state's humming economy generated higher-than-expected tax revenues, Cellucci proposed a $650 million election-year tax rebate. Malone, Cellucci's opponent in the Republican primary, raised the ante, calling for a $1 billion payout.

This is politics as usual at a time when the voters deserve better. The unexpected revenues are good news indeed. But the state also faces the prospect of mounting financial responsibilities. Just two months ago, Congress voted to cut back federal funding for the Big Dig. Over the past six years, Washington has kicked in an average of $830 million annually to fund Massachusetts's transportation infrastructure. The new legislation, the product of a Republican Congress where power continues to shift to Southern and Western states, slashed that figure to $550 million. The results will have a ripple effect, squeezing out other capital needs such as affordable housing and help for crumbling school buildings.

Massachusetts is also in the midst of a historic social-policy change -- overhauling its welfare system. Giving the underprivileged the independence we say we want them to have will likely require more money for training and education programs. And what happens if the economy takes a dive, or even just softens?

Don't forget that Cellucci, Malone, and the top two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Scott Harshbarger and Patricia McGovern, have already proposed profligate, and permanent, tax cuts in the $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion range. (See "Tax-Cut Fever," News, December 19, 1997.) Of the candidates for governor, only Brian Donnelly has had the honesty to reject cuts the state cannot afford.

The great irony is that large tax cuts are not even what Massachusetts voters want. Polls show that the public would rather focus on solving long-term problems and saving for a rainy day. (This explains the meltdown of Barbara Anderson's tax-cut referendum.) The state's citizens want new solutions to health care issues -- Massachusetts still has an estimated 766,000 uninsured citizens. And, as the public firestorm over the miserable results of the first teacher-certification exam shows, they want better answers on education. (As the Phoenix went to press, Senate president Tom Birmingham made an intriguing and creative proposal to offer $20,000 signing bonuses to new teachers by creating a $100 million endowment fund.)

Certainly, the state can afford a moderate cut in taxes. But that is already going to happen. The House has passed a tax cut, and the Senate has passed a more progressive version of the same idea -- a cut in the range of $500 million annually. Birmingham and House Speaker Tom Finneran now need only to work out their differences and Cellucci will surely sign the bill.

Not so long ago, the state was careering out of financial control. Now, as the federal government leaves more and more to the states, Massachusetts is even more exposed to the inevitable economic storms. Yet the lesson of the turbulent 1980s is simple: keep your eyes on the horizon. It's a lesson that the public seems to have learned -- but that many politicians, apparently, have yet to figure out.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.