On Nov. 2, Massachusetts voters will pass judgment on ballot Question 3, which proposes to lower the state sales tax from its current 6.25 percent to 3 percent.
If the question is approved, the state would collect approximately $2.5 billion less in revenue every year. Measured against the roughly $32 billion state budget, that would be a significant reduction in revenue, and would necessitate substantial cuts in many programs and services that assist almost all of us in one way or another.
It isn't surprising that some voters may be tempted to lower the sales tax. Citizens are anxious and angry, and rightly so. Worried about unemployment, long-declining wages, the sedated economy, and fighting their own debt, they resent the all-too-obvious instances of waste and inefficiency in government and they disagree with some of its programs.
But voters should consider the full range of circumstances when weighing Question 3. First, because of falling revenues during the recession of the past three years, the state has already had to trim its budget by about $3 billion. Thousands of state and municipal workers, and the scope of local and state government services, have been cut already.
And unfortunately, that kind of cutting — done under economic duress, and under the pressure of a fiscal-year timetable — is not likely to weed out the waste, fraud, and corruption that so dismay taxpayers. To eliminate those improprieties takes diligent investigation and sustained follow-up. Misspent funds or wayward officials have to be identified specifically, targeted, and proven improper and corrupt, respectively.
Just look at the ongoing investigation into the activities of John O'Brien, the suspended commissioner of the state Probation Department. Demonstrating that he abused the public trust in his administration of the department will take considerable time and effort. Few citizens would want him to be in charge of downsizing the agency.
Voters need to become more sophisticated about the way real reform and lasting competence occur in government.
It is not the size of the budget that determines whether dishonesty and inefficiency inhabit state or municipal agencies; instead, it is the quality of the department heads, managers, and leaders that establishes excellence — or not.
Secondly, the state in Fiscal Year 2012 will face a shortfall of something between $2 billion and $2.7 billion. If Question 3 were to pass, the shortfall would become $4.5 billion to $5.2 billion, which would be an enormous amount to cut.
It is also important to remember that almost half the state budget is "untouchable," meaning that those sums — totaling roughly $15 billion — are legally obligated annually by constitutional, federal, and debt-service requirements.
For example, spending on most of the Medicaid programs and most of the "Chapter 70" aid to local schools is required. Similarly, money allocated for the MBTA, the construction of schools, and debt repayment is already obligated.
This has the effect of shrinking the budget pie from which cuts can be made. If Question 3 passes, we would need to cut about $5 billion from the remaining "discretionary" budget of $17 billion. Therefore, the resulting reductions to programs and services would be severe — on the order of 30 percent or so.
Large cuts would have to be made in local aid, health care, highway and public works, environmental and consumer protection, parks and recreation, state colleges, the prison and court systems, and state police and administrative departments. Welfare, housing, mental health, child and senior care, and labor and business development programs, would need cutting.
In these troubled times, when we are struggling to stimulate a stalled economy, and when growing numbers of foundering families need a helping hand from government, it would be irresponsible and counterproductive to halve the sales tax.
Besides which, any savings to the consumer are likely to be chimerical. For example, if you are spending $10,000 a year on sales-taxable items (groceries and basic clothing are not taxed), you would save about $300 a year if Question 3 passes. But all of that and more would be taken by the increases in property taxes, fees and other charges that almost surely would be implemented to compensate for a multi-billion-dollar loss in state revenue in 2012.
To fix our national economy, we need to create a staggering 15 million private-sector jobs. It took us 30 years to develop the dysfunctional, overextended hyper-economy that almost completely collapsed in 2008. It may take years to repair, reform and reinvigorate many components of the private sector.
In the short term, in what is still a crisis, state government has a big role to play in spending, rescuing, stabilizing, employing and regulating.
There is no other power available whose stated mission is to act in the public interest, and whose capabilities can help guide the reassembly of a new and better economy.
Let's not punish our government by approving Question 3. Vote no.
• • •
Brian T. Watson of Swampscott is a regular Salem News columnist. Contact him at watson@nii.net.
