by Paula Woolley in Politics, Schools and Youth
Posted on October 22, 2008 at 9:35 am
Last Modified on October 29, 2008 at 9:56 am
loading…
More than most cities and towns, the city of Somerville and its public schools rely very heavily on state aid. In fact, this year, state aid makes up more than half (58 percent) of the Somerville schools’ budget. This much-needed money would be cut drastically if Question 1 passes, eliminating the state income tax. According to one estimate by groups including the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, our schools could lose as much as 90 percent of its aid if Question 1 passes, and our city could lose 65 percent.
The last time Somerville received a cut in state aid, in 2002-2003, the cut to the school budget was nowhere near this huge: it was about 20 percent, not 90 percent, and yet a large number of teachers and other staff were cut (including all reading specialists); class sizes were increased dramatically, with two classes often collapsed into one; programs such as the world languages offered in grades 7 and 8 were eliminated (and have not been restored); and the Powderhouse Community School was closed permanently. The school system has since run on a very lean budget. Any loss of state aid, even much less than 90 percent, would devastate our schools, which would need to turn to the city for more revenue. (Since the last budget crisis, the schools have already fully explored and taken advantage of grant money, and even this money might be at risk, given the worsening economy.) Yet the city itself would be losing its local aid, and would need to make drastic cuts to its own services.
Many voters, angry at the nation’s $700 billion bailout of Wall Street and at our state’s politicians, want to “send a message” by voting to end the state income tax. Many, feeling pinched financially, are also hoping to pocket what Carla Howell, the Libertarian who runs the Committee for Small Government, falsely promises would be $3,700 to every taxpayer (a claim that is true only if you earn enough money to pay that much in state taxes).
Many assume that the state budget is filled with waste, and that giving the state less money in tax revenue would force it to eliminate that waste. But the state budget contains many programs that are untouchable for cuts (pensions, debt service, certain Medicaid programs, etc.), and so the state would need to cut between 60% and 70% of all remaining programs, including Chapter 70 and local aid, which our city and our schools rely on.
Believe me, my family could use some extra money, although we pay nowhere near $3,700 in state income tax. (I guess if we paid that much in income tax, we’d have all the extra income we need!) But my husband and I feel it’s more important to have good schools, enough firefighters and fire stations, enough police officers, and social services for our elderly and poorer neighbors, not to mention that we’d like to have our streets plowed after every snowstorm, the potholes filled, the broken city tree branches removed, our garbage and recycling picked up for free, free public libraries, and the many other services our city provides. The only way Somerville could maintain these services would be through a major increase in our property taxes and the charging of fees on services such as trash pick-up that are currently free. The passage of Question 1 would take away from us far more than it would give.
Paula Woolley
Printed in Somerville Journal, Oct. 16, 2008
loading…
I think Paula Wooley really stretches the truth in this piece.
First of all, the $3,700 is clearly presented by Carla Howell as an average — some people pay less and some pay more — this is not a false statement as said by Paula Wooley.
In addition, as much as all of us receive to get benefits, taxes like this are not fair to those young people who had to work hard to make it. If you think about it, if you claim 70,000 as your income, you pay about 3,700 in taxes — 70K is not that much if you just bought a house or are renting and have huge student loans to pay off. So yes, extra 3,700 helps.
In regard to services like trash removal, police etc. Frankly city-paid trash removal creates enormous amounts of waste and pollution because residents indiscriminately throw away EVERYTHING. It’s not uncommon to have furniture picked up from the curb or other large items that can be donated or recycled. If there was per bag or per pound charge, residents would recycle and donate more — and would that be such a bad thing?
Regarding city plowing and other ‘services’. All these services are provided to us on a minimal basis. New Hampshire as a whole, which doesn’t have income tax and more snow, gets better plowing then most towns in Mass. And what about transportation — mass and Somerville roads are as bad as those of a 3 world nation and the public transportation system, especially the conditions on the T would be considered ‘not for human consumption’ in most developed nations.
And that is the key here, the Massachusetts goverments are eager to take and spend money without consideration for most individuals. City and state unions get huge salaries, ‘poor folk’ live in 400k condos given or rented to them by city or state governments, while those average folks, paying huge mortgages and student loans get nothing.
I’d rather pay nothing and get nothing, than pay 3,700 and get nothing.
loading...