The sales tax is set by a law, namely, General Laws chapter 64H, section 2. Laws can be amended, and when they are, the amended version becomes law. For instance, when the 2010 budget became law, the sales tax increased to 6.25% because ch. 64H, s. 2 was changed.
Now, if Question 3 passes, that law will be changed again. Ballot questions are not subject to veto by the Governor; if a majority votes for them, they become law without any further action by anyone.
The text of the ballot question is available here (RTF), and it clearly states that the tax rate in ch. 64H, s. 2 decreases to 3% as of January 1, 2011.
It’s as simple as that. Once the law is changed, it’s changed. So if Question 3 passes, it won’t be legal to collect a sales tax of more than 3% (barring complicated circumstances having to do with bonds). Of course, the legislature can change the law again, which is exactly what Polito is suggesting should happen. But that’s not the subject under discussion. Where Baker, Cahill, the Herald, and others are getting this notion that the Governor might not “implement” the ballot question is completely beyond me.
Now, I do think it’s fair to say that the Governor might not have helped matters by initially being perhaps overly coy in answering the question about whether he’d “implement” Question 3. It’s a stupid question, as I’ve already explained, but he should have answered it in a more straightforward way (as he has since done). But that is no excuse for other people who should (and, I suspect, actually do) know better to start piously expressing faux concern that they’re not sure they can “trust” the Governor on this.
Bullshit. You can trust the Governor not to violate the law. It’s as simple as that, folks.
In 1998 the binding referendum titled “Clean Elections” was voted into law by a two-to-one margin of Massachusetts voters. The Clean Election law would have gone a long way toward eliminating the scourge of special interest influence and incumbent protection so prevalent in this state.
<
p>O.K. so far? Binding referendum, two-thirds passage by Massachusetts voters – a straight-forward victory for citizen activism? Not in this state. The referendum was much too threatening to career politicians who wanted no part of challengers who would base their campaigns on ideas and review of incumbent voting records, not on money raised from favor seekers. In 2003 the Massachusetts legislature voted to do away with Clean Elections. The then House Speaker, Tom Finneran, announced the demise of Clean Elections with his best let-them-eat-cake statement, “the voters didn’t know what they were voting for”.
In fact, your comment proves my point.
<
p>
<
p>Exactly! They passed a new law. That’s what I’m saying would have to happen. If Question 3 passes, the sales tax will be 3%, unless the legislature changes it again.
<
p>Furthermore, Clean Elections had a very important difference, which was that it had to be funded. Appropriations can’t be done by ballot question. That was the big fight that nearly resulted in the SJC requiring that Tom Finneran’s office furniture be auctioned off. There won’t be anything like that with the sales tax.
but the next question is…
<
p>So Gov. the Legislature just passed a new law which goes against the referendum… are you going to sign it or veto it?
<
p>From a “typical” standpoint, I think politicians announce that they will support (sign) a cause or not support it. Deval has not answered the question and punted by repeatedly answering that it is a bad idea or as Finneran said… “the voters didn’t know what they were voting for”
<
p>I cannot believe you keep hanging on to this sophomoric simplistic stance of the Governor not having a choice on a referendum. How stupid do you think the public is? Let me state “We know he cannot ignore the law” but what we are saying is that he can let the leg pass a new law which he could sign. “That” is “effectively” ignoring the will of the people AND the law.
<
p>It is too bad the referendum petition process doesn’t have a clause which would not allow the Leg to write a new law countering a “passed” petition.
Yes, I agree – that is a good question. Karyn Polito has already made clear her position, namely, she will work to get that bill through the legislature, and she wants the Governor to sign it. So, John, how do you feel about Polito?
<
p>As for this,
<
p>
<
p>That’s just bullshit, for all the reasons I’ve already explained and am not going to repeat.
…is also elected by the people and as such can be presumed to represent the will of the people for the duration of their term. If I were running for Governor I would say that I would advocate for a new law raising the sales tax to 5% and would certainly sign such if passed. I’ve heard legislative candidates in both parties say they favor the 5% rate whether that means raising it from 3% if the referendum passes or lowering it from 6.25% if it fails.
If this is his position, how then are we still left with a 5.3% income tax when the people passed ballot question 4 in 2000 by 1.5 million to 1.0 million to reduce the state income tax from 5.9% to 5.0% over a couple of years?
<
p>
The legislature passed a new law that froze the income tax at 5.3%. That’s exactly my point: if Question 3 passes, the sales tax will be 3% unless and until the legislature passes a new law that changes it again.
<
p>Why is this so hard to understand?
So it seems the effect of passing Question 3 will be to reduce the sales tax from 6.25 to 5%. It will not be to reduce it to 3%, so it isn’t as irresponsible as people claim. But if we don’t pass it, it will remain at 6.25 and that many more people will drive to NH for their stuff.
How do you figure? Have Speaker DeLeo and SenPrez Murray said that’s what they will do? Have other legislative leaders said anything about it? Is there any indication that any of the gubernatorial candidates would approve such a move?
<
p>If Question 3 passes – and especially if it passes by a healthy margin – the political will required to ignore it by raising the sales tax will be immense. And given the fact that something like 100 reps just switched their votes on casinos to make nice with the new Speaker, I’m not all that confident that such will exists.
Yet, they certainly had the will to disembowel that, now, didn’t they? Never underestimate the nerve and arrogance of entrenched legislature within what still is a virtual one party state.
Why would DeLeo or Murray say that’s what they will do, they want people to vote it down so they can say that people want it at 6.25, so they want people to think it will wreak havoc if it passes.
<
p>And surely DeLeo and Murray will simply order everyone to raise it back to 5% as a compromise, and everyone will say they had to go along for political cover.
<
p>Maybe they’ll have it at 3% for a while, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t get a bill ready to be signed so it just goes straight from 6.25 to 5 and everyone will be happy that the amendment worked to reduce the sales tax.
My understanding is that these laws take effect January 1st with no further promulgation required. It takes time for a bill to work its way through the legislature and then I believe most laws have a 90-day gap between enactment and taking effect.
If Question 3 passes, it takes effect on January 1, 2011.
Here’s the text.
<
p>And if Question 3 passes, I also doubt that it will be changed by the Legislature very quickly thereafter — for political reasons, not reasons connected to legislative process. (The Legislature can act very quickly when it wants to, to wit, the Legislature gave Governor Romney the authority to hire an independent contractor to look into the Ted Williams tunnel ceiling collapse the same day, July 13, 2006, that he asked for it. And the Legislature can make any bill effective immediately. So process ain’t the issue.)
<
p>Legislators recognize that the Clean Elections repeal caused political damage that they’re in no hurry to repeat. Moreover, with Clean Elections, the Legislature had a role to play — to create and fund the system mandated by the ballot initiative — that provided them with the cover they wanted to do away with it altogether. There’s no role for the Legislature to play with Question 3. If it passes, we’re going to be stuck with it for some time.
The last two posters are right, Beacon Hill and Deval do what they please, someone will have some bull excuse as to why those ballot iniatives were not implemented but the truth is the truth. Deval will not make good on his promise to roll back sales tax, police on street, property tax reductions. He is a liar
I mean, sorry to be blunt, but you just have no idea how this stuff works. Read the post again and pay attention this time.
I would love to have an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution.
<
p>It would mandate that the sales tax is 3%, that income taxes may be progressive in any way that the state legislature wants it to be, and that the state may DEFICIT SPEND.
<
p>It would be 1 single amendment.
<
p>The 3% sales tax is for the anti-tax vote.
<
p>If the state can deficit spend, we can spend on a LOT of infrastructure and other social services, which would create jobs and help the economy.
<
p>Eventually, with a deficit building up, the legislature would have the option of taxing the wealthy more. And that’s OK; they can afford it.
<
p>The lower sales tax would help retail sales a little, but not much.
<
p>With such an amendment, we can stop balancing the state budget on the backs of the destitute.
That’s what I would title the ballot question that would eliminate the ballot initiative process in Mass. Why bother having a representative democracy if the laws of the Commonwealth can be circumvented with the initiative process?
<
p>There’s a reason a deliberative process is in place to create legislation. What happens when you ask a large body of mostly-ignorant voters how high their taxes should be — without any other context or explanation of the consequences — is similar to what happens if you ask a 4-year-old whether she wants to eat ice cream or broccoli.
<
p>I would support the initiative process if it wasn’t a forum for offering up false alternatives. If Question 3 was phrased, “Do you want the sales tax rate to revert to some arbitrary lower figure, causing your state to go bankrupt and your school system shut down for lack of funds?”, what would its chances be?
<
p>Just look at the taffy pull over California’s Prop. 8. The tremendous waste of energy and money that will have incurred before an ultimate outcome is reached is just because people are allowed to vote on things that shouldn’t be up for a vote, e.g., people’s constitutionally-protected fundamental rights. Prop. 13 (CA’s Prop 2 1/2) put the state’s school systems in the toilet, and the state (now officially the nation’s most populous smoking hole in the ground) never recovered.