Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

LGBT’s Beware Question 3

By

The dodgy math of Question 3’s proponents means programs like ours, not deemed essential-and many unquestionably essential-are certain to be gutted.

Question 3 would open up a $5 Billion deficit in the 2011 Massachusetts budget (out of a total of $16.9 Billion in discretionary state spending), devastating programs benefitting the LGBT community. The following services would face the budget axe if this reckless proposal were enacted by the voters:

• LGBT Youth Suicide Prevention

• Bullying Prevention and Intervention

• Anti-Hate Crimes Law Enforcement

• AIDS Prevention and Treatment

• Support for LGBT Victims of Hate Crimes

• Support for LGBT Victims of Domestic Violence

• Outreach and Care for Homeless LGBT Youth

• Responses to the Needs of the Growing LGBT Senior Population

• Redress for Discrimination

The “tea party” enthusiasts behind Question 3 are trying to deflect attention from inevitable budget catastrophe with falsehoods and dodgy math. In the official information to voters distributed by the Secretary of State, proponents assert that Question 3 would not “reduce spending for cities and towns, police, firefighters, schools, roads — nor any essential service.” They have no role in deciding what gets cut. And they deceive with their assertion that only 5% of $52 Billion in state spending would be affected-these numbers are obviously wrong. The non-partisan Massachusetts Taxpayers’ Foundation warns that passage of Question 3 “would necessitate across-the-board cuts of 30% for most programs including human services, public safety, higher education, and local aid.” Programs of particular benefit to the LGBT community, which few defend as “essential,” would be in grave danger.

At a time when reports of LGBT teen suicide have inundated the news, we cannot afford to dismantle the cutting-edge programs Massachusetts has developed to help at-risk youth. Consider the consequences as you weigh your vote on Ballot Question 3 this November.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The real danger is that those that dislike the current sales tax but aren’t anti-tax radicals will be suckered in by this one. The danger is that moderates and independents will find this proposal as a ‘modest’ cut as opposed to the extremism of a full repeal, unfortunately in reality this will force many programs to be cut, and it will make enforcement negligible resulting in a de facto elimination. Vote NO on 3.

  2. On the impact in dollars of the proposal.  Most news reports have the full year impact of the potential passage of Question 3 as $2.4 billion.  This would mean $1.2 billion for the half of 2011 it would impact (implementation on 1/1/11).

    <

    p>The rest of your post lists some potential impacts of passing question 3, but you lost me on the lead in when you attribute all of the potential FY2012 budget issues to Q3.  Half of the FY12 impact is from the loss of stimulus and other one-time federal funds that have been used to balance the FY11 budget.  So regardless of whether Q3 passes or not we are faced with a $2.5 billion budget shortfall for FY12.  That leaves $2.5 billion from the potential impact of Q3 passing.

    <

    p>Just my opinion, but you have enough of an issue without hyping the numbers.

    <

    p>- $1.2 billion or so in mid-year cuts in January if Q3 passes.  It can be argued that these will be disproportionately felt by those requiring the help of social services and state aid.

    <

    p>- $2.5 billion impact in FY12 on top of $2.5 billion in structural budget deficits from the drying up of federal stimulus funds.  The combination of the 2 reductions in state revenue will decimate state local aid and state services to those in need and unable to help themselves, the very people we all should be helping.

    <

    p>Great arguments, and I think Q3 will be close either way, so no need to inflate the impacts, they are real and deep already.

    • It is accurate to say that Question 3 will open up a $5 Billion deficit, because the revenue loss is cumulative. We’re already expecting a $2 Billion structural deficit. That’s if we do nothing. Question 3 takes $2 Billion and raises it to nearly $5 Billion. So the revenue loss that voters need to wrestle with is the $5 Billion number, since that’s what’s in store.  A no vote avoids the worst case scenario.

      <

      p>Polls in September showed support for Question 3 slipping from 54% in a State House News report early in the month to 46% in a Globe poll at the end of the month. That’s without any TV ads, which are expected to start running this month. The coverage of Question 3 in newspapers across the state has been uniformly negative, and opponents are just starting to mobilize a mass campaign. We can defeat this reckless proposal, but we need to spread the word about the harms it portends.

  3. and maybe we should?

    <

    p>While the Governor’s race and all the other campaigns have sucked up all the air, this cycle’s most dangerous thing on the ballot is odds-on to pass — to disastrous consequences if we don’t wake up.  

    • A diary like this is best suited for constituency-specific media.  More general fora should focus on how broad the impact will be.  I’m concerned that a diary like this might remind people of differences and lead some to think it’s fine for them to vote for the law since it will primarily impact this community which they are either indifferent or even hostile toward.

      • I’d bet tudor586 is Carla Howell herself, trying to make it seem like it’s only LGBT programs that would get cut, not essential services.  To a heck of a lot of people, many of whom are lurkers on BMG, cutting those programs would be the decisive factor in voting Yes.

        <

        p>I just posted a diary on why environmentalists should vote Yes, which argues that the revenue loss should be made up for with a gas tax.  To keep that gas tax low, we would probably also put a lot of unpopular programs on the chopping block, and hopefully the LGBT lobby would see the bigger picture and accept significant cuts.  Just calling for more taxes, that’d not go over too well.

        • (As if this state would pass a gas tax… nice astroturfing, though.)

          <

          p>There were about as many votes for a gas tax increase in the entire House, when Patrick proposed it, as there are fingers on my hand. I assure you, my hand has the normal amount of fingers and thumbs… There is a 0% chance of a gas tax increase passing next year, but a 100% chance of this state receiving a crushing blow beyond what the vast majority could comprehend in advance should Q3 pass. Of course, you probably know that, but don’t care.

          <

          p>Carla Howell, who is yet again the leader of this thing, isn’t just interested in cutting taxes… she’s interested in destroying government. She prays on people’s lack of understanding on these matters by getting them to make votes that don’t seem as bad as what they really are — as far as I’m concerned, almost everyone who votes for Q3 will vote for it thinking they’re just setting the sales ‘back’ to what it used to be… instead of almost half of what it used to be, and less than half of what it is now.

          <

          p>Carla Howell isn’t interested in creating a more efficient government that works to deliver the same or more services at a smaller cost… she’s not interested in government at all, save for the ways she can think of destroying it. If Carla Howell were interested in being a part of the solution, instead of a cancer upon this state, she’d explain just what cuts this state could make to preserve the most important programs while reducing taxes… instead of cynical promises that the state can “cut” $2.5 billion from the budget without impacting core services that almost everyone supports like local aid.  

          • of a gas tax passing next year if this passes.  Reducing consumption is all I care about, if I didn’t think this would force an increase in the gas tax I wouldn’t support it.  Cutting programs would also reduce gas consumption, and many are useless and wasteful, like these ones Carla mentions in this diary.

      • but I thought some folks on BMG might be concerned about the more particularized consequences of Question 3. Of course suicide prevention and bullying prevention and intervention programs are of interest beyond the LGBT community, but are of acute concern to LGBT folks in light of the recent spate of gay teen suicides. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10…  

      • I don’t think people would oppose funding for anti-bullying programs, or programs that fund treatment for HIV. Etc.

        <

        p>Now, if we don’t stand up and briefly explain — within a few words — just what this funding does and why it’s important, and let the critics just label it as ‘gay special interest funding,’ then maybe you’d be right… but, of course, this is why organizations like MassEquality didn’t shut up shop once we won marriage equality.  

        • …there is evidence that there are people who would oppose funding for anti-bullying programs contrary to your first sentence.  Haven’t you heard?  Anti-bullying is just leftwing code for a radical homosexual agenda of tolerance!:)

  4. I’ve never before heard the claim that state spending is $52 billion. It seems the chief virtue of that number from their perspective is that it permits them to claim a 5% revenue loss (on a non-cumulative basis.) The relevant number of course is discretionary state spending, which is where the cuts will have to fall.

    <

    p>Also what is the rationale for the claim that no cuts will touch police, fire protection, education, or local aid? The only state program Question 3 protects is debt repayment, which is in any event non-discretionary.  

    • 1) The $52 billion proponents include all “off budget” spending to get their number and user the annual reports put out by the Comptroller for details.  (see here for the exact cite ($51,789,000,0000 total expenditures in FY09, rounded to $52 billion: http://www.mass.gov/Aosc/docs/…

      <

      p>Obviously, this is tremendously misleading and confusing.  The actual state budget includes only about $17 billion in “discretionary spending” (when you take out require Medicaid spending, etc).  The $52 billion includes many expenditures that aren’t discretionary and/or really part of the annual state budget, including debt payments, expenditures by the “independent” authorities like those running our state transportation system and a total of $7.9 billion in transfers to other parts of state government (which results in double counting most of this “spending.”)

      <

      p>2) There actual claim is “It does NOT reduce spending for cities and towns, police, firefighters, schools, roads — NOR any essential service. Not a dime.”  They make this argument (apparently with a straight face and no sense of irony) seemingly as a misleading statement about the actual logistics of the initiative.  Indeed, cutting a tax does not actually reduce any spending, it simply means there is less revenue for government. Also, I think, because roads are “off-budget”  and the other things are either locally-funded and/or part of “local aid.”  The kicker to their irony-laden argument is that they simultaneously claim that “They will cut local aid whether you vote no or vote YES.”

      <

      p>

Archives