How often have you heard the term “public servant”?  More times than you can count I would be willing to bet.  And I would also be willing to bet that if you work in the private sector you find the term inaccurate – so inaccurate it is almost even comical, like a popular euphemism.  Almost comical.

While the concept of a servant is something we Indians are rather familiar with, it is generally offensive to modern Western society.  As such, here in America we expect that our “public servants” will be our equals and should be treated accordingly.  But this is where we start to see a problem.

Government employees, including teachers, are not treated as our equals – they are treated far better than those who pay for their services.  Government employees get paid more per hour; receive more generous benefits packages, and have to work as few as half the number of working days as their private sector counterparts to retire and receive guaranteed pensions worth 2-3 times as much as those in the private sector might get from Social Security or a private retirement plan.

If ever the hard-working private sector citizens attempt to address this inequity, the teachers and other government sector unions immediately pounce upon us and inundate us with scare tactics about any cuts to government spending would most certainly lead to Armageddon.  The servants have become our masters.

This year we, the taxpayers, have a chance to vote to end the state income tax because of ballot Question 1.  The organizers of Question 1 have raised approximately $400,000 from workers and small business owners.  Those opposing Question 1 have raised over $5 million, of which 99.8% came from the teachers’ unions and other government unions.

We all utilize government services, and we all understand that there is a role for government in civil society which carries a cost.  That cost, in most instances, is paid through taxes though sometimes through fees.  But how does society know what functions are appropriate for government to perform, and that the cost for the services provided by those functions is proper?

Total Massachusetts state government revenue is over $47 billion.  Total Massachusetts state government spending is over $47 billion.  These are not opinions – these numbers come from the Massachusetts Office of the State Comptroller, published in both the Statutory Basis Financial Report (“SBFR”) and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”).  Both documents are prepared by the Financial Reporting Division of the Comptroller’s office, and both documents are independently audited by an outside audit firm which the state pays nearly $3 million per year to audit.

Government officials and those opposing Question claim the budget is much smaller because they have taken approximately $17-$19 billion off-budget.  Why is 40% of the budget “off-budget”?

The state government also will not provide details of how the $47 billion is spent.  Information requests are at best responded to with cost estimates of thousands of dollars and delivery times of months.  That is, if the information requests are responded to at all.

Even people who believe the government should have a much bigger role in society are calling for an end to the state income tax, at least until such time as the state government will comply with public records laws and provide transparency in government operations.  Shirley Kressel, a noted Boston political activist and far-left liberal recently endorsed Question 1 stating:

“In fact, I believe the state is awash in money. The endless media revelations (and we can hardly imagine what's not being exposed) of waste, fraud and abuse ('WFA') show how much of our money our officials can throw away and still stay in office. Uncontrolled Big Dig costs. Billions in corporate welfare ('business incentives'), with no accounting, never mind disclosure, of how much they cost us and what they yield.”

The first rule of politics is “follow the money”.  Doing so allows us to ascertain who is supporting certain measures and efforts, and why.  When our alleged servants have become our masters and they themselves are providing 99.8% of the funding to oppose Question 1, their motives become clear.

Scare-mongering is rampant, as are lies and deception.  Claims are being made that radical cuts would have to be made to education and public safety.  But how is that possible when total state government spending on education and public safety combined is only 9% of the state budget?

Ending the state income tax would reduce state government revenues by less than 27% ($12.5 billion from $47.3 billion).  Municipal spending is another $22 billion on top of the state’s $47.3 billion, bringing total government spending to nearly $70 billion.  The income tax is only 17% of that.

And while people wonder what would be lost if government had to cut 17% of spending, they often fail to ask what would be gained.  What would be gained would be $12.5 billion going back to each and every one of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts, back to the 3.4 million people who earned it.

This $12.5 billion is desperately needed by many people in our state.  This money could prevent home foreclosures and allow families to not have to decide between paying for food, heat or medicine.  At a time when so many people are hurting and in need, after decades of rampant government growth which has far outpaced inflation and population growth, Question 1 gives the people of Massachusetts a chance to save their communities and families from eventual doom.

|