How is it that all three candidates have absolutely zero response for the prospect of a $2.4B revenue gap? Maybe list out some sensible budget cuts? Instead they simply bang away on the scare-tactic of "limiting local aid" which has been a proven winner to sway the pussified liberals here in the past.
[T]he major candidates for governor, all of whom say they oppose the initiative to reduce the sales tax rate from 6.25 to 3 percent, a move that would cost the state up to $2.4 billion in annual revenue beginning Jan. 1.This should be eye-opening to any voters who believe the ridiculous notion that either party is serious about fiscal sanity. They both want to spend. One is no better than the other. Time for residents in this state to wake up and choose someone who will lay it on the line and start talking about cuts.
What if voters approve it anyway? Well, the candidates say they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.
"If that's the decision they make, we're all going to have to deal with it in state government one way or another," said Republican candidate Charles Baker, who supports rolling the rate back to 5 percent. "Of course everything would be on the table."
Baker's lack of a plan is shared by independent candidate Tim Cahill and incumbent Democrat Deval Patrick.Cahill, who also supports rolling the sales tax back to 5 percent, said he will "enforce the will of the voters and will wait to see what they decide," but hasn't outlined what he would cut to make up for the sudden loss of revenue.
Patrick, who supports returning the sales tax rate to 5 percent after the state fully recovers from the recession, also has yet to detail how he would cope with the cut but warned through his campaign that a cut to 3 percent "would have a devastating impact on the essential services that everyone in the Commonwealth relies upon."
No comments:
Post a Comment