Keller @ Large: Putting ads about the millionaire's tax to the truth test
BOSTON -- It's one of the most important - and hotly contested - items on your November ballot in Massachusetts - Question One, which would establish an additional 4% tax on annual taxable incomes of one million dollars or more, with the funds earmarked for education and transportation.
But will the money really go there? We put that question to the Truth Test.
"After years of the very rich paying less in taxes than everyone else, they'll finally pay their fair share," said a TV ad calling for a yes vote on Question One.
"Politicians are pushing a tax hike on the November ballot. That makes no sense," replied a TV ad promoting a no vote.
But there's one claim that so far seems to dominate the "Yes on One" campaign. From one of their TV ads: "It raises two billion a year constitutionally dedicated to public education and transportation so we can end the teacher shortage, hire more counselors and provide better support for students."
But the ballot question says the money is "subject to appropriation" by the Legislature. Will it really go there once Beacon Hill gets it?
Yes on One advocate Steve Crawford and opponent Jim Stergios debated the issue on WBZ last weekend.
"Q: Can or can't the Legislature take this money and spend it on something unrelated to education or transportation?
Crawford: The money raised by this tax? No, they cannot.
Stergios: The money raised by this tax goes to education and transportation but the Legislature's fully capable, fully empowered to redirect money.
Crawford: The idea that we're going to take money away when we have $2 billion is ridiculous, it's going to be additive."
We sought guidance from Evan Horowitz, executive director of the non-partisan Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University and author of a new study of Question One.
"Q: Is there any guarantee that the priorities suggested by the ads are really the ones that are gonna wind up with the extra money?"
Horowitz: No, there's no guarantee. But it's also not plausible to say well, it could end up anywhere, there are really no fences on it. There are fences on it and the fences are - what is it people and the legislators want to put their money towards?"
So can voters trust the Legislature to spend the money as promised?
Horowitz makes a good point, that it may well be politically unthinkable for them to spend this money on things having little or nothing to do with schools and roads. But there is precedent for that kind of funny business. In 1992, voters here approved a ballot question raising tobacco taxes and earmarking the dough for tobacco use education and prevention. Half the money went elsewhere.
And don't forget how large chunks of the COVID relief money the feds sent us earlier this year went towards new gazebos and other questionable projects.
You can watch the Question One debate here.
