Question 4, supporters say, seeks to fulfill a promise made by the state government in 1989, when the income tax rate was raised to 5.95% (it has since been reduced to 5.85%). Media reports at that time, quoted then Governor Michael Dukakis and legislative leaders as "promising" to repeal the tax increase, once the state’s fiscal health improved.

In other words, the tax increase was supposed to be a temporary measure put in place to bolster the Commonwealth’s revenues at a time of fiscal chaos. Now a decade later, amidst the strongest economic boom seen in generations, should the state not meet its promise to reduce the income tax rate back to the original 5%?

Our answer is simply NO! It’s not because, as an Association, we do not feel promises should be kept, but because over the past decade circumstances have changed dramatically. All things being equal to 1989, of course the rate should be reduced, but eleven years later the state of our state has substantially changed.

Since 1991, nearly 30 tax cuts of various sorts have been signed into law by the Weld/Cellucci Administrations, after being passed by the Democratic controlled Legislature. These tax cuts, championed by the Republican governors, have greatly contributed to the turnaround of the Massachusetts economy. As a result of these tax cuts, the overall state tax burden is quite lower than it was in 1989.

The other dramatic changes, taking place since the late 1980s, are the state’s increased commitment to fully fund its pension liabilities, provide affordable health care, bolster education, and rebuild our deteriorating infrastructure. In short, our commitments today are greater than those that existed in 1989. Honoring these commitments has also contributed to our present economic success.

A yes vote on Question 4 will remove over $1.5 billion dollars a year from the state’s coffers. With a loss of revenue of this magnitude, budget reductions will have to take place. Under this scenario, not only will any new initiatives be jeopardized, but existing benefit levels may fall victim to cuts.

Such cuts could be reminiscent of 1981, when Proposition 2 1/2 forced substantial reductions in spending at the local level. Members will vividly recall the havoc that was reaped upon municipal employees and retirees. The potential does exist for those tough times to return as a result of state budget cuts.

As we have pointed out in previous articles, the removal of $1.5 billion from the state coffers will surely result in cuts within the state budget. Whether the impact comes in the form of cuts in local aid, or reductions in state expenditures for retiree health care, our members are sure to be negatively impacted.

At a time when the economy is growing so quickly and performing so well, will a tax reduction of this magnitude really accomplish its intended goal? We feel this cut in the income tax rate goes too deep and will endanger the well-being of our members.

We ask that you take a hard look at Question 4 and see it for what it really is...a political gimmick. There is plenty of room for discussion on tax relief, just not the kind that does more harm than good. For now, let’s refocus our priorities and vote no on Question 4.