Senate: Palesky vote in June

This from the MMA Legislative Update:S.P. 803 - Scheduling the Palesky Tax Cap Vote. The Senate voted 18-17 to schedule the Palesky referendum vote on primary day, June 8, 2004 rather than in November on the general election day. The House will take-up the issue next.

When was this vote taken? Does anyone have the info?Detailed info.Gov. Baldacci told me yesterday that he thought it was best that this vote be scheduled when the most amount of people will vote - November

That was only a Senate vote. The House has not voted on the date. There was an article in one of the papers this way where the Secretary of State's office was quoted as saying that they would not likely be able to make the deadlines for absentee ballots for June. It looks like a November vote.

I wonder how many people who don't pay taxes will be voting.

quote:Originally posted by samadams:
I wonder how many people who don't pay taxes will be voting.

Yeah... don't they have to own land before they can vote? What? Oh. That was the law a few years back?

Statatorially, I think the 28th is the deadline. The vote was taken prior to their recess. Scuttlebutt I have heard is that the house leaders have been trying to forge a B question to go along with it and plan to put it on the June ballot.They comeback on the 27th so Tuesday and Wed should be pretty wild.Steven Scharf
Candidate for State Rep. -- House 119
(Representing Bayside and Parkside)
207-774-9393
SCSMedia@aol.com

THERE IS NO WAY they will put a competing measure on this in June.The reason it is going on in June is to protect Democrats from having it on the ballot in November, hence the 18-17 vote.Since the Dem's are breaking a long history of November votes for referrendums to put this on in June, you can be sure they won't then add a competing measure to push it to November.

The statute requires absentee ballots to be provided to the municipalities at least 30 days before an election. 30 days before the June 8 primary is May 9. It is theoritically possible that the Legislature could vote next week to have a June vote and for the ballots to be printed and distributed in 2 weeks but it is unlikely that the state could pull that off. Of course, the Legislature can always ignore the law but that would likely back fire on them and help the Tax Cap pass in June.I can't seem to find the article that I read this week on this issue but included quotes from Treat and Colwell where they basically conceded that it was too late to call for a June vote.

I was told by our fine Gov. Baldacci in March that he wanted the vote in June. Another flip-flop. The only reason to do it in June is to protect the democrats form the vote of angry taxcutters.

Prospects dim for early vote on tax capAUGUSTA - Despite the persistent efforts of Senate Democrats, prospects for a June vote on a tax cap initiative appeared to be fading Thursday as more questions were raised over the underlying purpose of the early vote and over absentee ballot deadlines.The Maine Secretary of State's Office also has expressed concerns that an early vote on the tax cap plan could impede the state's ability to provide absentee ballots in a timely manner to soldiers stationed overseas.Bangor Daily News article

Vote it in June or November, it is still going to win. As the Dems in the legislature tax us and muni budgets rise, the wagon pullers get angrier and angrier.

quote:Originally posted by Bob Stone:
Vote it in June or November, it is still going to win. As the Dems in the legislature tax us and muni budgets rise, the wagon pullers get angrier and angrier.

If you are a wagon puller, you should be against the tax cap. It will shift more of the tax burden to you.

You are correct, George. But it is still going to win. Maine is going to replace a deductible tax with a non-deductible tax or with a tax that is proven to have the maximum negative impact on jobs, the income tax. Probably a lot of both.The real answer is a constitutional spending cap.

Gov. John Baldacci reached out to Republicans, saying for the first time Friday he'll consider supporting a constitutional amendment that would place limits on state, county and local spending as part of a tax-relief package.Republicans have insisted that any tax-relief plan must include a constitutional amendment to restrict spending."If you want property tax relief, then we've got to get spending under control," Baldacci said. "It's not just about money. If you want to break the cycle, that's how you do it."
Baldacci said he wants to work with Republicans to come up with a constitutional amendment that would restrict spending at all levels of state government. The Republican proposal ties the limit to population growth, but Baldacci tax advisor Martha Freeman said that's too restrictive.Instead, the governor said he has told Freeman to work with Republicans to find a compromise, possibly a spending limit tied to growth in personal income.(Bev)Daggett said she, too, wants spending reform, but isn't convinced the Constitution has to be changed to accomplish it."The emphasis on a constitutional spending cap is more symbolic than substantiative," she said.Full article--KJ

While George raises some valid points about the consequences of Palesky passing, I believe we should equally consider the consequences of it not passing. Those are the two outcomes that should be compared, not status quo vs. Palesky passing.The status quo, or conditions we have now, is dead as of the election date.In its place will be either of two new sets of conditions. Either Palesky passes and the poop hits the fan, or Palesky fails and the reigning socialist elites feel even more emboldened than before...."the people like what we are doing."So comparisons to the current tax and spend landscape, while interesting and perhaps amusing, are irrelevant. The world as we know it in Maine will be superceded, one way or the other, by either of two distinctly different sets of circumstances once Palesky is voted on.You don't get to pick keeping things as they are; you only get to pick which one of the two new climates you prefer.Ding dong, the witch is dead.

quote:Originally posted by Melvin Udall:
You don't get to pick keeping things as they are; you only get to pick which one of the two new climates you prefer.

There is another choice: Vote down the tax cap and elect a Republican majority to the Legislature.

I'll vote against the tax cap if the legislature agrees to and implements a constitutional spending limit at all levels of Maine government with a rainy day provision prior to November.Barring that, I can't trust the legislature enough to vote against the tax cap. Now is their time to show some leadership and break the cycle.If they can't do it, they bear the responsibility for the consequences.I think that is a fair deal.

quote:Originally posted by Bob Stone:
If they can't do it, they bear the responsibility for the consequences.

They won't bear the consequences -- every town and city in Maine will. Most small towns don't have the number of employees places like Lewiston and Westbrook have to cut. The cap will eliminate or cause fees to be imposed to fund very basic services.

George...The legislature can easily fix the problem. Implement the constitutional spending cap. Real simple.Time for some leadership in this State.

Palesky as proposed is not realistic--the fact that it is even being considered should suffice as a wakeup call to Augusta--Actual implementation of the cap would be a nightmare--I for one do not wish to start paying a per-bag fee for trash pickup(or start seeing discarded trash bags everywhere from those who won't pay), or wait 2 hours for what will be an ever more thinly stretched state or county police response time, or ruin my suspension quicker on Waterville's streets that will be worse than they are now, (if that's possible)to 'send a message'.
A less radical change is called for.[ 04-24-2004: Message edited by: Tom O ]

Are you forgetting that the electorate would have to pass a constitutional spending cap, same as they would have to pass Palesky? I don't think that's necessarily a slam dunk, though it may be. Oddly, I think Palesky will get more votes than a spending cap, simply because people want it both ways.
.

George....you are a wet blanket.Your mention of a Republican legislature is fine, but irrelevant to my point. Independent of anything else, including legislative makeup, the Palesky referendum is changing the landscape. What the legislature becomes is an independent issue. It is not a third option, it is a second tier variable following the outcome of the Palesky vote, either way.

Palesky is the wet blanket. It will eat up $700 million for property tax cuts -- making an income tax unlikely for any time in foreseeable future. Change for changes sake is not progress.

I'm with Bob either we get a Constitutional Spending Cap, or I'm voting for the Property Tax Cap. It's not perfect, but it's better than what we'll have if it fails, as Mel pointed out.
If you look around the nation isn't 1% of real value about the average property tax? The sky in those states hasn't fallen, and it won't here.

quote:Originally posted by Doug Thomas:
If you look around the nation isn't 1% of real value about the average property tax?

The average nationally is 30% higher than that at $13.08.web page

George, I wonder what the average would be if you only counted the states that have both a state income tax, and a sales tax in addition to the property tax?

Don't know. Maine's property taxes are high -- there is no question about that. But everything I have read indicates the tax that has the biggest impact on putting Maine at or near the top of all the lists of high taxed states is the income tax. Our top tax rate of 8.5% is one of the 5 highest state income tax rates in the country and it kicks in at a lower income than the top rate does in most states. We also have not kept up with federal income tax changes so the effect is higher income tax payments for Maine citizens.

When shall we expect to see volunteers collecting signatures for "The George Initiative?"

The problem is..the income tax does not threaten to take anyones home and the income tax only taxes your money once. People lose their homes because of local greed and the local greed is never ending.Bring on the vote :D