Center for Small Government

Home

Mission

Small Government News

Lighter Side

About Us

The Small Government Pledge

DONATE

Find the BIGGIBS!TM

Round 1

Reserve Funds

How many instances of Big Government Bias can you find?

Number of BIGGIBS in this news excerpt: 30. Breakdown by type

If you find:

2 - That's very good if you're new at this.
5 - You're catching on.
10 - Excellent. You're developing an eye for Big Government bias.
15 - You're primed for handling a tough interview on this topic.
22 or more - You're extremely well-trained at detecting bias AND you know a lot about the topic of this article, i.e., the Massachusetts state budget.

Source: Boston Globe 3/24/04

Backers push amendment for rainy-day fund
by Scott S. Greenberger

Massachusetts lawmakers plan to consider a constitutional amendment that would automatically funnel a certain percentage of the state budget into a rainy-day reserve fund during healthy fiscal times.

The idea, which has been endorsed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, is designed to cushion the blow of inevitable economic downturns, allowing the state to navigate tough budget times without making deep cuts to popular programs.

"Governments don't easily or always plan for the future," said Paul Guzzi, president and CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, which released its detailed amendment proposal yesterday. "We don't view this as fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal -- we think it's fiscally sound."

House and Senate leaders say the amendment is likely to come up in July, when lawmakers reconvene in a constitutional convention. The Legislature would have to approve the amendment again in the next session in order to place it on the November 2006 ballot.

Because Massachusetts built up its reserves during the booming 1990s, it didn't have to cut as deeply when the economy slumped and tax revenues plunged. At its peak in June 2001, the rainy-day fund contained about $2.3 billion. The state has cut about $3 billion from its budget over the last three fiscal years, but it would have slashed even more if it hadn't taken $1.65 billion from the reserve fund.

Under the chamber's proposal, the state would have to put 2 percent of its total revenues into the reserve fund at the beginning of every fiscal year, except during years when revenue is down or in the years immediately following such difficult times.

If the measure were in effect this year, it would require the state to set aside about $300 million in the rainy day fund. The amount of money in the fund would be capped at 17 percent of the state budget, which is currently about $23 billion, and Beacon Hill could not drain more than 50 percent from the reserve pool in a single year.

In a speech last week, Finneran endorsed the amendment idea, though he proposed an annual contribution rate of 1 percent. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a government watchdog group, and the Massachusetts Human Services Coalition also said yesterday that they support automatic contributions into the rainy-day fund.

Representative John H. Rogers, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a key Finneran lieutenant, said an amendment is needed to force lawmakers and the governor to act prudently.

"There's always a political need to either spend money or give it back to taxpayers when there are surpluses. Those are very real political pressures," Rogers said. There is "absolutely no political pressure to sock money away."

###

- End of article -

How many BIGGIBS have you found so far? There's more:

Omission BIGGIBS: What points were omitted that should have been made in this article to include a small government of point of view? How many can you identify? Click here for answers.

Media Blackball BIGGIBS: What groups or individuals should have been quoted to include representatives of the small government point of view? How many can you identify? Click here for answers.

How many total BIGGIBS did you find? If you found:

2 - That's very good if you're new at this.
5 - You're catching on.
10 - Excellent. You're developing an eye for Big Government bias.
15 - You're primed for handling a tough interview on this topic.
22 or more - You're extremely well-trained at detecting bias AND you know key facts related to this article, i.e., the state budget.

How did you do? What did you learn? What did you like about playing? Please send us feedback about your experience playing Find the BIGGIBS!

What's the impact of this much Big Government bias? Read our Impact Analysis of BIGGIBS in this article

Full text of article: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/24/
backers_push_amendment_for_rainy_day_fund/

Here's our Small Government Analysis of this article:

"Backers push amendment for rainy-day fund"

Type of BIGGIB: Big Government Framing

Explanation: The essence of this news story is that Big Government advocates are attempting to lock in hundreds of millions of dollars in increased government spending - every year - which will inevitably lead to higher taxes and more wasteful, failed, and destructive Big Government programs.

But the title, along with the reference to "healthy fiscal times" in the opening paragraph, makes the government's attempt to seize your tax dollars look prudent and benign because they're being put into a "rainy-day reserve fund", suggestive of wise parents teaching their kids to put money in a piggy bank.

Small Government Rewrite: Replace the title "Backers push amendment for rainy-day fund" with "Government advocates try to lock in higher spending and taxes".

(Click on your browser's Back button (or backwards arrow) to return to where you left off.)

"lawmaker"

Type of BIGGIB: Big Government Hammer

Explanation: We have hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations on the books in America, most of which do more harm than good. There's so many of them that even government policy specialists can't keep track of them. Bills passed by politicians are so large that they rarely even read what they vote into law, much less understand the bills' harmful effects.

Use of the word "lawmakers" leaves this absurdity unquestioned for it assumes a Big Government point of view that our elected officials should be creating more laws, rules, and regulations rather than repealing the ones already in place.

Small government requires us to elect "law unmakers" who will shrink or eliminate burgeoning government bureaucracies and repeal federal, state, and local laws.

Small Government Rewrite: Replace "lawmakers" with "politicians" or "representatives" or "legislators". Note the politicians' dereliction of duty to citizens for refusing to remove or reduce the unnecessary and harmful laws, regulations, spending and taxes.

"plan to consider a constitutional amendment that would automatically funnel a certain percentage of the state budget"

Type of BIGGIB: Big Government Hammer

Explanation: The proposal in this article, like most covered in the mainstream news media, puts on the table for consideration yet another Big Government Program. In this case, a massive expansion of guaranteed government spending.

This illustrates extreme Big Government bias in light of the Globe's blacking out coverage of the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the Income Tax - a grassroots effort to dramatically shrink Big Government and slash state spending.

Small government rewrite: BIGGIBS like this are more an issue of choosing what stories to cover rather than attempting to rewrite topics already chosen. Big Government proposals already get way, way more coverage than they're due.

They either shouldn't be covered at all (except to discredit any politician who suggest expansion). Or they should be replaced with extensive coverage of proposals like the 2002 End the Income Tax initiative. Or with much more coverage of the failure of existing Big Government Programs. Or of the bloated state budget. Such coverage would expose the absurdity of any proposal to expand Big Government.

"healthy fiscal times"

Type of BIGGIB: Big Government Hammer

Explanation: The phrase healthy fiscal times presumes that it is "healthy" for the government to have more of our money. But society is healthiest when government is small and runs on a bare bones budget, thus creating less waste, fewer destructive Big Government Programs, and enabling a robust economy.

Small government rewrite: Replace "during healthy fiscal times" with "when Big Government is taking more taxpayer money".

Thomas Finneran

Type of BIGGIB: Media Darling

Explanation: Thomas Finneran, who was House Speaker when this article was written (he has since resigned), is frequently demonized by the press for going against their favorite cause: campaign finance regulation. But in this article, he's supporting more Big Government, and therefore gets treated as a media darling, i.e., he gets quoted in a positive light.

Small Government alternative: quote a small government advocate who calls for eliminating all reserve funds, slashing government spending, and slashing taxes.

Boston Chamber of Commerce

Type of BIGGIB: Media Darling

Explanation: As this article notes, the Boston Chamber of Commerce is the author of the proposed amendment to massively expand Big Government via constitutionally mandated payments to a reserve fund. It is therefore treated as a media darling, i.e., quoted and portrayed in a positive or neutral light.

One might expect a commerce organization to support taxpayers and businesses and oppose Big Government. But Paul Guzzi and the Boston Chamber of Commerce take a Big Government stand on issues because so many COC members profit from government. They include accountants, lawyers, and other licensed professionals who profit from Big Government's creating complicated laws and regulations that bring them business; who enjoy government-granted monopolies, thus limiting or prohibiting their competition; and people who win - or hope to win - lucrative government contracts.

Small Government alternative: quote a small government advocate who calls for eliminating all reserve funds, slashing government spending, and slashing taxes. Quote workers who are banned from their profession by state laws. Quote working poor taxpayers who pay dearly for Big Government but who do not profit from it

"cushion the blow of inevitable economic downturns"
"tough budget times without making deep cuts"
"tax revenues plunged"
"difficult times"

Type of BIGGIB: The Sky Is Falling

Explanation: The words "blow", "tough", "deep cuts", and "difficult times" suggest it's a terrible hardship when the government loses revenue.

But in fact it's a good thing to cut bloated Big Government budgets and force the removal of waste, overspending, and failed programs.

Decrying lost government revenues arrogantly dismisses the fact that when state income tax revenues goes down, the ones suffering a real "blow" are the taxpayers whose incomes have gone down because of job losses, pay cuts, and stock market losses.

To say that tax revenues "plunged" or that cuts in government budgets were "deep" is a gross exaggeration. The actual drop in income tax revenues was at its worse about $1.5 billion - which is about 8% of the statutory budget.

But the biggest farce is the fact that Big Government spending went UP during this period due in part to tax increases, mostly due to Republican Governor Mitt Romney's new tax-fees. In addition, a partial economic recovery allowed the decried drop in income tax revenues to return to prior levels.

Meanwhile, many Massachusetts workers took pay cuts of 50% (especially in the high tech sector) and many lost their jobs altogether - a 100% pay cut for periods of months and years. Other's lost a substantial portion of their life savings in the stock market - while government employee pensions kept going up. A large portion of the Massachusetts private sector work force never recovered its prior salary levels.

So for all the Big Government advocates' complaining that the "sky is falling", the government managed to grow while gouging taxpayers even more - while the latter continues to struggled financially. Since the recession began in 2000, there has been a sizable shift in incomes and prosperity away from the private sector and into the government sector.

Small government rewrite: Replace "cushion the blow of inevitable economic downturns" with "ensure money is always flowing into government coffers, even when the private economy is shrinking".

Replace "allowing the state to navigate tough budget times without making deep cuts to popular programs" with "allowing the state to continue to spend like drunken sailors and to sustain failed, flawed Big Government Programs in dire need of repeal."

Replace "tax revenues plunged" with "tax revenues dipped slightly and temporarily".

"popular programs"

Type of BIGGIB: Fake Popularity Contest

Explanation: The author asserts that the unnamed programs which were allegedly cut by the legislature are "popular". No doubt they are popular with the special interests - welfare beneficiaries, government contractors, and government employees - who profit from them. But everyday taxpayers may be more scornful of government programs than grateful for them.

Furthermore, most people aren't even aware of the hundreds of Big Government Programs funded by taxpayers. If their costs and outcomes were known, most taxpayers would be in favor of eliminating them.

Newspapers like the Boston Globe should expose these failed and destructive Big Government Programs - rather than lobby for them (while pretending to be objective).

Small government rewrite: Replace "popular programs" with "obscure government welfare agencies".

"fiscally sound"

Type of BIGGIB: Big Government Hammer

Explanation: The phrase fiscally sound, like healthy fiscal times, presumes that the government is eminently qualified to solve all human problems, that its spending is sacred and must be preserved, and therefore that it is "sound" for the government to have more of our money.

But governments are fiscally sound when they are small and run on a bare bones budget, thus creating less waste and fewer destructive Big Government Programs.

Small government rewrite: Normally we would replace "fiscally sound" with "profitable for politicians". But since "fiscally sound" is part of a quote and shouldn't be altered, what's needed is an opposing viewpoint and exposure of Guzzi's motives for using this terminology.

"Because Massachusetts built up its reserves ...it didn't have to cut as deeply"

Type of BIGGIB: This one's loaded! There are several BIGGIBS at play in this sentence: Big Government Hammer and Free Lunch and Safe on Base. Plus "cut as deeply" uses Alice in Wonderland noted below.

Explanation:

The phrase "didn't have to cut as deeply" implies that cutting is a bad thing and that if not for "having to cut", politicians wouldn't make any cuts. Inherent in this assumption is the belief that they should continue to fund the many Big Government Programs, thus Big Government Hammer.

Because state governments can't print money and thus must balance their budgets, there are only 2 ways to fund their spending: raise taxes or increase debt.

Use of reserve funds is a Free Lunch technique because it creates the illusion that you're getting something for nothing: more government spending without raising taxes and without new debt.

But of course the reserve funds are not free at all. They're simply taxing you, or creating the need for more debt, in advance.

This also employs the Safe on Base technique. This sentence justifies past reserve funds and asserts they were a good thing because they averted spending "cuts". Thus it lobbies for making reserve fund payments a constitutional amendment, which would create a new budget line item, which they would then claim is non-discretionary.

"cut as deeply"
"state has cut about $3 billion from its budget over the last three fiscal years"
"slashed even more"

Type of BIGGIB: Alice in Wonderland

Explanation: These phrases are highly misleading. They suggest that Massachusetts politicians actually cut the state budget. But they only cut particular line items - not the overall budget.

It omits the important fact that the Massachusetts legislature and Republican Governor Mitt Romney INCREASED other lines items and INCREASED the overall budget - to the tune of $2.5 billion at the time this article was written.

They raised the state budget from about $22 billion to about $24.5 billion during this period. They raised it even more since this article was written - now over $25 billion.

This deception is repeated constantly in the Boston media. If challenged on this point (which few ever do), they will argue that they never claimed it cut $3 billion from total spending. But they are well aware - whether they admit it or not - that such wording, absent any mention of increases, leads people to conclude that the overall budget was cut - when it went UP.

This constant use of Alice in Wonderland language is outright Orwellian: less is more and more is less.

It should be noted that even the alleged "$3 billion" in line item cuts may well be exaggerated. This claim has not been substantiated in the pages of the Boston Globe, nor is it likely to be.

Even if there were $3 billion in line item cuts, it is more accurate to call them "displacements" in cases where the spending was shifted to other line items in the budget. Often politicians, after making much fanfare about the "hardship" of government budget cuts, will fund the same functions in another department. It is common for a government employee to get fired and then soon rehired by another government agency doing essentially the same job.

Small Government alternative: Replace "Because Massachusetts built up its reserves during the booming 1990s, it didn't have to cut as deeply when the economy slumped and tax revenues plunged." with "Because Massachusetts politicians stashed away surplus revenues into reserve funds rather than returning them to taxpayers during the booming 1990s, they were able to get away with increasing government spending at a rapid pace while the private economy stumbled."

Replace "state has cut about $3 billion from its budget over the last three fiscal years" with "politicians have shifted $3 billion in spending between government departments while adding $2.5 billion in new spending over the last three fiscal years".

"capped at 17%"

Type of BIGGIB: Zoomed in view

Explanation: Not only does this article avoid a simple calculation that shows the magnitude of this money grab. It also avoids talking about its even larger long-term impact.

While citing the percentage of the budget - rather than the actual dollar amount - and by refusing to look at its impact over time, "17%" appears unremarkable. The reader may get the false impression that we're talking about a modest increase in spending.

But spending "capped at 17 percent of the state budget" means the fund could grow to almost $4.2 billion (17% of $24.5 billion). That's $4.2 billion of your hard-earned tax dollars that the state wants to permanently sock away.

But it could cost much more in subsequent years. Because the state budget is rising by about $1 billion per year, this formula could allow the fund to grow to $5 billion (17% of $29.5 billion) within just five years.

Note that the proposal later (after this article was written) won initial approval for funding reserves at 1% of state revenue, or about $160 million in 2005.

Small Government alternative: Replace "capped at 17 percent of the state budget" with "capped at a minimum of $4.2 billion in the first year, rising to a cap of $5 billion within five years."

"23 billion"

Type of BIGGIB: Off-the-books accounting (a Budget Shell Game)

Explanation: The budget was already up to $24.5 billion when this article was written. The Democratic legislature, Republican Governor Mitt Romney, and the Big Government media are covering up the fact that politicians moved $2 billion in state government spending off the books in 2003.

Small Government alternative: Replace "23 billion" with "24.5 billion, which includes spending that politicians recently took off-the-books to avoid public scrutiny."

"Massachusetts 'Taxpayer' Foundation"

Type of BIGGIB: Media darling

Explanation: The Massachusetts "Taxpayer" Foundation is a favorite of the media and insider politicians. It is misleading to call them a "government watchdog group" in that they monitor taxes and spending only for the purpose of ensuring that government spending and broad-based taxes stay high. They work against most taxpayers, despite their name.

MTF is granted exclusive access to government budget information by legislators who share their agenda. They keep that information close to the chest and only publish information that will support their Big Government agenda, which is to ensure that their plutocrat funders will continue to be enriched with taxpayer dollars.

MTF's key financiers is a veritable Who's Who of government profiteers, e.g., Fleet, Citizens, Fidelity, and other financial institutions; Harvard Pilgrim Health and other HMOs, etc. They directly benefit from high state revenues.

MTF was the primary opposition to the 2002 ballot initiative to End the Income Tax. MTF consistently works against everyday taxpayers by advocating high levels of government spending and higher taxes for the 3,000,000 income taxpayers in Massachusetts. MTF advocates tax cuts only when targeted to benefit their financiers.

Michael Widmer, the President of MTF, was the lead opponent of the 2002 ballot initiative to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts. He debated Carla Howell, the Initiatives' sponsor, in five televised debates.

Small Government alternative: quote an opponent of reserve funds such as Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation or a small government advocate such as Carla Howell, Rich Aucoin, or Michael Cloud of the Center For Small Government who call for eliminating all reserve funds as well as slashing government spending and slashing taxes.

Massachusetts Human Services Coalition

Type of BIGGIB: Media darling

Explanation: The Massachusetts Human Services Coalition lobbies for the largest sector of Special Interest on Beacon Hill: close to $10 billion in taxpayer-funded welfare programs every year. They always advocate for higher government spending and viciously oppose all spending cuts.

Small Government alternative: quote a small government advocate who calls for eliminating all reserve funds, slashing government spending, and slashing taxes.

Rep. John Rogers

Type of BIGGIB: Media darling

Explanation:

Rep. John Rogers of the House Ways and Means Committee, like 100% of the Massachusetts legislature and the governor, is a staunch supporter of and advocate for Big Government.

This article bats 1000 when it comes to covering the Big Government point of view. All 5 persons and organizations quoted advocate Big Government.

Small Government alternative: quote a small government advocate who calls for eliminating all reserve funds, slashing government spending, and slashing taxes.

"force lawmakers to act prudently"

Type of BIGGIB: Safe on Base

Explanation: This article tries to make the case that reserve funds are needed and that they need to be constitutionally mandated.

This conveniently ignores the fact that the same politicians who constantly complain that their hands are tied because so many spending items are "non-discretionary" are attempting to cause reserve funding to be "non-discretionary".

In essence, they're attempting to make the constitution bind their own hands - so they can claim their hands are bound!

The claim that "an amendment is needed to force lawmakers and the governor to act prudently" is the direct opposite of what would actually happen. This amendment would give politicians cover so they can avoid making direly needed tax and spending cuts. It would encourage more irresponsible government spending and kick prudence in the gut.

Small Government alternative: Replace "force lawmakers to act prudently" with "give politicians license to spend without restraint."

"political need to give money back to taxpayers"??

Type of BIGGIB: Taxpayer-friendly pretense

Explanation: Say what?!?! Politicians almost never give money "back to taxpayers"! They sometimes pretend to want to "give money back to taxpayers" - and then do everything in their power to raise taxes.

Small Government alternative: Because this is a quote, it should not be altered. However it should be balanced by a quote from a tax cut advocate who might say, "Politicians will do everything in their power to avoid giving money back to taxpayers. They may occasionally pretend to entertain the idea of giving money back to taxpayers, but they thoroughly loath the idea."

"absolutely no political pressure to sock money away "

Type of BIGGIB: Unchallenged assertion

Explanation: There is a contradiction in this article which serves to confuse readers and obscure the truth.

"House and Senate leaders say the amendment is likely to come up in July..." contradicts the last paragraph where House leader Rogers is quoted saying, "There is absolutely no political pressure to sock money away."

Proposals that have "absolutely no political pressure" to get enacted never make it out of senate or house committee hearings, much less get voted on the chamber floor, much less get a vote at a Constitutional Convention, as this proposal did.

Proposals that have "absolutely no political pressure" get little if any press coverage. But this proposal is being paraded by leading Big Government advocates and is covered in the Boston Globe - with no dissenting views presented.

Politicians' insatiable desire to spend taxpayer money, along with a variety of Big Government special interests, is quite enough pressure to propel them to seriously consider the most difficult of all measures to pass: a constitutional amendment.

That's about as much political pressure as a policy sponsor could ever hope for.

Furthermore, there has been plenty of political pressure for years to stash money in government reserve funds. Otherwise they wouldn't have grown they way they've been growing. Massachusetts is one of many states where local and state government reserve funds have grown to record highs in the last ten years.

Small government rewrite: This is part of a quote, so it shouldn't be altered. More than enough Big Government media darlings are already quoted in this article, so a reasonable alternative would be to eliminate this quote altogether.

Alternatively, it can be countered by a statement like this: "That a such a drastic measure to amend the constitution to sock away taxpayer money would get this far is evidence of enormous political pressure from legislators and special interests - despite the fact that it is repugnant to many ordinary taxpayers who would rather see permanent tax cuts."

What was omitted from this article that should be included?

In addition to the 24 BIGGIBS within the above excerpt, the author refused to include 4 important points and viewpoints germane to Massachusetts reserve funds. These are Omission BIGGIBS:

Governments should be prohibited from keeping revenues in excess of approved budgets. Therefore we should abolish all reserve funds and immediately refund the proceeds to taxpayers.

When you leave money in the government's coffers, politicians quickly squander and misspend it, often on pork barrel projects.

The underlying assumption of this reserve fund proposal is that reserves are needed to make up for loss in revenues. However the Massachusetts legislature and Republican governor Mitt Romney have already made up for the dip in income tax revenues. They levied a host of new and increased taxes, mostly in the form of fees. They have every intention of keeping these taxes in place, even though income tax revenues have already returned to prior levels. They will be brimming with revenue if the economy fully recovers. In fact state government revenues saw two increases beyond projections in calendar year 2004 (within 7 months after this article appeared in the Globe).

Massachusetts politicians created the Rainy Day Fund in the 1980s to avoid tax cuts. It was intended to undermine a system of automatic tax refunds that was created by a 1986 ballot initiative sponsored by the Citizens for Limited Taxation.

Massachusetts politicians have expanded the Rainy Day Fund and created other reserve funds as well since then to serve the broader purpose of keeping revenues high and avoiding spending cuts - in utter contempt for the will of the people expressed by the 1986 initiative.

(back to end of article)

Media blackballs BIGGIBS: Who's not quoted but should be?

There are 2 more BIGGIBS in this article. The author blackballed at least 2 groups whose voices should be included in this article:

Citizens for Limited Taxation should be quoted because they have long opposed reserve funds and because they sponsored a 1986 Massachusetts ballot initiative that triggers automatic income tax refunds when there's a budget surplus. By moving surpluses out of the budget and into Rainy Day funds, the legislature in effect disables these triggers and blocks tax refunds.

This article quotes 5 media darlings, i.e., supporters of Big Government, all in favor of locking in higher spending through constitutionally-mandated reserve funds. In order to represent the large number of readers who would oppose reserve funds, it should quote at least as many people who represent this point of view. For example, Carla Howell or Michael Cloud, sponsors of the 2002 Massachusetts ballot initiative to End the Income Tax, which won 45% of the vote, would be appropriate spokespersons for this point of view since they are the state's only voice for dramatic spending cuts, and the most recent group to succeed in getting a tax cut measure on the statewide ballot. During the 2002 campaign, Carla Howell, who also ran for Governor, repeatedly called for cutting the state budget by $9 billion - every year. She also advocated elimination of all government reserve funds.

We'll count this group of media blackballs as 1 BIGGIB (although you could make the case that it should count for 4 BIGGIBS!)

Now add up the number of BIGGIBS you found including omissions, media blackballs, and those found in the text of the excerpt.

(back to end of article)

Analysis: Big Government impression left by this article versus small government alternative

This article, like most articles involving government budgets in major American newspapers, is laced with Big Government bias. It leaves the reader with the impression that:

reserve funds are prudent and perhaps should be secured by a Constitutional amendment (but leaving money in the hands of politicians is the last thing on earth we should ever do)
the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation is a "watchdog" representing everyday taxpayers (they vehemently oppose broad-based tax cuts)
the budget was cut in recent years (utterly false - it went up).

This reflects not only strong Big Government bias, but also misleads readers and distorts the facts.

If instead it had been written from a small government point of view, it would have enlightened readers as to what's happening with their hard-earned money paid in taxes. It would have left readers with the following impressions instead:

All laws enabling reserve funds should be immediately repealed.
All reserve funds should be liquidated and refunded to taxpayers.
Government spending does more harm than good. Major budget and tax cuts are in order.

Note that on July 7th of 2004 (after this article was written), the Massachusetts Legislature overwhelmingly approved putting this proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot by a vote of 181 to 12. They opted for the 1 percent amount that Finneran proposed which, based on 2004 revenues, will cost taxpayers at least $160 million every year. To amend the constitution, the measure must also be approved by the legislature a second time, then must be approved by a majority of voters. If it wins, it would be very difficult to reverse this sizable expansion of Big Government spending.

For unknown reason, the legislature did not approve it a second time, so it will not be on the 2006 ballot. However it may be eligible for future election years.

(back to top)

Breakdown of BIGGIB types in this excerpt

Big Government Hammer	4
Media Darling	5
Sky Is Falling	4
Alice in Wonderland	3
Free Lunch	1
Big Government Framing	1
Fake Popularity Contest	1
Safe on Base	1
Zoomed in View	1
Off-the-books Accounting	1
Taxpayer-Friendly Pretense	1
Unchallenged Assertions	1
Omissions	4
Media Blackballs	2
TOTAL	30