Pubdate: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 Source: Boston Herald (MA) Copyright: 2000 The Boston Herald, Inc. Contact: One Herald Square, Boston, MA 02106-2096 Website: http://www.bostonherald.com/ Author: Jack Sullivan Note: Jennifer Hildt Powell and Cosmo Macero Jr. contributed to this report. Bookmark: For the Massachusetts initiative items: http://www.mapinc.org/props/ma/ OPPOSING CHANGE, TAKING $: TAX ROLLBACK APPEALS TO VOTERS Massachusetts voters spoke through their wallets yesterday by giving themselves the biggest tax cut in state history, but opted not to blow up the health care system in two of eight ballot questions. In addition, voters rejected a plea by animal rights activists to shut down the state's greyhound racing industry and stripped inmates of the right to vote. Question 4: The decision will mean the state income tax will be rolled back from its current 5.85 percent to 5 percent over the next three years, about $450 annually for the average family of four. Voters appeared to agree with Gov. Paul Cellucci that the state was awash in surplus money and decided they would rather have the $1.2 billion in their own pocket rather than let legislators spend it. ``What a great victory for the future of Massachusetts,'' Cellucci said. ``The voters of this state have sent a strong message . . . about fiscal discipline. We've sent a message across America tonight.'' But while the rollback supporters cruised to a seemingly comfortable victory, the margin was much tighter at the end than polls had shown several months ago, when support reached 77 percent. Jack McCarthy, campaign manager for the anti-rollback Campaign for Massachusetts Future, said those who read the question for the first time in the voting booth likely voted in favor of the measure because of its appeal. ``We had the tougher battle,'' McCarthy said last night. ``We had to convince people not to take a tax cut.'' Question 5: A $5 million campaign blitz by the state's health care providers appeared to overcome voters' ire at HMOs to bring Question 5 to a grinding halt. Opponents of the referendum conceded changes need to be made in the delivery of health care services but said the radical proposals in the ballot question were too much, too fast. ``Even though Question 5 was appealing on the surface, it would be bad for the people of Massachusetts and raise premiums,'' said Rick Lord, chairman of the No on 5 Coalition. ``None of us ever said our current system is perfect but let's try to fix it and not blow up the system.'' Supporters of the measure, who were unwilling to concede defeat even with more than two-thirds of the vote counted, said the question would have paved the way for universal health care and given doctors the final say in medical decisions. ``Very clearly we've opened this debate, and we will clearly continue to take part in it whether we win or whether we lose this ballot question,'' said Paul Ling, a psychologist who has strongly supported the measure. Question 3: Pictures of emaciated and maltreated dogs did not appear to be enough to ban greyhound racing in Massachusetts. But opponents of the measure gained ground over the last few months by slamming the animal rights activists for misleading advertising. They also appeared to make some headway in convincing voters that shutting down the industry would not only mean the loss of jobs for 1,200 workers but also take millions in state revenues. ``I think we did everything we could do,'' said Glenn Totten, organizer for the Question 3 opposition. ``I think we had a difficult task in front of us because we were battling sensationalism with fact.''cw0 Question 6, which would have allowed a dollar-for-dollar deduction for Mass Pike and tunnel tolls and excise tax, did not find the same support as the tax rollback referendum. Opponents, including Cellucci, said the $650 million rebate would only benefit part of the state while forcing the rest of the taxpayers to pick up the tab. Supporters claimed the toll elimination is long past due, pointing to the Turnpike Authority paying off its bonds in 1984 before refinancing billions more. ``I'm blown away by the outcome of this,'' said Doug Barnes of Free The Pike, the group that put the question on the ballot. ``I expected certainly a majority of citizens would have agreed with us that tolls should have been gone by now on the Pike.'' Question 7: Voters overwhelmingly approved the referendum to allow charitable deductions on state income tax but the point was moot as lawmakers passed similar language in the budget this year to allow charitable deductions on state returns at an estimated price tag of $220 million annually. Question 8: Voters were fed conflicting information about a question that would have funnelled drug forfeiture money into treatment for addicts but in the end sided with the state's district attorneys in opposing the referendum. Backed by the state's last three former attorneys general and a U.S. congressman, Question 8 would have given judges the discretion to send first- and second-time drug offenders to treatment rather than prison. Opponents said the measure, while well-intentioned, would give savvy drug dealers a ``get out of jail free'' card by declaring themselves ``at risk'' for addiction if they are caught with up to 28 grams of drugs. Question 2: Voters amended the state constitution to take away the right of incarcerated felons to vote for all state and most federal offices. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake