Throughout the campaign, I have consistently highlighted the need for major reform in the state's budget and the process by which it is created. In fact, my first piece of legislation - the BALANCE Act - will make a strong statement to my colleagues in the legislature that I am serious about that reform and that by electing me the people of Beverly are serious about it as well.

Over the last several years, the state's budget has lost any hope of sustainability. Although some would want you to believe otherwise, structural deficits are not an accident. They are the result of an absolute failure to control spending so that what the state spends matches a reasonable estimate of revenue from the existing tax structure over the course of an economic cycle - both the highs and lows. 

The thought that the state does a poor job of controlling spending never occurs to the majority party on Beacon Hill. Their thoughts are always dominated by the idea that we don't pay enough in taxes and that the next tax increase is just around the corner - a question of "when" and not "if." That looming potential for tax increases raises the anxiety for our household budgets and creates a chilling effect for our businesses. Taxpayers are tired of being the solution to every budget problem faced in this state.

That taxpayers are considering such a drastic step to regain some control over the growth of spending in the state budget is proof positive that Beacon Hill has lost its way and lost the trust of the people that pay the bills. Consider that during the last 18 months while the legislature and Governor were screaming about the massive budget problems, we saw no state hiring freezes, no state pay freezes, the budget for 2011 actually grew versus the budget for 2010, and according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the state government added 4,000 employees. There is some very strong empirical evidence that suggests that the legislature and Governor didn't exactly put their backs into dealing with the real drivers of the budget problems we face and instead simply passed the cost on to taxpayers in the form of 8 tax increases in the last four years.

I agree completely with that assessment and I am committed to changing it. I believe that a message needs to be sent to the legislature.

But I do not believe that cutting the sales tax to 3% and have it take effect mid-year is the right way to deliver that message. After long and careful consideration, I have decided that I will personally vote "no" on Question 3.

Unfortunately, the majority party on Beacon Hill has shown time and again that cities and towns are easy targets for devastating cuts without receiving some of the badly needed tools to control employment costs. In the short term, I see massive local aid cuts as the solution that they would pursue and it would result in ugly consequences here in Beverly.

However, if the majority of voters in Beverly vote "yes" on Question 3, I stand by my promise that I will honor the will of Beverly's voters on this, and any other, ballot question.

In the event that Question 3 does not pass, I remain committed to supporting tax relief in the form of a 5% sales tax and 5% income tax. I believe that both are reasonable steps to help struggling households and provide some spark for economic growth so that the tax cuts will be offset somewhat by organic growth in tax revenues. It will also force the legislature to have a real debate about exactly what our spending priorities ought to be and force it to implement serious reforms that will save taxpayers money in the long term and create a more sustainable budget.

The way to send a real message to Beacon Hill is to elect new legislators who are committed to restoring the balance between taxpayers and tax collectors and committed to restoring the balance between Beacon Hill and our cities and towns. The way to send a message to Beacon Hill is to elect me as Beverly's State Representative on November 2nd.