Dukakis, O'Neill: Why I'm Running for Governor

I am running for governor because I believe that if we are to survive and flourish in the 1980s and '90s, we must change the way our state government operates now.

Proposition 2 1/2 is a reality. The Reagan budget cuts are a reality. I believe it is time to address those realities.

Sloganeering won't help. Nor will tedious or evasive rhetoric. Tough talk, task forces, and fiscal abracadabra are poor substitutes for aggressive proposals, and they're self-defeating.

History shows that when candidates attempt to influence the public by these strategies--by making promises they can't keep--once elected, they are unable to govern. The elections of 1974 and 78 proved that.

In 1974, Michael Dukakis ran on the pledge of a lead-pipe guarantee of no new taxes. Then, when elected, he passed the largest set of tax increases this state has ever seen. As governor, he was ineffective after that. His credibility was gone.

In 1978, Ed King ran on a similar pledge--this time, a billion dollar roll back in local aid. Like Michael Dukakis, he reneged on his pledge, and has been stumbling from cirsis to crisis ever since.

Now, in 1982, Michael Dukakis and Ed King are running again. But neither can actually say why they are running. Beyond their campaigns of personal vindication, neither Dukakis nor King offer the people a platform. Neither says what he will do, how he will do it, or how he will pay for it. For Michael Dukakis and Ed King, the election of '82 is no different from the elections of '74 or '78.

But those of us who are not trapped by a past that has to be continually defended, know things are different. The whole context of government has changed, as well as the social fabric.

When I made my announcement speech in September of last year, I outlined what I believe to be the four major issues we must solve in the '80s, and I stated my positions on these issues--education, tax reform, housing, and civil service.

I hoped by doing this, I could provoke debate on these issues among the people and the other candidates. So far the people have responded; the other candidates haven't.

Ed King's position on education has been shameful. He presided over the now-infamous midnight reorganization of public higher education; and his attitude has always been one of disdain.

Michael Dukakis, who was never a friend to public higher education in this state, who opposed pay raises for teachers, who fought construction of state medical school, thinks everything is fine. His comment has been that he's one parent who is very satisfied with public education in this state.

I'm a parent too, and I'm not satisfied. Too many of our schools are failing. Too many of our children are graduted without the most basic of skills. That's why I've called for the introduction of high state-wide standards and testing in our school system. I've called for tests which are rigorous and standards that reflect the demands, in terms of skills and knowledge, which society in the '80s and '90s will place on graduates.

To help schools achieve these goals I've proposed increasing the state contribution to the costs of education to a full 50 per cent. This, coupled with the creation of a Massachusetts Educational Foundation to encourage innovation and collaboration between public and private institutions and educational establishments will get public education in this state to the position it must occupy in the '90s--a position of excellence.

On tax reform, Michael Dukakis also remains silent. Beyond proposing 40 per cent of state growth revenues go to local aid, he hasn't said much. But his silence, at least, makes more sense than Ed King'a mythical surpluses.

What I have proposed is a comprehensive reform of our tax policy, a reform that makes the first move since 1932 toward progressivity in our tax structure, and, at the same time, provides the increased revenues needed to offset the effects of Proposition 2 1/2 and the Reagan budget cuts.

This plan increases the sales tax from the current 5 per cent to 6 per cent and broadens it to cover public relations, computer programming, and other business services for the first time. This will allow us to increase local aid by 20 per cent or $300 million over next year's budget, ensuring that police and fire protection are preserved in the cities and towns, and property owners aren't forced into raising taxes on themselves once again.

A generous tax credit of $70 for individuals, $140 for couples will more than offset the effects of the sales tax for most families. Further, to promote investment and savings, the tax on unearned income will be cut from 10 per cent to 5 per cent; the capital gains tax on monies reinvested in Massachusetts will be eliminated; and individuals will be allowed to earn up to $500 in interest on savings, a couple $1000, without paying taxes.

Finally, and, perhaps most importantly, to protect the working poor and those living on fixed incomes, the no tax brackets will be raised to $5000 for an individual, $10,000 for a couple.

On housing, I am proposing that we reclaim the abandoned housing in this state, and allow for the use of state pension funds and revenue bonds to finance lower than market rate mortgages so that the working people of this state will once again be able to afford a home. I have proposals for increasing co-operative housing and encouraging private investors to work with community groups and tenant associations, not only to increase the supply of housing, but to encourage greater participation in ownership or management of housing.

These proposals, I believe, constitute a beginning. They provide the basis for making the changes necessary to get us through the '80s and establishing a foundation for the '90s.

There's nothing evasive or coy about them. They don't pander to greed, resentment, or envy. They are not locked in the logic or the rhetoric of the '70s. They are the kind of proposal that made the Democratic party and made the middle class of this country, the kind of proposal that will serve the social, physical and economic well-being of the people of this state. True, they reflect changed realities, but they also reflect a constancy of purpose, and finally, a political honesty about who we are, where we are, and what we must do.