or the voter who wants it all, this year's state ballot questions present a fairly staggering opportunity: Rarely has so much power over so much money been placed directly in the hands of the people.
With a little more than a week to go, Massachusetts is waking up to the heady reality of Nov. 7. If the stars align correctly, if the levers are pulled in tandem, voters could order themselves universal health care, a tax credit on Massachusetts Turnpike tolls, and a $1.2 billion income tax cut. If self-interest is the biggest guide, the benignly-worded questions 4, 5, and 6 - the tax cut, health plan, and toll credit, respectively - could be hard to pass up.
That's what seems to have so many people worried. Hence the unusual alliance of liberal and conservative groups trying to beg voters off Question 4. Hence the avalanche of health-care money pouring in to fight the lightly financed backers of Question 5. Hence the shell game you have to play to decipher where everyone stands: Governor Paul Cellucci is for Question 4 - which he put on the ballot - but quietly against Question 6. Secretary of State William F. Galvin favors Question 5 but opposes 4 and 6. Two wings of the forces opposing Question 5 have entirely different reasons.
No wonder it's hard to follow; next Tuesday's ballot has something for every political persuasion. There's universal health care for the left, tax cuts for the right, the bid to scrap tolls and the auto excise tax for people who don't trust government at all. And in this case, every impulse could win.
By some accounts, the combined impact of all three ballot questions could add up to 19 percent of the state budget. Others say that's a Chicken Little prediction aimed at protecting special interests. It's up to the voters, it seems, to decide who's right.
That's why the Nov. 7 ballot will be a referendum on the state's fiscal health, the electorate's long-term foresight, and the wisdom of using referendums to decide fiscal matters. It will be a referendum on whether the sky is falling, and whether the voters should care.
''It's a gamble. There's no doubt about it, it's a gamble,'' said Lou DiNatale, director of the University of Massachusetts Poll, adding that the trend of handing such decisions to the voters will continue.
The way proponents of each ballot measure see it, state finances are strong enough to withstand a hit next year. It was only in February that then-chief budget officer Andrew Natsios declared that Massachusetts was ''swimming in money'' after five straight years of budget surpluses of $500 million or more.
Yet that isn't the message coming from most government officials today. Democratic leaders have opposed Questions 4 and 6 on the grounds that the state should focus its resources on pressing needs. Republican administration officials, who push Question 4 on the grounds that the people deserve tax relief, are quietly opposing the tax rebates for tolls on Question 6. A Wall Street bond rating agency has also sounded a warning if the measures pass in tandem.
But it's the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-backed fiscal watchdog group, that has taken on the role of chief doomsayer, preaching caution in the face of an uncertain economy. The combined price tag of questions 4, 5, and 6 could be as much as $4 billion out of a $21 billion state budget, foundation president Michael Widmer said.
If lawmakers rein in spending, the foundation said in a recent report, the state may be able to withstand passage of the $1.2 billion Question 4, which would reduce the state income tax from 5.85 percent to 5 percent over three years. But the foundation opposes Question 6, which would provide a tax credit for tolls and auto excise taxes, at a loss of $600 million to $700 million per year in state revenue. If both pass, the report says, the state faces ''large and rapidly growing deficits'' unless it seriously curbs spending.
That's not counting Question 5, a more vaguely-worded measure that would order the Legislature to pass a universal health coverage plan by July 1, 2002, and would place added restrictions on HMOs. Widmer says it would hit Massachusetts several ways: As an employer, the state would probably be forced to spend much more to provide health coverage for its workers, as the cost of private insurance rises. And state government would pick up much of the bill for covering the state's roughly 350,000 uninsured workers.
The foundation predicts the measure will cost private employers and workers about $2.2 billion, and says the public cost - for federal, state, and local governments - would probably total $2 billion. A foundation study suggests Question 5's total cost would be from $2.8 billion to $5.6 billion.
''If anything, our numbers are conservative,'' Widmer said. ''You can't provide universal health care for 350,000 people without a price.''
You can't do anything without a price; that's why number crunchers in the state Executive Office for Administration and Finance have been factoring Question 4 into budget projections, and discussing Question 5 with state health officials, spokesman Cort Boulanger said. But with tax revenues rising - as of now, they're up 12.4 percent over last year - there's hardly a state of fear pervading state office hallways, Boulanger said. ''We'll certainly be able to find a way to do it,'' he said.
But even if the money is available, the state should have different priorities, said James St. George, who heads the coalition that opposes questions 4 and 6. The state should be financing education and health care, not tax cuts, he said.
''Generations from now, people will judge us: How did we take this opportunity?'' he said. ''Are we as wise as our parents were?''
Still, some are saying voters can be wealthy and wise. Harold Hubschman, spokesman for the Free the Pike coalition that is promoting Question 6, says 4 and 6 together would be perfectly safe. Opponents are only trying to protect their interests, he charges - whether they be state contracts, state bureaucracy, or even the accuracy of their dark predictions.
''These are people who go to bed every night praying for a recession so they'll finally be right,'' Hubschman said. ''In the history of this country, we have never experienced the prosperity we're experiencing now.''
Though Free the Pike takes no position on Question 5, Hubschman says voters should be skeptical of scary numbers. ''Voters should not just judge the message, they should judge the messenger,'' he said.
Galvin, who doubts Question 5 would be as costly as some predict, points out that laws resulting from ballot questions can be changed or repealed.
''I don't like fear-mongering,'' Galvin said. ''The Legislature can - and will, I guarantee you - make changes in these statutes if they pass and need to be fixed.''
But if the referendums pass with widespread public support, changing them might not be easy, Widmer said.
''These ballot questions have had fervent advocates, and they're not going to sit idly by and see their work undone,'' he said. ''The legislative process is difficult enough without having a mandate from the voters.''
The big question, then, is what the voters will mandate. Some, like Widmer, fear the public faces too many questions to responsibly consider each one - though Massachusetts still lags far behind states like Oregon, which faces 26 ballot questions this year.
Ken White, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, said he also worries about what he calls '' Astroturf support'': ballot questions financed by corporate interests instead of grass-roots movements. But he has faith in voters' ability to tell the difference.
''I'm a great believer in the common sense of the American people,'' he said.
The good news, DiNatale said, is that Massachusetts has ''one of the most sophisticated, intelligent electorates in the country.'' The bad news? ''They're not the part of the electorate that's actually going to make that decision.''
Instead, as in the presidential race, those by-now-legendary undecideds will make all the difference next week, DiNatale said.
If history is any guide, Massachusetts ballot questions are anything but a sure bet. Before this year, state voters faced 45 initiative petitions and adopted 22. In 1994, when voters faced a record nine ballot questions, five passed, including term limits for state officials and a ban on rent control.
The four that failed were largely about money. Voters refused to change a law about student fees, create a graduated income tax system, or change the personal income tax structure. And in a move that could portend more years like this, they rejected, 55-37, an initiative to limit campaign spending on ballot questions.
