"It would be nice to go back to the old rate of five percent," Faulkner says. "If [Tax Equity Alliance] is so serious about giving everyone a tax cut then why do they only cut the top rate by half of one percent? Why don't they go back down to five percent?"

SEAT BELT LAW

A "yes" vote on Question 2 would preserve the state law passed in January which requires drivers and passengers in certain vehicles to wear seat belts while riding in cars, trucks and vans weighing less than 18,000 pounds. Under the new law, a driver and each passenger over 16 years of age who is not wearing a seat belt can be fined $25.

Proponents of Question 2 say that wearing seat belts simply saves lives and that all residents of Massachusetts lose money when people do not buckle up.

"Seat belts unequivocally save lives and unequivocally save money," says Jennifer Peck, campaign director of the Vote Yes on Question 2 Committee. "And seat belt laws make more people wear seat belts."

Peck also points to a 1991 federal law which reduces federal highway construction funds for states without seat belt provisions. Under the law, Massachusetts would lose some $9 million in construction subsidies, Peck says.

Peck says that the high cost of treating an unbuckled person injured in a car crash and the grim statistics of unbuckled fatalities make adopting the seat belt law "common sense."

"For every serious injury prevented by wearing a seat belt, it saves people $35,000 in health care costs," Peck says. "Also, last year in Massachusetts, nine out of every 10 people killed in car crashes were unbuckled."

She adds, "The data speaks for itself, seat belts work and seat belts save lives. It is a question of common sense and voters will exercise good judgment [in November]."

Robson says Roosevelt is in favor of the seat belt law, because of the "enormous costs to taxpayers each year in increased health care, workers' compensation and health insurance."

"It is not Mark's goal to intrude on anyone's personal rights, but [he realizes] the enormous costs of a person who does not wear their seat belt," Robson said.

Opponents of the seat belt law say the regulation infringes on one's personal freedom and is a decision that the government should not be regulating.

"[Weld] thinks [wearing seat belts] is an important thing, he wears a seat belt, his children wear seat belts, but it's a personal thing the government should not regulate," Weld spokesperson Paula Popeo says.

Peabody sign painter Chip Ford who is organizing a statewide effort to repeal the state belt law insists his group is gaining momentum as they enter the last month of the campaign.

"[The decision to] wear a seat belt must be left up to the individual," says Ford, the chair and executive director of the Committee to Repeal the Mandatory Seat Belt Law. "It is not a public safety matter, it is a personal health mandate."