One of the main attractions for having casinos is that they seem like free money for the state; all you have to do is allow it to happen, and like a magic box that turns stones into bread, the casino cranks out cash for schools, bridges, gazebos, and graft. There's no sacrifice involved — except for the discriminating consumers of leisure who willingly part with their vacation money at blackjack and slots.
Well maybe, and maybe not — Obviously I don't think so, but more to the point, we can't just plop down a casino every time we need to make a significant public investment — in universal pre-K, for instance, or better transit. That's why I like Ezra's line about taxation:
Democrats need to get better at making the case for dedicated taxes, like a 4% VAT that pays for health care. Taxes shouldn't be giving money to the government for unspecified purposes. They should buy things.
That strikes me as useful on several fronts: One, it makes specific the purpose of said tax; and two, it provides a necessary discipline on the government to actually spend the money that way. We do that with Medicare and Social Security, with specific deductions listed on your pay stub — and you even get a little Social Security statement of account in the mail once a year. I think that's some part of why these programs are popular — it's the “I paid for it” effect. People may believe that SS is in trouble, but they sure don't take kindly to the prospect of having it taken away.
More on the flip …
The fact is that the way our budget-sausages are made can only arouse suspicion: Throw a bunch of sales- and income-tax $$$ together in a big pot, stir briskly and pour. It's very easy to put a fair amount of porky lips-and-butt into the budget — earmarking being only the most commonly abused way to do it. There's no accountability, because the pot of money is so big and legislators all dip their hands in it — If everyone's guilty, no one's guilty. And even though we in the general public aren't knowledgable about budget matters, we just assume we're getting ripped off, and always suspect more could be done with less, whether it's true or not.
Anyway, based on the new spending priorities we know we have (hello infrastructure), it might be useful to set up a showpiece for a new kind of governing: Dedicated revenue stream for a specific purpose; intense scrutiny from an Inspector-General-type, who reports frequently to the public; total transparency of goals and execution. I would prefer that to, say, Jeff Ross's charmingly game suggestion that we just hike the income tax back up to 5.95% — not just because I think it's more politically palatable, but because it's more honest and transparent.
Discuss
6 Comments . Leave a comment below.Generally, if we specify where money is going and people think that money is necessary, they don't mind paying it. I've seen it time and again determine whether local overrides pass, or not. Of course, the override phenominon doesn't work any more, because there's just been so damn many of them, but the general principal stands.
We're in a different millenium now; the way things worked 50 years ago no longer work today. Transparency could do a load of wonders.
None if this matters unless we control the cost of health care. One of the major reasons there is a scramble to raise more revenues is due to the increased cost to the state, cities and towns to pay for health care.
Sure adding a casino may help re-coupe some of those costs, but where does it end. As you say, do we just add another casino when health care cost raise above the level we can't fund?
a fair amount of this kind of thing goes on already. There are oodles of "special purpose" funds set up on the books of the Commonwealth, most of which are funded by specific taxes or fees. Many of them are set up in MGL chapter 29 -- peruse at your leisure. Here's one random example.
There's also the fact that 1-of-5 cents out of the sales tax goes to fund the MBTA. Not sure how well that's worked out.
But I doubt most people are. The dedication of that money is a good idea; the follow-through in terms of oversight has not been good, obviously.
the West Roxbury ice rink used to be called a "user fee."
The gasoline tax used to be a user fee, too, to pay for road construction and maintenance. Somehow, the gas tax, at both the federal and MA state level surrepticiously migrated to the respective entity's general fund.
West Roxbury probably has enough political clout to keep that from happening with regards to its ice rink, but don't be too sure.
If the people could establish a tax that could only pay for a dedicated purpose, untouchable by the legislature, I think there are many possible things that Massachusetts could do for its people.
For better or worse (and I am not a fan of government by referendums) we do not have that system of government--in Massachusetts the legislature is the sole appropriating body.
We also lack any political ethos that might restrain the legislature from taking revenues established for a specific purpose, such as tobacco taxes, and spending them as it sees fit. Indeed the legislature is happy to flout the state constitution unless threre is a specific legal remedy to prevent that.
This promotes cynicism and distrust, and for good reason. The net effect is that government is less able to do things.
As long as things are this way, we can' have "taxes that buy things" in the sense you suggest. We can only have "taxes that go to the sausage factory, and maybe some of them will go to the things we want, some of the time." It's a hard sell.
I guess what I am saying is that transparency is good, but accountability and responsiblity are at least as important.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 19 Jun 6:09 AM