I have to wonder if the folks running the zoos even expected this much attention. I half suspect they put out their press release expecting it would have as much impact as other agencies' cries for budgetary mercy — i.e. not much.
Well, now we've seen some blowback: Adrian Walker calls the zoo-closing threat “a lie.” David Bernstein has a whole list of analogous threats that could be made on behalf of other programs. I suggested such a line on behalf of violence-prevention Shannon grants. (Hey, everyone's got a Modest Proposal today!)
But here's the teachable moment: There was a political shudder this weekend. As a bit of political agit-prop, the Zoos' press release was very successful — perhaps too successful! This shows beyond a doubt that people like government programs – even the ones that aren't absolutely essential to live on. And if we like them, and want to keep them, we have to pay for them. And that means taxes. And when the economy is bad, the state makes less money from taxes. So that means higher rates to get the same amount, to pay for the programs people like. And as the governor has pointed out, the zoos are now competing for scarce funds with programs that some people depend upon for basic needs.
Now, you can raise that money well, or badly; fairly and equitably, or capriciously. You can raise the sales tax (regressive: hurts the poor more than the rich); you can raise other targeted taxes and fees (might not raise enough money; random and capricious, probably unfair) …
Or, we could have a more progressive income tax, with those who can pay it with the least pain shouldering a bit more of the load. (ZOMG POLITICAL POISON! Or not.)
And that way we can save the homeless, the schoolkids, the foster kids, the uninsured, the commuters … and the critters.
Discuss
47 Comments . Comments are closed.Thank you Charlie
I'm quoting below my comment to Doug's Diary earlier. Meanwhile take a gander at the Governor's Veto message with hundreds of of items.
You betcha
Tax fairness/sanity ought to be a big part of the campaign. Rescind the sales tax increase; put it on the income tax with a higher exemption.
Sure people like government programs
But there's "logic" and then there's "voter logic."
Logic, as you state, and many of us agree, is that if you want government programs and services, you're going to have to pay for them. As the BMG poster's tagline goes, You can't pay for a Cadillac on a Chevrolet budget.
Here's the problem. The average voter feels that the state already has enough money, it's just choosing to spend it poorly. The average voter thinks the State House is full of $60,000 a year secretaries, that every employee is getting a 4% pay raise this year, that the state is giving free cars and free apartments to lazy welfare cheats. They hear about $100,000 tolltakers, disability pension scams, Turnpike bailouts and then Howie Carr agitates it altogether and, voila! state government becomes a wasteful bloated walrus and voters have a "They don't need any more of my taxdollars" mentality.
Now we know this isn't the case. Sure there is some fat, but it's marbled into the meat and even if surgically removed wouldn't come CLOSE to fixing the current problem.
But the perception is there and it isn't going away. This needs to be part of the fight along with any push for a progressive income tax.
I'm just pointing out the meat.
And people like the meat. Sometimes they even like the marble.
True - and there are better and worse ways to cut, even
What if the Governor [or a senior staffer] had told the Zoo chief [Linehan?] I am going to cut you by a million, time to gear up the fundraising, and if the economy doesn't improve, another million the following year...rather than WHUMP 4.5 million all at once?
Rinse, wash, repeat
Without counting, I think it's safe to say that the editors on this site have called for a progressive income tax dozens of times now. It's always similar politically charged language and it's always lacking in terms of a specific proposal. Several times, gary has actually ran the numbers and pointed out that a moderately progressive income tax wouldn't actually raise that much money. To raise enough revenue to actually make it worth the political capital, a progressive tax would have to (1) increase taxes for the middle class, or (2) really jack the rate for the top earners, the people who are best able to either leave MA or reduce their taxes through aggressive tax planning.
You linked to a MBPC report that basically backs up gary's position. An increase to a 5.95% rate at $500k would only bring in $365 million. An increase to an 8.97% rate at $500k would bring in $1.2 billion. But if you think that a 169% increase in the tax rate wouldn't drive those very wealthy people out of MA or into the offices of Deloitte and KPMG then you have no business on a "reality based" site. The MBPC report also runs the numbers for increasing the rate to 5.95% and invreasing the exemption to 7,500/single 15,000/married. That would raise $800m but would increase taxes for married couples earning over $65k, a tax increase on the middle class.
So what's your proposal? I can't see a campaign for a constitutional amendment followed by a 'tax increase to be named later' gaining all that much traction. Put your cards on the table. If the amendment passes, then what? What rates at what income levels? Or are you going to go the non-constitutional amendment route? Do you really want to raise taxes on families making $65k? Or do you have different rate and exemption numbers in mind? Keep in mind that Rep Brownsbeger's proposal went down in flames when evaluating any rate plus exemption increases. So what's your proposal?
Where did you get your information again?
Where did you get your imfomation again? See Mass Budget and Policy Center page on the incometax revenues here
That's the same link as Charlie's post
Scroll down to the section entitled "Could the Income Tax be More Progressive?"
I'll take Option C.
A Constitutional amendment is too difficult a political lift and ultimately unnecessary. So, forget the dream of a graduated state income tax for now.
So, I'll take Mass Budget's option of increasing the rate back to 5.95% (a 12% across the board increase). In order to make this proposal more progressive we should also raise the personal exemption. I'll take the $800 million that Mass Budget estimates would be collected by raising the rate to 5.95% and increasing the personal exemption to $7,500 (doubled for joint filers).
But what about the middle class, you worry? If you look closely at that chart, you'll see that that families making less than $65,000 would receive no increase. For those joint filers making $100,000 or less, the increase would be tiny (looks like about $80 a year according to the chart).
I understand that people's definition of "middle class" vary and that expenses relative to income is difficult to calculate. But if you allow me to classify the bottom 20% of personal income as "low-income/poor" and the top 20% as "upper class/rich", then that gives what I see as a large but reasonable range for the "middle class." Personal incomes ranging from about $18,000-$97,000 seems like the middle class to me.
To wrap-up, then, this proposal raises the overall income tax rate by just 12% to 5.95%. Most of those in the "middle class" would pay no additional taxes with many getting a tax break. Those making $65-$100,000 (about the top 25% of the "middle class") would pay less than $100 a year more. The state would raise about $800 million annually.
Sounds just about right to me.
I like it when wearing my pointy hat
my question is this: does the current MA state tax paycheck withholding system account for estimates on exemptions etc to really try to get the April 15th bill as close to $0.00 as possible?
In other words, if a person were exactly in the sweet spot where the increased marginal rate was exactly canceled by the increased deduction, would their (quad/bi/)weekly paycheck withholding change? I understand their total tax bill wouldn't, but would their paycheck itself change? That doesn't matter when wearing the pointy hat, and it doesn't matter for people who have both enough wealth and enough savings rate that those details come out in the wash. But, for people who live nearly paycheck-to-paycheck (regardless of income), that matters.
Good Question. Nice hat.
Yes.
The general idea of withholding is, as you suggest, to really try to get the April 15th bill as close as possible.
To do that, first, employees must either notify the employer truthfully that they have one or more dependency exemption or be considered as having zero exemptions. The "personal exemption" is included when filing this "employee withholding exemption certificate."
Then, every employer must withhold a tax upon such wages either making their own calculations that accurately estimate total tax liability or "in accordance with tables prepared by the commissioner" (which tables should be updated to include an accurate estimate of the personal exemption) and so that "such calculation produces substantially the tax required."
NY's Rate
taxes every dime over $20k at nearly 7%. I don't see people running away. The reality is people are far more likely to live where it's most convenient to them. Having the revenue necessary to offer good infrastructure to create good jobs is far more important to keeping people in Massachusetts, including the wealthy, than some mythical tax rate that will cause people to flee en masse over a certain threshold.
Furthermore, not even the rich can afford to give up their jobs right now to move away... there aren't new jobs waiting for them elsewhere in this economy... and they're not going to commute 4 hours to get to work, either. I think you overestimate how many people would leave if our top earners were taxed 8% instead of 5.
We just did... but we did it through one of the least progressive taxes possible, raising taxes by a similar amount for people people earning nothing or millions. The families in New Bedford, where median family income is $26k, are having to pay almost the exact same sales taxes as families in Newton making a median family income of well over $100k. I'm sorry, but you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.
New York has a significant problem with people leaving for tax reasons
In fact, I see more domicile and statutory residency cases out of NY than any other state. You don't need to look far to see the "people running away." Derek Jeter is a prominent recent example. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0... Here's a 2007 article from the WSJ guiding people through abandoning their NY domicile. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0... Or take a look at where the high dollar hedge funds were managed in the past decade. Many moved from NY city to Greenwich CT almost exclusively for tax reasons. And the top state rate is almost 7%, but when combined with the NY city rate its closer to 9%. 9% in NYC, 5% 20 miles away in Greenwich, or 0% in the FL sun. People are running.
And I can tell you for a fact that this happens in MA now. Its very common for wealthy individuals from MA to have second homes in NH or FL, two states without personal income taxes. Most cases are people who are already on the margin, have lived in MA for their entire professional lives but also have ties to a low/no personal income tax state. No one is giving up a lucrative job in MA because of state taxes, but people at the margins will spend a few more months at their NH or FL home and change their drivers license, voter registration, personal bank accounts, and start donating to the local charities in NH or FL instead of MA. Viola, no more MA income taxes on their pension, their 401k withdrawals, their other deferred comp, their interest, their dividends, their capital gains, etc. It happens now and it will continue to happen regardless of what amount above 0 the MA rate is, but it will happen more if the MA rate increases to more than the current 5.3%, especially if the rate is increased all the way to the 8.97% number in the MBPC report. Someone needs to take a serious look at how much this will cost MA. Maybe it won't actually cost all that much. But maybe those lost months from those wealthy individuals will cost a lot in terms of personal income tax revenue gone and in terms of lost additional spending, charity work, and other economic activity. Its a serious question whether you, or anyone else supporting a higher personal income tax rate, are prepared to acknowledge it.
$quot;People are running$quot;
Yeah, NYC's down to, what, 8 million people? Even after 9/11? NY is losing people, for sure -- like me -- but that's the upstate economy.
I have no doubt that some folks move to CT for taxes. But unless we have some numbers on how much revenue -- or heck, economic growth -- NYS loses due to its high tax rates, this is so much speculation, which is just too easy to spin to one's ideological preferences.
"Someone needs to take a serious look at how much this will cost MA." Good idea. I'll believe your dire scenario when I see it.
My dire scenario?
I'm merely pointing out facts (that many here seem to want to simply ignore) and then noting that proponents of a progressive tax system should actually take those facts into consideration instead of blithely dismissing them. Simple Fact - People leave high tax states for lower tax states. It happens in MA every day, just like it happens in NY. Hell, I even linked to an article showing that the captain of the MFY and the pride of Kalamazoo MI is claiming to be a FL resident, and I will bet you any amount of money that his actions are state tax motivated. Just like I'll bet you any amount of money that the migration of hedge funds from NY to Greenwich CT is state tax motivated. But you can continue to put your head in the sand and pretend its not happening when you make projections of the revenue that a progressive tax will create in MA.
Speaking of those projections, were you able to come up with any numbers for your progressive tax proposal yet? Are you going with the 5.95% rate and the $7,500/single $15,000/married exemptions like theloquaciousliberal despite the fact that taxes will increase for all families making more than $65,000? Or are you just supporting a progressive income tax as a magic savior where MA can raise significant revenue by increasing the tax rate on the super rich? If only Mitt Romney, Ted Kennedy, Bob Kraft, and Ernie Boch Jr would pay their "fair shares" then all the fiscal problems in MA would be fixed, right?
Grail
Progressive tax is an end, and not a means to an end. A holy quest for the grail, as opposed to a search for an efficient cup in which to fetch water. The liberal searchers appear to seek the progressive tax not for the 'good' it might do, but rather because, we just oughta have it. NJ, NY and California have it. Fat lot of good it's done for them except to make the forms confusing as hell.
The tax revenue numbers are pretty darn obvious. If you want real money, do what Power Wheels ask: show us the numbers instead of the bullshit. Power Wheels said 'show us the proposal'. All replies, (with exception of one which said 'keep the rate flat, but rate it to 5.95%) said zip.
If you want the progressive tax because it's cool to have, well, sally on.
Watch out if someone suggests cutting government costs, the replies are pretty quick with the 'well, where would you cut, give us amounts, departments, etc...." But, when it comes to suggesting progressive tax, it's no specifics at all.
"Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you." -Monty Python
The MBPC #'s
are specific proposals. Frankly I'd be happy with either of those; I'd probably go somewhere less than their $800mil scenario, and have the cutoff around $100k for a couple before increasing taxes.
And yes, progressivity in taxes is a goal in and of itself. Why? Because regressivity pinches people who are buying necessities. Progressivity pinches people who are buying relative luxuries. If you have to raise taxes -- and we do -- tax the income that would go towards lattes and leather couches boats as opposed to food and rent. I think that's a fair way to deal with the different utility of the first dollars you make as opposed to the last. You don't agree -- you think it's a paternalistic value judgement. Food, boats; apples, oranges, it's all the same.
I don't get it from you guys -- here's the proposal from MBPC would raise $800 million.
I might even suggest the increase be less than that, to keep the hit off the middle class -- who, btw, are indeed being hit by the sales tax increase.
And you guys are saying ... what, exactly? That everyone's gonna leave, and so we're not going to realize any new revenues? I even accept your premise that some will leave for low-tax, low-service states -- Bummer.
BTW -- I have filled out tax forms for several states that have progressive income taxes. They're not that confusing -- you take your taxable income and refer to a chart. Big deal. That's not the most confusing part of a state tax return -- figuring your taxable income is the tough part.
Specifics
That just reiterates my point: to get meaningful revenues, you have to raise the taxes on the middle class. The MBP suggestion hits couples earning over $70K. Harsh! Husband and wife each earning $35K.
You say $100K per couple get hit, so a husband and wife earning $50K have higher rates. Ok, if that's your idea of progressive, go with it: tax on the wealthy is increased tax on those families where wife and husband each earn $50K.
It is a better alternative than MBP. They want to nail the couple where husband and wife each earn $35K.
You linked to a MBPC report
on the MA personal income tax that contains several different sections. Scrolling about 3/4 down the page there is a section about progressivity. There are numbers for four different proposals, 3 requiring a constitutional amendment and one not. You didn't reference the specific proposals in your post or indicate which one you support. Now you say that you'd be happy with "either" of the four (sic) but also that your preference would be none of the four but something close to the fourth. But you still don't indicate what rate and what exemption you want, or how much revenue that would raise.
It's not that everyone will leave, it's that some people will leave, a point you now agree with. Revenue projections should take into account the amount of people that will leave. But the amount of people that will leave will depend on the proposal. 5.3% to 5.95% will not likely be significant, but 5.3% to 8.97% could be significant. And having a significant number of people who make over $500k leave MA would decrease the revenue raised and could affect other areas of MA economic activity. It's something to consider when you actually get to the point of evaluating specific proposals.
A progressive income tax presents a catch 22. Moderate progressivity, like a new 5.95% rate for income over $500k, doesn't create much new revenue ($365m). Severe progressivity, like a new 8.97% rate for income over $500k, creates a higher risk of rich people leaving or sheltering/deferring income thereby reducing the revenue created. Raising significant revenue without the problems associated with severe progressivity, like the 5.95% rate with the 7,500/15,000 exemptions, requires raising taxes on the middle class. It's fine to say in theory that you want MA to collect disposable income that would otherwise to to leather boat seat upgrades, but acknowledging the reality of numbers blunts the political effectiveness of your call to have everyone pay their "fair share." it's an inconvenient factual downer to an effective political message, but it's the reality that you should acknowledge. Otherwise, as Gary noted, you're just like the conservative that calls for cuts to "waste fraud and abuse" but has no specifics. Nice politics, but a lack of reality.
You think they move to Greenwich for tax reasons?
I'm sure some people move to Greenwich for tax reasons, but I don't think that's the big reason. Live in NYC? Apartment in Manhattan, maybe a black car, worry about crime, intensity, no quiet green spaces.
Live in Greenwich? House with yard and private pool, garage with all your favorite cars inside, low crime rates, more relaxed atmosphere, golf courses, the works.
The lifestyle difference between Greenwich and NYC is why rich NYC workers live in Greenwich. It's no different than some towns in Westchester County or Long Island (which are, incidentally, in NY).
They don't live in Greenwich
The mass of the hedgefund worker live in Fairfield, Wilton, Westport, etc and commute to Greenwich. When the hedgefunds took off, the principals figured that rent and taxes in CT were cheaper and the commute shorter.
They just set up shop in Greenwich.
Real estate is the big driver. State taxes are just a nuisance. Not too many people are going to move because the rate goes from 5.3 to 5.95. States should just based their tax on a percent of federal adjusted gross income, and then downsize their Dept of Revenue audit staffs to save money, relying instead on Federal IRS to provide the adjustments.
But, real tax costs doesn't matter. Perception is everything. Kinda like that mob of shoppers who hit the stores on tax-free day to save 5% on a few hundred dollars. All it takes is a headline that screams tax increase, and I'll have a half-dozen blue haired retirees asking how to establish a Florida residency. "Taxachusetts" dies hard.
So even if you figure, as I do, that raising personal income tax rate slightly might not cause a big exodus, neither will it cause an immigration. Population and workforce hasn't changed in 10 years. 6,349,097 in 2000; 6,497,967 in 2008, a whopping 2.3% increase over 8 years. Workforce is no larger than it was in 2000, but it is older. Just give a retiree an additional reason aside from expensive housing and lousy winters to move, and some will take it. Those who will take it have the wherewithal to move leaving the wherewithout holding the bill for big government.
I don't think the change from 5.3 to 5.95 wil cause all that many people to leave
I was responding more to the MBPC proposal to raise the top rate to 8.97% at $500k while keeping the rate at 5.3% for everything under $500k. The MBPC projected that the change would raise $1.2 billion. I think an increase like that would get more than just a few blue hairs into your office asking how to change their domicile or defer their income until they're ready to retire to FL.
Plenty of folks who work in NYC live in Greenwich
as well as Fairfield, Wilton, Westport, Cos Cob, etc. Yes, more banking has moved to Connecticut, but your big point dovetails with mine: it's real estate that's the difference, not tax rate.
How much home can you buy for $1,000,000? How much private lawn? How much private pool? How much open roadway? Same story.
As for making the state tax a cut of the 1040, I think that's a mistake for two reasons: 1. It assumes that the political will of the nation is the same as the state. Tax forms encourage some behavior and discourage other behavior. Politically, MA citizens don't agree with USA citizens -- why should we have identical financial incentives and disincentives? 2. It assumes that the demographics of the nation are the same as the state. Our public infrastructure, age, housing stock, employment, insurance levels, and a host of other demographics don't match the USA. As such, we tweak for our demographics.
I suspect that we'd both like to see a simpler 1040 (non-EZ). The difference is that I'd like to see things like schedule C and D just lumped in with income, and you'd like to see various exemptions, exceptions, and incentives eliminated. My net result is a simpler tax form for the rich and more tax revenue from the rich. Your net result is a simpler tax form for the poor and more tax revenue from the poor. When do you think the next time we'll have relatively equal power in the House and Senate, and leadership and rank & file on both sides who like to play nice? Until then, we won't both get what we think would be better tax code...
It's irrelevant
That's the political bloviates on Beacon Hill who say that, so they can do their thing with the trivial rent deduction that saves a hundred bucks a year or so, so the circuit breaker that targets a relatively minor group, or the Mass Pike credit that everyone scammed whether they drove the Pike or not, the charitable deduction that everyone scammed and the state abandoned it after 1 year....
I'm not talking nuance; I'm talking big savings. Dovetail the federal form 1040 and tax AGI at a low flat rate. The IRS will even collect and remit to the state at no charge. Nuke the state's audit division and some of DOR collection enforcement. Savings.
But no. The states want to tinker with their homey little trivial rate, add immaterial fiscal incentives that, at best, to quote the governor sum to "less than a cup of coffee per week", or at worse, steal from the taxpayer to favor some special interest.
You ask fair questions
though not in the form of questions.
What do the demographics of those taking the rent deduction look like? What's the difference in tax revenue?
What do the demographics of those hitting the circuit breaker look like? What's the difference in tax revenue?
Mass Pike? MBTA?
How does that compare to the savings be from "nuking" the state's audit division and some DOR?
I don't know the answer, and frankly don't believe your flippant claims about their relative sizes. I'd like to see some numbers, and I do think this is worthy of numbers-gathering.
Re: Taxes
Raising sales taxes during a recession might be one of the dumbest ideas I have heard from an economics standpoint.
How about we cut the programs people don't like before we raise taxes to pay for them?
How about we end flag details, end the tolltakers, reform state pensions, cut MBTA jobs, cut the secretaries, merge the three highway agencies into one, privatize Massport, cut the fat out first, and believe me I have studied the budget I know it won't come close to closing the gap-but cut first to at least show the people that the government does not want to waste their money on programs they don't need-thats innovation. Simply raising taxes to spend more money is not a new idea, its an old idea, and if that's what Gov. Patrick wants to run on he can join the company of Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale and see how well he does in the fall. Cut first, then raise taxes if you have to. That makes the most fiscal sense to me.
It's not that I disagree with the sentiment, but...
addressing each of them on their own: * end flag details -- that will save a bit * end the tolltakers -- that will cost due to lost revenue * reform state pensions -- no short term savings, some long term savings * cut MBTA jobs -- which ones? How many? I'm skeptical * cut the secretaries -- you mean office assistants or head managers? if the former, you're now paying management a high salary to do lower wage work. If the latter, who's running the zoo? * merge the three highway agencies into one -- very small long term savings at an (also small) up front cost * privatize Massport -- there's zero evidence that privatizing MassPort would result in short, medium, or long term overall savings
no matter how fat or how lean, you'll never have 100% lean in any large organization, gov't, for-profit, or non-profit. There's always a few grains of sand in the most well-oiled machine. Pointing to those grains as the excuse to never expand the system is insane in my view. Let's work to remove the grains, but also look to re-engineer the system to work better, even if that means making it bigger in the process.
Agreed
Again I agree with these sentiments, I even agree with Charley that taxes will need to be raised, it just seems that the editors and others here at BMG are almost excited about making ideological points about how necessary new taxes with little consideration to how necessary spending cuts are as well. The liberals want new taxes, the conservatives more cuts, and the truth, as we all know, is a little bit of both are necessary to jump-start the estate.
The question then is what to cut AND what kind of new taxes to raise-they are not mutually exclusive as the partisans at either MassGroup claim.
The post wasn't...
... a referendum on budget management. It was to point out that there are services people want from their government and this is often lost in the debate. Personally I'd debate the point he did make rather than complain about the points he didn't. Besides,... flagmen, pension reform, toll-takers, merging agencies... it's not like these issues have been avoided here. Those points have been made and debated and will continue to be made and debated. I don't think it's a valid criticism that he just happens to be talking about something else right now instead of what you want him to talk about (again).
Exactly my point
I was objecting to Charley's gleeful ideological post that the public actually supports raising taxes to defend public programs and merely saying if thats your ONLY policy emphasis it makes for more politics and even poorer governance.
The $800 million
the MBPC number would raise would still not balance the budget. What "liberals" aren't talking about cuts nowadays? The only thing we want is some balance. For literally decades, it's all been cuts, even in some "good" years. This is the first year we chose to raise some revenue to balance the cuts... but it wasn't anywhere near enough revenue and it was a poor vehicle in which to raise it in the first place (though somewhat blunted by our exemptions on clothes and groceries). The question now is to find some fair sources of new revenue, because there's less and less to cut - fat or otherwise - each year we're in this cannibalizing structural deficit.
$quot;cut the programs people don't like$quot;
Have you been reading the papers lately? There are massive cuts across the board. Vulnerable populations across the state are suffering. And stomv is exactly right -- your suggestions are generally for short money.
The state, and especially the "waste, fraud and abuse" crowd, all need to grow up.
Have you read a newspaper recently?
** Flagmen -- being done ** Cut tolltaker jobs -- being reduced due to increased use of transponders ** State pensions -- Legislature just passed a major reform bill ** MBTA jobs -- MBTA has already cut a couple hundred jobs ** Secretaries -- maybe you have something here, but we're talking very small savings ** Merge highway agencies -- Legislature just passed transportation reform bill that does just this
Is it really?
Last I heard Deval gave up on flagmen just like Romney, Weld, and Dukakis before him because Tommy Haynes and his cronies scared him away from reform.
And yes if we have a carbon tax we can kill the tolls and its a more efficient way to raise new revenue and get SUVs off the streets.
As for MBTA jobs I thought the Charley cards were supposed to get rid of T token collectors, at least at Alewife and Harvard I see the same people who used to collect tokens now doing even less work as 'liasons' to help with the machines. Those people could easily be sacked without the T shutting down.
As for Massport out in Chicago privatizing Midway would have generated over $2.5 billion in immediate revenue had the deal gone through and several billion in long term savings. Private companies have successfully managed airports before, most airports in Asia and Europe are private, its a model of privatization that works. Not to mention Massport is bloated with patronage positions.
lastly to david and others, I am not saying don't raise taxes, I am simply saying you and Charley jump on the 'tax and spend', over at RMG they dream about all the essential services they can cut, I am saying lets have a reality based approach without our ideological blinders on where we can fund what is necessary and cut whats not. And before we raise taxes it just makes common sense to cut what we can.
Deval did what he could
got rid of the flagmen in most cases on state highways. he can't get rid of them locally. Deval actually took a lot of flack from the unions on this (and other) issues.
Then you're talking about raising taxes in favor of eliminating a particularly bad and unfair tax. I completely agree with you on that point, but you tried to lump it together with cost-saving measures. It would certainly be a big cost saver for some people in this state, but it would actually cost most taxpayers a dollar or so a week to make up for the $15+ we'd save from not having to pay for mainly arbitrary tolls anymore, that pay for roads we don't even use.
We get what you're saying, but we're already doing it. When is the last year when the Massachusetts budget was passed without major cuts?
Exactly again
It seemed that Charley was gleeful about raising taxes and ignoring the fact that things needed to be cut. Thats all I was criticizing.
Zoos
I think they certainly expected attention from the "euthanize the animals" line.
The problem with $quot;all or nothing thinking$quot; and the Zoo funding veto
First, a calm, well-reasoned 9C cut to the zoos of 1 million, with an exhortation to increase fund raising and even an offer to attend the fund raiser - doable, well thought out, governor is a hero. A warning that if revenues continue to fall, there will be another million decrease next year - doable, with warning, and a strengthened public/private partnership.
However a WHACK lets take 4.5 million right away does not allow for measured ramping up of fundraising and the public/private partnership.
The majority of zoo expenses are not discretionary - they are salaries and food, frankly.
And the zoo folk never said animals "will" be euthanized; I scrutinized those statements carefully - they said, "may" if there is not sufficient funds to feed and care for, and the state would have to take over feeding and caring [and who knows, that may have cost "us the taxpayers" more than the 9C veto allegedly would save].
I never called anyone an animal hater - what I said was that the planning on this 9C cut was not adequate and the size of the cut relative to the line item was too great.
Further, it is a core government activity to care for jointly owned treasures like zoos, natural wonders/parks [think the Marble Arch in Western Mass for example]museums; all governments do this to one degree or another.
Hey, I like Charlie Baker
It over when the word euthanized entered into their statement. It was pathetic. The zoo had been living with a much smaller budget and had additional fund cut via 9C's.
How do you know that the zoo officials were never approached?
I have very little sympathy for them. They took it a step too far and made themselves look like fools. They are the ones who impacted the zoos and should be held accountable for their actions. I would personally like to see the brain trust behind this weekend gone. They are an embarrassment.
Southwick Zoo is better and cheaper
Southwick Zoo operates on 50% less than Stoneham and Franklin Park, they added a skywalk, and Southwick attracts more vistors than these other zoos, seems like to me they know how to run a zoo, maybe we could learn from their success?
Re: The Zoo fiasco
Its just more proof that Deval Patrick, while he has some great ideas about governing, is completely ignorant of the politics it takes to govern and this is why he is routinely outplayed by his political opponents. I want my governor to be a strong advocate of sound public policies, not some weak individual that gets outplayed time and time again.
He can't even beat the Zookeepers in the media game how can he beat DeLeo, Murray, or Charlie Baker for that matter?
It was simple, cut some money from the Zoo. Instead Deval went all the way and cut almost all the money from the zoo, creating a false crisis that the zoo's exploited to get public attention, and now the speaker and the legislator following the outcry over the false crises will instead override all the cuts instead of approving modest ones. Brilliant move on the Zoo's part-they checkmated the governor who routinely gets checkmated by the press, by the unions, by the legislature, and by his own incompetence and arrogance.
you ignore all the governor's big victories
He's lost some battles up front, and took beatings in the press for it, but on almost all his major issues he's eventually won in the long run, from closing the corporate loopholes to (now) letting cities and towns raise meals and hotel taxes to help their budgets, if they want. He's had few friends in the media, but his term has been more successful than the previous 16 years before it, in spite of a an economic downturn that's been the worst one most of us have been alive to witness.
Local Taxation
That's it shift the blame to the cities and towns. So, like, what are his accomplishments?
I suppose
With campaign season coming up, I should get accustomed to the bill of goods that bureaucratic re-shufflings and legislative initiatives re-purposed as "Deval's big victories". I also need to get used to hearing Deval's people blame the media. Just not looking forward to it.
obviously you are not living here ....
that's probably the furthest thing from what is happening here now.
Herald had an article over the weekend which caught everyone's attention but and Monday came there were a lot of angry people and they weren't angry at Patrick, they were angry with the zoo officials. You pretty much have Patrick being upfront and honest and the zoo officials looking untrustworthy.
Not the way I see it or read it, Johnk
I see Gov. Patrick looking confused and angry, and the zoo officials getting whacked at for daring to complain - we all have the right to complain. Remember, "democracy" and all?
Further, a 9C of a million or so and supportive statements as opposed to a 4.5 million "whack" out of an anticipated 6.5 million...nope, I read the Globe & the Herald and monitor the airways and Johnk - I don't see it the way you do at all.
So while you may see the Zoo's leadership as untrustworthy, I do not and no one I have personally talked with does, either.
The Gobe's continuing coverage looks more and more like someone in the Gov's office did not do their homework
Additional Globe Coverage
Here is the critical quote, at least in my view:
Unless Mr. Linehan is lying, this is an important consideration; further we are talking about a 67% reduction, very possibly without prior notice.
Further, there is a basic disagreement about figures, for example:
I would love to have an open hearing, see a white paper from Zoo New England as to their funding and budget over a five year period. If Zoo New England submitted such a budget in the Joint Ways and Means Hearings held last fiscal year, now would be a good time to share it. Obviously, given that the Governor's House One funded the zoos at the 6.5 million level initially, one would presume the Governor's staff did some kind of due diligence before writing House One and funding the Zoos. Just what has changed?
There has been no credible basis given for the veto of this funding by a whopping 67%
As I said earlier, a veto of 1 million combined with gracious support of these two fine facilities and there would not be this current sour public meltdown. A veto of 4.5 million at this stage in the budget process, given the realities of operating such facilities and caring for animals, a significant number of which require expertise just does not make sense.
I respect the adult ability to admit to error, take responsibility, and work on a triage. Strong men and women can apologize. An attitude of never admitting error, always blaming someone else is not impressive. A statement along the lines of "I am sorry you don't like what I did" is NOT an apology, you know?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 3:13 AM