Today’s big news is that a 2-cent (or, if you prefer, 40%) hike in the state sales tax is under serious consideration as a way of addressing the state’s budget woes.
Count me among the unpersuaded. What I think this shows is the fact that lawmakers continue to be unable to deal with raising revenue in an adult way. Listen to what’s being said, apparently with a straight face (emphasis mine):
DeLeo has not come to a final conclusion. But sentiment has built in the House for taking just one conclusive vote on a tax increase instead of subjecting representatives to multiple tax votes, so House leaders are narrowing in on one, broad-based tax hike that could produce enough revenue to avoid the need for more votes later…. The House also is considering expanding the sales tax to cover gasoline, instead of adopting Governor Deval Patrick’s call for increasing the the gas tax, which is currently 23.5 cents per gallon. Such a move would give lawmakers the political benefit of avoiding votes to raise two different taxes.
Now, the emphasized passages are not direct quotes, so to some extent it may be the reporter’s take on what’s going on. But we’ve heard over and over again that the last thing legislators want to do is take “multiple votes” on taxes.
Never mind the fact that raising the sales tax to 7% in one fell swoop is perhaps the most regressive possible approach to the revenue situation. Never mind the numerous other options that the Governor, among others, has put on the table, that could mitigate the impact on those who can least afford to pay higher taxes these days, and that could at the same time tweak state tax policy in sensible ways. (What, exactly, is the policy justification for exempting booze, candy, and Coca-Cola from the sales tax? And what about those damn telephone poles?) Never mind the fact that sales tax revenue is unreliable, as the debacle at the MBTA shows. And, of course, never mind the fact that the income tax remains “off the table,” even though it is in some respects less regressive than the other taxes under discussion.
No, the driving force behind the entire discussion is apparently the perceived need to shield legislators from having to take politically uncomfortable votes. Obviously, there is no policy justification for that. It’s just the latest installment in Massachusetts’ most successful job protection program: The House Incumbents Shall Be Interminably Tethered to Each Seat, also known as THISBITES. (Got a better acronym? Drop it in the comments!)
Look, maybe a 7% sales tax is the best solution. But I want to hear some discussion of why, on the merits, that is the case. I am completely uninterested in hearing about how difficult it is for legislators to take difficult votes. That is, after all, their job.
I do think that cities and towns should be allowed to raise revenue by adding 1-2% to the state sales tax, but I don’t think the state should raise its rate. I would much rather see the constitution changed to allow a progressive state income tax, even though it would cost me personally more than this proposed sales tax would.
<
p>Regarding the multiple votes thing, you would think with the horrible state of the MA Republican party and that the Democrats in the state house could risk taking more than one vote on taxes during an economic crisis.
Is it the risk that some future opponent can say “Representative Blablah voted to raise taxes n times”?
considered. Could they at least float the idea out there and see what the reaction is? They seem to be handily floating out every other idea.
<
p>If I have to deal with a tax increase, I suppose I could handle a 1% increase in sales tax. Connecticut is 6%. Why go to 7% though, that would drive people to Connecticut to shop. Where is the common sense? Same thing with the cigarette tax, if you are the highest in region, then people will travel out of state for purchases, so you end up losing in the end. They never seem to look at the whole picture.
It requires a constitutional amendment, so it would require a popular vote just to allow one. It does seem that 25% of the General Court can get the ball rolling, but I’m not sure if the GC can act on its own or must wait for a petition.
that, there was a vote on a graduated income tax back around 1972. Any time any vote comes around related to income tax, the anti tax naysayers come out in force and beat it back. As for driving to avoid the sales tax, in a region as small as New England, it’s an easy thing to do. You can drive between several states, and not put a lot of miles on. For major purchases, it pays to take the trip, and MA attempting to force retailers in NH to collect and remit MA sales tax on sales in NH is nuts.
By the Turnpike.
<
p>Just asking.
Hmmm… Raising the meals tax by this same percentage (only an extra 2 cents…) was not objectionable at all to you, but now you are unpersuaded that the same increase (now phrased by you as 40% increase) is the right solution.
<
p>Color me confused.
<
p>No one should be surprised on shielding of legislators statement – just that it was maid public.
<
p>
Whereas raising the general sales tax covers much mandatory spending.
<
p>Extending the sales tax to gasoline may be a reasonable option, in that gasoline is a partially optional expense and reducing its use has other benefits. However, it does not provide the same revenue as the proposed 19 cent increase in gasoline tax.
<
p>And doesn’t this proposed 7% sales tax avoid the discussion of reform?
<
p>Don’t let them do it!
Depending on exactly how this is structured, it could provide a lot of revenue just on gasoline, perhaps as much as the 19-cent proposal, or even more.
<
p>Imagine they included gasoline in the sales tax and raised the general rate to 7%. Gasoline in Massachusetts currently sells for around $2/gallon. So if (and this is a big if) the sales tax base includes all aspects of the user price, including the federal and state excise taxes, that would generate 14 cents in new sales tax revenue — pretty close to the 19-cent proposal.
<
p>But the price of gasoline isn’t static. Imagine the price goes back up to $4/gallon. That would be 28 cents per gallon in new sales tax revenue.
but the 5 cent sales tax could reasonably be extended to gasoline. The tax on tax issue would have to be sorted out.
If the sales tax is extended to gasoline, will it replace the current state gasoline tax, or will it be some kind of additional tax? Also, will an attempt be made to bring some honest neutrality into the equation, or will the confusion of applying sales tax to the price let the state hide a much bigger than expected increase to the mix? When I buy a gallon of gas, I think of it as one price, accepting the federal and state taxes as part of the package. Applying sales tax to the mix, will make the fuel ever more expensive because as the gas price goes up, the state will be levying an ever increasing amount on us. The state will be cheering for higher gas prices because it will mean more revenues for them.
<
p>Don’t let them do it!
and also included in the price published and on the pumps.
<
p>The nice part about it: when the price of gas goes up, gas tax revenue will increase. Maybe some of that will make it’s way to the MBTA, who sees increased ridership when the price of gas goes up. As it is now, ridership goes up during a recession, at the same time when the MBTA’s share of the sales tax goes down.
to the sales tax. Adding 2% points to the current 5% sales tax, bringing it to 7% is a 40% increase. That’s what it is, not how it’s being phrased. I’d love to get that much of a raise in my weekly pay. Looking it from a different perspective, assuming you get a 4% bump in salary this year (I should be so lucky), the equivalent increase in the sales tax would be a .2% increase taking the sales tax up from 5% to 5.2%.
My comment to David is a carry over from another thread on the meals tax. In that thread the proposed increase in the meals tax was phrased as only a couple of cents and having NO impact to demand.
<
p>Now the same increase in the sales tax was phrased or framed by David as a 40% increase. So yes, it’s phrasing. That’s not to say it’s not a 40% increase, which of course it is.
and I promise to vote to replace you in the next election. How’s that for a simple declaration?
<
p>I see the sales tax as a regressive, onerous drag on me, and commerce in general. It may be the one tax that offends me the most, even more than a general income tax increase. It bothers me every time I make a purchase, and I get hit with it when the bill is presented to me.
Or, more to the point, is any of the extra revenue earmarked for the T, either directly (like 1 cent is now) or indirectly (like the state taking back some of the $1.8 billion the MBTA owes thanks to the legislature)?
<
p>The gas tax portion of it is worth $400 million a year. Is any of that going to the T?
<
p>If they’re going to muck with the sales tax, may I recommend:
* not taxing OTC medicine (not to be confused with non-FDA OTC items, which therefore aren’t medicine).
* taxing bottled water
* taxing carbonated beverages
* taxing gasoline
* allocating more than 1 cent of the tax to the MBTA. Just going to 1.25 cents would eliminate the MBTA deficit and help them pay down some of their debt a smidge ahead of schedule. Alternatively, keep the 1 cent sales tax for the MBTA but in addition allocate a greater share of the gas sales tax to the MBTA… maybe even 100%. An extra $250-$400M for the MBTA? Sure, but use $100M a year to pay down debt early so the MBTA can dig out of the hole it’s in.
<
p>
<
p>I agree with lots of BMGers that this is just frankly weak. The sales tax is regressive, moreso than even the income tax. On the other hand, if it’s going to happen, could we at least take the opportunity to modify the sales tax system to (a) make it a bit more progressive via OTC, (b) tax some subset of beverages, (c) bump up the gas tax, and (d) earmark more revenue for the MBTA?
The income tax is pretty regressive as well, although the personal exemption provides some level of relief for low-income earners. The sales tax exempts so-called necessities such as food and clothing.
<
p>Both suck for low-income people and families. Raising either should include some kind of provision of relief for those making under a certain amount. What that should be? I don’t know.
I get that it’s not progressive, but within MA:
<
p>1. There are pretty generous “standard deductions”
2. There’s a deduction for rent
3. There’s a deduction for public transit
4. IIRC, dividends and cap gains aren’t taxed at a lower rate. Maybe it’s a higher rate? I don’t recall…
<
p>etc. etc. It seems like the state income tax is designed to tax the poor at a lower actual rate than others, but that the middle class pays about the same actual rate as the rich.
<
p>Am I misunderstanding? If not, that’s actually a progressive tax. Maybe not as progressive as some would like, but it would in fact be progressive.
<
p>Source: MassBudget or for those who prefer prettier layout:
Lowest 20%0.2% of income
Middle 20%3.5% of income
Top 20%4.3% of income
Making the income tax even more progressive is the limited income credit and no-tax status for low-income residents. A single person making less than $14k pays a lower effective tax rate, and no taxes if their income is below $8k. The numbers slightly more than double for a married couple and then increase with more dependents.
<
p>Long-term capital gains are taxed at the same rate as regular income. Short-term gains are taxed at 12%.
<
p>The odd thing about the rental deduction is that the limit is the same for a married couple as it is for a single person. I think it only matters in the Boston area, because I think the limit is higher than rents in most of the state. But there is no way a married couple can find an apartment for $500/month in the Boston area.
Right now there are two conversations happening. One is about the budget and closing the gap to cover spending. The other is about transportation and spending what we need to maintain roads, bridges, public transit, etc.
<
p>If the House is bent on paying for these at the same time, taking 1 vote as it were, then a 2-cent sales tax increase isn’t such a bad idea. Split the revenues between transportation and the budget and go from there.
<
p>The fact is, the we need this kind of money to pay for the state services and infrastructure we rely on. You want to preserve housing subsidies for low income families? That’s another $20 million. You want to restore local aid to cities and towns to what the Governor proposed (which was already a 10% cut), that’s another $200 million. A good bit more to keep it at last year’s levels. You want to put the T on solid financial footing? That’s $350 million.
<
p>Is there a better way to raise $1.5 billion? Maybe, but political reality is part of the problem, especially when the Senate has made it pretty clear they don’t particularly things like public transportation. The gas tax has taken enough of a beating that it seems to be out of contention. What’s left?
<
p>If the legislature only takes half measures (1 cent on the sales tax split between the budget and transportation, for example) then nothing gets funded the way it should be and we’re back in the same situation in another year. Fix it the right way now and save the pain of coming back again, hat in hand, and asking for more next April.
First this vote would just about guarantee some new blood in the legislature next election (I’ll even take new Democrat blood over old Democrat blood). Second, it would paint Democrats as uncaring which might bring some new Republican blood to MA. Third, it is a flat tax (you guys like calling it regressive) so all residents would get hit and not just a sub-class (drivers, high income earners, restaurant customers…).
<
p>I will be happy to drive to NH for medium and large purchase items and purchase on-line for other items to avoid paying sales tax.
<
p>This is a no brainer.
It’s only “flat” if each person spends exactly the same percentage of their income on sales-tax related merchandise.
<
p>It turns out, though, that it doesn’t work like that. Rich people spend a lower percentage of their income on sales-taxed items within Massachusetts than poor people. That makes it decidedly not flat.
Actually the sales tax has a distinctly regressive effect. Again from the MassBudget web site (say here) we learn what percentage of income is spent on the sales tax:
Group
Income
Percentage
Paid
Lowest 20%
< $18k
4.0%
Second 20%
$18k-$34k
3.0%
Middle 20%
$34k-58k
2.2%
Fourth 20%
$58k-$97k
1.9%
Top 20%
> $97k
1.4%
Top 1%
> $526k
0.4%
These figures are from 2006 and there is no reason to think that matters have become more progressive since then.
Which again makes me feel this is a no-brainer. Republicans and conservatives should support the tax increase since we will be paying far less on a percentage basis than Democrats. Plus people with means (cars, gas money) can drive to NH and buy their TVs, furniture, liqueur, tires… and PAY NO TAXES so the rates you cite might be a little high for the top 60% or so.
<
p>I repeat, this is a no-brainer for me!!!
<
p>GO HIGHER SALES TAX!!!!!!
This comment exemplifies all the attributes of a troll:
I do not understand why you are still here. There are plenty of conservatives and moderates it is interesting to have discussions with and whose opinions I would like to read on this thread.
<
p>I am uninteresting in reading a torrent of uninformed smugness from a moron proud of how obtuse he can be.
uninterestinged
But the root cause is you and others here. I have posted many diaries on interesting current issues with the goal of good productive discussions. If you look back at many of them, my snarky smug “defensive” remarks come as replies to other snarky smug “offensive” remarks from people like you. You people are the ones who start throwing hang grenades and I respond in kind. In fact, if you look back at many of your responses, you don’t even address the subject of the diary since you are too busy making personal attacks on me (which I usually respond to with similar remarks back) or trying to make me look stupid (good opening for you there).
<
p>My “insulting” of Democrats and Liberals is no different than the continual insulting of Republicans and Conservatives here at BMG. David sems to constantly tell people this is a blog so thicken your skin a little.
<
p>Why don’t you look into the mirror and see for yourself that you cannot debate anything without being rude, insulting and pretentious. Oh sure you don’t come right out and slap people in the face, you’re far more sophisticated than that. You “hide” your attacks and denigrate opponents with your superior vocabulary and wit.. and think you are faultless. You accuse me of having “uninformed smugness” while you lavish your “informed smugness”.
<
p>And then when you get as so frustrated you resort to the same mistakes I made when I first started blogging here by calling me names (in today’s post… a moron). How can such a sophisticated blogger like yourself break the BMG rules of the road so blatantly. Should I reply to your NAME CALLING with appropriately chosen names for you?
<
p>Your comments about me above says…
<
p>– It cries for attention.
>>> Do you write posts which you don’t want people to read? Don’t all the postings here want their posts to be read.
-It contributes nothing whatever to the discussion.
>>> I think my points, while delivered sarcasticaly, are comepletely true and initiates debate. People with the means will go to NH to avaid sales tax, buy on-line to avoid sales tax and will benefit from the revenue being raised on lower income MA residents. My tongues in my chek but I’m being honest.
– It is intentionally insulting to Democrats and liberals.
>>> Too fucking bad. If you want to punch someone be ready to get punched back. Want to set a rule on BMG for “no insulting comments to either party or ideology” then I will be glad to sign up, otherwise suck it up!
You also have made fun of my spelling errors and typos. My defense has been “everyone” makes these types of errors but you just keep pointing my mistakes out since you are so perfect. But did you mean what you typed above in your last sentence…
<
p>
<
p>Guess we all make mistakes, even an erudite pontificator like KBusch!
I take the length as a plea for attention and I don’t want this to go any further off topic.
You, KBusch, have been long in the tooth on many of your posts. I leave some very short, some short, some middle and a few verbose remarks. But my view is the number of long posts are not much more than your own. Do you want some examples?
“Long in the tooth” does not mean what you think it means.
This time coupled with some really ugly anti-intellectualism.
<
p>Where are the moderators?
According to your agreement with her, once the tag is made (her giving you a “6”) you must repay the “6” pronto.
I’m a gay man, as you well know.
<
p>KBusch gives lots of folks sixes, not just me. What’s it to you, anyway?
and the offer for dinner at Massimino’s is out, besides they don’t take reservations.
<
p>Look back on many of your posts and KBusch’s and see how many are “6.00/1” where you both are giving each other “6’s”… the equivalent of “shill bidding ” in auctions… “shill ratings”?
I still don’t follow your point, but I’ve explicitly said I was a gay man in threads you replied to.
<
p>Where are the moderators?
Is your life that empty that you have nothing else to worry about then who gives whom sixes?
<
p>JohnD, it would be nice if you grew up.
I believe I have a valid point that both you and huh give each other “6’s” constantly (certainly higher than the norm). I believe this “shill rating” scheme is for no other reason than self promoting your posts/replies.
<
p>But I will agree to ays… grow up (not mention this unethical rating practice again).
<
p>Feel better?
No one “earns” any money from sixes. No special benefits accrue. To suggest it is unethical is to cross the line into insanity.
<
p>Frankly, JohnD, this is precisely the crazy sort of non-issue fuss one expects trolls to pursue on comment boards, usenet groups, and blogs.
<
p>Could you maybe, like, try to consider yourself above that?
Other than a nice warm feeling? I can’t even see that they’re tied to user ratings. What am I missing?
Shill bidding just raises “something” above the “true level” artificially. So “6’s” given when not deserved raises the post when it shouldn’t. As I said, I’m done talking about it so let it die.
I’m shocked, shocked. Why are you here, again?
Do you care about them?
I wanted to hold off on this meta-discussion until the substantive discussion on the sales tax had come to an end — probably for precisely the reason Power Wheels arrived with a flurry of zeros: it detracts from the purpose of BMG.
and often give both of you “6’s”.
Referring to huh as “her” merits a zero.
<
p>I would give anyone a zero who did that — not just you.
Enough of this, you are both absurd.
Isn’t this your fifth comment after you said you were stopping?
Over.
Plain and simple.
on purchases in NH if you bring the goods into MA to use. You are required by law to remit use tax at a 5% (or 7% if this proposal passes) by putting your use tax amount on line 33 of your personal income tax return. It’s tough for MA to enforce, and you might not get caught if you’re buying small ticket items. But if you start buying big screen TVs or computers in NH and bringing them to MA then they might actually catch you. And even if they don’t catch you, you’re still cheating on your taxes. That’s probably not something you should be bragging about on a public blog even if you’re doing do anonymously.
I understand that the RMV can nail you for the difference when you register your vehicle, but everyone knows this is exactly why Pheasant Lane and Rockingham Park Malls are a stone’s throw from the state line. I say get rid of line 33. My idea of a federal union (I believe borne out by some of the motive behind a stronger Constitution) is that goods and people should be able to cross state lines without interference or questioning barring a specific court order. After all regulating interstate commerce is one of the enumerated powers of Congress and states should butt out.
If the consumption occurs in MA then the tax should be paid to MA. A taxpayer gets a credit against use tax liability for any sales tax paid to another jurisdiction, so there is no restraint on interstate commerce. There is really no point to even having a sales tax without an ensuing use tax, every state that imposes a sales tax imposes a use tax on the exact same base.
Are you saying that if I cross into NY where there is higher sales tax, but use the item in MA, I can get a credit for the difference? I would still say don’t bother. This is the first I’m hearing that the tax is based on use rather than purchase. I would favor just having each state set its sales tax and the purchaser will pay the tax in the state of purchase and that be the end of it.
but paying sales tax to another jurisdiction can be used as a credit to offset the 5% use tax liability imposed by MA. If you pay a 3% sales tax in hypothetical state A and then bring the goods to MA then you owe MA a use tax equal to 2% of the price of the goods. If you pay a 7% sales tax in hypothetical state B and then bring the goods to MA then you don’t owe any additional MA use tax because the entire 5% MA tax liability is wiped out by the credit. But MA does not refund the additional 2% because MA doesn’t care what any other state’s tax rate is as long as the 5% MA rate is covered.
<
p>It’s too easy to manipulate where the purchase is made to not impose a use tax. Construction companies that use millions of dollars worth of materials could just structure their purchases to all occur in a state with no sales tax. Corporations that purchase millions of dollars of software and equipment could just structure their purchases to all occur in a state with no sales tax. Anyone who buys a plane, boat, or other huge ticket item would always purchase the item in a state with no sales tax and avoid owing tax to the state where the purchase will actually be used.
<
p>This all makes more sense if you view the sales tax from the purist prospective as a consumption tax. There is a presumption that goods will be consumed whereever they are purchased, but states may examine the actual use of the goods in each case and determine if the proper tax has been paid on goods used in that state as long as credit is given for taxes paid to another state. I assure you, your proposal to convert the sales tax to a purely transactional tax would severely erode the sales/use tax base of all states that impose a sales/use tax.
Maybe we could say that consumption only applies to single purchases over $1000 or something like that. I can see the problem this would propose in the federal system. This is why I’m more enthusiastic about a federal rather than state-by-state sales tax. If the sales tax is uniform there would be less way around it and as a sovereign entity the United States can always impose tariffs on foreign imports in a way that states should not on each other’s products. Again, it was states overdoing this that led to the need for a stronger Constitution. I mostly shop in NH because I live on the border and that’s where the stores are rather than out of a conscientious decision to avoid contributing to MA. Otherwise, I don’t think I should have to tell MA what I bought in NH. It’s a free country and Congress is supposed to regulate interstate commerce anyway – not the states.
You are required to pay use taxes for such out of state purchases. If you don’t your are tax cheat. Are you saying you intend to break the law?
<
p>Of course, I am sure you would not mind having the tax police stop and search your car for goods that you may bought in NH to make sure that you pay your taxes. 😉
<
p>
“Taze away!”
after the SCOTUS ruling on the 4th amendment? Damn, there goes all that new tax revenue…
No increase in taxes of any kind, or any fees or tolls, unless and until the Legislature gets serious about deep, deep state budget cuts.
<
p>Let’s talk about:
<
p>- Does every county need a D.A.? Yes, probably. OK, do we need 11 counties?
<
p>- Do we need 160 state reps?
<
p>- Do we need the Capitol Police when we already have State Police, not to mention Boston Police?
<
p>- Does every legislator need a staff person plus summer interns? How many staff people does each Senator get? Above and beyond both of those, there are committee staff. How many committee staff do we need, exempting Ways and Means?
<
p>- Are there Cabinet positions that could be eliminated?
<
p>- How about space reallocation of state offices?
<
p>- How many state cars are in use? Who really needs one? Does anyone besides the governor and lieutenant governor have a driver?
<
p>Please note the absence of human services cuts or layoffs, which they always threaten us with. (For staff cuts, for example, I’d be happy to grandfather existing staff until the beginning of FY11, June 30, 2010.) Legislators, do your jobs before you shake us down for petty cash.
<
p>
you missed the really low hanging fruit:
– per diems — why don’t I get one of these for coming to my job every day
– stipends — every single state senator gets one of these. it’s also the leadership’s weapon of choice to keep the troops in line.
if you’re representing a part of the state farther away. Personally, I think that all state legislators who live within 0.5 miles of an MBTA rail station should simply be given a monthly T pass as their per diem and lose their parking space. Yes, I know that sometimes they have to stay late. Same is true for citizens on the commuter rail who now may not have a ride home either.
some people also work very far from where they live. It’s not like “involves travel to Beacon Hill” isn’t in the job description.
Given that there is legitimate public interest in the representative living in the district he or she is representing, and given that Beacon Hill ain’t moving any time soon, why should we make the legislator bear that burden, effectively paying the folks from north, west, and south less than the Boston-metro reps?
<
p>I think it’s reasonable to level the field for the reps with respect to travel; it’s far more efficient than having a rotating state house: one week in Boston, one week in Fall River, one week in Pittsfield, etc.
This isn’t Texas or California; we are a very small, compact state. The overwhelming majority of Reps and Senators live within a reasonable drive of Boston. And the legislature is not supposed to be a full-time job where you go there everyday.
<
p>The real question is whether the distance from the State House would dissuade people from seeking elected office… not whether it’s fair that Rep. Smith drives 20 miles to get there and Rep. Jones only drives 5 miles, but they both get paid the same. Life abounds with such unfair distinctions.
<
p>Personally, I think that people will keep lining up for these jobs with or without per diems, including from the far reaches of Williamstown, Newburyport and Nantucket. But I might be willing to concede it’s a hardship for the very small class of Reps and Senators who live beyond a reasonable distance of, say, 100 miles. And that’s pretty much limited to Berkshire County and the Islands. If you want to give the six reps from there a per diem, I won’t object. Otherwise, within 100 miles or so, you can find many, many people who make non-daily but regular commutes into Boston. If their neighbors can do it, so can they.
unless you count a T pass as a per diem.
<
p>
<
p>Supposed to be? These guys make full time salary and put in full time hours. Frankly, that’s how I feel it’s “supposed to be.” So, here’s an open question: how many days are state reps at the State House?
<
p>
<
p>1. I disagree. I think fairness is an appropriate metric, and I believe if we can make things more fair at a reasonable cost, we ought to do so. The total travel reimbursement isn’t a lot of money to the state, but it can be sizeable for particular representatives.
<
p>2. 5 or 20 miles? Good grief. Fall River is 50 miles. New Bedford is 55. Worcester is 40. Lowell 30. Chicopee is 90, as is Springfield. Pittsfield is 140 miles.
<
p>You’ve set up a straw man and masterfully knocked it down. I specifically argued that we ought not reimburse travel for reps who live close — the burden is on the reps who live farther away, and that includes a significant number of population centers within Massachusetts.
<
p>You put the cutoff at 100 miles — as if its common for folks to drive 100 miles each way to work. In 2004, fewer than one in five citizens spent 90 minutes per day traveling to and from work (source). At 60 miles an hour (optimistic to be sure when you consider highway and city traffic), that would mean that limiting travel reimbursements to reps who lived 45 miles away from Beacon Hill would still put them in line with the longest traveling 20% of employees in the state. Those miles add up in terms of expenses, and those reps can’t take mass transit to/from work because of the geographic location of their district.
You didn’t argue for per diems for everyone… but that is the current situation. Even reps from Boston get per diems. That’s a joke, I’m sorry.
<
p>Around 4 million out of the 6.5 million Mass residents live in Suffolk, Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk counties (http://www.citypopulation.de/php/usa-massachusetts.php). I will acknowledge that some of those places aren’t the easiest commute into downtown, but neither is the commute impossible. And again, they knew what the deal was when they decided to seek the job. Another approximately 1.25 million people live in Worcester and Bristol counties. Most places there are probably around an hr away. That’s difficult, but not impossible. And most of these guys work 10-3 other than right at the end of the session (when they stay at hotels).
<
p>So over 80% of state residents live in or near Metro Boston. Yet we’ve set up this per diem system for everyone.
You know what, I’m going to proffer this compromise (because I want to go enjoy this weather): If a rep or senator lives in a town serviced by MBTA or within 10 miles of MBTA service, then they get a free MBTA pass as their per diem, as you suggested. If they live beyond that, they can get the current per diem. Given the breadth of MBTA and the population stats I just cited (and the South Coast expansion!), that will cut the per diem line item by around 75%.
I’d argue that it should be within 1 mile of MBTA service (to remove any need for using a car to get to work), but so long as we’re horse trading something we have absolutely no control over, right on!
<
p>You’re also right to observe that most legislators do live relatively close to Beacon Hill… which is why I think there’s no reason to give them the $ but all the more reason to supplement those who live far away. After all, why give the far-away legislators one more reason to moan that Boston metro gets all the goodies!
<
p>The number of people accused of crimes won’t change by changing the number of counties. You’ll still need the same number of attorneys working for the state to prosecute. I don’t see how this change would make any substantial difference in cost
<
p>
<
p>I know my state rep and another state rep from my Town well enough to pick up on a conversation we had last time we met. My state senator doesn’t know my name. I like that my state reps can be more responsive because their districts are smaller. You’re really talking about short money here, in exchange for losing a much closer connection from Beacon Hill to the people.
<
p>
<
p>Yes. Separation of powers.
<
p>
<
p>I want my government to be dedicated and competent. They’re responsible for billions in revenue and assets. Cutting out some staffers and expecting the legislators themselves to be capable of a wide range of specific and particular skills seems pretty J.V. to me.
<
p>
<
p>I like this question. Same goes for cities and towns. Methinks there’s real opportunity for savings here, as well as to “do the right thing” with respect to climate change. Besides, gov’t vehicles are the most notorious for parking illegally in ways that are particularly obnoxious.
the separation of powers point. State police don’t have jurisdiction on Beacon Hill?
But the Capitol Police one seemed too cursory. How does having this really enhance “separation of powers”? Seems to me, this is a patronage dumping ground that serves little real purpose. Hire some security guards (at security guard wages)… they don’t need a full-fledged police force.
<
p>Same goes in Washington. If Pelosi had sent the Capitol Police to arrest Rove and Miers for contempt of congress, then I would have thought they serve a “separation of powers” purpose. But they didn’t, so they don’t.
the state police answer to the governor. By maintaining a capitol police, it keeps the legislative branch insulated from the executive branch’s power.
<
p>I wonder if the drama over Texas redistricting a few years ago could shed some light…
and doesn’t really mean jack in real practice. Unless you think that having a place to park the people who can’t even hack it as legislative aids helps maintain the dignity of the legislature.
and this is an open question, not a debate technique or a snide remark
<
p>That’s not uniform. I am on my Democratic Town Committee, and my state rep couldn’t pick me out of a police lineup. That’s because the district covers parts of other towns, and my town’s piece is an insignificant part of his district.
<
p>In other words, I have no state rep. I suppose I could make myself more visible to him, but — well, I’m already on the DTC, what should I do?
<
p>Your point is taken, but I still say there are too many of them. It is far too easy to go there and do nothing, or even do something but lose every battle and be ineffective and pay no price.
<
p>
<
p>My situation is similar; the state rep who’s district covers most of my town (but not all) knows me better than the state rep who’s district covers my home, but is based in another community.
<
p>The better answer here is better redistricting. I don’t mean to imply that it’s an easy answer, but really, towns ought to have the fewest number of state reps representing them as possible instead of getting sliced and diced like yours and mine seem to have been handled.
<
p>As for the last bit… primary. Democrats have got to do a better job of primary-ing reps who aren’t doing a good enough job.
If there are more state reps, their representation can be more tailored.
<
p>It actually helps out Republicans too. If there were just 10 state reps, what are the odds that they would all be Democrats? Look at our Capitol Hill delegation for a clue. Yet there are some distinct Republican pockets across the state.
<
p>State representatives are supposed to represent. More of them translates to more nuances that can be represented.
<
p>We currently only really have 5 county government systems, as Middlesex, Essex, Worcester abolished theirs a bunch of years back under Weld. For some reason we still county government in Norfolk, Plymouth etc… That is definately a place we should be looking for savings. OR we should be looking at giving them MORE responsibilities (regionalized 911 services, regional HR, regional DPW, etc). In terms of the DAs, they already handle literally hundreds of thousands of cases a year. You’re really not going to make the situation better by doubling case loads.
<
p>
Mass. had more than 200 until the mid-70s when they were downsized. By comparison, NH has more than 400 state reps. Eliminating state reps would save a very small amount of money and make your individual voice even smaller.
<
p>
Probably not. Although I think the Capital Police make less than a state police officer or a Boston cop.
<
p>
Yes, every legislator ABSOLUTELY needs a staff person. And summer interns havent been paid in several years, by the way. You could make an argument that all non-chairman reps should be allowed only one staffer. But we’re talking about $33K in salary here (Carol Aloisi’s salary is by far the exception to the rule). Senate gets more because they’re dealing with 4 times the district size, which means four times the phone calls, the letters, the selectmen, etc. And each senator is also Chairman of a committee. Could a couple of poiositions be cut? Yea, probably. But again, the average staffer makes well below the state medium income.
<
p>
Mitt Romney thought so.
<
p>
State offices generall aren’t located in Finance district highrises. Most are actually located in state-owned buildings. Perhaps some money could be saved by moving the offices out to Arlington or Dracut, but I don’t know how smart it would really be
<
p>
This is certainly something worth looking at. Although Im not sure how it would effect the state if state workers started claiming deductions off their taxes for using private vehicles for work.
<
p>
Make $200 a year, I believe.
Actually make $100 a year.
Personally, I think MA is a better place to live.
<
p>QED.
It was more of a personal shot at my state rep 🙂
Revenue is down? Cut the budget.
<
p>- What would substantive cuts be?
How about we move the state capitol to Springfield, where rents and costs are generally cheaper? It is currently in the highest-priced city in the state. Seems like we could save the state some money there, right?
<
p>How about moving the state government offices to western MA too? Again, the cost of living here is a lot lower.
That would surely give the commuter rail proposals out here
a jump start. It would definitely reduce traffic in Boston.
Wow, what an amusing thing to think about. Can you imagine?!
Perhaps a “resort-style casino” under Bulfinch’s dome?
Do we need 160 state reps?
<
p>Yes, yes, yes, yes, YES.
<
p>We need more than that, frankly. Given my druthers, I’d double or triple this number at the least. The ’70s downsizing that southshorepragmatist mentioned, where we shrank the House from 240 to 160 in 1978, was a huge mistake.
<
p>Consider:
The first US Census was conducted in 1790, and showed there were 3,929,326 people in the United States. The first Congress to use these results was the 3rd Congress, which was elected in 1792 and took office in 1793. There were 105 Representatives in the 3rd Congress.
<
p>That’s one US Representative for every 37,422 people.
<
p>Today, there are an estimated 6,497,967 people in Massachusetts, and 160 State Representatives. That’s one State Representative for every 40,612 people.
<
p>It is my opinion that one of the reasons people feel so out of touch with government is, well, because they are out of touch. How many average citizens have had real conversations with their state rep, let alone their state senator (whom they share with 5 times as many people) or the governor? (Not a lot you can do about the governor; I’m not suggesting multiple governors or breaking up the state.)
<
p>Downsizing the legislature is a feel-good move that’ll save a few bucks. But not all that many bucks. Consider that a back-bencher makes $65K or so, and has a staffer, maybe two. Plus stipend, etc… I admit to not having much of an idea of these things, but I’d be shocked if the whole kit ‘n’ caboodle cost more than $150K/year.
<
p>So suppose we shrank the house by 60 members. Congratulations, you just saved the state $9 million a year. That’s $1.39 back in your pocket. Was it worth it?
state senator (whom they share with
54 times as many people)Double the number: 320 reps, one for every 18,711 people per your figures. Do you actually believe the rep will know 18,711 people?
<
p>The state budget is something on the order of $25 or $26 billion. Again using your math, if we add another 160 reps, we’ve added roughly $15 million, a drop in the bucket.
<
p>So, then, how do we make the budget? Raise taxes, or cut, and in either case, where?
<
p>But at least we’re talking about it. And no one’s mentioned casinos yet.
<
p>
The policy justifications behind exempting booze, candy, and soda.
Booze – Beer, wine, and distilled spirits are all already subject to excise taxes imposed at the wholesale level rather than the retail level. The economic impact of these excise taxes is very similar to rendering a sales tax at the retail level. Rendering both a wholesale tax and a retail tax is more complicated and hides the true amount of the tax.
Candy and soda – Exempting food and beverages from the sales tax creates many difficult line drawing problems. It’s easy to say we want to tax candy, but what about semi-sweet chocolate morsels, marshmellows intended for cooking,other marshmellows, chocolate covered cherries or nuts, sweetened cough drops, etc. The same is true for beverages. It’s very difficult for the state to monitor each new type of beverage and make a separate determination as to whether it shoild be taxable.
<
p>And to answer your concerns about teliability, the sales tax is considerably more reliable than the other main sources of revenue. A three month national moving average updated through 3/09 showed a decline in personal income tax revenues of 13.2%, a decline in corporate income tax revenues of 12.1%, and a decline in sales tax revenues of 8.3%. Significant declines for all three, but the data shows that sales taxes are least affected by the current economic conditions. If the MA legislature is looking for the most stable and reliable tax to raise in this current environment then it’s clearly the sales tax. This is especially true when you consider that NOLs and capital losses incurred in 2008 will carry forward and continue to decrease personal income tax revenues and corporate income tax revenues while there can be no similar affect on sales tax revenues.
Increasing the (existing) sales tax is certainly not “the most regressive possible approach” — that would be broadening the tax to cover food and clothing. This has been proposed, and we should be worrying about it.
<
p>Massachusetts has nominally flat taxes that are rendered somewhat progressive by exemptions and deductions. Legislators don’t care much about this, however. In the last fiscal crisis, they slashed the standard deduction on the income tax, and I don’t recall any outcry at all — whereas (as they well knew) any increase in the rates always draws fierce opposition.
You would give people in my part of the state even more reason to go to NH. As long as food/clothing continue to be exempt it should be more-or-less progressive, assuming the more you have the more you’ll spend. It also answers the libertarian argument about obligation. In other words, if you don’t want to pay as much in taxes just simply don’t spend so much. If we were to replace the income tax entirely with sales, we wouldn’t have to fill out those forms every April, which are a pain in the neck even for those of us that end up with refunds.
of all the proposed tax increases, as long as it is at 6%, a 1% increase, and it does not apply to food and clothing. It would increase a middle class grocery bill by about 15 cents per week. It would increase the purchase of a $500. television by $5., a $1500. computer by $15. Since those are rare purchases, it could be handled. Someone above middle class, who might purchase a $1500 television, and replace their computer every year because they can, would pay more. I would rather see a 6% sales tax than a gas tax.
an income tax hike on people who lost their jobs doesn’t hurt them.
<
p>someone who has lost their job, or taken furloughs, or was forced to take something less than their qualifications in this economy still has to pay the sales tax.
<
p>a small income tax hike would generate more revenue than a 2 cent sales tax, while not giving a disincentive for people to shop.
<
p>So, the way I see it, this is a tax that offers a small disincentive for people to spend their money when we need them to and it hurts people who have lost their jobs.
<
p>Why not a .1 or .2% hike to the state income tax? It would probably generate more revenue, while being fairer and still modest for all parties involved.
You are making the exact same argument against the sales tax that you made for the meals tax. Makes no sense.
two distinctions: 1) meals tax is a local option. Don’t want the meals tax? Go to town meeting and make that case. Town meeting will usually listen and resist changes to status quo. 2) restaurants is discretionary spending. While we shouldn’t put huge taxes on it, a local options 2% tax is different for discretionary spending than it is for buying clothes, or a fridge or an oven. On the same token, I’m not against Governor Patrick’s call to add a small tax on candy or liquor. People don’t need those things, so a small sales tax on them wouldn’t necessarily be bad policy.
For you and me, the restaurant may be discretionary. We know how to cook. We have time to do so or live with someone who does.
<
p>Sadly, this is not true of everyone.
<
p>Were this not the case, I’d totally agree with the distinction you are making.
<
p>Jim Caralis has, on another thread, pointed out that restaurants as businesses are pretty shaky these days.
but I think towns and cities should have the right to decide. state government shouldn’t take away all these reasonable decisions from cities and towns at the very same time they put on hundreds of millions of un(der)funded mandates. big brotha has got to take a step away and let the little guys make a few decisions.
but I do know this: with the exception of those living in motels, everybody has a kitchen. It’s legally required for all but boarding houses and hotel/motels. If you’re living in an illegal apartment, well, don’t. It’s not safe anyway.
<
p>There are lots of things you can buy at the grocery store which only require some combination of freezer, refrigerator, and microwave oven. There’s plenty which doesn’t even require that.
<
p>Restaurant consumption is discretionary. It may be more convenient, it may even at times be cheaper than a good healthy meal.
<
p>But for every person you find me who lives in a situation that doesn’t include a kitchen, I can find you 1,000 who do have a kitchen. Not going forward on good public policy because of 0.1% of the population is, well, not good public policy.
You are overlooking a lot of older and disabled folks on fixed incomes that order out and have their food delivered. Make a simple breakfast and sandwich for lunch and then they would like something cooked for dinner – but it is difficult for them to cook food. Getting a hot sub or small pizza delivered to your house only cost 5-7 dollars. I’m not talking restaurants but mom and pop pizza and sub stores.
<
p>I knew a delivery driver – would deliver food daily to an older blind person and on Tuesdays take out the garbage for them. There are a lot of folks for which cooking is difficult.
<
p>If you want to qualify the meals tax as discretionary then so is the sales tax. No tax on essentials (food, clothes). No tax on services. Ok you have to pay tax on furniture etc, but just buy them on our beloved tax holiday or on craigslist or at a flea market or go the NH – voila completely discretionary.
<
p>
<
p>How many are there for which (a) cooking is difficult (b) for reasons beyond their control, which (c) don’t have other alternatives to get nutritious food?
<
p>My contention is that the number is so low that while we should certainly acknowledge the reality, we shouldn’t hold the proposal hostage because of it.
I know people that fall into this category and I’m guessing I’m not unique in that regard, but at the end of the day I don’t know. My comment to you was simply that having a stove and being able to use it are different things. You didn’t seem to take that into consideration.
<
p>My broader point is that if you are going to call the meals tax discretionary than it’s not much of a leap to call the sales tax discretionary as well. That’s what my original comment was directed at.
<
p>There are several folks on this thread that fully supported hiking the meals tax (Ryan, David and maybe you?) and seem up in arms about the exact same raise in the sales tax. They called it only 2 cents and now it’s 40%. I don’t understand the huge swing in opinion.
It seems as though you’re suggesting that a meals tax is about as discretionary as a sales tax. I think you must have a different understanding of “discretionary” from me. To me, “discretionary” means “something I can choose not to do.”
<
p>If there is sales tax on a gallon of milk for my kids, my choice is to not buy them milk or to pay the tax. That doesn’t sound discretionary to me. The entire point of a sales tax is that it is broad-based.
<
p>A meals tax, on the other hand, is generally paid for restaurant meals. I grant you that there is a population at the fringes, and I think stomv has attempted to accommodate that suggestion.
<
p>We are comparing a sales tax increase to a meals tax increase. I am quite confident that overwhelming majority of the added revenue generated by the meals tax increase will be from discretionary meals out, in stark contrast to the impact of the sales tax increase. If you’d prefer to look at the impact per taxpayer, I think the numbers will be about the same. Yes, there will be some folks out on the tail of the distribution for whom the increased meal tax is not discretionary. So address that.
<
p>But let’s please not lose track of the fundamental distinction between the two — because that fundamental distinction is far more significant than the things we’re quibbling about here.
First, there is NO sales tax on milk. This is the second time in this thread (Ryan suggested there is a tax on clothing) a reference was made to an item for which there is no sales tax. Let’s do some basic research here. There is no sales tax on what are deemed as necessities. As a point of order – there can be a sales tax on clothing, but only expensive clothing.
<
p>My point is that framing the meals tax as only a 2 cent increase and as discretionary while framing the sales tax increase as 40% increase and non discretionary is a false dichotomy – neither tax in my mind is completely discretionary and will hurt low income folks. But yet the same set of points have been used to prop up one tax and shout down another. It makes no sense to me.
I’m not sure how I feel about the discretionary-ness of sales tax. It seems to me to be wholly discretionary, but this is coming from someone who buys virtually nothing. The last 8 things I’ve purchased include:
* socks (no tax)
* underwear (no tax)
* used CDs (taxed, but since the CDs were $2-$4 each, not very much tax indeed)
* bagel and cream cheese (taxed restaurant)
* groceries (no tax except on the T.P.)
* tune up for bicycle (no tax on service)
* MBTA Charlie Card top-up (no tax per se)
* Assorted pints of beer (taxed restaurant, maybe also excise tax on beer?)
<
p>And this is March and April’s purchases.
<
p>Point is, I have no idea what the heck people are always buying, so I don’t have any feel for how much of it is discretionary. It seems like most is discretionary from my perspective, but I’ve got a skewed purchasing pattern to be sure.
<
p>
<
p>However, there are two different issues with the assorted sales tax:
1. Discretionary
2. Regressiveness
My beef with increasing the general sales tax is not discretion, but regression. The fact is that, as a percentage of income, those who earn less pay a higher percentage of their earnings on the sales tax. I don’t know if it’s discretionary or not, but I do know it’s regressive.
<
p>What I don’t know is: what percentage of income is spent in restaurants as a function of income? Do big earners spend a bigger percentage of their paycheck in restaurants, or small earners? It strikes me that this is the relevant question for myself, Rye, and others. Is the restaurant tax regressive, and if it is, should we be supporting it since we feel that the straight sales tax is regressive and therefore not our first (or second!) choice as a revenue raiser.
Ok, fine, Jim, you win. Like stomv, I don’t pay any attention to what items I do and do not pay sales tax on. You certainly nailed me on that one, congratulations on a job well-done.
<
p>I am fortunately affluent enough that the extra 5% doesn’t impact my choices, and an increase — even a doubling — wouldn’t make a difference either.
<
p>You’ve demonstrated that you know far more than I about the specifics of what is and isn’t taxed, and it has led you to assert that an increase in the meals tax would be more regressive than an increase in the sales tax.
<
p>You’re absolutely right that we mustn’t tax people who eat out in restaurants, because that is surely an absolute necessity.
Can’t have a conversation if you are going to be snippy because I pointed out milk doesn’t get taxed.
we seem to be arguing about the leaves on the tree instead of the forest.
<
p>I chose milk, Ryan chose clothing, because those are obvious necessities. We each chose incorrectly. You observed, and I have already stipulated, that the legislature in its wisdom has already excluded those obvious necessities. Good on them — that does not mean that the sales tax is not regressive.
<
p>You accurately observed that neither is subject to the sales tax. Your exact title was “Try a relevant example, please”. Some might characterize both sides of the exchange as “snippy”. In my view, cherry-picking examples, on either side of the argument, doesn’t help inform the discussion. I apologize for losing patience with you.
<
p>As nearly as I can tell, you seem to be disagreeing with the assertion that the sales tax is more regressive than the meal tax. Presumably we agree that regressive taxes are to be avoided if less regressive alternatives exist.
<
p>The fact that some elderly residents will be hurt by an increase in the meals tax, or that neither milk nor clothing prices will be affected by an increase in the sales tax, does not mean that the meals tax is more regressive than the sales tax. If anything, it highlights the difficulties and determining what things are “necessities” what things are not.
<
p>It seems to me that the point — which I made yesterday — is to compare the percentage of tax revenue collected, as a percentage of personal income, for these two tax revenue sources across the various demographic groups.
<
p>If you agree, then perhaps someone might be able to actually do the comparison — I don’t know where the information sources are, and I think the result would be informative.
New Hampshire, of course. RI will have a end to shoppers running to Massachusetts to save 2%. Not so much for Connecticut and Vermont at 6%. New York is all over with state and county sales tax, but that’s about 12%, so Massachusetts still wins there.
<
p>All taxes are forever.
We should all send David’s post to our legislators.
I think the sales tax should be “off the table”, and I think the state should impose a surtax on the income tax. My preference would be to make this a local option, voted by each city or town, and with the proceeds received by that city or town.
<
p>The only way I can see supporting a sales tax increase is if there is a corresponding payment (not tax credit, but a plain old tax credit) of some fixed amount distributed to every resident — that’s the only way I see to mitigate the disproportionately regressive impact of any broad-based sales tax.
what have you accomplished by having a sales tax increase?
I intended to write “not tax credit, but a plain old check” in my parenthetical comment.
<
p>If a sales tax increase is enacted, then I argue that a tax payment should be made to every resident to mitigate its regressive impact.
<
p>It will be a life-saver to those on the bottom, and the well-to-do won’t notice it (perhaps they might even use it for philanthropic purposes).
How is a surtax on the income tax going to do anything but “make the rich towns richer”? Those communities already have higher per-capita revenue than poor communities, and they have less problems to deal with because affluent people generally don’t go around robbing banks, assaulting people, or all the other social ills that accompany poverty.
<
p>If such a proposal took effect communities would work even harder than they already do to open themselves only to the richest in the state — and will work even harder to exclude “low income” people. Remember how the discussion goes — housing that costs less than $500,000 per unit is considered a “money loser” for a community. This is a main reason that housing is so expensive in this state — there is every incentive to make it so.
<
p>I assert that in order to fix our current revenue model, which is in my opinion broken because it divides the states into “givers” and “takers” — that any local options should be weighted the other way. A local sales tax option would do little to benefit an affluent community like Dover, but would help communities with low property values like Springfield and Holyoke because commerce is still largely concentrated in cities. I also think that the local option should be mandatory for all communities (the way Proposition 2.5 is), which would prevent the cannibalizing of businesses between communities over a 1% difference in sales tax.
We really need a movement for a progressive tax/government reform package. The sad thing is that there isn’t one.
<
p>The sales tax is regressive as KBusch above and MassBudget have demonstrated, but it seems like that’s what we’ll get, if we get anything.
<
p>This will further alienate the average working person from those of us who believe the public sector can and must do more and better things.
<
p>The organizations that advocate for people on the middle to bottom of the totem pole are missing in action. The human service community and labor are so hurt by declining state revenues that they will fight for any tax, no matter what kind. And they wrongly don’t see government reform as their concern.
<
p>The result is that the average person feels pinched between government patronage and the unending need for human service spending. Meanwhile family income stagnates or declines.
Very good. Let’s start working now.
I’m reminded of something I read about healthcare proposals. Before the details, everyone is for it. After a specific proposal is made, the opposition hammers the details and any universal healthcare initiative becomes a harder fight.
<
p>Likewise the twin problems of revenue and reform. You can probably get everyone to line up behind the abstraction reform. You might even get a significant number of Democrats — and Bay State residents — to line up behind putting the state on a sounder financial footing.
<
p>As soon as the details come out, it’s trouble. Every reform takes something from someone. Every new source of revenue has a bad side effect.
<
p>And yes, this requires political muscle behind it. Whence cometh the political muscle?
<
p>I honestly doubt you will see it from the grassroots. Progressives couldn’t even knock out Finneran, and “everyone” hated Finneran, and it was an easy, simple message. Simpler than any revenue and reform message.
<
p>Unfortunately, I doubt we’ll see much more from the Governor. He really is the natural figure to rally around, but, so far, he’s only been very good when we need him to be lightning flash heroic.
<
p>Those are the only two possible forces I see with much umph.
I’m hoping I’m wrong!
and is afraid to compromise. Hence the details problem.
<
p>But there are sources of political muscle: labor, human service advocates, community and church based organizations (eg GBIO, etc.), housing groups, environmental groups, etc. Add the liberal wing of the Democratic party. These folks didn’t all agree on Finneran, and aren’t all progressive (for example significant sections of labor).
<
p>They need to:
1) form a real coalition
2) realize that small sacrifices now bring a better world later
3) make priorities (some will win and some will lose) for funding
4) make priorities for reform (again some will perceive some negative impact but it will be minor)
<
p>This could happen if there was progressive leadership in the AFL-CIO and among some of the larger unions. And if there was some kind of reconciliation between humans service advocates and unions.
<
p>But of course, the Red Sox, Celtics, Patriots and Bruins could all win their respective championships in the same year.
Amazing. The Mass legislature is the poster child for dysfunction. On the one hand, it exists in an essentially single party state which one would think would give them the cover to take the more difficult votes head on. Not these clowns. Self preservation at all costs. I guess having been lead by a series of criminals for the past 20+ years actually has diminished the ability of the institution to function properly. Who’d have thunk? I can certainly see why term limits are so unpopular around here. Where would we be without the experienced, courageous leadership of the Massachusetts legislature?
The cynical nature of this sales tax proposal nearly makes my head explode, but I wonder why it took so long to come up with something that would be almost universally panned.
<
p>Consider: Our legislators will be able to say that they did put a revenue proposition on the table but that the feedback from their constituents was overwhelmingly negative (totally ignoring the “but do this instead” ideas) and that the folks in Mass. are just not up for a tax increase.
<
p>What to do? I feel this is a done deal, but at least if you do not what to fall into the trap, the message to send should be “Pass this if it’s the only chance you have to increase revenues, but you should really look at [insert favorite proposal] instead.”
<
p>—
<
p>Over the course of the last few years, I’ve met a whole lot of ordinary people who really do not like to do phone banks or canvassing, but they do them anyway because they know it is necessary. In particular, I remember one woman who was almost trembling as I explained phone banking to her. As she signed up, she said, “The thought of calling a stranger terrifies me, but I’m even more afraid of what happens if I don’t do it.”
<
p>I wish I could transfer some of that will to our state legislators.