Reforms First
Before we consider any broad-based tax increase, we must first regain the public’s confidence in government’s ability to steward public funds wisely. That’s what Governor Patrick’s reform agenda is about, and we still have work to do:
o Transportation Reform – This bill is now in conference. Real transportation reform requires simplicity, accountability, regional equity and true cost savings. The Governor will not support new transportation revenues without real reforms, and we will be forced to rely on toll hikes and MBTA fair increases and service cuts to pay our bills.
o Pension Reform – This bill is also in conference. We must end the abuses and loopholes that justifiably outrage the general public and embarrass everyone in state government. A limited reform bill does not meet that test.
o Ethics Reform – The Senate has taken no action at all yet on the Governor’s ethics reform measures.
o Municipal Reforms – Several proposals to give cities and towns more tools to ease property taxes still await action, including the cost-saving GIC for municipal employees and elimination of the telecom exemption.
o Targeted Revenue Reforms – Proposals to end sales tax exemptions on alcohol, soda and candy to fund public health and wellness programs have not moved. The failure to take up these latter issues has caused us to have to make deeper cuts in local aid and other programs in the current fiscal year.
Need for Revenue
The need for new revenue is clear as we work to preserve essential state services amid an unprecedented nationwide recession.
Governor Patrick has put forward several specific measures and reforms to help generate new revenue. In particular, an increase in the gas tax would create jobs and support economic
growth. The Governor’s revenue package will grow jobs and help secure our long-term economic future, as well as dedicate revenue to important priorities like education, health care, education and local aid.
This DeLeo idea is a bad idea. We need real revenue for our transportation system and DeLeo’s plans are a gimmick at best. They don’t solve any of our transportation problems and would still force deep, deep cuts to service, as well as allow for our transportation infrastructure to continue to erode and become more expensive to fix.
but, I would change the title to replace “gov’t” with “gov’n’r”
that was a typo 😉
<
p>if only we had edit!
YES!
<
p>I’m very glad to see Governor Patrick doing this.
Just read the letter. Couldn’t agree more.
<
p>Glad to have Deval the Reformer back. I thought we’d lost you.
This is what we’ve been waiting for. The Legislature needs to start acting like adults — and Patrick is right to push back.
Another good press release. Is it a sign of strength or weakness that he responds to the Legislature in the press rather than the corridors of the State House? I agree with him 90% on this one — raising the sales tax is an astoundingly bad idea — but I hope his office is calling state reps, not just media reps.
this letter WAS sent to all of the members of the legislature this morning.
to his constituents, whose court the ball is in to push the Governor’s agenda on this.
They got a letter that they’d have heard about anyway! I don’t remember Sal or Billy B sending out reams of press releases, and they always seemed to get what they wanted.
Dimasi:
<
p>
<
p>Billy Bulger: Forced out of his rich patronage job as UMass President in one of Willard’s few constructive acts.
<
p>If DiMasi and Bulger had gotten less of what they wanted, we’d all be better off today.
I’m talking about getting things done, not ethical lapses — a subject on which you have an unassailable case on Buloger, and not much of one on Sal. I’m seeing the House examine good and bad ideas, and I’m seeing Deval whine and stamp his feet in the papers. Perhaps he could spend more time dealing with state legislators rather than running to the press.
<
p>For what it’s worth, what should have DiMasi gotten less of? True, his cardinal sin was not selling out to resort casinos, but everyone seemed to love him when he led the fight for marriage equality and health care equity…
In my view, Mr. DiMasi was an embarrassment and a crook, even though I agreed with his stances on marriage equality, health care equity, and casino gambling. I think Mr. DiMasi should have been perp-walked right alongside Ms. Wilkerson and Mr. Turner.
<
p>
<
p>I’d like him to have had less influence over the outcome of the scalping legislation, for one thing (not to mention less money in his pocket as a result of exercising his influence).
<
p>The dancing and deceit of Mr. DiMasi regarding the scalping legislation (and its outcome) is but a tiny example of the personal and venal corruption that surrounded his exercise of the office. His behavior epitomizes the cynical corruption that so dominates Massachusetts governance today.
He got the big things right and the little things wrong. That’s the best I’ve seen from a Speaker (or governor) in my lifetime.
And both funny.
Deval’s usual MO has been to put out a press release weeks or months in advance of actually filing anything or giving anyone any details.
<
p>This is a little different in that the legislature actually passed measures on pension and transportation reform, but they’re languishing in conference committee. The Governor is trying to push them along with a veto threat.
<
p>And frankly, it’s about time the Governor made a little noise. He has been unwilling to use the press aside from the typical big announcement with little follow-through you’ve identified. He derided Romney for trying to govern by press conference and sound-bite, but realistically, those are two of the only weapons that the Governor has in his arsenal.
The thing about a democracy is you govern in public. I’m sure he’s making his share of phone calls as well. These tactics are by no means mutually exclusive. If an executive isn’t getting his way with a legislature, by all means he should appeal directly to their constituents. In fact, given the whole re-engagement theme of his campaign continuing grassroots involvement into governance was precisely what I was expecting him to do.
What I liked about the governor’s proposals was the transparency, here’s the need and here’s how we’re going to pay for it. The sales tax increase is regressive and there’s no connection to what you’re getting for the extra revenue raised.
<
p>I also think its ridiculous to slash local aid to the levels being discussed and not provide communities with some relief by passing the Municipal Partnership Act proposals. If you’re going to throw cities and towns overboard at least toss us a life preserver for cryin out loud.
…unless they are balanced with transfer payments. Lost in this discussion is the fact that the Governor advocated an increase in the numerous taxes including the sales tax (on beverages and significantly less than DeLeo), hotel and meals taxes (remember a critical component was increasing each by 1 point and giving the local option for more).
<
p>In the end I am not so sure that the differences between what Speaker DeLeo wants and what the Governor proposed are all that different. The size of the tax increases are about the same and there is a big need for braod based tax increases to weather this storm.
<
p>The odd thing is the continued communication between state leaders through the Globe and press release. We should expect to be beyond that and while I appreciate the Governor’s support for reform effort, many of them will only be tip of the iceberg solutions (such as transportation).
<
p>I know that hundreds of people gathered at the state house today to support braod based taxes as an alternative to draconian budget cuts.
but the one on gasoline is better than an across-the-board tax. And consumption taxes can be made less regressive if they are offset with a tax credit for basic use of the particular item being consumed (not proposed).
<
p>And, beyond the revenue, the Governor approach addresses the cost side of the budget. He cuts some waste while directing other income to economic improvement projects.
I read this — http://www.bostonherald.com/ne… — expecting the usual Howie Carr b.s. But I found myself agreeing with the overwhelming majority of what he is saying here.
<
p>- Close underutilized courthouses, especially those close to others
– Move government offices out of privately-held real estate
– Use the gas tax, not tolls, to collect transportation dollars
– End special interest giveaways like the Quinn Bill
– Stop using the budget as an omnibus legislative vehicle
– Abolish per diems
– “Fire every state employee with more than one diminutive in his title” — like “Associate Deputy Director” — there may be some overbreadth here… but I give him style points
– Begin moving state and municipal workers over to Defined Contribution retirement benefits (with Social Security)
– Abolish quasi-public authorities
– Increase the healthcare premium share for public employees
<
p>I don’t think this is large enough in terms of dollars to solve the problem. But it’s a good start. I also think that each of these is pretty defensible on liberal policy terms as we face social services cuts and increased taxes. Or am I wrong?
People should seriously consider ideas no matter where they come from. Ideas are not good or bad based on the source.
I don’t know hoe much #2 is a real issue. Government offices take up space, obviously. The Government has space to fill (of widely varying quality) and I imagine the space needs and the space resources can’t always match up perfectly. As such, I can definately see private space as a solution to these problems. Arranging for the creation or remediation of Government owned space in order to get offices out of private space is a cost issue, and as such I could definitely see that it might make more cost and cash-flow sense, given a limited budget, to continue to rent rather than build.
<
p>I don’t listen to Howie. Does he charge specific examples. Does he provide enough context to demonstrate that alternative explanations couldn’t reasonably counter the charges?
<
p>It seems like a the kind of thing where you’d need all the details in order to decide what was a good particular choice vs. a bad particular choice. As such, it seems like prime pickings for someone who wanted find a molehill to make a mountain of.
isn’t renting space for government offices simply outsourcing the owning of real estate?
No doubt there is a need to find new revenue as DeLeo and Co. recognise but, as for their solution, it was always more a political stitch up then a comprehensive plan for getting the State back on track. Essentially, the Governor here is saying we must have “revenue and reform” not one or the other. We can’t take the expedient way out of the mess we are in. Seems about right to me.
<
p>And this whole notion that we can just slice a small piece of a higher sales tax for transportation and get around taking a vote on the gas tax is just obnoxious. Why is it that a regressive sales tax hike has become so much more politically saleable then anything else – when the people getting most stuffed by the downturn will be the very people most affected by the higher sales tax? Or why do House members think the sales tax an easier sell? Is it really?
<
p>I know tax votes are never easy so if I sound a bit dismissive of the many good folks in the General Court I apologize. But what I don’t get about legislators today is their unwarranted fear of the electorate, except of course when it comes to reforms to their own practices (see Clean Elections). They seem terrified to have an honest debate on fiscal policy which necessitates their herd-like mentality in supporting a sales tax as the supposedly easiest tax to raise – regardless of its economic or social merit.
<
p>Most of these folks haven’t had a real race since they first got in the chamber. Even after a tax hike, most of these folks ain’t gonna face a real race now. But that is just it, for legislators today the avoidance of having a challenger, let alone one with a beating heart, is the goal. They don’t want to do anything that will potentially give a prospective challenger a reason to run. Maybe that is unfair but I’m frustrated by at legislative indifference to real reform (and I recognise in other ways they have delivered, such as on health care).
<
p>The post-Dukakis, pre-Patrick Republican hegemony placed fiscal policy into a conservative “Taxachusetts” lock box. So we neglected our infrastructure and investment needs for far too long. Patrick has tried to answer that deficit. Sadly though, the legislature seems locked in that same box when the political mood and economic recession presents the best opportunity to pass comprehensive reforms they are likely to get. Good the Governor finally gets the chance to face down a legislature that has spent a lot of time styming his drive for reform.
The effect of a 19 cent gas tax:
<
p>
<
p>The effect of a 6.5% sales tax:
<
p>I’m sure there’s a distinction. It must be that a gas tax, a $600 million grab, is a mere coffee a week. However, a sales tax, a $750 million heist, is more like a coffee a week AND a donut.
Rightly or wrongly, taxes are widely viewed as punitive. (I blame Republicans for this, but the cause is not important here.) So a sales tax “punishes” you for living your life, buying stuff, etc etc etc. A gas tax, though, especially in light of the climate change concerns recently, “punishes” you specifically for driving and damaging the environment.
<
p>People are much more ok with the latter sentiment than the former, and Patrick is picking up on that and running with it.
<
p>Besides which, I would think that you, as a member of the “pro-business party” would be more in favor of a gas tax than a sales tax. After all, pushing prices higher will curtail economic activity, right? People will buy less of what they need.
<
p>But a gas tax will only affect people (a) at the pumps and (b) when they buy stuff that’s shipped long distances. Local goods are unaffected, and so therefore this is good for local business and the local economy…. Right?
<
p>Are you actually arguing for a sales tax and not a gas tax, or are you just laughing at the governor as always?