The Globe is reporting that Tom Reilly has pledged that he is "not going to raise taxes" if he becomes Governor. This is in contrast to Deval Patrick’s position, which is a "no needless taxes" pledge. [UPDATE: The two Democrats may not really be in disagreement on this, at least not yet – see the comments for a report from someone who was there.]
The problem with the "no new taxes" pledge is that it’s a big fat lie, at least as it’s usually understood, which is in terms of the state income tax. As Patrick has quite accurately pointed out, property taxes are perpetually on the rise – Prop. 2½ overrides have become routine as communities look for ways to pay for schools and other essential services in the face of static or declining aid from the state. It’s also worth noting that property tax can be more regressive than the income tax – it hits seniors who have been in the same house for many years particularly hard, because the value of their homes keeps rising even though their income often stays steady or even declines over time. So in my view, Patrick is quite right to bring property taxes into this discussion, as well as to try to shift the debate to what we want government to do, and away from a mindless focus on 5.3% versus 5%.
Do you think any candidate would take a real no new taxes pledge? That is, would any candidate agree not only to no income tax, sales tax, or other statewide tax increases, but also to push hard for legislation that would prohibit communities from overriding Prop. 2½? That’s the only kind of "no new taxes" pledge that would have any real likelihood of giving people more disposable income. I’m not saying I think it’d be such a great idea, but at least it would be honest.
I read this article and it is 100% misleading. It makes it sound like Reilly stood up on a podium and put his right hand up and said he’d never raise your taxes, to which Deval Patrick immediately responded that he was engaging in a cheap gimmick.Well, I was there. Reilly said “I’m not going to raise your taxes” in response to an audience question, as more of an offhand remark. Deval Patrick answered the same question later (which was literally “What about taxes?”) later in the afternoon and gave his “no needless taxes” schpiel. There was no interaction between these two men, and they were both, in my opinion, responding more to Romney than each other.The media is again trying to create controversy where none exists. And you wonder why I don’t trust them.
Very interesting – thanks for clarifying this, sco. You should send a letter to the editor and ombudsman at the Globe.