Gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick made a mis-step in Monday’s candidate forum by rejecting for the present the 2000 vote to roll back the state income tax to five percent. He has allowed Reilly to seize this issue.
Bad idea. First, candidates who promise to lower taxes generally beat those who refuse to make the same promises. Second, candidates who ignore popular preferences (the roll back was approved 56.4 percent to 38.6 percent in 2000) do so at their peril.
Patrick also fumbled the issue of local meals taxes, where according to the Globe he said he would support local increases. “[H]is rival for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, flatly ruled out any such increase,” the newspaper reported. The voice of experience.
You’re quite probably right Bob, that this may be a political mis-step by Patrick, but he gets my vote because he’s actually saying the right thing, not just what’s politically expedient. We can’t afford that tax break right now, we just can’t. I’m not a huge fan of the meals tax versus higher property taxes for cities and towns, but the truth is that they are also hurting.
<
p>
Perhaps because he’s been doing this longer than Patrick, but it seems to me that Reilly generally takes the better “political” position on most issues, and when he does something publically that may not be the most popular thing (supporting the in-state tuition bill for instance, which I was pleasantly surprised me) it’s a big publicity show and there’s not much work behind it.
Boy, I have to stop agreeing with you in every thread, it’s creepy. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
Seriously, there’s the politically expedient thing to do (which you KNOW Reilly will cop to) and then the right thing or the truthful thing to do. I mean, if Patrick doesn’t think it’s a good idea for the state, lying about it would make him a lesser man (like Reilly). I just hope he can “explain” it better than most Dems do when they try to swim upstream.
<
p>
BTW, that referendum was a few years ago now, I think people see the state fiscal situation differently now, or at least a good deal of those people may have shifted to understand that “tax cut does not always equal good for me.”
to see whether Patrick, who I also think is doing the “right” thing despite its possible political cost, is able to buck conventional wisdom that tax-cutters always beat the other guy. Reilly has yet to explain exactly what it is that he wants to do – or, really, why he wants to be Governor at all – in favor of listing things that he would not do. If we want someone in the corner office whose job is only to say no, might as well elect a Republican.
<
p>
Also, re the ballot question, don’t forget that the question to abolish the income tax all together came within a hair’s breadth of passing. Yet it would have been monumentally irresponsible to have gone along with that.
<
p>
Also, I think that the conventional wisdom only goes so far. Patrick’s only shot at winning this thing is to make waves – to take politically startling positions that (1) he believes in, and (2) he can make a case for with the public. If he just offers more of the same that Reilly is offering, why wouldn’t people just vote for Reilly, who is better known and better financed?
I’m not sure that it’s a mis-step as much as a policy preference. There are going to be people on both sides of that issue, though I imagine there are going to be more on Reilly’s side. That said, a mis-step is when you tell seniors that they should move because they’re taking up valuable real estate for younger families. THAT’S a mis-step.
<
p>
All that said, Patrick needs to rework his rhetoric on taxes. All that seems to be getting through is that he won’t promise not to raise them. If you actually listen, you find that what he’s talking about most is trying to figure out ways to reduce the property tax, and as such lower the overall tax burden. I’m not sure how he makes that clearer, but he better if he wants to be governor. My thinking is that, given a choice, most people — particularly the kinds of people who vote in droves — would rather have their property taxes go down than their income tax.
I wouldn’t call this a mis-step, but I think that Patrick needs to put the pressure on Reilly on his stance to frame this debate properly.
<
p>
Everyone is in favor of paying less taxes. It’s a no-brainer when asked that way. Patrick must rephrase the question from “do you want to see taxes rolled back” to “what services do you want rolled back in order to roll back the taxes”.
<
p>
Same goes for local taxes. It’s not “do you want to be taxed more”, it’s “do you want to be able to maintain services in your town or do you want to roll them back especially when the state’s revenues are down”.
Perhaps Deval did mis-step. Personally, I prefer the occasional (VERY occasional, I believe) mis-step to the perpetual quick-step of Tom “first tell me what you think and I’ll tell you what I think” Reilly. Haven’t we wasted enough time and lost enough elections? I think it’s time to stand up and speak up and fight alongside a candidate like Deval, who has passionately held beliefs and does not hesitate to articulate them!
Yes Ruth we have. And I’m worried about this one. On the one hand we’ve got Reilly with his political consultant driven campaign (and thus far not a very good PC driven campaign), on the other hand we’ve got Patrick who just doesn’t get it when it comes to taxes–so far the score board has him down in favor of 3 tax increases (for those lazy voters who will sadly decide the election and will get there information from the negative ads that will run…for people on this blog, I realize that is a simplistic statement). That’s why I liked Galvin…because he could have been just right. (Although I perceived his strength to be his political acumen, and if he was so politically smart, why ain’t he running?)
<
p>
I think Reilly and Patrick (to a lesser degree) are both wrong on the tax issue. With most state agencies still operating at pre 2001 spending levels, never mind the sky rocketing property taxes caused by local aid cuts, Reilly is being irresponsible and is pandering by advocating a tax cut. But Patrick hasn’t yet spelled out how he is going to pay for the foundation of his platform–an education program that includes universal all day kindergarten and a longer school year–and he’s already boxed himself in as someone who believes the best policy solutions are tax increases. A nonstarter.
<
p>
The only hope we have, and fortunately it is a very realistic hope, is that Kerry Healy will show the voters how mean and inexperienced she is.
<
p>
The winner of the November election will be the candidate the electorate doesn’t hate the most…which is unfortunately how most elections are decided.
<
p>
Of course we may have…err, probably will have the wild card in Christy Mihos. Politics, ya gotta luv it.
Patrick has been very consistent with his message on raising taxes. Not only is it death in this state now to say the “T” word , but it one of the primary reasons Republicans have repeated in the governors office so many times.
<
p>
Patrick simply wants to reach out to the liberal base in an chance to secure the party nomination but will have to move to the center at some point. Obviously, he has put his his foot in his mouth which will be hard to extricate when the real meaningful voters go to the polls. Healey or Reilly will nail him.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree that this move will hurt Patrick.
<
p>
1. By opting to support a tax cut instead of boosting local aid to relieve property taxes, Reilly has alienated supporters both at the State House and in the city halls. There’s a reason his reception at the MMA conference was so chilly. The opinion leaders want someone smart who is going to help them. This move could push some of the undecided “insiders” into Patrick’s camp and – as much as some Patrick fans and goo-goo Dems hate this – insiders can be helpful in generating press coverage, contributions, volunteers, and even credibility in certain places.
<
p>
2. Reilly is running his general election campaign now. Healey is his target, not Patrick. Only three kinds of people bring up the income tax issue on a campaign: your opponent, the press, and the pro-tax-cut interest groups. I’ve worked state and local campaigns in Mass, and once you get on the ground the people don’t give a hoot about a three-tenths of one percent tax cut that’ll save them about a hundred bucks, when their property taxes have gone up three hundred percent in one year. If Reilly isn’t going to target Patrick, then the issue isn’t even going to come up unless (a) Patrick voluntarily brings it up (bad idea) or (b) the press keep asking him about it (likely). If Reilly won’t confront Patrick as a true challenger, then Patrick can campaign on his own terms and his own issues. Go for it.
<
p>
3. If Reilly turns his guns on Patrick and attacks him for not supporting the tax cut, I’m not so sure it’ll work in a Democratic primary. Healey could do it in the general and then it might cause some damage. Besides, if Reilly tries it, Patrick could always go with a rejoinder along the lines of “Well, Tom, if you don’t like the income tax, why don’t you call up one of your buddies over at DOR and see if they can interfere in the mailing of those tax bills? That seems to be your usual method of operation.” …or not.
I don’t see much honesty in Tom Reilly’s and Mit Romney’s devotion to a no new tax pledge, and cannot see a problem with Patrick’s refusal to buy into what he sees as a “gimmick.” For those of us with short memories, I would call to mind the words, “Read my lips.” Three words that lost Bush senior an election. Perhaps Patrick should be a good guy and remind his opponents.
<
p>
Frankly, I find it refreshing that there is a candidate who has no intention of raising taxes, but who also refuses to mislead the voters as a matter of political calculation – even if it might be on target.
<
p>
Mit won’t raise taxes; he just leaves it to the cities he has virtually empoverished by cutting local aid. Now, like magic, he will devote two hundred million dollars to health care, raise local aid to record levels, assist cities willing to build housing, and spend vast sums on education. And no tax increase. uh huh.
<
p>
Reilly, on the other hand, seems to have fomulated his position after sticking his thumb to the political wind and calculating its direction. He might not raise taxes. With the agenda he has set forth so far – none at all – he could probably cut them.
<
p>
Maybe I am naive, but I see Mr. Patrick’s stand as principled, honest, and, therefore, a political plus.
“I find it refreshing that there is a candidate who has no intention of raising taxes”
<
p>
So far Patrick has called for an increase in the tobacco tax and a tax on employeers with 10 or more employees and does not provide health insurance. He is also wants to give local communities the option of imposing meals and other local taxes.
ThatĂ¢Â€Â™s the best you can do?
<
p>
Allowing cities to raise their own taxes is not the governor raising taxes. And the tobacco tax? You got me, I suppose. But it really is disingenuous to say that he wants to tax businesses with more than 10 employees and who donĂ¢Â€Â™t provide health insurance. What he wants is to fix a badly broken health system and to make certain that everyone has coverage. We are paying for that now in spades. Every time an uninsured person goes to an emergency room for treatment we are paying a premium for treatment of an acute illness when we could have paid far less had that person coverage to go to a doctorĂ¢Â€Â™s office when the condition was less so.
<
p>
At least Deval is up front about it. Mit promised no taxes and, by your reasoning, raised property taxes through the roof. Who knows what Reilly will do,but at least Deval has the guts to tell us up front.
I don’t disagree on the substance on Patrick’s positions and reasoning and I will be voting for him over Reilly. But he has proposed an increase in the tabacco tax to help fund his health care program. I too agree with the employeer tax, but you can explain the reasoning all you want…and it will be lost to the casual voters who get most of their info from 30 second TV spots…and protest all you want…they decide the close elections.
<
p>
Is that the best I could do…ya, you spent your entire post EXPLAINING Patrick’s positions and the drive-by voters won’t be listening to the explainations…they’ll just know that noone is denying the tax proposals, but rather defending them. And when it comes to politics, that is DEATH.
<
p>
Hey, I’m not the who claimed Patrick was NOT advocating taxes…you did. And when I pointed out three of them…you did not deny the fact…you defended the proposals.
ummmm, I did deny that the local tax was his putting in a tax increase, although you are probably right that the voters won’t get the nuance. I also said that finding a way to fund more universal health care was a way to decrease net health costs to the state. Here again, I am not sure I disagree with you about voter appreciation of that fact. The tobacco tax – again, I yield!But I don’t think anyone other than smokers will care much about that. I am a smoker, and I confess I feel a bit picked on.
<
p>
I am not convinced that any of this will make a difference in the general election. I don’t think that it is “death” as you put it. But I suppose we will see.