The Herald’s Dave Wedge, who seems to have a limitless ability to dig interesting items out of years-old records, has found that in 2000 Chris Gabrieli donated $15,100 to a political action committee that fought against the ballot question to roll the income tax back to 5.0%. Wedge describes Gabrieli as “following in the flip-flop footsteps of Attorney General Tom Reilly on tax cuts.”
But it strikes me as a bit unfair to try to paint Gabrieli as a “flip-flopper” on this issue. It doesn’t seem to me inconsistent to say that you’re against a particular ballot question, and to support a group trying to defeat it, but then also to say that since the ballot question actually passed, we should respect the “will of the voters.”
Wedge says that “Gabrieli’s apparent turnabout is similar to that of Reilly, who as late as April 2005 was quoted as saying he was ‘opposed to the income tax rollback to a flat 5 percent.'” But again, the two “turnabouts” really are not comparable. When Reilly made his statement in 2005, the voters had already said they wanted the rollback, and Reilly opposed it; now, for whatever reason, he supports it. Gabrieli, on the other hand, was involved in trying to persuade voters to oppose the rollback; he failed; so now he’s willing to along with them. Looks pretty different to me.
None of this really addresses whether Gabrieli, or Reilly, or Patrick for that matter, is “right” about the tax cut question – that’s a separate issue. But the “flip-flopper” label, in addition to being just so 2004, seems inappropriate for Gabrieli in this case.
And I still think Gabrieli has the most responsible, and appealing, position on this issue. The way the initial Patrick-Reilly contest shaped up left his own position perfectly suited to speak to the reasonable middle.
<
p>
There doesn’t seem to me any good reason why Patrick can’t say a rollback will be pursued, as long as local aid and other investments can be taken care of. Reilly made the good point in yesterday’s debate that Patrick’s proposed waste-cutting should allow him to consider the rollback. I believe Patrick has to hew to a strictly no-rollback rhetoric in order to keep his progressive base happy. I suspect, without evidence, that Patrick is at heart an economic centrist who decided early on to run to the left in order to energize local party activists (and boy did it work), but that this position is one of the ways he will pay dearly for that strategy after the convention. No amount of frame-shifting between now and September will convince the majority to embrace the most pro-tax candidate. I don’t think people will buy the idea that they must pay either the higher income tax or higher property taxes. The part that will be heard is “you must pay.”
<
p>
Reilly’s calculation is more transparent. He realized he would be the center-right Democrat and so decided to tap into the anti-tax sentiments of the majority. The risk is that Patrick’s point about his flip-flop will fly and he’ll come off as an opportunist.
and Chris would do well for himself to make this logical thinking well known.
I think an interesting question to ask would be – If there was no voter mandated tax rollback, would you agree with a rollback?
<
p>
If Gabrielli answers yes than it would be a flip-flop.
<
p>
Sounds like a question Deval Patrick may want to ask.