This is what the gubanatorial candidates should be answering, but I’ll give it a go.
<
p>
1. Increase Environment from 1% to 2%. The extra money would be spent: * Improving human-powered options for local commuters: bike paths, better sidewalks and curb cuts, etc. * Improving our parks, which are really being ignored and have a number of safety and access issues. * Pouring money into renewable energy. Incidentally, this will reduce (a sliver) of the expenses on health care by reducing exposure to cancer causing pollutants, mercury, and asthma & emphysema.
<
p>
2. Increase transportation by one per cent, dumping all of it into the T. I want, with the help of Federal Funds (and not all immediately): * A North/South rail connector, so that folks north of the city can get to South Station by commuter rail and southerners can get to North Station by commuter rail. This will reduce congestion on the subway downtown and make the commuter rail more attractive to riders. * Trench Boyleston to make the Green Line 4 lanes from Copley (well, actually Hynes/ICA) to Park. This part of the rail is the bottleneck in the entire system, and would allow a much faster commute for B, C, D, and E riders heading to Park because cars could be expressed once underground. It would also make disabled cars easier to route around. * Tunnel a 2 lane addition from Kenmore to Hynes. While Hynes to Park runs right under Boyleston, Kenmore to Hynes runs at an angle to the roads and would likely require tunnels. Still, it’s essential to getting B, C, and D traffic quicker. Currently, the T can’t run cars more frequently on the B, C, or D because they bottleneck at Kenmore since its only one line in each direction. * Additional T expansions, as detailed deep on the MBTA site, including expanding commuter rail and lengthening the Green Line Northward.
<
p>
3. Shave a half percent from Local Aid, Debt Service, Health Care, and Public Safety.
<
p>
My 2% has to come from somewhere. Additional MBTA work may result in less demand on the roadways (debt services), and less health care costs (long term and fewer traffic accidents), so there’s 1%. The other 1%? Well, it’s got to come from somewhere. Hopefully, expanding public transit will result in a bigger pie due to increased higher paying jobs, but that’s magic hand waving.
drgonzosays
I feel like many folks who read BMG have seen this, but I’m sure many more have not.
<
p>
This is pretty emblematic of all states, by the way. The two biggest areas of spending are healthcare and education. Surprised? Of course not.
<
p>
I’m actually surprised that we’re so good with human services, many states have trouble providing should-be basics like mental healthcare.
<
p>
The debt service on transportation is mostly the Big Dig (no surprise there.) The amount we spend on transportation is surprisingly low — but that tends to be more project-driven.
<
p>
The question is, if our next governor cuts .3 percent of the income tax, what gets cut from that pie??
<
p>
Better question: for everyone who wants more police on the streets, smaller class sizes and improved roads, how are they going to pay for it??
<
p>
There are no free lunches.
dolphsays
Most of the health care spending is for MassHealth, and the MassHealth spending is reimbursed around 52% from the federal government. So the net cost is about half of what the chart shows.
drgonzosays
would be the share of revenue the state gets. state taxes don’t cover more than a half, as I recall. user fees and federal aid make up the bulk.
jeff-mclynchsays
Well, given whatâs been happening on this site of late, I suppose I should get the disclosure thing out of the way first â the graph that is at the start of this thread comes from a short publication, Taxes in Massachusetts: How They Are Used, How They Compare to Other States, that my organization, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center put out last month.
<
p>
It is obviously quite important to consider how the funds appropriated through the state budget process are allocated among various program areas and whether that particular allocation could be improved to meet public needs (i.e. how the budgetary âpieâ is sliced). It is just as critical, though, to think about the overall size of the âpieâ and how that has changed over time, since itâs the size of the pie that often determines whether and to what extent tradeoffs must be made, say, between adequately funding environmental and transportation programs and providing necessary resources to local communities (to use a prior post as an example).
<
p>
Simply put, the pie has shrunk substantially in Massachusetts in recent years, due largely to the fact that more than forty tax cuts were put in place over the course of the 1990s. These two graphs help to illustrate this point. The first shows the change in state taxes in Massachusetts relative to personal income, a commonly used proxy for the size of a stateâs economy, from FY 1980 to FY 2007. (The data for FY 2006 and FY 2007 are projected). It shows that for FY 2005 (the most recent for which actual data are available) state taxes in Massachusetts amounted to 6.2 percent of personal income, about 0.5 percentage points below the average for the 1990s. Half a percentage point may not sound like a lot, but, when you consider personal income in MA was $277 billion in FY 2005, it works out to about $1.6 billion.
<
p>
The second graph uses data from the US Census Bureau to compare the change in total state and local tax revenue in Massachusetts to the rest of the country for the period 1998 through 2002. (This is the most recent year that these data are available from the Census Bureau; when making comparisons among states, itâs best to use combined state and local data, since different states allocate taxing responsibility differently). It shows that taxes in Massachusetts fell more sharply over this time frame than all but a handful of states. In fact, additional data from the Census Bureau indicate that at no point since FY 1978 have state and local taxes in Massachusetts, measured as a share of personal income, been lower than in FY 2002. (A trend we discuss more in our publication Measuring Up.)
<
p>
So, in the end, Massachusetts now puts a lot fewer resources into its budgetary âpieâ than it once did, which, in turn, forces policymakers to make unenviable trade-offs in providing funds for the public services that people count on every day â good schools, safe streets, clean air and water, places for kids to play, to name just a few.
And note that I did link the chart back to its source. 🙂
garysays
With similar logic, if a family receives a pay raise and fails to give the child an increase in allowance “in the end, [the family] now puts a lot fewer resources into [the child’s allowance] than it once did.”
<
p>
Simply not true.
jeff-mclynchsays
Gary:
<
p>
Thanks for your comment. What I should have said was âSo, in the end, Massachusetts now puts a much smaller share of its resources into its budgetary âpieâ than it once did â¦â My apologies for not being more clear.
<
p>
Jeff
finchnasays
Like pay for governor, etc. (I know, Romney doesn’t take a salary) I’m curious under what banner leadership is compensated–legislature, courts, etc. thanks.
anniemsays
It got me thinking, in what slice of the budget pie are legislators and staff salaries and benefits accounted for and is it possible to know how much taxpayer money is spent on health insurance for legislators and other state employees?
<
p>
FYI the context for this question: a citizen ballot inititative in 2000 (Question 5) called for the state to create universal health insurance coverage by July 1, 2004 and to cap admin. spending in healthcare at 10%. It is now about 30-39%! The Yes on Q5 campaign was outspent over 50 to 1 and narrowly lost 48-52% at the polls. This result after polling at 70-80% support before $5.4 million HMO dollars were thrown against it in the form of fear-mongering ads.
<
p>
No state offficial came out strongly in support of Q5 except Sec of State Galvin for which I and many others are eternally grateful, and are eternally dismayed about the others including Tom Reilly who was asked but declined to take a stand on Question 5.
<
p>
The next year some activists submitted ballot initiative language to the AG that would have required the state to enact universal health insurance coverage by a date certain with the penalty of state legislators losing their taxpayer-funded health insurance if no universal coverage plan was enacted. The AG rejected the language.
This is what the gubanatorial candidates should be answering, but I’ll give it a go.
<
p>
1. Increase Environment from 1% to 2%. The extra money would be spent: * Improving human-powered options for local commuters: bike paths, better sidewalks and curb cuts, etc. * Improving our parks, which are really being ignored and have a number of safety and access issues. * Pouring money into renewable energy. Incidentally, this will reduce (a sliver) of the expenses on health care by reducing exposure to cancer causing pollutants, mercury, and asthma & emphysema.
<
p>
2. Increase transportation by one per cent, dumping all of it into the T. I want, with the help of Federal Funds (and not all immediately): * A North/South rail connector, so that folks north of the city can get to South Station by commuter rail and southerners can get to North Station by commuter rail. This will reduce congestion on the subway downtown and make the commuter rail more attractive to riders. * Trench Boyleston to make the Green Line 4 lanes from Copley (well, actually Hynes/ICA) to Park. This part of the rail is the bottleneck in the entire system, and would allow a much faster commute for B, C, D, and E riders heading to Park because cars could be expressed once underground. It would also make disabled cars easier to route around. * Tunnel a 2 lane addition from Kenmore to Hynes. While Hynes to Park runs right under Boyleston, Kenmore to Hynes runs at an angle to the roads and would likely require tunnels. Still, it’s essential to getting B, C, and D traffic quicker. Currently, the T can’t run cars more frequently on the B, C, or D because they bottleneck at Kenmore since its only one line in each direction. * Additional T expansions, as detailed deep on the MBTA site, including expanding commuter rail and lengthening the Green Line Northward.
<
p>
3. Shave a half percent from Local Aid, Debt Service, Health Care, and Public Safety.
<
p>
My 2% has to come from somewhere. Additional MBTA work may result in less demand on the roadways (debt services), and less health care costs (long term and fewer traffic accidents), so there’s 1%. The other 1%? Well, it’s got to come from somewhere. Hopefully, expanding public transit will result in a bigger pie due to increased higher paying jobs, but that’s magic hand waving.
I feel like many folks who read BMG have seen this, but I’m sure many more have not.
<
p>
This is pretty emblematic of all states, by the way. The two biggest areas of spending are healthcare and education. Surprised? Of course not.
<
p>
I’m actually surprised that we’re so good with human services, many states have trouble providing should-be basics like mental healthcare.
<
p>
The debt service on transportation is mostly the Big Dig (no surprise there.) The amount we spend on transportation is surprisingly low — but that tends to be more project-driven.
<
p>
The question is, if our next governor cuts .3 percent of the income tax, what gets cut from that pie??
<
p>
Better question: for everyone who wants more police on the streets, smaller class sizes and improved roads, how are they going to pay for it??
<
p>
There are no free lunches.
Most of the health care spending is for MassHealth, and the MassHealth spending is reimbursed around 52% from the federal government. So the net cost is about half of what the chart shows.
would be the share of revenue the state gets. state taxes don’t cover more than a half, as I recall. user fees and federal aid make up the bulk.
Well, given whatâs been happening on this site of late, I suppose I should get the disclosure thing out of the way first â the graph that is at the start of this thread comes from a short publication, Taxes in Massachusetts: How They Are Used, How They Compare to Other States, that my organization, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center put out last month.
<
p>
It is obviously quite important to consider how the funds appropriated through the state budget process are allocated among various program areas and whether that particular allocation could be improved to meet public needs (i.e. how the budgetary âpieâ is sliced). It is just as critical, though, to think about the overall size of the âpieâ and how that has changed over time, since itâs the size of the pie that often determines whether and to what extent tradeoffs must be made, say, between adequately funding environmental and transportation programs and providing necessary resources to local communities (to use a prior post as an example).
<
p>
Simply put, the pie has shrunk substantially in Massachusetts in recent years, due largely to the fact that more than forty tax cuts were put in place over the course of the 1990s. These two graphs help to illustrate this point. The first shows the change in state taxes in Massachusetts relative to personal income, a commonly used proxy for the size of a stateâs economy, from FY 1980 to FY 2007. (The data for FY 2006 and FY 2007 are projected). It shows that for FY 2005 (the most recent for which actual data are available) state taxes in Massachusetts amounted to 6.2 percent of personal income, about 0.5 percentage points below the average for the 1990s. Half a percentage point may not sound like a lot, but, when you consider personal income in MA was $277 billion in FY 2005, it works out to about $1.6 billion.
<
p>
The second graph uses data from the US Census Bureau to compare the change in total state and local tax revenue in Massachusetts to the rest of the country for the period 1998 through 2002. (This is the most recent year that these data are available from the Census Bureau; when making comparisons among states, itâs best to use combined state and local data, since different states allocate taxing responsibility differently). It shows that taxes in Massachusetts fell more sharply over this time frame than all but a handful of states. In fact, additional data from the Census Bureau indicate that at no point since FY 1978 have state and local taxes in Massachusetts, measured as a share of personal income, been lower than in FY 2002. (A trend we discuss more in our publication Measuring Up.)
<
p>
So, in the end, Massachusetts now puts a lot fewer resources into its budgetary âpieâ than it once did, which, in turn, forces policymakers to make unenviable trade-offs in providing funds for the public services that people count on every day â good schools, safe streets, clean air and water, places for kids to play, to name just a few.
<
p>
Jeff
Thanks for posting here.
And note that I did link the chart back to its source. 🙂
With similar logic, if a family receives a pay raise and fails to give the child an increase in allowance “in the end, [the family] now puts a lot fewer resources into [the child’s allowance] than it once did.”
<
p>
Simply not true.
Gary:
<
p>
Thanks for your comment. What I should have said was âSo, in the end, Massachusetts now puts a much smaller share of its resources into its budgetary âpieâ than it once did â¦â My apologies for not being more clear.
<
p>
Jeff
Like pay for governor, etc. (I know, Romney doesn’t take a salary) I’m curious under what banner leadership is compensated–legislature, courts, etc. thanks.
It got me thinking, in what slice of the budget pie are legislators and staff salaries and benefits accounted for and is it possible to know how much taxpayer money is spent on health insurance for legislators and other state employees?
<
p>
FYI the context for this question: a citizen ballot inititative in 2000 (Question 5) called for the state to create universal health insurance coverage by July 1, 2004 and to cap admin. spending in healthcare at 10%. It is now about 30-39%! The Yes on Q5 campaign was outspent over 50 to 1 and narrowly lost 48-52% at the polls. This result after polling at 70-80% support before $5.4 million HMO dollars were thrown against it in the form of fear-mongering ads.
<
p>
No state offficial came out strongly in support of Q5 except Sec of State Galvin for which I and many others are eternally grateful, and are eternally dismayed about the others including Tom Reilly who was asked but declined to take a stand on Question 5.
<
p>
The next year some activists submitted ballot initiative language to the AG that would have required the state to enact universal health insurance coverage by a date certain with the penalty of state legislators losing their taxpayer-funded health insurance if no universal coverage plan was enacted. The AG rejected the language.