BMG denizen MaverickDem posted a truly excellent comment on the thread discussing the recent override vote in Lexington. I thought it was by far the best defense of the income tax rollback to 5% that I’ve seen anywhere – including from Tom Reilly, Chris Gabrieli, Kerry Healey, or any other public figure who supports it. I’m not saying I totally agree with it. But I am saying that it encapsulates exactly what Deval Patrick is up against by aggressively campaigning against the rollback, and how important it is that he do more than just say “we can’t afford it ’cause property taxes are too high and we shouldn’t cut essential services.” Comments like this one are why blogs are a great thing. Here’s the comment, in full.
It’s About Trust and Reilly Gets It
You are 100% correct that issues of government finance are about trust – and the electorate clearly has not trusted Democratic candidates for Governor in the last four elections. But the only solution that will provide Democrats with credibility is one that is a non-starter with most Deval Patrick supporters: restoring the income tax to 5.0%. Tom Reilly gets it, but the left calls it pandering. If we want to win back the corner office, I call it smart and necessary. We need to show voters that a Democrat can better manage the state’s finances at the rate THEY want in order to end, once and for all, the highly successful Republican argument that a Democratic Governor cannot stand up to the Legislature.
Deval Patrick is making a HUGE mistake in believing that he can “educate” the public into believing this is an income tax vs. local tax issue between now and September. It will not work. First, most taxpayers believe that their tax money is squandered at both the state and local levels. They are not interested in a quid pro quo: maintain the tax rate at 5.3% for the possibility of lower property taxes or local fees. Second, voters are smart enough to know that there is no guarantee that maintaining the tax rate at 5.3% will “trickle down” to them in the form of local tax relief or a beneficial government service. The legislature can do anything it wants with that money. Middle-class, suburbanite, independent voters would rather write a check directly to program X, Y, and Z than use the Legislature as a pass through, crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. The Democrats will win the cities as usual, so these are the people we need to convince.
I realize that the majority of posters on BMG are left-leaning and I have seen many posts that scoff at Tom Reilly’s assertion that a return to the 5.0% rate will save the average family in excess of $200. Many have pointed to specific local fees that equal that amount as examples of why we should maintain the 5.3% rate. I understand and respect that those people might prefer the Legislature to manage that money. I believe the majority if voters would not. If this question were put on the ballot again, it would pass handily.
The Democratic candidates are running against the Legislature as much, if not more, than they are running against Kerry Healey. Voters believe the Legislature is wasteful and they consider the 5.0% issue to be best measure of whether a candidate is willing to stand up to Beacon Hill. This is the strong public perception. You may disagree and there are valid arguments to be made on both sides. However, advocating for a return to the 5.0% rate is the most concise and effective way for a Democrat to gain voter trust on fiscal issues. Tom Reilly gets it.
OK, now let the pile on begin!
by: MaverickDem @ June 07, 2006 at 09:10:15 EST
This type of public reaction appears to be a reaction to the “government is inherently corrupt, so we must starve the beast” conservative talking point.
<
p>
Can anyone give me an example of meaningful government reform that saved substantial money, or a time when limiting funds to government actually improved government operations?
The problem I have with the “voter mandate” is that its dated. Times really have changed since then. Federal funds flowing to MA have decreased substantially, resulting in less state money going into communities.
<
p>
Since then, towns and cities have had to cut back while MA has done the same thing. Do we really want to reduce government funding now?
<
p>
Maybe, maybe not. But a 6 year old referendum isn’t good insight to what people want today. Maybe a revote is in order?
Could it be because we lost our last GOP Congressman at the same time the GOP took control of the House and Senate? We are one of fewer than a dozen single party delegations in the country, and I BELIEVE, the ONLY Democrat one.
<
p>
We starve the beast at the local level all the time. We lsiten how the sky will fall if overrides don’t pass, and see operations chug merrily along when they fail. I once stood up at town meeting, when a key employee was going to be cut, and proposed that his $30,000 salary be taken from the Town Manager’s operating budget. ANYONE can answer a phone, but only one person could test the water for purity. It passed, and town hall coped.
<
p>
As far as the rollback goes, it has to do with KEEPING YOUR WORD. A 1989 TEMPORARY tax hike. Which gathered dnough signatures for the ballot TWICE, but was kept off by the CREATION of the stray mark rule.
<
p>
I also think Clean Elections should be funded, so people can see what a dumb idea it is and repeal it.
<
p>
People are tired of being governed by those who know better and best.
I have been arguing for quite some time that any candidate who is serious about democracy should support the rollback. There are other issues, and this is not the only subject on which the primary should be decided, but Patrick is ill-advised to take a position so far out of line with the majority of voters in the state. Opposing the rollback is excessively preachy and elitist, as Porcipine points out, and asks voters for a huge leap of faith over a chasm floored with the bones of broken plans and promises, as MD notes. Reilly should be commended for his sensible approach.
didn’t those same voters also very nearly vote to repeal the income tax altogether a few years back? I wasn’t paying as much attention back then, but that’s what I remember. So, if that’s true, following your logic, shouldn’t the candidates support either a DRASTIC cut in the income tax, if not an elimination of the income tax altogether? If they’re truly committed to “democracy?”
<
p>
We live not only in a democracy, but a republic. I’d caution people against democracy-by-ballot-question.
But there’s a big difference between a question that passed and one that failed, if only narrowly.
1) Voters want MORE funding for schools, healthcare, local aid, police, security, and any number of any state programs way before they want a tax cut… on any level.
<
p>
2) The question passed because anyone can design pretty much any question to pass or fail if they do the polling and focus groups and get the wording right. That’s why clean election passed overwhelmingly when it was about public funding and limiting the influence of big money and lost resoundingly when it was about “tax-payers supporting political candidates.” Someone once pointed out that if you said “Should tax payer funds be used to house and feed convicted criminals” on a ballot question it would fail. And then would we get rid of prisons?
<
p>
Polls at the time that asked a more balanced question (“if the state had a budget surplus (which it did) should the legislature use that money for…”) and had a list of 5 or 6 things that the state could do with the money. Cutting taxes was the LEAST supported option. So, again, to say that the voters supported a tax cut is kind of silly. Reality is that ballot questions are horrible ways to make public policy.
may indeed be a “horrible way to make public policy.” But we’ve got them, and they’re a big part of our political landscape. And I totally disagree with you that it’s “silly” to say that “the voters supported a tax cut.” Of course they did – they voted for it! How much more evidence do you need? Those other questions that you reference didn’t make it onto the ballot, apparently, so they don’t matter.
<
p>
Say what you will about how cleverly worded the question was, the fact is that the thing passed. And it’s a very risky strategy to tell the same voters who passed it that they were bamboozled by it and therefore they shouldn’t be upset if what it said is ignored.
It’s not a “risky strategy” at all. Look at any polling being done anywhere in the state. Cutting taxes ranks very low on what is important to people. Look at the polling… look at the evidence, not what YOU think people probably think.
<
p>
Here’s one that you might find instructive. Took me about 40 seconds to find it online. I’m sure there are more.
<
p>
http://www.uml.edu/umasspoll/winter06_survey.html
<
p>
Check question six.
But I doubt it. Rather than look at polling now, months from election day, I’d be interested in seeing what polling on those issues looked like close to election day for Cellucci-Harshbarger in 1998 – I think taxes is why Cellucci won. Anyone?
…after a ten million dollar media onslaught that Healey will unleash, those numbers will crumble in a minute.
<
p>
When was the last time the progressives won on the “tax” issue at the ballot box? I’m blank on any.
I guess the system you think is best is if all laws are just decided by FactCheck and we get rid of this silly voting business entirely.
FactCheck did not at all propose we don’t need to vote. His link is actually quite pertinent to what is being discussed here. MavDem’s gut appears to be out of touch. However, I agree with David that we can’t put too much stock in a poll taken right now. If this issue is a big deal in the campaign that means people will continue to hear a lot about the issue which means that the needle is going to move on those numbers.
<
p>
Frank just because Dems haven’t won on the tax issue as you say doesn’t mean that this isn’t their time to be right. Deval is going to have a very interesting message in regard of how to best proceed with tax strategy and I think people are going to find it very persuasive because he is quite skilled at “selling” it.
Bob, you got RIGHT to what I was saying. Good job. The fact that I actually looked for some EVIDENCE that suggests that voters don’t actually want the tax cut (which a lot of people are claiming is the case) really just means I want to decide all public policy matters.
<
p>
I know Blue Mass Group has a policy about polite standards. How about standards of logical thought?
I agree that MaverickDem makes an interesting argument, but while it speaks of trust as a major issue, the post actually argues that those running for elected office cannot trust the electorate. Underlying MaverickDem’s assertions is the idea that the electorate is, for whatever reason, unable to comprehend the idea that the tax rollback may be bad for their bottom line. I think this highlights an interesting difference between Deval and Reilly. Deval is running a campaign based on trying to get the best out of people and government while Reilly assumes that people are not able to become informed and understand a tough choice. Deval believes that civic discourse and debate can educate and inform and lead to a better outcome and that it’s the job of our elected officials to make the hard choices and do what is best, and not necessarily most popular. Reilly, conversely, will tell people whatever they want to hear so that he can win.
<
p>
MaverickDem and I have gone back and forth on this before, but I simply do not trust Tom Reilly. This is based largely on his epiphany on the issue of same-sex marriage (slightly off topic, but relevant to the issue of trust raised in the initial post). As AG, at every turn possible, Reilly did whatever he could to thwart marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Only after it became clear that support for same-sex marriage could help him did he come out and support marriage equality. Yet, his actions betray this statement. The latest being his certification of a ballot initiative which two past AG’s said he should not have certified. Yet, instead of making a hard choice, Reilly instead let the amendment go forward so that somebody else could make the hard choice. How can I trust this man? How can I vote for someone who shirks his responsibility so as not to offend any potential voter.
<
p>
I guess I am not as cynical as Reilly or MaverickDem. I do believe that people do pay attention beyond a 30 second sound bite and can weigh the costs and benefits of a rollback versus local property tax/other tax relief. I myself ran for office with a very similar issue in play and people did pay attention and did understand that as attractive as a tax cut sounds, it may not be as nice in reality. Just look at NJ under Christie Todd Whitman!
<
p>
I have thought long and hard about this primary. I am obviously a DP supporter and sincerely believe he is the best option for the party and the state. If Deval were to lose the primary and Gabrieli were to win, I would work really hard to see him win. But I can’t say the same about Reilly. I could never go out and work to get him votes. In fact, I may not be able to vote for him. At this point, Reilly is trying so hard to be the great moderate hope that I can’t see much difference between him and Healy.
<
p>
I really want a Democrat to be governor. But not a Democrat in name only.
I agree with your sentiment David on a civility level. MavDem has provided an incredibly civil and well thought defense. However, as defenses go this one is as weak as the one being offered by Reilly. Perhaps the reason is because the postion of rolling back the taxes is defensible at least in the current context. Let me proceed point by point and then add some of my own thoughts.
<
p>
First, I do not believe that the electorate does not trust Dems with their finances. It is true that we have not elected a governor of the Democratic persuasion in quite some time but the reasoning cannot be because the electorate does not trust Dems with their money. If such reasoning were true what would be the explanation for the overwhelming Democratic majorities in the legislature? Keep in mind that it is the legislature that ultimately passes the budget and doles out the funds. I am confident that voters have at least an inkling of understanding that such majorities are clearly a check on any veto a Republican governor may use. Dems are elected in such large numbers that I have a hard time believing that voters have no trust for the people they are electing regarding matters of money.
<
p>
Next, the notion that the only way to show voters that we are electable is by rolling back income taxes is thinking too small. Though I do agree with your sentiment; clearly the voters want to know that Beacon Hill and the Governor’s Office are working hard to ensure a secure economic future. But we must be bold. I won’t speak for others but the reason I see this rollback issue as pandering is because the notion that a single solution will solve the problems is offering a false promise to voters. When a candidate promises to do one thing and that everything will magically be better is just ploy to win a vote. We try to create simple solutions to complicated problems and voters aren’t buying it. Complicated problems sometimes call for complicated solutions and Deval knows that. He won’t sell you a bill of goods, he is looking at the whole picture and offering plans based on that view. If anyone is offering a quid pro quo it is those candidates selling the rollback to voters. And Deval is offering no quid pro quo either, he has consistently said that if we are looking for tax relief that property tax reductions are the better way to go, he has never said that his election is a guarantee of such.
<
p>
If Tom Reilly wants the people to decide the parameters of the budget then he should be pushing ballot measures. The reality, however, is that we live in a democracy. If “the people” are not happy with the budgets passed by the legislatures, then vote them out of office!
<
p>
Finally all this talk of “the voters” with no substantiation makes the entire argument weak. Not wrong, but weak. If you have polling data or interviews you or another group have conducted, bring them forward. Absent any evidence your entire argument is premised on your “gut” and YOUR impressions. That is not a good area to base an argument from. How do you know the measure would pass handily? Where is the basis for any of the last half of your comment? I don’t think this is nearly as strong of an argument as David makes it out to be.
<
p>
Lastly I want to put an argument not raised here to bed. The ballot question in 2000 created a law by which the taxes would be reduced from 5.6% to 5.3% and in then in 2003 to 5.0% Those who suggest that preventing the rollback is undemocratic because the vote is being ignorned are incorrect. The voters got their law but it was ultimately changed by the legislature (this change was both legal and democratic). Here again, if people don’t like the result vote out those whose vote was contrary to your position. The rollback right now costs us more than it gives to us. There is plenty of research to back that up (for my citation I point everyone to Mass Budget and Policy Center where they have tons of data). I believe that it is possible for the majority to be wrong. I feel that there is enough convincing evidence to show that the $200 (on average) to be gained by the “average” household will not only not benefit from the cut but will be put at a disadvantage due to service cuts and budget shortfalls. Even if the majority wants the cut there are times when we are justified denying the majority. That is a dangerous statement to be sure but one we have relied on to save us from ourselves in the past. Sorry for the long comment
Nice job Andy…much more eloquent than my post!
Not when the right answer is winning the election by a majority of voters.
. . . but, if you are right, why isn’t Reilly leading by a landslide? I think that a candidate can take a fiscally responsible position on not reducing the income tax to 5.0% right now, while, as an outsider, taking on the mantle of a reformer who is willing to take on the state bureaucracy and make real changes. If Patrick (disclosure – my candidate) can do that, and do something specific about controlling property tax increases, then he may be able to prove you wrong.
Glad we are getting back to substantive discussions about issues. It is much more interesting and productive for everyone involved.
You can imagine my surprise when I returned to BMG to discover my comment reposted and promoted to the front page! Thank you, David, for considering it relevant enough for some additional discussion. (And while I was correct to predict a pile on, but there are a few agreements in here too!)
<
p>
If I may respond to a few of the responses. . .
<
p>
First, I find nothing cynical about either Tom Reilly’s position on the rollback or my argument that such a position is an important component to a successful Democratic campaign in November. I also think it hurts the Democratic Party to brand people that share Tom Reilly’s position as “cynics.” As Bob has already noted, it smack of an elitism that indisputedly turns voters off. Which leads to my second issue. . .
<
p>
Second, It has been suggested that Tom Reilly and I should substantiate our position that the voters still want the rollback by supporting yet another referundum. I find this odd. I respectfully suggest that Deval Patrick and the group that is arguing that things have changed should carry that burden. In fact, the premise of my post is that such an argument will not work. Far from “not trusting the public,” I am merely suggesting that we pelieve the people when they say something.
<
p>
Since the referendum is 6 years old, am I relying on my “gut” to some extent? Sure, but not much. As a previous poster noted (although, oddly, to argue that the rollback mandate should be ignored), voters almost voted to repeal the income tax outright. If that had been a contested referendum, I don’t think the repeal effort would have performed quite so strongly, but it does leave me confident that voters would reapprove a rollback of .3% if given the choice today. And remember: those voters approved the rollback in 2000 and almost repealed the income tax entirely a few years ago are the very same people who will be voting in November.
<
p>
Finally, Tom Reilly’s timing in supporting the rollback has been questioned as “politically motivated.” He said the state couldn’t afford the rollback when revenues had collapsed. (Makes sense.) Now he believes that the state’s revenues provide an opportunity to make good on the voter-approved referendum, which is where he and Deval Patrick part ways. My belief is that the voters want the rollback at the earliest possible opportunity, especially while revenues are up, and not when Deval Patrick says that it is OK. If you do not like that argument, I understand, but welcome to how the issue will be framed this Fall.
<
p>
Again, I am under no illusions that the majority of BMGers, who tend to be very liberal and pro-Patrick, will agree with this argument. However, the composition of the electorate in November is going to look absolutely nothing like BMG or Saturday’s convention gathering, while it will look almost exactly like the electorate that approved the ballot referendum in 2000 and elected Mitt Romney in 2002.
<
p>
Again, thanks for the discussion.
You attempt to “refute” various points raised here but again you do so with no evidence. You say you are “relying on my “gut” to some extent? Sure, but not much.” Ok, so when you but not much what do you have to substantiate that? Do you have polling data or something to show that the people are clamoring for this tax cut?
<
p>
I agree with you that I do not think your argument is cynical. You are just as committed as I am to finding solutions to help out our state and I don’t think there is anything cynical about that.
<
p>
As to the burden of proof I think that is squarely on Tom Reilly’s shoulders. He is the one advocating this policy so it is up to him to prove his position. You claim that the referendum would pass should it come to the ballot again so I say it is up to you to prove it.
<
p>
Finally, revenues aren’t that much improved. The budget as proposed right now relies heavily on the Rainy Day Fund (to the tune of $275 million). If we need the Rainy Day Fund to balance the budget I can hardly think we are healthy enough financially to start giving out money.
<
p>
Lastly, I don’t disagree with the argument because I am a liberal. The argument you are making here and the argument Tom is making on the stump is devoid of any facts on which I can make a real decision.
Andy, thank you for agreeing that my argument is not cynical. Truthfully, such characerizations are what has driven many Democrats into the ranks of the Unenrolled and, even more regrettably, to become Republican voters.
<
p>
However, why in the world should Tom Reilly, I, or the taxpayers carry the burden of RE-making a case that was already made? You say that I have cited no evidence to support my argument, well what about the 2000 referendum? It doesn’t get any more specific than that. (Or how about the surprisingly popular effort to repeal the income tax outright, which you cited?) You say that the referendum is “dated,” well whose problem is that? Mine? Tom Reilly’s? The voters’? I’m supposed to conduct a poll or the voters are expected to approve everything twice? I don’t think so – try the Legislature who failed to rollback the income tax when times were flush during the ’90s and (wisely, in my opinion) voted to temporarily freeze it at its current rate during the budget crisis. The way this issue has been and will continue to be framed is that the Democratic Legislature is withholding something that belongs to the people. It’s powerful stuff and Democrats ignore it at our own peril.
<
p>
By campaigning against the rollback, Deval Patrick is making a mistake. You may not agree with that opinion, but I believe that to my core. If you don’t want to believe me, consider some of the other sources on this thread. I happen to think David and Bob are respected and well-reasoned voices on BMG and when they start noting the challenge this position poses to Patrick, Patrick supporters should take heed. Ignore the pro-Reilly guy, but at least consider what makes David take pause and Bob applaud Reilly’s position.
<
p>
While revenues are not spilling out of the coffers, they are up, and I believe that is all Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey need to make their argument that rollback can happen now. You think the burden of proof is high, I think it is as low as mentioning that we have a surplus. Period. This will leave Patrick to defend his position with a highly nuanced discussion about state taxes vs. local taxes/fees and the definition of what a budget “surplus” really is. That will be a tough road to hoe and, in my opinion, a road that will hurt Patrick badly.
<
p>
If the Democrats want to nullify the Republican argument that only a GOP Governor can responsibly manage taxpayer money, they should restore the income tax rate to 5.0% and manage existing resources better. If the voters feel that was a mistake, they will have plenty of opportunity to make that known, not the least of which will be the 2010 election. Personally, if it is lowered, I don’t believe it will be an issue again, which would be great for the Democrats.
..at your assertion that my labelling a position cynical somehow drive voters to be either unenrolled or Republicans. You can argue whether the basis of the position is cynicism or not, but to state that the characterization of a position as such is somehow hurting the party seems a little bit far fetched. Sure enrollment is down, but while we keep electing repub governors the state has increased the number of dems in the legislature (despite the biggest push ever by the repubs) and now has a 100% democratic congressional delegation. It seems that the problem isn’t with words that are used by those in the party, but with the people we have running for governor. Maybe the problem is that we have candidate who feel compelled to move to the right, thereby alienating the left wing of the party (and making them feel dirty and isolated in the process) so that the base of the party doesn’t vote or work hard for the candidate.
<
p>
Also, I strongly disagree with your earlier assertion that my point is elitist. You argue that the public is incapable to handle an explanation of why the tax rollback may be a bad idea. I argued that the public is capable of handling such an explanation. Seems to me that it is your position which has an elitist tone to it.
<
p>
Another problem with the rollback is that even though revenues are up, funding for various programs is still not at the same level as prior to the budget crisis. So if it was reasonable to freeze the rollback before (as you yourself aadmit was a wise move), and we still have not reached pre-crisis funding levels, why is now the time to rollback the tax? Shouldn’t we achieve full funding of those programs first? And if not, what programs are you and Reilly willing to either cut or not fully fund in order to finance the rollback?
<
p>
This is why I feel that Reilly panders. It’s nice to say, “I’ll lower your taxes and he won’t.” That sell. But how and at what cost? Deval is willing to address that second part while Reilly does not. That is how Reilly opens himself up to the pandering charges. It’s rhetoric without substance. And it comes from a belief that people can’t understand the subsance. That strikes me as extremely cynical.
Not to belabor the point, but you did not simply characterize my position as cynical, you stated, “I guess I am not as cynical as Reilly or MaverickDem.” That was directed at me personally.
<
p>
In response, I noted that “such characterizations are what has driven many Democrats into the ranks of the Unenrolled and, even more regrettably, to become Republican voters.” I unapologetically stand by that statement because I believe it is true.
Mav I assure you I am not ignoring your opinion, even though you are pro-Reilly. 🙂 I respect your opinion because you are debating it in a more reasonable and logical manner than a lot of people around here. A good argument always gets my attention.
<
p>
My whole issue with the 2000 vote is that it is now moot. The voters where given the law they wanted. Unfortunately for them the legislature subsequently changed that law. So the beef really shouldn’t be an issue for this gubernatorial race, at least not from the perspective of any candidate denying the voters what they wanted. We can have a discussion of rolling back the taxes but it shouldn’t be saddled with the baggage of a pervious vote.
<
p>
Revenues are not only not spilling out of the coffers they aren’t even completely filling it! Again, the House version of the budget relies on $275 million from the Rainy Day Fund. If we are spending from the rainy day I think we might assume it is A RAINY DAY! Losing the 0.3% of revenue is not wise right now. In addition to that the benefits, especially with only one single income tax, will be heavily skewed to benefit the top tax payers.
<
p>
I agree that David is a pretty reasonable guy but Bob has a crazy streak! But if you read David’s comment he doesn’t say he agrees with you outright, I think he suggests property taxes are the better route, as does Deval.
<
p>
I think you are right however to note that Patrick has a tough road in front of him. Convincing a voter to reject the immediate, albeit small, gratification of Reilly’s proposed tax cut in order to get bigger gains in the medium and long run is a tough job. But without question I cannot think of a better candidate than Deval Patrick to take on that task.
Andy, I appreciate your give and take. A Reilly supporter is always looking for a port in the storm on these blogs!
<
p>
First, just to clarify, I did not say that David agreed with my position. I said that the argument caused him to “take pause.” There is a difference and I was careful not to mischaracterize the comments of a BMG luminary. Second, if Bob has “a crazy streak” then I guess I do too because I like his work. Go crazy, Bob!
<
p>
On to more important things. . .
<
p>
First, you say the “2000 vote is now moot.” I say it isn’t and that, even if it were, Kerry Healey will resurrect this Fall with great effect. I dont see how simplying saying, “Hey, but that referendum was waaaaaaay back in 2000” will do anything other than remind voters (many of whom actually voted for it in 2000) that the Legislature has ignored them for 6 years and counting.
<
p>
Second, you say that the voters have been “given what they wanted.” Is the income tax now 5.0%? No? Then I think it is safe to say that they were not given what they wanted.
<
p>
Third, David does an excellent job of getting to the heart of my argument, so I hope he doesn’t mind if I cite a portion of his comment:
<
p>
<
p>
To get a sense of how deep this sentiment runs among the electorate, you need look no further than your own blog!!! You write:
<
p>
<
p>
The Clean Elections referundum was passed waaaaaaaaaaay back in 1998 (2 years before the income tax rollback), but its gutting by the Legislature still rankles some, including yourself. Now, I’m going to let you in on a little secret: many, many, many more voters care about the income tax rollback than clean elections. So, take your dismay over the Clean Elections Referendum and multiply by that factor and you start to appreciate why Tom Reilly’s position is a product of listening rather than the p-word.
I finally get it I think we should roll back the taxes to 5.0 % for those folks making less than I don’t know 49 k per year. The winners on the income tax roll back are the Romneys, the Healys, the uber rich not you or me. So lets do it the voters didn;t saw to whom the roll back would be for did they?
I whole-heartedly agree that the tax should be rolled back on lower-income families and, heck, maybe even increased on the the rich who can afford it. Say, 5.6% over $200K.
<
p>
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Constitution does not allow graduated income taxes. It must be the same rate for everybody in the state. (Article XLIV of the Constitution)
<
p>
Attempts have been made to change this in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1994; all were rejected at the ballot. Anybody know why? (I must confess to not being alive for the first three attempts and not living in-state for the last two.)
The view is that a graduated income tax is inherently unfair, and that a flat rate will take equally from all.
<
p>
It is HYSTERICAL that Mass. wants to INSTITUTE a graduated tax even as the NATION investigates replacing our Swiss-cheese tax system with a flat tax!
Well, these comments are getting pretty funny, at least vis-a-vis Bob and me. My own view is that you are both right. MavDem’s point is that anyone in Patrick’s shoes has a tough row to hoe to win the primary, and perhaps an even tougher one to win the general. I agree, for the reasons I’ve already stated. I also agree with Andy that if anyone can do it, Patrick can. The person who can pull that off has to have two characteristics: credible outsider status, and the ability to be a charismatic straight talker. Patrick’s got all of that. I’ll post later on how I think Patrick could pull this off.
<
p>
As to whether Bob is crazy, “no comment.” 😉
If Patrick can frame the issue in terms of property-tax relief and funding local services, he can win.
<
p>
I make no predictions, and agree this is not a done deal by any means.
<
p>
However just because the small-government crowd has been dining out on the whole “you promised us a tax cut” argument since 1989 does not mean the electorate is obliged to play again this time around. It is not as though things are hunkey dorey in the Bay State except that the income tax is too high.
Even if, in theory, a higher income tax rate plus increased local aid should yeild relief from local property taxes, isn’t it really more likely that, after paying the increased income taxes, the local aid will be –gasp! — insufficient, and we’ll be talking override issues anyway? That will help build trust in government.
While personally I think it’s absurd that the income tax is so low in this state, none of the candidates are talking about raising it, as far as I know. Patrick definitely isn’t. He’s talking about using the current surplus to increase local aid and cut property taxes instead of the income tax at this point.
I don’t believe Reilly can make a straight-faced argument that, on one hand, he is willing to stand up to Beacon Hill by supporting the tax rollback, but, on the other hand, he is willing to take the assistance and backing of Trav and DiMasi at the Convention and on the campaign trail. If there’s any candidate in this race not beholden to any of the legislative leadership, it would be Patrick.
It’s a very well written comment, but it’s just plain wrong. The whole thing is based on the assumption that voters want the tax rolled back to 5.0%, and that you get voters’ trust simply by doing what they want.
<
p>
1. Voters passed a tax rollback in 2000, under extremely different political and economic conditions. The tax rollback was implemented for several years. Then, the legislature stopped it from going further. For the legislature to change the law was legitimate and democratic, the question is whether or not it was the right thing to do. Over that, we can argue today. But to claim that “the voters want” the same thing now as they did in 2000 is both technically false (we have a lower income tax rate now than we did then) and unsubstantiated (conditions have changed drastically, and time has passed for voters to see the effects of past actions).
<
p>
2. A party that just tries to find out what everyone wants, and then delivers it, is doomed to weakness and minority. People want leadership. Pandering doesn’t gain trust. Respecting the voters enough to communicate meanginfully with them, to have a dialogue, and to sometimes do what they ask and other times changer their minds and get them to ask for something different, is what gains voter trust.
<
p>
In the Democratic party in MA, leadership has come from the legislature, but mostly not from our candidates for governor. Deval Patrick will change that pattern.
That, of course, is the $64,000 (or maybe the $10 million, depending on Chris Gabrieli and Kerry Healey) question. And we won’t know until November. Don’t count your chickens just yet – this issue isn’t going anywhere.
<
p>
Furthermore, yes, the tax rate is lower now than it was in 2000 – but it’s not 5%, and that’s certainly what the voters enacted. So I don’t think it’s seriously debatable that at least some voters who voted for the rollback still don’t think they’ve gotten what they voted for. And I therefore don’t think you can accurately say that it’s “technically false” that voters want now what they wanted in 2000. I’ll bet you a lot of money that some of them want exactly what they wanted in 2000: a 5% tax rate. How many? Again – we’ll know in November.
<
p>
And finally, I think the point that MavDem made so well (and why I promoted the comment), and that a number of responses to it haven’t really gotten, is that the rollback is actually about more than reducing the income tax rate. It’s about a broader sense that the legislature isn’t terribly trustworthy, and that continued refusal to do “what the voters asked for” is excellent evidence of that – regardless of whether rolling the income tax back to 5% is the right fiscal thing to do. This is a complicated issue, it’s about more than dollars and tax rates and local aid and local services and property taxes, and Dems need to think carefully about how they handle it. I’m not saying Patrick’s approach is wrong. I’m saying that it carries risk, and that just relying on his ability to persuade voters that they’ll ultimately save more on taxes if they leave the tax rate at 5.3% may not get him across the finish line.
David,
<
p>
You’re absolutely on target. The average voter is not going to investigate the metrics involved in determining whether the roll back is appropriate or not. Most people are too busy working, paying bills and/or raising a family (or both)to really drill down on the issue. It’s the perception that the legislature did something behind their backs by amending the legislation that is galling to them, and many haven’t forgotten it. There’s a whiff of “sneaky b******” that clings to the government as a result.
<
p>
How do you change that perception without rolling the income tax back? I don’t know that you can. But what I would like to see happen is for the Democrats to grab the property tax issue before Muffy “let em eat cake” Healey does. This woman went from town to town, trumpeting the 9C cuts for Romney in 2003, telling these communities that they were “wealthy” if they had a half million bucks in a reserve account. By 2004, local municipalities were hemmorhaging, and by 2005 – many were simply drained dry, all the while Lottery funds were diverted and unrestricted local aid was flatlined. This is why property taxes are so high and it’s a universal problem.
<
p>
We have allowed the Republicans to eat our lunch too many times and they’ve been allowed to get away with calling for “small government, and lower taxes” so many times that the public actually believes that they mean it. Really folks – like Medicare Part D is about giving elderly people a drug benefit? It’s bologna and it’s high time that we took the tax and finances issue away from them, and use words and images to which people can relate. Save the high brow for the academics and wonks!
but very few on this blog get it.
That Healey will spend her $10 million TV budget on ads calling whoever is the Democratic nominee a tax and spend liberal for the 6 weeks between the primary and the general election?
<
p>
That “explaining” taxes during an election is, at best, damaging and often fatal?
<
p>
I’ve done some sole searching. I understand that education, social services, ect are still not at 2001 funding levels and the system is failing peopleâcosting more in the future. I understand it really is all about the property taxes–with the average rate going up 35% under Romney–a point 3% income tax cut is a joke.
<
p>
Sadly, it is about politics and I don’t mind being called a cynic. The only way Deval wins is to make this election about Property tax relief. But IF that fails, we are gonna lose again. Sure, I could see a scenario that Deval’s charisma carries the day. Maybe. But I need more than maybe, because we need to win this year. (Cynical and loving it.)
<
p>
Those that argue 2000 was a long time ago and not a reflection of today’s climate are ignoring a far longer span of history. If you look at the last 25 years or so, the âprogressiveâ side has lost when it comes to tax issues. Let’s start with Prop 2 and 1/2 passing in 1982. Or the defeat of two attempts to pass a graduated income tax. Or the near elimination of the income tax (ok, technically we won that). Or the 2000 roll-back. But how about Walter Mondale promising to raise taxes–as Steven Colbert would inquire–how’d that work out for ya? Or every frigging Republican candidate running for Governor since 1990 drawing blood from our candidate on taxes.
<
p>
I mean, really, the tax issue can not be brushed aside because “things are different this year”. Sound bites from debates and thirty-second commercials wonât be different. Unlike folks like us, virtually everyone makes decisions based on sound bites and ads. So it is something we have to take very serious and if we think we can explain our way out of itâwe lose AGAIN.
<
p>
Unless the Legislature can save us Democrats collectively by passing some $200 to $400 million dollar tax cut (HEY, A$1,000 TAX CREDITS FOR BUYING A HYBRED OR INSTALLING A TANKLESS WATER HEATING SYSTEM!)we may just have to “get it”.
why are you searching the bottom of your shoes?
…is that how ya spell it?
I feel like that came across more snarky than I meant. It was a good post and I had to ruin it! I think you are looking for your soul. 😉
…but not dyslexia check.
I have had too many instances where I have written an entire post or comment only to reread and wonder when my brain decided to check out and let my ass do the typing.
Thanks for the reminder. But besides selling the bottom of my shoes to the devil, any other thoughts?
Or at the bottom of a plate of fish.
…to my first point…yes Healey will label whoever the nominee as “tax and spend” but Reilly and Gabber make much smaller targets. Becuase of the roll-back stand, Deval makes a much bigger target for this political assualt that WILL happen.
<
p>
As I posted way back on this issue: If the only way the Democrats can regain the corner office, would be to pass the rollback–would you. I smell a poll.
Frank – Exactly WHO is the State going to CHOOSE to benefit with property tax relief?
<
p>
Lucky Lawrence, Lowell, Chelsea and New Bedford – the historic lucky winner in all state formulas?
<
p>
Worcester County, if Murray is Lt. Gov.?
<
p>
Did hell just freeze over, and Cape Cod benefits?
<
p>
HOW CAN YOU TRUST THOSE CLOWNS ON BEACON HILL TO GIVE THE MONEY TO ANYBODY?
<
p>
WHY should the state choose who gets the largesse? Why can WE not keep our own money so we’ll have something to pay the bills WITH instead of trusting the Legislature (and even Gov. Doo-VAHHL will have trouble redirecting the money away from the North End) to kiss us and make it all better?
I’m frankly surprised someone from the 18th century would be this weak in Latin. I hope Bill Bulger isn’t reading this blog.
…or Whitey either!
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/julyaug2005/quibono.html
<
p>
Wikipedia thinks it’s Cui bono.
<
p>
Who do you trust – lawyers or college students?
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cui+bono
I’m no Latinist. But from this site (and wikipedia agrees), it seems that “cui” is the dative form of the relative pronoun “qui.” So, roughly, “qui” means “who,” and “cui” means “to whom.” Since the phrase “cui bono” means “to whose advantage,” “cui” would seem to be correct.
Maybe I wasn’t clear, but my drift was more in favor of the tax rollback from purely cynical political / reality point of view. My reference about property tax relief was in the content of that is how Deval has to frame the whole tax situation. So I’m not sure I understand you question of “Exactly WHO is the State going to CHOOSE to benefit with property tax relief?”
<
p>
Never mind the whole Latin thing that gives me a headache. I mean, as you can see from above, I have trouble with sole and soul and you expect me to keep up with Latin?
Because the issue is real. It’s real even if it has traditionally been exploited by Republicans.
<
p>
So, how do we handle it?