The Republican approach on taxes at the national level has been to “starve the beast”: cut taxes, wait until everyone complains about the resulting budget deficit, and then use that as cover to slash spending. Of course, it doesn’t work: voters care more about spending than budget deficits, so all that happens is that you rack up mountains of debt. (And don’t even talk to me about voodoo economics.)
In order to be fiscally responsible, if you want to decrease revenue you need to explain how you are going to decrease spending to match. That’s leadership. This is what Patrick means when he says he wants long-term, lasting solutions – not band-aids. Whatever you think of the political calculations of his approach to taxes, you have to given him credit for being honest with voters. If you’re talking about gaining someone’s trust, honesty is a great way to start.
So Reilly, the ball is in your court. Tell us how it adds up. Otherwise, I agree with others that an income tax cut is simple pandering, not true leadership.
(I am a Patrick supporter, and this is my first full post. Have at it.)
The math really is pretty simple. Ten years of state and federal tax cuts = 10 years of incremental budget cuts in all of the state and local public programs we depend on: less tax revenue to distribute to towns and cities for community policing; less tax revenue to distribute to towns and cities for schools; less tax revenue to distribute to towns and cities to for summer jobs for kids; less tax revenue to distribute to state programs that provide shelter to the homeless and supper to the homebound disabled.
<
p>
We all know some experienced political insiders who do not argue with the math but are still convinced that this is the only way we Democrats can win the corner office. I’m finding it really difficult to judge their strategy as “pandering” because I’ve read the polls and been to enough family reunions lately. Not enough of the ordinary voters know much as I do about where our tax revenues come from and where they go. Not enough of the ordinary voters believe that our elected and appointed officials make informed decisions. Too many of them are turned off to their own government and want to keep their hard earned money.
<
p>
But still, since my Mama always told me that the morality of my actions were judged on the results rather than my intentions, I wish more of the political insiders started thinking about the FY 08 budget decisions a new Governor will start making next January.
<
p>
How many readers of this blog are old enough to remember the wide ranging and devastating budget cuts that resulted when newly elected Governor Michael Dukakis kept his “lead pipe guarantee” not to raise taxes during his 1974 election against Frank Sargent? We didnât finish restoring those cuts until 1984, 2 years into his second term.
<
p>
here are two years of Budget Surpluses.
<
p>
The MAJORITY of voters have voted for the rollback.
<
p>
Reilly respects the wishes of the voters and wants to return
their money .
<
p>
Patrick and the “kool aid” crowd DO NOT want to return their money
<
p>
The voters want their money back and DO NOT WANT HIGHER TAXES!
<
p>
The math doesn’t get any simpler than that!
I was never much of a Kool Aid fan, but no, it is not simply a matter of giving back or not giving back. That is about one half step short of you can have it all, we can cut your taxes and fund all the good things you want. So unless and until as the original poster states, you can do the math, you are selling an illusion.
<
p>
Property taxes are regressive and particular onerous here on Cape Cod, where so many are on fixed incomes, or “paper wealthy” because of the significant revaluation of their long held property. State support for local towns and for education remains less in actual dollars than before the huge cutbacks. It is not a sustainable model.
<
p>
Times change. Universal health care was voted down in 2000 also, yet here we are, moving towards that model, I suspect with public support. Presenting the question in 2006, people need to decide do you want to roll back to 5% and keep the pressure on rising property taxes and less state support for a variety of needs, or not?
<
p>
Add the context of the number of jobs lost in Massachusetts, and the state revenue lost to that also.
<
p>
So let anyone in favor of thr rollback now, credibly state how they will do this, so as not to appear to be pandering?
<
p>
The sad fact is that for at least the past 15 years no state official has suffered for underfunding the cities and towns. Inadequate local aid has been a pretty foolproof way to transfer political pain to others.
<
p>
In other words, there has not been a need to state credibly anything to avoid the appearance of pandering on this issue. The other candidates are expecting that dynamic to hold true this election cycle as well.
<
p>
I hope that Patrick can change that! If he can’t, his chances are slim to none. If he can–well, here’s to the whole new ballgame.
The voters do not care about all the sophisticated dribble and analysis that comes out of this blog about regressive taxes orany all the other perfectly logical arguments.
<
p>
You may all be 100% correct in your analysis but the voters are not interested in logic.
<
p>
They simply do not want taxes . PERIOD.DOUBLE EXCLAMATION PERIOD
<
p>
That’s simple math .
<
p>
and propose cutting the income tax to, say, 4.7%? And eliminate tolls on the pike. Propose cutting the gas tax while we’re at it — people will like that. And repeal that pesky auto excise tax.
<
p>
This is simpleton math, too.
would not be able to defend it. You are mixing idealism with realism. My point is based on historical facts not dreamy ideas.
<
p>
Please understand that we are debating a rollback issue for which the electorate has already spoken and want that money back. This is real issue that the voters have already processed and have come to a definite conclusion.
<
p>
To oppose it in any way for any reason will alienate almost every voter who originally voted for the rollback. It even gets worse in this case because we have a surplus and there is no excuse.
<
p>
Also, under recent historical election results on both a national and local level if a candidate panders to the left by supporting taxes for any reason whatsoever will have a real uphill battle to get elected.
You said your argument is based on historical facts. Here are two more:
<
p>
1) Contrary to your statement, we do not have a surplus. Therefore it is fiscally irresponsible to decrease revenue at this time without also saying how you are offset it by decreasing spending.
<
p>
2) Even if we did have a surplus, let’s look at history at the national level:
<
p>
1999: Record budget surpluses
2000: George W. Bush – “We have a surplus and people should keep more of their money.”
2001: Tax cuts
2002-2005: Oops, there’s a recession and all sorts of other stuff we have to pay for.
2003: Tax cuts
2006: Record budget deficits
<
p>
This is not the history I want our state to follow.
<
p>
You can say “the voters have spoken 6 years ago” as many times as you want. And the purpose of this thread is for candidates who support this tax cut to tell us how they’re going to pay for it. You have still not answered this question directly. It seems your response is that he has no plan and our state will go deeper into debt, but he doesn’t think the voters will care. I guess you can’t get much more cynical than that.
<
p>
Patrick believes something different: that voters want fiscal responsiblity, good government, and investment to reverse the exodus of jobs and residents out of our commonwealth. Through Patrick’s honest leadership, we can make this a reality.
The voters are not the choir………… and that is why Patrick is a loser because he will never connect.
<
p> My bet is now on Reilly and Gabrielli at the finish.
but I’m more interested in electing leadership than pandering. Government at its best should be able to influence popular opinion, not just cater to our basest, selfish instincts.
Well if the voters don’t care about “sophisticated dribble,” somebody should. And the politician who does care about the nuances and can articulate those nuances in a compelling way demonstrates leadership. And I hope that voters do care about leadership, as they are, well, choosing a leader.
Historically, there is much to be said on your point. Now people have seen a few years of overrides, either in their own towns, or in the news. Property taxes are also a hot topic. I don’t think it’s too sophisticated a leap for voters to see the relationship here. I am hopeful that people have grown sophisticated enough to see through the rhetoric of you can have all the services you love, and not have to pay for it. It’s a little bit of changing the frame to what do you want government to do and then ok, here’s what we need to do that.
I have said it before and I will continue to hammer those of you who choose to mislead. The voters got the law they wanted. Their ballot measure was passed and a law was subsequently put in place instituting the tax policy the ballot measure created. The voters’ will has NOT been ignored. One or two years later, under the leadership of Finneran and other Beacon Hill leaders the law was changed to freeze taxes where they were. The notion that Patrick is ignoring the will of voters is nonsense. The law was changed, as happens sometimes. Reilly isn’t delivering demcracy to anyone. Those are the facts and I am sticking to them.
<
p>
As for the Kool Aid stuff, can’t you be more creative than to trot out a tired cliche?
Start referring to us as specific flavors. 🙂
The last two state budgets were only balanced by making large draws from the stabilization (rainy day) fund. There was not a surplus in FY05 and the surplus in FY06 only result from non-recurring revenue like capital gains taxes, not growth in our job base. We have billions of dollars in deferred maintainance of our roads, bridges, transit system, public facilities and public schools. And competitor states are eating our lunch by investing in public infrastructure and higher education. (Most other states have a higher state/local tax burden than ours, by the way.)
<
p>
I like Patrick, but to support his tax cut position he needs to show more willingness to attack sacred cows (like showing more support for charter schools or taking on taxpayer ripoffs like police details and pension abuses). Otherwise it looks like he’s supporting the current income tax rate simply to maintain business-as-usual in state/local government — something the voters will not and should not accept.
<
p>
In the meantime, the arguments being advanced to support Reilly’s tax cut position could have been written by Grover Norquist. If that’s what it takes to elect democrats then honest to god why do we bother?
i’d like to build on boomer’s point above:
<
p>
Many centrist MA voters have said, over and over, that they perceive a Dem State House, State Senate, and Governor equals reckless spending.
<
p>
Just because you don’t like that view does not mean it’s not there. If a Republican and a Dem both pledge to cut taxes, centrists will believe that the Republican is more likely to do it. If a Republican and a Dem both pledge to invest more in higher ed, centrists believe that the Dem is more likely to do it. We all know that.
<
p>
The most plausible path for a Dem to win the GENERAL ELECTION is to make centrist (read: registered independent, which means they specifically chose not to register as Dems) voters believe that the Governor is really willing to STAND UP to the Legislature.
<
p>
The way Clinton did that in 1992 was to pick certain positions where he took on special interests. Some were good policy (like charter schools, as boomer says), and some were symbolic only (Sistah Souljah).
<
p>
However, it’s so tempting for a Dem to think “If I can just finesse enough, I really don’t have to take on any special interests. After all, Shannon O’Brien came close. My polls show us neck and neck. If I just raise a little more dough, or do a little better with the ad buy, or get a few more endorsements…..”
I was speaking to someone yesterday, just an average guy in Springfield. I told him how, for a recent doctor-mandated emergency room visit for my daughter, I got a bill for $5,000 — nearly all of it covered by insurance, thank God.
<
p>
He looked me straight in the eye and told me that the bill was so high because of illegal immigrants, because we’re paying for them since it was against the law to refuse them medical treatment, like “when they lose an arm or something” (I kid you not).
<
p>
Don’t rule the Howie Carr factor out. He has been railing on immigration for the past few months on his show. He has equated illegal immigration, and possibly even immigration, with crime (he lists crimes committed by illegals), higher taxes, welfare, you name it.
<
p>
The average voter – Republican or Democrat – doesn’t care enough about the issues to weigh the pros and cons of policies surrounding immigration or illegal immigration. Many now believe that we are paying higher taxes because of welfare and illegal immigrants. And they’re not going to want to hear an explanation that illegal immigrants pay certain taxes, and that most don’t use serivces, etc.
<
p>
Don’t discount this. I expect Healey will go for a wedge issue against whichever Democrat wins the primary, will contend that our taxes could easily be lower if we didn’t have so many “social programs for the layabouts and illegals”.
<
p>
NoPolitician is 100% right. Immigration is the hot new wedge issue for right wingers because it’s so easy to sensationalize.
<
p>
What exactly has changed in the last six months in the nation’s immigration situation to make it a sudden crisis? Absolutely nothing, except that the right-wing talk shows and Republican heirarchy have made a concerted effort to control the news cycle so that the average American is more worried about the immigrants “stealing their jobs” than they are about their sons and daughters dying in the Iraq.
<
p>
Six months ago, nobody was talking about immigration and today it is a crisis. In the era of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Scaife, that is not a coincidence.
By rolling back the tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%, the taxpayer gets back 3 cents for every $10 earned. However, the state earns 57 cents fewer for every $10 brought in. (Don’t follow the math? On $188.68 earned the state currently receives $10 in taxes. Lowering the tax to 5% means that the state would earn $9.43 on that same amount.)
<
p>
Now, this isn’t the only source of revenue for the state but it is the largest. Roughly 2/3 of the state budget comes from the income tax. (See page 17 of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center’s analysis of Romney’s ’07 budget for the breakdown.)
<
p>
So, in other words, this 0.3% reduction in the income tax rate means a 5.7% reduction in the amount of income tax money brought in, which means a 3.8% reduction in the total amount of income the state receives.
<
p>
Since we’ve been drawing on the “rainy day fund” the last few years, it’s clear that this tax cut can’t stand on its own. So, I just have one question: Which programs are getting cut?
good question. not only should taxcutters explain what they’ll cut, but those proposing lots of new spending should declare their offsetting cuts.
<
p>
of course that’s total dreamland. candidates have zero to gain from specifics.