First, in Lexington we have been the subject of an organized right wing campaign over the past several years– We have had fights over displays of a religious creche on the Lexington green, we have had the setup of David Parker and the Article 8 people use our town to stage his arrest (because his child brought home a book that had illustrations of non-traditional families) and try and provoke an outcry against gays.
We have also had in earlier years fights over condoms and sex education, attacks on the Day of Silence at the high school, etc. etc.
Well, the leaders of this right wing surge also targeted the tax override with some apparently deliberate lies and distortions, and they were able to convince a majority that government was the enemy and the schools were being mismanaged, so they should be punished.
Patrick says that people’s level of distrust of government is so high that you can’t even talk about taxes and revenues until first you work to restore this trust. I think this is a key point.
The right was able to frame this election as whether you trusted the school committee, as opposed to our frame: unfunded mandates and destruction of local aid have hurt Lexington’s ability to maintain its school system; therefore we have to temporarily step up to the plate until we fix this problem on a state level.
Without trust, too few believed that the expenditures were really necessary.
So, my lesson is that before we talk about taxes, we must talk about trust– who has destroyed a citizens’ trust of their government, and how it is possible to win it back. Only then, when people feel they can trust and have some power over their government, can you then have a discussion about revenues and expenditures.
All the people who say roll back the income tax must be attacked as contributing to the cynicsm and distrust of government, because they cannot promise health care and increased local aid and also cut taxes–they become just other lying politicians.
So, the tax battle has to be fought in the proper sequence, and in Lexington, I don’t think we were fully prepared for this.
I grew up there and my mom still lives there. She is an unenrolled, retired school teacher, and voted NO. She lives on a fixed income and voted for many of the overrides in the last round (schools, library, and fire, against Lincoln fields “turffication”), but NO down the line this time. Basically her feeling is that she is being priced out of her own neighborhood through the combination of reassessments and rising property taxes. This is why we really need to address property tax relief in the Patrick campaign. She is the type of person that gets hurt the most by overrides and understands that schools need to be paid for, fire fighters need to have supplies, and police need to be hired, but there is a point at which it becomes too much and she felt this round so close to the last round (which was what 2 years ago?) crossed that breaking point. As her income is fixed, income taxes do not effect her as severely as property taxes. We really need to push that message, I tested it out with her on the phone today and she seemed to respond positively. Not sure everyone will, but she seemed to at least think someone understood when I explained his position. It is a start.
I agree about the need to address property tax relief– but without trust and a larger frame, it can be attacked as just substituting one tax for another–
<
p>
I think the frame is we need a competent governor, who will bring property tax relief to all Mass. communities, not promise to mindlessly roll back taxes to make a political point.
<
p>
We also need data; i.e. the average statewide increase in property taxes over seveal years, vs. the 0.3% in income tax rollback being talked about.
<
p>
Patrick could become the real candidate who will help stabilize taxes, because he is not making false promises. By sticking with him, we get XX% help with property taxes– which are worse for many older people than income taxes.
<
p>
(I’m killing time tonight waiting for the CA 50 results on dailykos.)
If Busby pulls off the upset, the Republicans are going to go in to panic mode. Even if she keeps it close their panties are going to be in a bind. I am currently “hoping for the best and planning for it” (I’ve got a tiny bottle of champange chilling). đŸ˜›
There’s a few other frames out there, pushed for years by conservatives.
<
p>
First one is the “waste and mismanagement” frame. Everyone believes that 50% of the budgets are made up of waste. You cab probably get past that one with a lot of transparency on the local level. Luckily the internet makes it easy to put things like budgets online. Cities and towns should do this.
<
p>
Second is the “welfare cases” frame. Everyone believes their taxes are perhaps double what they should be because of so many people “on the dole”. I don’t know at all how to get past that one, except to show that the vast majority of social programs in this state go to people who are actually fully employed but can’t make it on their meager wages.
<
p>
There have been a lot of landmines laid by conservatives over government, lots of places to misstep.
The data on the ever-increasing tax burden on residential homeowners can be found on the Mass Municipal Association website. There’s a study that was published last fall by the Metro Mayors Coalition Taskforce on Muncipal Aid. It documents the struggle of many communities grappling with local aid cuts while at the same time, facing skyrocketing fixed costs in an overheated housing market, which is driving home values and taxes through the roof. The “relief package” promised by state leaders didn’t live up to it’s hype, leaving some real tools for managing costs out of the legislation.
<
p>
If any of the three candidates speaks to tax relief- we will win. Christy Mihos put out some literature last week which addresses this issue. This is what the voters want to hear. It’s not that people don’t want to pay their fair share when overrides fail- they just want to send a signal that enough is enough.
<
p>
Tax relief should be priority number one for any of the Democratic candidates. I look forward to hearing from all of them. So Gabrieli, Patrick and Reilly- I hope you’re paying attention!
<
p>
“It’s the tax relief, stupid!” With apologies to Bill Clinton….
Since you’re so concerned about “framing” please drop the right-wing frame of tax “relief” — what we need “relief” from is the underfunding of essential services.
<
p>
Asking for “relief” is ascribing evil to a phenomenon and I reject the idea that taxes are evil — they are simply the way we collect money to pay for the things we want.
but an override every other year for as long as I can remember and a doubling of the house valuations in the past half dozen years, with out making any improvements (just repairs) to your home is evil too.
Property tax “relief” is “tax relief” too, and that’s what Patrick has been, and should be, talking about. It has nothing to do with “evil.” It’s simply a fact that overly high taxes, especially property taxes, do cause hardships, and if we ignore that, we might as well hand the keys to Kerry Healey right now.
You also have to keep in mind that a lot of residents do not have kids in school any more. When I was growing up in the Reed St. neighborhood back in the 1970s and 80s it was a semi-affordable family oriented area. My mom was a single mom school teacher; my neighbors were firefighters, policemen, carpenters, and grad students. The mansionisation of the town has driven almost all of those people out. The few that are left of that era are, like my mom, retired. Though there are some families in the area, it is not the volume that was there in that era, so folks don’t see supporting the school system with constant overrides as directly effecting them (a point I could argue, but just saying what “they” feel). Many of us who grew up there have no hope of ever moving back and raising our kids where we grew up, with the opportunities we had. This serves as a microcosm of what is happening in the state and why most of the folks my age are leaving (like my friends who are moving to PA in 3 weeks) or not coming (like my cousin who wanted to move from Indy and desired to be in Boston, but opted for Cleveland instead due to the cost of living). I am not sure a governor really can slow or stop this dynamic, but I personally think the only one willing to really tackle this problem head on and get the populace to make the sacrifices necessary is Deval. Many people say that he is a great speaker and write it off as a minor positive trait. It is not. To me it is EXTREMELY important. We, the party, and the state, NEED someone who can convince the average voter that we have a responsibility to each other to create a better community. I honestly believe he is the only candidate in any party able to do that right now and it is the number one reason I support him.
I like your point about mansionization– and the fact that Lexington is so expensive it is getting impossible for younger people to live here.
<
p>
This is a minature version of what is happening on the state level in Mass., and Patrick has identified housing costs as the key driver of an exhorbitant cost of living.
<
p>
I agree a governor cannot do something radical alone, but starting with correct language and identifying the problems are the key first step. If everyone here was convinced that bringing down housing costs was the only way we could survive economically, there would be a lot more support for mixed density housing, and opposition to one-dimensional zoning that leads to mansionization.
<
p>
I have lived in Lexington for over twenty years — and I think it is getting economically harder for people to be here if you aren’t a harvard or MIT professor, or a software engineer.
<
p>
High housing values contribute to high property tax valuations, which in turn increase housing costs for those who are retired or on fixed income. It is a vicious circle, and it is not solved when people say oh but the value of your home has increased more than your taxes — because that is only true if you plan to sell and live who knows where.
Every time she hears the bang of a hammer she feels her taxes (meaning the valuation of her house) going up. She is only half kidding. As we all know the valuation of a house is not only based on a house itself, but also that of those around it. So the million dollar new home across the street costs my mom money for her circa 1960s 3 BR 1.5 Bath garrison. The neighborhood used to be mostly like her house, there are only a few like that left.
I grew up in Lexington in the late 80s when there were some big override battles. Even as a high school student, who naturally should have supported more school funding, I opposed them (in our class civics discussions), mainly because I was so irritated by the condescension of the Yes advocates. They always seemed to think so little of the opposition, calling them selfish and short-sighted. I think alienating people this way is a risk statewide, too. Those “who say roll back the income tax” probably still include the majority of the state’s voters. Saying they “must be attacked” — even if you only meant politicians or candidates — is heading down that polarizing road. Rebuilding trust is more important than finding scapegoats. But I don’t know if you can rebuild trust in government in a campaign, when you’re not actually governing. I think all three of our candidates have appropriately proposed massive waste-reduction and increased accountability, and economic growth strategies to, among other things, increase tax revenues. Offering to make good on the tax rollback along with such proposals will sound to most voters like an added trust-building gesture.
I meant the other candidates, not the people who think this way. I see Reilly and Gabrieli pandering in this way.
LHS 89-93
I was 87-91, but I’d be unlikely to have known someone two grades below me. You may have known my sister, she was a ’92 (and a lot more gregarious than me). Drop me a line if you’d like to know. Funnily enough, my aunt and her family lived on Reed St. We lived near the Waltham St./Marrett Rd. intersection, then later on Middle St. My parents moved to Western Mass., and neither they nor I could have afforded to buy back into Lexington since then. I’ve often looked back and been amazed at how much I took the services there for granted – the town pool, the bus service, the playing fields and excellent walk-to schools. I also knew a few people who lived in or near poverty, which seems less and less possible there these days.
Does this mean that Lexington is no longer in danger of tipping?
the bike path is an abomination. đŸ˜›
<
p>
It was much more fun when you could ride your BMX bike over the rotting rail ties (um wouldn’t rebuilding the train line have been a good idea too… achem) on your way to “Dirt Mountain”. (waxing nostalgic)
and they voted “no.” Voters can see through the smoke of rhetoric, from both the left and the right. Give them that much and stop blaming “conservatives.” It’s a lot simpler than that. Property owners didn’t want to cough up any more dough.
<
p>
They’re tired of constant tax increases. Sure, everyone wants great schools and a long list of services, but at some point … enough.
<
p>
I don’t blame residents of Lexington wondering why they need more funding for schools when the average dollar they spend per pupil is, what? $8,000? $9,000? (Don’t have access to the state list.) That’s tuition for private day school. And Lex schools want more?
<
p>
MA is becoming — I’m coining the phrase right now — the Boxes and Bleachers State (a la Fenway.) Eventually, just upper- and lower-income citizens. Just like Lexington is becoming.
here is a link for lexington comparisons to other towns
<
p>
http://www.yesforlexington.org/HowWeCompare.htm
<
p>
We spend less than Bedford in per pupil expenditures, less than Arlington in per capita municipal expenditures, and our family tax burden is lower than Belmont and Wellesley.
<
p>
The fact is that we are kind of in the middle of this class of towns in MA.
IT looks like question 1 and 2 failed while 3 and 4 passed. What were the 4 questions and am I correct in stating some passed and others did not?
Can be found on the Lexington web site
<
p>
As I saw before there were two up votes and two down votes. Not a total win for either side. Basically it seems that buildings, police and fire got support while the schools did not further illustrating my point above about the graying population of the town.
$8,000-$9,000?? Dream on, dude. Tuition for private day school runs $20,000-$30,000 these days. Here’s just one example, and the other area schools are similar.
isn’t 8 grand a kid enough? Seems like most voters think so. Why is your opinion superior to their’s? Maybe you’re wrong and they’re right.
<
p>
If you think Lexington’s schools stink, move somewhere else. What’s that? Can’t afford Weston? Try NH. They have some of the highest test scores in the nation on per pupil costs similar to Lexington (around $7,000.)
<
p>
Or get creative. I have friends in Newport, RI with 5 kids. Newport’s schools are poor so they hired a full time teacher — certified and speaks French, too! — and set up a classroom in their house. Total annual cost was <$25,000 for the 5 kids, less than St. George's in Middletown, RI, and probably a better education to boot. And the parents set the curriculum.
Point is: voters in Lexington feel their school system has enough money. More money does not necessarily mean better eductaed children. Looks like the voters think this applies to Lexington.
As for “my opinion” being superior to anyone else’s, point me to where in this thread I made that claim.
because “David Parker and the Article 8 people use our town to stage his arrest (because his child brought home a book that had illustrations of non-traditional families) and try and provoke an outcry against gays.”
<
p>
Inotherwords , unless you support an alternative life syle and condoms and sex education tought in elementary school kids you are labeled “right wing.” Have you ever heard of “good parenting” .
There are millions of moderates and conservative parents in this country that accept your life style but do not support teaching it to our children in schools. They accept brokeback mountain with a wink and a nod but even your closest straight friend doesn’t want that life style in their home or fed to their kids. I would not classify them as right wing.
<
p>
Do the candidates support gay teaching in kindergarden? Does your candidate Deval support it. If not, is he right wing?
<
p>
Why don’t you provide some data on Lexington employee salaries, health care costs , pensions, and whatever union mandates have ballooned during the past 10 years. Lets analyze the real problems .why are overrides needed and what state legislated mandates prevent Lexington from making headway in the budget. If the state does not allow independent health care programs negotiated with municipal employees , how about a real discourse on how it can be controlled.What about special needs requirements in schools that are unfunded.
<
p>
L A no need to worry….Its not a homophobic right wing conspiracy.in Lexington..there are a couple of other important
issues voters are concerned about.
I am reminded of a boston phoenix mock letter in which a parent requests that his child not be exposed to the fact that their are people who are gay. Also, the child should not be exposed to blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, etc. etc. The parent doesn’t would rather the child not though that their are people different from her in the world. I think this kind of intolerence does fit into the right wing, yes. I’m not trying to be a “demagogue”, as Jacoby puts it, but is does seem rather ridiculous. We do need a reasonable debate on issues such as racism, as name-calling doesn’t help anything, but I feel that I can call it as I see it to a point. Please, contradict me if there’s something wrong with this. The discussion does need to happen.
<
p>
Danny Moraff
there is an interesting column by Jacoby that speaks to the demagoguery on both sides of the gay issue.
The tone of your post is that Lexington is in crisis. Yet the voters approved a $2 million general override, which is a bit over a 2% increase in the levy. Assuming 1.5% new growth, this means Lexington taxes will go up about 6%. This does not sound like a right wing anti-tax conspiracy to me. It sounds like the voters said a 6% boost is acceptable, but 9% is not.
<
p>
Political candidates can talk all they want, but until the state aid formula is re-written, there will be no meaningful property tax relief for towns like Lexington. The forumla is driven largely by home values and by personal income and is very progressive, meaning that even if the local aid account goes way up, very little money will go to Lexington and similar communities.
<
p>
I think that characterizing the state formula as “very progressive” is not quite correct. It’s progressive, but in my opinion not as progressive as it could be. Let me explain why.
<
p>
This is the formula for lottery aid distribution (taken from the MA lottery website, but I made it more readable):
<
p>
Local Aid Formula:
<
p>
The Town’s Equalized Valuation per Capita = The Town’s Equalized Valuation / The Town’s Population
<
p>
The Town’s Entitlement = The State’s Equalized Valuation Per Capita / The Town’s Equalized Valuation Per Capita * $10 * The Town’s Population
<
p>
Every town gets a percentage of the entitlement based on the total amount distributed
<
p>
It’s progressive in that poorer communities get a larger piece of the pie, but it is based only property value, not on income levels of residents or demographics, and in general it contributes only marginally to a city or town’s bottom line.
<
p>
I did some analysis on the numbers for 2004 data. Let me illustrate the progressivity.
<
p>
North Adams (land poor, but certainly not a city in dire straits) has 0.22% of the population, but gets 0.57% of the lottery aid allocated. So it gets about 2.5 times more than it would get if it wasn’t progressive.
<
p>
Springfield has 2.37% of the state’s population, but gets 4.38% of the lottery money. So it gets about 1.8 times more than if it wasn’t progressive.
<
p>
What stands out to me is that although the state’s poor cities are close to the top of the ladder when sorted by “percentage more”, so are a lot of land-poor, low-density towns like Harvard, Orange, Adams, oddly, Amherst (I think there’s a UMass factor there), Clarksburg, Southbridge, Athol, and Gardner. In fact, all those towns get more of a boost than Worceter or Brockton. That is a clue that it isn’t progressive enough, because Orange clearly doesn’t have the same problems or expenses as Worcester.
<
p>
The towns that get whacked the most are those on the Cape. A town like Mashpee has 0.22% of the population but only gets 0.04% the total aid doled out.
<
p>
This all means a dense city doesn’t get too much of a boost from the state even though it is toeing the line with very affordable units (valued at under $20k per unit). Dense housing requires higher levels of police, fire, and code enforcement, but the lottery aid formula “values” a resident living in the woods in Orange and a resident living in a dense apartment block in Springfield equally.
<
p>
Let’s look at 2005 data for some selected cities and towns, and strip out Chapter 70 money and school spending. Sorry for the large gap in the post — I guess the blog software doesn’t handle tables well, but I think this is the best way to present the data.
<
p>
Category
Springfield
Lawrence
Holyoke
Fall River
Worcester
Cambridge
Boston
Wellesley
Lottery
$28,974,118
$16,270,692
$8,164,179
$19,402,249
$26,953,316
$6,820,267
$55,964,533
$1,219,914.00
Addional Assistance
$1,829,496
$239,970
$606,646
$2,290,951
$11,809,090
$17,956,060
$206,638,214
$121,858.00
Gen Govt Budget
$245,034,514
$73,313,095
$55,518,988
$97,500,327
$243,266,828
$236,150,435
$1,312,549,372
$39,348,496
Percent Aid
13%
23%
16%
22%
16%
10%
20%
3%
<
p>
Reality is actually a lot more complicated than this because of education. A town like Wellesley gets the double-shaft because they don’t get a lot of Chapter 70 money either, but then again, they spend twice as much as the foundation budget, so it’s not like they’re hurting either, and their wealthy families generally need little policing or code enforcement. A town like Springfield gets a lot of education aid, so in theory that frees up more local revenue to spend on general government, but if you look at the quality of life in Springfield you can see that this isn’t working.
<
p>
Additional assistance is a very strange beast; it apparently was meant to compensate towns with high property values for education costs before Chapter 70 reform because they weren’t getting much lottery aid. But it has turned into a Boston-area dinosaur of a slush fund for a few select and powerful communities like Boston and Cambridge.
<
p>
The education aid money is far more progressive, albeit far more confusing. It takes things into account like low-income students, students with limited English ability etc.
<
p>
However, I personally think it is both grossly underfunded, and perhaps not accurate, because a lot of the wealthier Eastern MA towns are spending 50% more or greater than their foundation budgets, while poor cities are spending the bare minimum (or less, in Springfield’s case). And the differences in additional spending levels between cities seems inexplainable.
<
p>
Wellesley’s foundation budget is $29,677,238. It spent $42,648,526, or 44% more. Cambridge is $ 56,454,185, it spent $115,682,949, or 104% more. Whereas Worcester’s foundation budget was $ 227,373,569, and it spent $229,399,376 (0.9% more), Lawrence had a foundation budget of $116,406,567 and spent $114,118,622 (2% less), and Springfield had a foundation budget of $242,805,576 and spent $244,393,323 (0.7% more)
<
p>
That tells me that the foundation budget is set far too low, if wealthy communities are spending so far above it and poor communities are spending the bare minimum.
<
p>
The bottom line is that I think the entire aid formula needs to be looked at, and should be analyzed in terms of need. Lottery aid should be indexed to demographics the way Chapter 70 aid is, and the level of spending in suburban communities should be used as a yardstick for what poor communities Ă¢Â€Â“ with harder-to-educate, less-parental-involvement, more-likely-to-be-at-risk children Ă¢Â€Â“ should receive for aid.
<
p>
In my opinion, general government aid should strive to equalize the quality of life between living in 2-acre lot Dover and dense communities like Holyoke or Lawrence. The fact that there are very big differences in property values in abutting communities tells me that the state is falling down here.
Montague, a town about an hour and a half west of Lexington on Route 2, just defeated a Prop 2 1/2 override yesterday, too. I think it’s oversimplifying to think of Prop 2 1/2 votes as simply progressives v. conservatives. I think voters have legitimate reasons in looking at their own financial situations to vote for or against a Prop 2 1/2 override without resorting to the larger political rubrics.
<
p>
Montague is part of a regional school district, so the School Committee is an entirely separate political body than the Town Meeting. The School Committee has representatives from three towns (one is ex-officio, because Erving sends kids to the High School, but pays tuition for them instead of being a full member) and the three towns have very different financial situations.
<
p>
There have been a number of Prop 2 1/2 votes there over the past six years or so and they have always involved political cross-currents. It’s the schools vs. the towns. It’s which elementary school should be closed. It’s the highway departments vs. the schools (why are the teachers getting raises when the guys in the garage aren’t?). It’s one town vs. the other. It’s the finance committee vs. the school business officer (who’s being more forthcoming with financial info?).
<
p>
Now, it’s true, progressive and conservative grous do have a part to play. Citizens for Limited Taxation are AGAINST raising property taxes (Prop 2 1/2 is their baby) AND they’re for lowering income taxes. And they will speak for citizens groups oposing Prop 2 1/2 overrides and tell people that they can have their cake and eat it, too — Enron-style.
<
p>
But teachers unions are, in general, FOR Prop 2 1/2 overrides and AGAINST lowering income taxes. And on the local level, teachers, as opposed to firefighters or highway workers, are better paid and more likely to be out-of-towners. That makes them politically vulnerable and when they speak out too loudly (especially when they ignore wage freeze for job retention offers), they are perceived as being aloof and tone deaf to the financial difficulties of the towns.
<
p>
I’ve seen it before: teachers stand up and say, “I could move to Connecticut and make more money.” Firefighters don’t say that. Mobility is the key to success in today’s employment environment, but mobility, in this case, is bad politics.
<
p>
That said, I think Deval Patrick is exactly right to talk about income tax vs. property tax. As long as he can promise to lower property taxes — and get results — I think it can work.
For every prop 2 override, the proponents bring out the same props: firefighters and teachers. It’s a tired argument and it doesn’t take a voter long to catch on. Why, the medium firefighter earns $43,000 in Boston, at least according to salary.com. While one may not get rich fighting fire for $43K per year or teaching at a starting salary of $26K (9th in nation for starting salary), neither will you convince me on just those statistics that any one Town in Massachusetts needs more for its teachers and firemen.
<
p>
You say:
<
p>
52% of Lexington voters turned out to vote. And the right wing conspiracy won. In Lexinton!
<
p>
LexingtonAlarm, relax; you are being used by the town. Why is it always school and public safety that goes to overrides? Because teachers and most importantly the ever revolving door of parents will work hard for it.
<
p>
What town or school system has failed because an over-ride did not pass?
<
p>
Why do towns send fire engines to medical calls?
<
p>
Why are over ride proponents so arrogant and self-righteous? That costs more votes the
<
p>
Why can’t we get property tax relief?
<
p>
Why do cops and fire fighters have kick-ass pensions, over time and benefits? Over time abuse is major expense.
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 if 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.
<
p>
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.
<
p>
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.
<
p>
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.
<
p>
OK, now let the pile on begin!
is by far the best defense I’ve yet seen of the rollback. Well done, MD.
Would you elect a candidate who owes favors to powerful legislators that have been spending our money wastefully? Gabrieli definitely mortgaged a few future vetoes to get his 15% of delegates–and how many years has Reilly been in this game?
<
p>
If Reilly cuts that tax by 0.3%, a family with $20,000 taxable income will get $180 back–but a millionaire will get $9,000.
<
p>
Can we trust Reilly or Gabrieli to take that money away from legislators’ cronies? Or will Reilly and Gabrieli look the other way when they make cities take it away from firefighters and libraries?
<
p>
One candidate stands outside and above all this: Deval Patrick.
most working poor do not own homes.
<
p>
a cut in state income tax will help them directly.
<
p>
a cut in prop taxes? would benefit working poor only if you think landlords will pass savings on to renters.
Of course a roll-back to 5.0% would pass on a ballot initiative. If you’re truly dedicated to democracy-by-ballot question, the test is not “can we roll the income tax back to five percent?” The test is now “how low will the tax go before the voters vote against it?” 4.5%? 4.0? 3?
<
p>
Admit it, at some point, the voters start to scare the hell out of you, don’t they? How about NO income tax? Sounds great to me, I’d like to keep more of my money in my pocket too. But there are things I need from my government, in both my personal and professional lives. I want lower property taxes, good schools and (as a lawyer) courts that work. These things cost money. I’m looking for, in a governor, someone who gets that and can give me, not the CHEAPEST government, but the government that gives me VALUE (to use a Bill Belichik word).
<
p>
A government that pretends to give the same services to its citizens at 5.0% as at 5.3% is a government that will only force MORE prop 2.5 overrides, not fewer.
<
p>
Why don’t we try putting the ballot question another way:
<
p>
“Which public services should be cut in order to fund a tax cut: – police – fire – health – education.”
<
p>
So, please, stop with the ballot question stuff. If Reilly can make the argument that a tax rollback will help the state economically and bring us back to the days of fiscal growth, job growth and relatively low cost of living, then great. I’d love to hear that. But I don’t think he can make that argument. The best he can do is play it as a populist message to the middle of the political spectrum. That’s all well and good, but that speaks to electability, not good policy.
<
p>
PS – Just my personal philosophy, but schools SHOULD be incredibly expensive. We should spend more on education than anything else.
<
p>
You know, if you could tell me that increasing per pupil spending better educates a student, then I’d vote for a prop 2.5 increase and vote against a rollback.
<
p>
Sure it must be true if spending jumps from say, -0- per student to $500. But, the proponents of increased education funding, say, $1300 to $1500 are throwing money at ideal with no justification that it will accomplish the goal of a better educated kid.
<
p>
<
p>
And now, you’re just fear-mongering. Police (the first in your list), isn’t the largest budget item on the state’s list but is one of the most emotional, which is why proponents of ‘no rollback’ cite them. Tug on the heartstrings and fear.
<
p>
BTW, firefighters in Worcester, after the first longevity increase (5 years) earn about $63K, and have enjoyed 5+% pay increases for several years: a 22% increase since 2001. http://www.wrrb.org/Reports/04-06budget.pdf
<
p>
Police in Worcester? 4% increases per year with 1/4 of the force earning over $85,000.
<
p>
Teachers: hmmm…can’t tell. The site is down. http://finance1.doe.mass.edu/schfin/statistics/teacher_salary.aspx
<
p>
Health: One of the best ideas I’ve seen lately came from the Romney proposal to cause non-custodial parents to pay for some of their child’s MassHealth coverage. It took how many years to think of this?! Certainly, there are more cost containment ideas out there: better oversight of Medicaid reimbursement; better use of Medicaid lien; passing on some of the cost of health insurance between towns and employees.
<
p>
…man, when I’m on this site, I’m on this site ALL DAY.
<
p>
Anyway, look. Anyone who tries to tell you that there is a direct correlation to spending and student achievement is not telling you the truth. There are just too many variables that go into making a student a good student. Home life, teachers, class size (ah, the classic argument), natural ability, etc.
<
p>
What I can tell you is that there are more demands on kids than there were when I was in school. Kids need computers, updated text books, and refurbished schools that are nearly 100 years old. Teachers need pay that will allow them to live in one of the most expensive states in the country.
<
p>
So, can I tell you that increasing school aid DEFINTELY gives us better students? No. But you can’t tell me level funding it, or decreasing aid, makes the wold a better place either.
<
p>
If you want to talk about really reforming the school system, lets talk about year round schooling, ending teacher tenure and dress codes (I’m just throwing that in there after seeing a few choice myspace pages. Yikes.)
<
p>
And I’m NOT fear-mongering with the above hypothetical. Cuts in state taxes mean cuts in local aid mean cuts in services. That’s a fact. There are real life consequences here, and I think it’s time we faced that fact. A few weeks ago, BMG ran a pie chart showing where the budget money for the state goes. Looking at it, I think it’s hard to find places you’d cut without someone on the bottom rung of the economic ladder getting squeezed. And that’s why I’m voting for Deval – because I think he understands there are tough choices to be made, because he’s vowed to get better value (i.e., more ban for the buck out of the state) and because he’s not going to feed me a line about getting “all this an more” in a .3% tax decrease.
<
p>
And yes, Romney’s proposal was a good one. Shows what you can do when you actually show up to work.