I’m not writing this diary to attack Deval Patrick. Though I don’t support him (though I’m not pro-rollback), I’m writing this mainly to look at Deval’s answer to the question about rolling taxes back to 5%.
I do it because his current non-answer affects things larger than Deval, i.e., the Democratic Party. Since the early 90s, the Democratic Party in Mass. and around the country has been the party of fiscal sanity and balanced budgets. Smart spending. We’ve moved on from “tax and spend” while the GOP is going to “tax and borrow” and the public’s perception is starting to reflect that. So it’s disheartening to see a man who could end up carrying the Democrat banner into a general election breathing new life into those stereotypes. Not only is it a convenient bludgeon for Kerry Healey, but it is also a setback for all the party’s candidates in this election and future ones.
(Two notes: I realize that I’m conflating national and state trends to a bit, but that is a plus during an election year when the national mood is favorable to Democrats. Secondly, I appreciate that Patrick chose to present himself as “tax and spend” at the outset of the primary campaign to capture some attention and support. Half of his problems are coming from his campaign’s decision to abandon that mantle now that they have the numbers.)
Below, I have dissected Deval Patrick’s answer from the transcript of the June debate to the question about cutting taxes to 5%.
I’ve tried this math. I’d like to, but look.
“It won’t work but I won’t tell you why not.” An opening that is dismissive. Turns off voters right away.
The tax to cut, in my view, is the property tax.
Of course, this is entirely out of the governor’s power. We now move on to what Deval hopes will happen, after a quick opinion.
It’s a regressive tax. It’s an inefficient way to raise money
We’ll start with Deval telling us why the taxation system is wrong (not that he’ll be able to change it). The problem with that is that he doesn’t have time to explain why he thinks it’s wrong. Again, offering an opinion without backing it up can make one look arrogant.
…the way to do that, you can not reduce the property tax unless you give cities and towns more local aid. You can not provide local aid and at the same time – at least at the levels we need – and at the same time roll the income tax back. So I believe we should postpone that income tax rollback.
This is the closest Deval gets to an actual answer, but as I’ll examine further, it’s not enough. It’s buried in all this other noise, where it should be at the top. (And the whole less taxes here=more taxes there argument has not proven resounding in the past.)
Now, I think it’s also important – Tom makes a point about the importance of growing the economy. He’s absolutely right. That is the way we will grow our way forward. That’s true. But in order to get growth, we have to invest in ourselves, because businesses do not want to be in places or expand in places where the infrastructure is falling apart. And our infrastructure is falling apart, from more crowded schools in every community, to roads and bridges and dams.
This is negative language, which turns off voters. Better to say “the infrastructure desperately needs improvement” than “is falling apart”. The second comes close to fearmongering, which usually turns voters off who catch on to it. And unless their school (or tunnel, come to think of it) is falling apart, he sounds irrelevant.
All – out in Marlborough, which has become its own little economic hub, the mayor tells me she’s got the land, she’s got the votes, she’s got the political will to continue to encourage businesses to come in. They don’t have the waste water treatment capacity on the east side of town, and they can’t, with all the other items on their list of overrides, they can’t find the $600,000 to expand that waste water treatment capacity. Now, that’s a lot of money for an individual, but not for the city of Marlborough, and not for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And yet it’s right in the way of future economic growth.
An attempt at an adecdote, but it makes my eyes glaze over. Needs to be tightened — two sentences max.
Now, this is a transcript from the debate, so I’ll hold off on really coming down on this. However, I’ve seen Deval flub this question four times in person, and he does two things at once: one, he gives the impression that he knows better than those silly voters, and he won’t obey their voice because he’s smarter. Also, half the time he just seems like we doesn’t want to cut taxes, even if he could. In other words, he accomplishes the GOP dream double play — out-of-touch and tax-and-spend.
Realize that this analysis is aimed at the unenrolled ticket-splitting voter, not a staunch Democrat, much less Deval’s backers. We already have their votes.
To give a satisfactory answer to the no-cutting position, you need to use important terms and ideas, all of which are missing in this answer. Democrats have scrapped to re-take these, and they should not be abandoned:
- Fiscal responsibility: This is the crux of the struggle. Invoking duty/responsibility is essential because it lets you say no to cutting taxes while still looking like you want to. People want leaders who talk about “responsibility”.
- Balanced budget: Of course, Mass. has to legally balance its budget, but lots of voters don’t know this. Of course, Bush can cut taxes by going deep into debt, but voters don’t always know why he can do it but we can’t. So mention it — plus, it makes the GOP look irresponsible if they don’t mention it.
- The will of the people: This is also a source of the “I’m smarter than everybody” impression and totally ignores a simple truth — people want contradictory things. Now, you can baldly point that out as Jerry Brown and Walter Mondale did, but voters don’t like being told that they’re stupid, especially when it’s true. Better to go with the things they want that match what you want, and ignore the other stuff. If both sides are respecting the will of the people, then it’s a wash.
- Empathy: Bill Clinton’s genius, somewhat maligned, was his ability to convince listeners that he “felt their pain”. If you are a millionaire talking about not cutting taxes, you need to show that you understand why they want them cut, and that it has nothing to do with affording that extra spoonful of caviar.
So, again…
Listen, I realize how tough it is for working families today — gas prices are up, health care costs are out of control — and the last thing anyone wants is to pay taxes that are too high. When we look around the state, though, we see that people are choosing to fund better schools, to help out senior citizens, to support their neighbors in towns and cities from Provincetown to Pittsfield. Sometimes even when it drives their property taxes through the roof. I think those votes that are cast every year in override referendums and town meetings count just as much as a referendum that was held six years ago. I will need to turn in a balanced budget every year as governor, and I can’t do that while still helping out families with the services they ask for in conversations I’ve had, and in local meetings across the state Include town meeting/Prop 2.5/ramshackl
e school anecdote here. Millionaires like Kerry Healey and myself don’t need a tax cut, and we need to make the responsible decision to continue funding the services that people want. And if we do that, we can cut those high property taxes, too.
Deval, if your campaign uses this, I don’t need the credit. Stopping the damage to my party is thanks enough.
Some good points made, unfortunately the average voter does nto realize that if their income taxes are cut their services will be cut as well, I think Deval should make a simple appeal,
<
p>
No income tax rollback until its fiscally responsible
<
p>
Instead provide real relief by increasing local aid to reduce property taxes and avoid painful overrides. Should be simple enough.
Do you believe there is an honest argument that greater local aid will cause a town to reduce its property tax rate?
<
p>
After prop 2 1/2 all but a handful of towns automatically add 2 1/2 to their revenues each year. Why would they stop?
the property tax, but it would help avoid overrides. That’s pretty key.
I look at override efforts as good: gives the electorate an opportunity to decide if they do or don’t wish to pay for a particular service.
<
p>
FYI, for 2007 fiscal there appear to be only 35 overrides being considered:
<
p>
ASHLAND
BELMONT
COHASSET
CONCORD
EASTON
FRAMINGHAM
GRANBY
HAMILTON
HAMPDEN
LONGMEADOW
MAYNARD
MEDWAY
MENDON
MILFORD
NEEDHAM
NEWBURY
NORTHBOROUGH
NORTON
NORWOOD
PLYMOUTH
PROVINCETOWN
ROWLEY
SALISBURY
SHARON
SHERBORN
SHIRLEY
SOUTHBOROUGH
STONEHAM
UPTON
WELLESLEY
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WEST NEWBURY
WRENTHAM
YARMOUTH
their overrides at this point. I know of at least one, Auburn. There had to have been others back in June, no? Of course, I’m sure there are quite a few that rejected overrides, too.
Another key litmus test is to look at cuts in services that towns and cities have made. Where they cannot achieve overrides or don’t want to push them, core cuts are made. THere is often no other choice. Count the number of local cops and firefighter hours reduced, the number of teachers reduced, the hours that libraries are reduced (some totally closed). These reflect the inverse – desperate acts to stay afloat. Ask these folks if they need more local aid.
Pretty much every city and town in Massachusetts is in some kind of crisis.
<
p>
Some have no immediate fiscal worries because they recently gone through a round of cuts and/or overrides–but these communities are hurting because they are paying more in taxes, or getting less back, or both.
<
p>
In any case, here is the math, or perhaps the algebra. Local expenses are growing faster than 2-1/2 percent per year, and have always done so. It’s not just inflation, but also unfunded state and federal mandates that are quite burdensome.
<
p>
Consequently, there is no combination of local cuts and/or tax increases that can solve this problem permanently. Cuts and overrides are by definition temporary solutions (though big cuts or overrides might tide things over for five years or so).
<
p>
So the pattern has been, and will continue to be, very painful choices, repeatedly. Each round of cuts builds the constituency for the next override. Eventually this creates a majority and taxes go up again.
<
p>
And, if nothing changes, eventually, again. Repeat.
<
p>
Nobody votes for tax increases for their own sakes–nobody says, My taxes are too low, better raise them. Local aid stops these overrides because they remove the constituency for them.
Towns and cities are where the buck stops. They have to pay for essential services and their primary tool is property tax. Since leaders in small communities are very close to the residents they represent and in our smaller towns we still have Town Meeting, people wouldn’t want or feel the need to raise property taxes if they got sufficient local aid.
What do you call a diatribe full of inaccuracies? I hardly know where to begin.
<
p>
Let me start by thanking you for your final statement. I realize that your heart is in the right place.
<
p>
<
p>
As I said, “Wow!” — please warn me if you ever plan to do that, because I’d like to see if I can tell the difference!
<
p>
<
p>
Huh? Please provide some kind of documentation for this allegation. I’ve been a volunteer in the campaign since the beginning, and I have no memory of Deval ever saying anything remotely resembling this. And, btw, what problems? The problem of being the frontrunner? Your statement makes little sense to me.
<
p>
<
p>
I assume you’re talking about Deval here, but you speak in such generalities it’s hard to tell. Do you think he’s “arrogant?” If so, you’re one of the few people I’ve encountered (maybe the only one) who would ascribe that attribute to him.
<
p>
You then claim the Guv has nothing to say about property taxes, but I guess you’re not aware that if state aid to localities is cut they have to make up the difference by raising local taxes. I’m happy to know that Deval “gets it.”
<
p>
You then fault him for giving short answers and for giving long answers. (“…it makes my eyes glaze over” you say of a 110-word answer)
<
p>
And then, the capstone of your argument:
<
p>
<
p>
Based on this, I would say you’ve just not been paying attention. Fearmongering? Not that I think Deval would stoop to that, but it sure has worked well for our Warp Resident. And to say that our infrastructure “is falling apart” does not sound so much like negativity as like reporting the world the way it is. Let’s hope that voters will reward that honesty.
<
p>
As I say, please give me a heads-up when you decide to “attack” Deval, because if this was friendly, I’d hate to see your worst.
I’m not attacking Patrick. I’m saying that his answer gives negative impressions to unenrolled and centrist voters. I think he’s a good guy running for good reasons, but I’m not going to be in lockstep agreement with him. I don’t think offering alternatives and improvements is an “attack” and I hope his campaign doesn’t either. I have no idea where “diatribe” came from either.
<
p>
But nor am I looking at garner the support of Deval’s volunteers — your (and my) vote for the Democratic nominee is pretty safe. It’s the ticket-splitting unenrolled voters that are the problem. They vote Dem for legislator, GOP for governor. And I’d like to see Dem candidates consider them, and not just primary voters. As I keep saying, Kerry Healey is our opponent, and I wish all Democratic candidates would recognize that. It’s their viewpoint I’m arguing from.
<
p>
In one afternoon at BSC Deval promised:
Other times that he has spoken in South Shore, that has been his general list. I’m sure you’ve heard all this, too. That, to me, means we have to spend money. Lots of it.
<
p>
Meanwhile, on taxing in convenient table form!:
<
p>
Tax rollback to 5%
NoWhen targets are hitNow
DevalGabrieliReilly, Healey, Mihos
<
p>
Deval is on the leftmost pro-tax extreme of the debate on the rollback — in the context of 2006, he’s the major candidate most in favor of taxation. Tax.
<
p>
Given we’re looking at polls with tiny sample sizes, huge margins of error, and undecideds in the double digits, with low levels of candidate knowledge throughout before spending was started, I would say we’re wise to avoid taking them for more than face value. But you’re welcome to do differently.
as Adam Reilly pointed out in the BMG Pundit Smackdown, and as he also noted here, Patrick publicly refused to rule out, and in fact was “looking at,” raising the income tax in an appearance on WRKO. That was a rookie mistake that may come back to haunt him. He may have changed his tune since then (I hope so). But the more Dems pretend that taxes generally, and the income tax specifically, aren’t a serious issue, the more trouble we’ll find ourselves in come November.
It makes me crazy when I read GOP talking points from a Democrat as if we must all look at things in this light in order to capture the independent vote. That is just plain wrong and has been a losing proposition in this state for the last 18 years. Deval Patrick understands this and is the only candidate who is unwilling to fall into the GOP framing trap.
<
p>
MFW is absolutely right to call you on this. I will go one step further:
<
p>
Republicans can’t manage money. The Romney administration has failed miserably at appointing anyone who knows how the hell to run government. For every tax dollar returned to the voters under this administration, two dollars would be taken from their town’s budget because these idiots don’t know how to manage and would love nothing more than to turn the onus back to the towns. This doesn’t work. We have proof. Let’s use that proof to our advantage. We cannot afford a tax decrease without losing educators, police, firefighters and essential government services. What we need is someone who will stand up and say that we need to manage better and use taxes wisely to invest in necessary services. Town funding needs to be restored so that retirees don’t have to to choose between paying escalating property taxes or eating cat food. That’s what Deval Patrick is saying. He’s right. Overrides are pitting neighbor against neighbor. The ones who can least afford these decisions should not bear the burden of the piss poor management of a Republican administration. It’s got to stop. It’s going to take strong leadership and someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the GOP mentality. What Deval speaks of is not without precendent. Look at what Governor Dean did in Vermont. Balanced budget, surplus and extended services (he actually did provide health care). It can be done with the right Governor. I’m convinced Deval Patrick is that person. We need to cite successful stories instead of falling into the same old trap.
<
p>
I don’t understand — if the GOP talking points are “plain wrong” and a “losing proposition”, why have they worked for the Republicans this last 18 years? Are you saying that ideas that are good when Republicans say them are bad when Democrats do? I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe that there are magic words that make ideas and candidates more palatable, and we just need to find them. And regardless, framing is a long-term project, and I’m not sure if it can be done in under than 4 months.
<
p>
Outside of BMG, Cambridge, and a few other places, we work in an environment framed by this language. I’d rather try to work with that reality than deny it. Those unenrolled ticket-splitters are the reason the GOP keeps winning. Unpleasant, perhaps, but also true.
<
p>
This diary wasn’t meant to be about why any of us support the candidate that we do, but about convincing others to do the same. And approaching voters as “I’m going to make tough choices that you won’t like but are responsible” sounds nice, but it rarely wins as many votes as “I’ll make all your problems go away.” See Reagan v Carter, Reagan v Mondale, Weld v Silber.
We are not Republicans (except of course for Joe Lieberman who is hopefully going away soon)! Are you seriously implying that Dems should be using Republican ideas to defeat Republicans? Maybe if John Kerry had just been a little more Republican, we would have won? Maybe if John Kerry actually stood up loudly and proudly for Democratic values and himself voters might have understood the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Framing does take time, but your implication that we must go along with existing framing is ludicrous. I have no more words to waste on your inanity.
“but I guess you’re not aware that if state aid to localities is cut they have to make up the difference by raising local taxes.” MFW, I assume you would agree it is conceivable that local spending can be reduced, right?
Not from where I sit.
<
p>
The demands on our town budget continue to rise. Where are we going to cut?
<
p>
We have health care costs going through the roof, increased demands on our school system (with no concomitant funds from the state or federal government to fund all their wonderful programs).
<
p>
What should we do? Eliminate our police department?
<
p>
The fact that you can ask such an out-of-touch question tells me you’re not involved in the nitty-gritty of town government.
<
p>
I don’t know a single town in this neck of the woods that isn’t agonizing over how they’re going to pay for all the obligations they face.
<
p>
Why the obsession with the tax rate? Is this really “reality-based”? Just asking.
because it keeps polling at #1 on people’s list of “most important issues.”
Health Care costs are the bigest–uncontrolled–cost hitting communities. It is killing them. Do you think health care plans should be part of collective bargaining agreements? If they weren’t, towns could have more flexiblity controling costs. Yes, some of that means higher deductables, higher premiums. But other aspects mean switching plans for better rates, making tradeoffs like a higher dedutable for hospitialization for a lower prescription drugs and stuff like that.
<
p>
My point is that the more flexible a town can be to tweak a plan, the better able they are to control costs–instead of having to look into the same plan for three years, no matter how the landscape changes. Would you be in favor of that in principle? (I predict you would oppose that.)
There is no way local entities (regardless of whether there is a collective bargaining agreement), private employers or individuals are going to be able to cope with rising health insurance premiums on their own – I don’t care how much flexibility you give them.
<
p>
Increasing co-pays and requiring more contributions to premiums, etc., is putting a small band aid on a cut artery.
<
p>
Health care needs to be separated from employment. Otherwise, employers who provide good coverage will continue to subsidize those employers that do not.
<
p>
Why should each town have to pay an administrator to constantly search out the best deal? This is incredibly time consuming stuff. Isn’t that administrative cost, alone, a waste of tax dollars?
Somewhat in jest and perhaps not financially viable butâ¦
<
p>
Since everyone and there sister is giving Deval advice on how to handle the tax question, here is my sure fire, guaranteed, primary and general election winning plan.
<
p>
Given the:
<
p>
1. Need for state funds to help correct safety concerns with big dig as well as the dams and bridges through in the state.
<
p>
2. The need to increase local town aid.
<
p>
3. The elimination of the Mass Turnpike authority and all of the tolls.
<
p>
We must keep the tax rate at its current level.
Is there a candidate supporting such a notion?
Many on-the-mark points made by glosta dem about admin spending and its burden on local budgets, poor stewardship of public resources, etc. But admin spending alone paints an incomplete picute.
<
p>
Another HUGELY important point is that a main reason HC Costs cannot be controlled locally is that, get this, HEALTH PROMOTION and reducing development of disease and related costs of treating those diseases (often called “Disease burden”) is dollars-wise the biggest way to control rising HC costs.
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe that excessive Admin. spending is an obscene outrage, esp. when so many are uninsured and suffer more before dying prematurely, and many others are bankrupted by their family’s HC costs. But we could make gigantic strides to bring HC spending levels down while providing more comprehensive coverage benefits to all.
<
p>
This requires us to have what every other industrialized nation already has (while they each spend on average one-half LESS than the US does on Healthcare). And oh, they ALL have better health status indicators than the US. That is, if we actually had a HEALTH CARE SYSTEM with a center piece being universal insurance coverage and a system built on caring for patients and communities needs, not the current market-driven fragmented mess we have now. Establishing a Constitutional right to comprehensive health insurance is a legal and political tool to start getting us there, first as a Commonwealth and then as a nation.
<
p>
Don’t take it from me, someone who’s worked in healthcare for 25 years, the past 13 of them as a nurse in hospitals, homecare, homeless shelters, teaching nursing students and on healthcare policy reforms. There’s a ton of data from myriad sources, a ridiculous amount, really, that shows this to be true. From the federal GAO, CBO, Institute of Medicine, the B.U Health Reform Program, at http://www.PNHP.org, and links to many other independent sources posted on the Alliance to Defend Health Care’s “Resources” page at http://www.DefendHealth.org.
<
p>
So establishing a recognized right to comprehensive health insurance is not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do.
<
p>
If you agree, help win the vote on this Constitutional Amendment item at the November 9, 2006, ConCon–and defeat the DOMA Amendment–both are human rights issues.