The recent discussion on taxes has talk radio feel to me. There are lots of people talking about what other people should be doing.
So I pose the following questions:
1. What is YOUR specific position on the 5.0?
2. What is YOUR message on 5.0?
Here is mine.
Position:
Roll taxes back to 5.0 over a 6 year period, .05 percent a year. If there really is the voter outrage thatâs claimed to be out there, let another ballot initiative be draw up to override or repeal the rollback to 5.0.
Message:
Over 20 years there has been an increasing amount of frustration with both legislative and executive leaders over the management of tax dollars and that has been exacerbated by a growing frustration over the quality of government services. It has risen to a level so high that the citizens of Massachusetts have voted to roll-back the income tax rate to 5.0 and almost voted to eliminate income tax all together.
I canât stand here and campaign on a platform that asks for more until we have proven that we can properly manage what we have. That is why I support the voter mandated rollback to 5.0 and am announcing a plan that calls for a half percent tax cut each year over the next six years to get us to 5.0.
That is what the people voted for. That is what they should get. My message is that I respect the people of Massachusetts and want to put money in their pockets.
You complain a lot about the tax issue. You bring it up every opportunity you get when talking about taxes. How come in all of the discussions about voting, campaigns, and campaign finance that occur on this site you don’t seem to be nearly, if at all, as vocal about the Clean Elections law that was passed in this state and subsequently de-funded by the legislature? Is it because it doesn’t put a buck in your pocket? I think your outrage about voter will is a bit of a sham.
because the voters eventually “advised” that it was OK to repeal it, by a pretty big margin. That hasn’t happened with the rollback.
You are pointing to an advisory ballot question. I agree that such a quesiton certainly gives the Legislature a lot more wiggle room but it isn’t binding. The Legislature still has a technical obligation, under Bob’s and many other people’s theory, to “obey the will of the people” based on the binding vote. What distinguishes an advisory ballot question from a poll? Neither binds the Legislature.
I thought the legislature’s treatment of Clean Elections was an outrage. I’m also realistic enough to know that it is unlikely to be an important issue in this election for a variety of reasons, primarily because the Clean Elections battle has already been fought and lost by the clean side. The reason I keep writing about taxes is because that’s the #1 way Healey is most likely to win, in my opinion, and I think Democrats need to recognize that. Separately, I’d like to note that you broke the “no personal attacks” rule. If you want to chat here, that’s great, but keep your discussion focused on the merits of the issues, not on whether you think I need a buck in my pocket and whether I am a sham or not — that kind of useless invective sets back the purpose of what we are about at BMG.
I apologize for the buck in your pocket question. I could have worded it better so it didn’t seem personal. However, I think the question is quite legimate. Some people choose the tax issues as “their issue” over all others because they are more interested in putting money in their pocket than say funding another community project. I think it is legimate question that I unintentionally asked in a snarky way. As for the sham comment I don’t think that was personal at all. I am calling your argument a sham. Some people have called my arguments weak, but that isn’t personal. And it make it less personal I will restate the criticism. I believe that an argument for following the voters will on the tax issue is a rouse. I am not sure that characterizing the merits of an argument as weak or a sham is personal. However, if you took it personally I apologize for that as well.
Thanks for the apology: accepted 🙂 Anyway, my position doesn’t really have anything to do with money in my personal pocket. It’s based on (1) my feeling that government should do what the people want (on Clean Elections as well as on taxes), and (2) that given the trendous good that could be accomplished by a Democratic Governor this is a very small point to concede — especially given that the voters approved it! — in order, as I see it, to increase the probability of victory over Healey to a near certainty. The last point really drives me a bit crazy, I will confess: the idea that Deval Patrick, for example, could throw away an election victory because he is too stubborn to realize that this is a critical issue for millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of Massachusetts voters — who may not be as relaxed as I am about a relatively small amount in lower taxes. That’s no ruse: that’s reality as I see it, and as I believe recent Massachusetts history also indicates. Thanks for your nice note. Onward and upward … to a Democratic victory in 2006.
You highlight the dilemma I face. I find the vote the most compelling argument that exists for the rollback and am absolutely certain that the other side will use that very argument and it will resonate. So from a political point of view I can see supporting the rollback.
<
p>
However, from an economic point of view I think that the rollback is incredibly dangerous. The MBPC reported that one version of the budget was balanced using funds from the rainy day account – this is at income projections using 5.3% income tax. Granted, the legislature was using conservative tax receipt figures that were likely to be much better than the budget was based on. That still doesn’t mean that this state is flush with cash. To date I do not think a single candidate has put out figures showing the magic $500 million to $1 billion (Healey’s fuzzy math figure) surplus and where it comes from. For these reasons, I just don’t believe that the rollback is feasible. This is not to mention the fact that no funding is back to the 2000 levels which means that the projections that were used to persuade the voters to support the decrease do not exist as of yet, we are in a different factual circumstance, a bit of a bait and switch.
<
p>
Because I don’t think the economics make sense but the politics does, I am of the belief that we need to make the politics reflect the economic reality and I think Deval is doing that, albeit he faces an uphill battle (really more of a climb Everest).
<
p>
We agree on the political side of the equation Bob but it is the economic side that really matters and as is usually the case in politics we face the choice of a quick victory with the promise that we can fix the mistakes we needed to promise to win or fighting for principle and convincing people we are right. Not a fun position to be in and I think this is why Republicans keep winning, they don’t give a damn about anything.
<
p>
2. In fairness to those who wish to stay at 5.3%, shouldn’t we who favor the 5.0% rate have to explain exactly where we’d make the $450 million to $600 million per year in cuts for the 2007 MA budget?
<
p>
Otherwise, it’s easy for us to breezily say “cut the taxes, worry about the spending cuts later.” That’s bogus, dude.
<
p>
So I would add: if you say “Cut to 5.0%”, we can assume either
<
p>
a) You’d like to cut the rate of growth in the MA budget from 4% to 2%, across the board – local aid, k-12, public safety, the works. That would save $550 million. (Which I would indeed propose).
<
p>
or
<
p>
b) You’d simply endorse Romney’s proposed $573 million in cuts?
If I were running for Governor, you’d better believe I would outline the $600 million in FY07 cuts. As it is, I submit that an important element of the platform of the winning Democratic candidate should include just that — and that the more credible their plan is, the better their chance of beating Healey in the autumn. If the winning Democratic candidate does not include such a proposal they may still beat Healey — I hope they do — but it will be harder.
if you want to pay the 5.5 go ahead. Anyone that does not, pay only 5….
<
p>
Or in other words, we voted to go back to 5.0 get back to 5.0 now.