Do many people care about taxes, at least a little? No question. Is there a significant slice of Massachusetts voters who are very inclined to vote for the candidate whom they believe will do more to lower taxes? Yes.
But it’s not the whole ball game. Try these on for size:
A major public highway has collapsed and killed someone — let’s cut taxes.
People are getting shot and killed on the streets of our cities every few days — let’s cut taxes.
Our state parks are in lousy shape and not providing good times for hundreds of thousands of kids who don’t have the money to go to summer camp — let’s cut taxes.
Cities and towns can’t pay their cops, firefighters, and teachers and public services are suffering — let’s cut taxes.
Of course, as many have pointed out, sub-standard public services and public works can create cynicism about government generally and make voters inclined to expect less from government. These angry voters just want government to take as little of their money as possible. Making people unhappy with the whole public enterprise is at the core of the modern Republican strategy (am I getting this right, Peter?).
So, yes, taxes are important, but so is having a candidate who can speak articulately and credibly to peoples’ not-yet-dead desires to have a society that works and that provides many things that most people can’t provide for themselves. And this is true even in a state where people voted several years ago to cut the income tax to 5%. “The people voted” is a powerful argument, to be sure, but it is one of many. There’s obviously no data on this, but in the wake of the Big Dig tunnel tragedy, a vote six years ago may not be as potent an electoral factor as some have previously thought.
The Republicans have largely succeeded in convincing voters that they will tax less than Democrats. It would be a mistake for Democrats, in a search for “electability,” to overemphasize taxes compared to attributes like effectiveness, compassion, articulateness, vision, and trust. Not to mention delievering on a whole range of specific issues like schools, health care, the minimum wage, public safety, and the management of public works projects.
Disclosure: as I have previously stated, I am a Patrick supporter.
bob-neer says
“‘The people voted’ is a powerful argument, to be sure, but it is one of many.” It is also the only relevant one in an election.
publius says
“In the wake of the Big Dig tunnel tragedy, a vote six years ago may not be as potent an electoral factor as some have previously thought.”
<
p>
We’ll see.
david says
if he thinks that the Big Dig disaster will eclipse the tax issue to the point that he doesn’t have to worry about the vote in 2000. One effect of this week’s sad events will be to further diminish the people’s trust in the ability of government to spend money wisely and efficiently. They spent almost 15 billion dollars on this thing, and it doesn’t work. If anything, these events have made the tax cut issue stronger, not weaker.
<
p>
Do you seriously think that a candidate – any candidate, however charismatic and however well-meaning – can successfully go to the people now and say, “trust me, I will make sure your money isn’t wasted, but the government actually does need it for a while longer, so you still don’t get that tax cut that you voted for”?
<
p>
It’ll be very very difficult to pull that off.
lolorb says
Did you know that the town of Hampden actually had to cut its budget so dramatically that they had to turn off street lights in half the town? The result: more accidents at tricky intersections and homeowners actually paying for the lights where they were afraid that vehicles might hit their homes without adequate lighting. I happen to know Republicans who live in that town who think that the current (Romney) administration has failed them. The overrides in that one town were inconsequential compared to the funding lost during the last four years. Do you really believe that homeowners paying for street lights to remain lit are going to quibble about the tax rate remaining the same (if it means they don’t have to pay the light bill)? I sincerely doubt it. They want someone to alleviate the problem of decreased state funding and the ever increasing property taxes that don’t cover necessary services in the town. This is not an issue about one town. It’s an issue that permeates the state and the country. Decreasing taxes equates to loss of services and higher property taxes. Reaganomics and trickle down theory don’t work!!
<
p>
The Big Dig became a boondoggle because there was no independent oversight. I fully support Deval Patrick’s approach. We cannot afford to be pretend Republicans and go along with the stupid framing that tax refunds and tax reductions are going to solve these problems. We need to elect someone who doesn’t participate in this political hackery. We need someone who gets it. Deval Patrick does.
frankskeffington says
of these “taxes won’t matter” posts for a post Nov. 4th, “I told you so” post.
<
p>
Publius, MFW and all, feel free to save up all my “sky is falling” rants about the dangers of the tax issue.
<
p>
If we win, it will because somehow the tax issue was neutralized, either by somehow changing the debate from income taxes to property taxes and services or just saying “uncle” like Chris or Tom (well Tom is in complete surrender).
michael-forbes-wilcox says
frankskeffington says
can also mean post November 7th. I admit, I try to think like a weaselly Republican–so I’m still right, even though your really right.
publius says
“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.”
<
p>
Some BMGers seem to think that taxes, and a six-year old vote on taxes, are everything, the only thing, wild thing, you name it.
<
p>
Maybe, just maybe, 16 years of Republican misfeasance and nonfeasance can be made an issue this year:
<
p>
“Vote Republican: we built and managed the Big Dig”
<
p>
But Frank, I’m happy to see you admit it may be possible to make this campaign be about other things. And I’m honored you’re archiving my and MFW’s hopelessly unrealistic posts.
<
p>
BTW, the election is November 7, so one of us will need to wait a bit longer for our “I told you so” post.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
Well, okay, not a surprise. In fact I see I’ve already been branded as your ally, Publius, before I even open my mouth.
<
p>
Fine.
<
p>
I wish Bob and David would climb down from behind their “voters have spoken” shield they use to deflect all criticism of their soapbox screeds about taxes.
<
p>
Tell me guys, how do YOU feel about the issue? What is the PROPER thing for us to do? Raise taxes? Lower taxes? Change the subject?
<
p>
Who cares? I say.
<
p>
Let’s talk about what we want government to do for us. Or not do. Let’s talk about whether government programs are working. Or not working. Once we’ve agreed on those things, taxes are how we pay for them.
<
p>
I hope that once we get out of the emotionally-charged atmosphere of the electoral cycle, we (as a group) can have a calm discussion about the checks and balances that one observer (at least) has noted must be placed on the voters. To ask, “do you want your taxes lowered?” is the stupidest referendum on the books. Who is going to say, “no, thank you, take more”? But how about asking the rest of the question, “which services do you want to cut?”
<
p>
But don’t get me started. We live in a Republic, guys, not a Democracy, and I thank my lucky stars for that.
david says
What I, personally, think about the tax cut isn’t really very important (for what it’s worth, I generally agree with Patrick on the merits; I voted against it before, and I’d do so again if it were on the ballot again).
<
p>
And I wish that you, Michael, would get out of the habit of describing anyone who takes issue with you as being on a “soapbox screed” (or, to recall a couple of other epithets you’ve tossed my way, having a “bug up my arse,” or being “on a high horse“). It’s not productive.
<
p>
In any event, as the commenter upthread noted, “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” Patrick needs to win the primary to have a shot at putting his ideas into effect, and whichever Democrat wins the primary has then got to win the general election to end Republican occupation of the corner office. I’m not talking policy here, I’m talking tactics, and at the moment the latter is just as important, if not more important, than the former.
<
p>
And here’s one really, really easy answer to your question about “what we want government to do for us.” Try this: “we want government to do its job within the budget allowed by an income tax of 5%.” How do we know that’s what the voters want? That’s easy: it’s what they said. Patrick has got to get more concrete about how he’s going to help reduce property tax burdens if he wants to deflect that argument.
<
p>
Lately, I’ve been seeing arguments here along the lines of “well, there’ll be more local aid, so you won’t have Prop. 2-1/2 override votes as often.” Color me unimpressed. For one thing, all that means is that property taxes will go up more slowly than they otherwise might. For another, every candidate is promising more local aid – heck, the legislature just lifted the lottery cap, which is significant progress in that direction – so just saying “I’m for more local aid” isn’t enough to distinguish Patrick from the pack. For yet another, the argument is just too attenuated.
<
p>
<
p>
Any voter who isn’t asleep by this point has probably concluded that Patrick is a tax-n-spender who is more interested in seeing that government has enough cash on hand to keep itself fat and happy than that taxpayers get a break. Yet I don’t think anything in that imagined dialogue is an unfair representation of Patrick’s position.
<
p>
I’m being deliberately obtuse to some extent, Michael, but what I’m doing here is far milder than what Kerry Healey is going to be doing. He’s got to be ready.
andy says
I am not disagree with you or challenging you David so please read the following question with that context in mind: On what do you base your comment? I am undecided on the tax issue (well I am leaning in one direction) and would like to know from what everyone is drawing their conclusions. You seem as though you have some extra knowledge that just makes people like MFW wrong and I would like to know what it is.
david says
Just the experience of watching a large number of Gov races in this state, and a sense that the tax issue retains a lot of resonance. I could be wrong – maybe MFW is right and voters will scoff at Healey’s reminders that they themselves voted to cut their taxes but the legislature kept blocking it (the same legislature, by the way, that you’ve been trashing lately as a bunch of out-of-touch hacks who routinely put the public interest last.). “No more tax cuts!” they’ll be chanting. “Hey hey! Ho ho! Five-point-oh has got to go!” Yes, I can hear it now.
frankskeffington says
Polls are but a snap shot of one day in time, and often skewed by the question that is asked. But 30 years of hostory is pretty hard evidence
<
p>
I have posted this point I’m going to make several times and NOBODY has ever refuted it and let’s see someone try.
<
p>
For the last 30 years, we (Dems / Liberals) have been on the losing side of every single election in which “taxes” are the focus of the electoral agenda. (Well except once, when the repeal of the ENTIRE state income tax barely lost–a hollow victory).
<
p>
1980 Prop 2 1/2 passed
1984 Mondale promises to raise taxes to lower defict
Two graduated income tax iniatives defeated (three if you go back further)
2000 income tax roll-back
1990, 1998 and 2002 Gov elections where we were slapped around by Republican media consultants as tax and spend liberals.
<
p>
So what is a stonger predictor of electoral results–history or polls?
<
p>
And again, I ain’t saying we should throw in the towel and just cut taxes. I also reconize that someone like Deval is a fighter and won’t easily roll. But he’s also a rookie candidate and certainly has taken Reilly’s bait on Ameriquest and has said some stupid things (“no unnecessary tax increases”), so he COULD blow it.
<
p>
So far the “taxes won’t be a problem” crowd have said nothing to make me think things will be different. Not to say there hasn’t been interesting discussions and I’ve even had the likes of MFW admit some areas of vulnerablity in his approach
<
p>
But in general, I can’t believe how many people ignore 30 years of history by saying “this time it’s different”. I tired of my Groundhog Day analogy and I’ll try this one out: It’s like Lucy and Charlie Brown–this time it will be different. Taxes won’t be an issue in the election and Lucy will hold the football in place for Charlie Brown to kick. Ya right.
<
p>
And to FactCheck’s post about David and I having it both ways–either we lose on taxes or we warned you about taxes and that’s why we won. I can only say that if taxes dominates the last weekend of the election and Healey keeps repeating “tax cuts” and Deval repeats “services”, we will have Healey as the next Governor.
<
p>
Save this post, I’ve loved to eat my words.
gary says
The candidate who indicates he will raise taxes will lose;
<
p>
The candidate who indicates an unwillingness to consider a tax cut will also lose;
<
p>
And p.s., someone should take a look at the Mass estate tax; things are really quite screwed up and Florida is looking good to lots of folks.
factcheck says
It’s fine that you know better than what voters who are being polled are saying, but:
<
p>
How about “No on 3, it goes to far.” How about the fact that we didn’t get rid of the income tax? Why is that hollow? Oh, because it doesn’t fit your theory.
<
p>
How about the fact that 2 1/2 overrides and CPA campaigns (tax INCREASES) are voted on all the time.
<
p>
I mean, what do you mean “every” election? You named what, 5? And how do you know that it was taxes that was the cause of these losses? Because you just know?
<
p>
How about 1996 when Clinton was elected after raising taxes in his first term? Were taxes the main focus of the campaign? NO, because we had already started moving to the point where people are less interested in tax cuts.
<
p>
How do we know that, by the way? POLLS. TRENDS. Things change.
<
p>
And it very well may be different this time because unlike the last four elections we are going to have the better candidate (well, hopefully). That is what wasn’t the case in each of your examples above.
<
p>
The stronger predictor of election results, by the way, is polls. Sorry, just happens to be the case.
frankskeffington says
For someone who accuses me of knowing things that no one else knows, you certainly seemed to know a whole lot your self. Like your last line:
<
p>
“The stronger predictor of election results, by the way, is polls. Sorry, just happens to be the case.”
<
p>
Where is your source for that contention?
<
p>
Uh? I contend that the stronger predictor of election results is…past election results. Um, let’s let the reader decide what makes better sense. As for my source, I’ll start here and it that’s not enough, we’ll go through the membership list
<
p>
You say I named 5 elections…I counted 9 (including the hollow victory of barely escaping the ELIMINATION of the income tax).
<
p>
As for your point that Clinton winning in ’96 after raising taxes in ’93. Thanks for reminding me…make that 10 elections–because the effing Republicans won the House in ’94 partially because of that tax hike.
<
p>
Actually Pat Buchanan spanking Bush Sr. in the primaries for his “read my lips” reversal brings the count to 12 elections impacted by the tax issue (Bush taunting Duke to read his lips and Buchanan slapping Bush in the ’92 primaries).
<
p>
I just can’t believe I’m having a conversation where politically smart folks are debating whether taxes are a major issue in modern elections or whether past voting behavior is a key predictor for future outcomes.
bob-neer says
You’re not alone.
factcheck says
You were arguing that EVERY time taxes are the top issue in a campaign the Dem loses. Then you concluded that’s bad news for Deval.
<
p>
Voting behavior is complicated. I’m just saying that it is not as simple as you are arguing and that in this case taxes are NOT going to be the top issue.
<
p>
I can’t belive you think it is that simple.
<
p>
By the way, the link talked about… well here’s the best quote:
<
p>
“In Public Opinion and American Democracy (1961) he analyzed the link between the changing patterns of public opinion and the governmental system.”
<
p>
Changing patterns of public opinion!!!
<
p>
Thanks for making my point. History is only the guide if things keep working exactly the same way. Which they don’t. If you knew anything about polls, you’d know that (cutting) taxes used to rank really really high but not anymore.
<
p>
Your last paragraph has nothing to do with what was being argued. 1) You were saying taxes is THE deciding issue. I say that they are one issue of many, but of less importance than previously. 2) We both agree that past voting behavior is a “key predictor.” But you find me ANY real model of election outcomes that predicts more accurately than polling the electorate and you will make that part of your point without dispute. But, there isn’t one.
frankskeffington says
…that you claim a poll in July will predict what will be the outcome of a November election.
<
p>
From an historical view, of course public opinions change and therefore voting patterns change. But they are historical. I trust you know about electoral realingements in voting patterns (that would be V.O Keyes). Well we’ve had about 6 of them (Bob help me out if I have the number wrong) in then last 200 yers of voting.
<
p>
Ok, you says taxes won’t be a key issue in November. If Deval is nominated I’ll bet you $10 million of Kerry Healey’s money that it will be THE issue in November–along with a little Democratic dictatorship (sp) rhetoric.
<
p>
Time to stop beating a dead horse.
factcheck says
…is that the alarmists like David and Frank are always going to be right. Why did Healy win? “See, we told you so!” Or, why did Deval win? “Good thing we warned him to find a way to deal with it…”
<
p>
It doesn’t seem worth arguing. I’ve linked to polls showing that the majority of voters would rather have money be used for other things than have taxes rolled back. The answer I get is “oh that will change.” I guess the reality is that the voters keep telling us it’s not that big a deal, but the alarmists keep telling us that they know better than the voters… and certainly better than Deval and company.
<
p>
Those armchair know-it-all critiques get old really fast.
<
p>
As it happens, we (progressive Democrats) are right on this for both policy AND tactical reasons. We can actually talk about things that the voters care about and, frankly, mock Healy if/when she starts making a big deal about it.
<
p>
Voters want to have confidence in the Governor. That’s why Romney won — O’Brien was awkward, looked weak, was kind of a hack, and didn’t come across as a real leader. Romney did.
<
p>
These wishy washy positions people here seem to be advocating (“well, maybe rollback taxes if certain conditions are met”) are what’s going to kill us. You want the taxes answer? “No, I don’t think that it makes sense to rollback taxes when we need to better fund our communities, our schools, bring jobs back to the state, and deal with issues like healthcare. The Republicans have no vision and no plan for how to move our state in the right direction, so once again, they say we should cut taxes. We need real solutions, and they haven’t had one in 16 years.” Question: what about in the future? Answer: We can talk about what we need to do in the future when it gets here, I want to talk about what we need to do today, to have a better future.
<
p>
Now I know that some people are going to say that their argument gets stronger by pointing out that the voters voted for the tax rollback 6 years ago. That’s just silly. The tax cut people have been manufacture popular outrage for years on this, and they haven’t.
<
p>
They’ve only managed to scare David and Frank.
david says
without changing his strategy, I will be mightily impressed by his political skills and will joyfully confess that I was wrong.
<
p>
Will you make a similar promise if things turn out differently?
david says
I agree with you that the Gabrieli position isn’t going to sell.
factcheck says
I will respond after analyzing WHY that person won. Remember, I am saying mostly that the taxes issue is not going to be the deciding factor. Bush got reelected running on, among other things, taxes. But that wasn’t why he got reelected. Polls showed that people didn’t want a tax cut. They wanted a strong leader.
<
p>
If KH wins, I’m not going to say that Deval should have dealt with the tax issue differently unless there is evidence to suggest it was a deciding factor… and then I would.
<
p>
Thus far, there is no evidence that taxes is why Dems keep losing or that it is a top “issue” for voters this year.
<
p>
David, people like us are in the smallest minority of voters. I mean, we’re having this debate on a blog!! The way we look at, think about, and understand politics is very different from the bulk of voters, especially swing voters.
<
p>
Put another way, we are out of touch. It’s easy to think we know more and that our “sense” of what is right might be very sophisticated, but in fact the random person on the street is probably more likely to be correct. A few hundred random people, even better! We need to rely on evidence, and look at it in context.
<
p>
I add the context part because Frank was concerned that taxes was the “top” issue (chosen by all of 19%) for voters in the recent poll without dealing with the fact that the most anti-tax cut candidate was the strongest one in the same poll! Why, because the voters care a lot more about a lot more things.
frankskeffington says
1) You write, “there is no evidence that taxes is why Dems keep losing”. Above, I contend there are 30 years of electoral evidence. I’d like your thoughts on that.
<
p>
2) You mixed your Apples with Oranges–or more accurately, you General election and primary sampling. 19% of General election voters sampled said taxes were their top issue. 36% of Priamry voters sampled favored Deval. Same poll, two different sample groups.
factcheck says
I gave you my thoughts on that. I gave you examples of elections where it didn’t happen, and I pointed out that there are more plausible arguments for the losses you listed. Please clarify what more thoughts you would like.
<
p>
And Deval did better against Kerry Healey than either of the other Dems. I didn’t mix up anything, I read the whole poll.
frankskeffington says
when you remined me of the Clinton tax increase contributed significantly to the Dems losing congress.
<
p>
Yes, Deval did do better than Tom or Chris (I thought you were referring to Deval leading the primary field), but the numbers were within the MOE. But, lets agree Deval is tops against KH. Not by a lot–8/9 points if memory is correct. I trust you’d agree that voter awareness of where candidates stand on issues are weak at this point and not a lot of people are aware of who stands where.
<
p>
After 10 million dollars of Healey ad money, those numbers will be history. Which is whay I’m completely puzzled why you have so much faith is polls as predictors to election results. Is there some links you can provide on that?
<
p>
BTW, I don’t recall you providing plausuble explainations to why this state has voted down the graduated income tax three times (once in the 60s) or why we voted to lower the income tax in 2000 or whay Prop 2 1/2 passed statewide in 1980. I’d open to learning.
david says
during Cellucci-Harshbarger? It was the issue in that election. Taxes were Cellucci’s entire platform, and he – a weak candidate – won.
factcheck says
Harshbarger, in addition to being equally if not more weak than Cellucci, ran an terrible campaign.
<
p>
Look, we had Silber who imploded on TV (cause he’s a nut), Rosevellt against a more-popular-than-the-Beatles Weld, Harshbarger who had nothing going for him against acting gov Cellucci, and then smirking O’Brien against made-for-TV Romney.
<
p>
We haven’t had a good candidate. I’m happy to discuss why that might be, but you can’t ignore that.
eury13 says
that you call yourself “fact check” and yet don’t care to bother backing yourself up with anything other than subjective conjecture?
<
p>
We all know that people eat up Republican tax talking points like kids eat candy on November 1st. I don’t need a poll to tell me that. (Don’t even get my started on Democrats who rely on polls to tell them what to think!) The only way to neutralize this issue is for everyone to stop talking about it! This debate is ruining our chances!
<
p>
If everyone here remains quiet and still until Thanksgiving, maybe – just maybe – we’ll have a chance.
<
p>
SHHH!
factcheck says
If you have read where this started, it comes from Frank’s claim that ALL elections are won by the repubican when taxes are a big issue. My point is that there are other plausible explainations, and that he has a weak theory.
<
p>
If he’s trying to make his case, the burden is on him to explain why his theory explains causation and why equally plausible ones are not in play.
<
p>
That is not actually fact checking. That is good research.
frankskeffington says
I said there is a 30 year history in which Dems have been on the losing side when taxes are an major issue. I offered several examples and you did no have any plausible explanations. So, lets try that again, election by election.
<
p>
Why did Prop 2 1/2 pass in 1980 (statewide ballot measure making it state law)?
<
p>
Why have the voters voted down the graduated income tax twice in thirty years?
<
p>
Why did the 2000 rollback pass?
<
p>
Why did 45% of Mass voters feel there was a need to ELIMINATE the entire income tax?
<
p>
Other than Clinton’s tax increase and the phoney “contract with America” (which called for tax cuts among other things), why did the Republcans win congress in ’94?
<
p>
Sure we can debate the influences of the MA Gub races since 1990–different personalities and events. But two issues were constant–taxes and the Dem Leg. Is that not a fact, Mr. FactCheck?
<
p>
If you want to respond, maybe start a fresh post because we’ll be reading sideways soon.
factcheck says
We’ll pick it up after the election but even then we just have different ideas about how you analyze politics. For example, we know that if Deval wins the primary that KH will bombard us on the tax issue. If I am right in saying that taxes will not be THE defining issue, Deval could still lose. You will claim it was taxes. I am saying we don’t know that. We’ve never elected a black Governor, for example. I hope we do, but it’s not like there’s not racism in this state.
<
p>
Of course, we’ve never elected a woman Governor either. I hope we do soon… just not this year.
<
p>
Anyway, I’m not arguing most of what I think you are saying I’m arguing. You started this by saying that taxes are THE deciding issue. I have agreed from the begining that they are AN issue but a) they are only ONE issue of many and b) are less important than previously. Hardly a radical proposition.
<
p>
I have offered plenty of plausible explainations for the elections that you list. Let’s start with this:
<
p>
You talk about votes on taxes. But they do not make your case — for many reasons. If I put a ballot question that asked “should Massachusetts ban wearing the color red” it would fail again and again and again. Does that mean that banning the color red is THE most important issue deciding election? Of course not. We both would agree with that. But your logic is exactly the same when you use votes ON taxes as an example of why taxes is the ultimate deciding factor in elections of people.
<
p>
There is a huge diffence in how people feel about an issue (for or against) and whether it is an issue they actually make votes based on. Another more real example: I was opposed to the recent seat belt bill that utimately failed. But I am about to vote to reelect both my rep and my senator even though they both voted for it.
<
p>
Nevermind the fact that ballot questions are bad indicators of public sentiment because the wording dictates the outcome. Example: Clean elections has passed overwhelmingly and failed overwhelmingly on the ballot in recent election years. Why? The wording. So you ask me “would you like your taxes to be lower” and I say yes. You ask me would I rather have a tax cut or a billion dollar (or so) increase to state spending on education and local aid and I’m going to choose the latter. That question has never been on the ballot… and I know you don’t like polls but they say by a good (not great) margin that the majority of voters agree with the latter position as well.
<
p>
The grad tax was complicated — two questions, one to amend the constitution, one to set new marginal rates. History (which I know you love) tells us that complicated questions on the ballot fail. And in any case, it was revenue neutral, so it does not speak at all to your argument.
<
p>
And of course you keep ignoring “No on 3, it goes to far” where the voters voted against a tax cut. Facts are indeed pesky.
<
p>
But the first point is still the main one. Your examples do not support your theory.
<
p>
So, going back to my first point about how these votes are not relevant, that brings us to, say, the mid-term elections in 1994. Republicans did great that year. What was the biggest issue of that election. Healthcare and Hillary. Taxes (though NOT income taxes) were there, but Clinton had been doing a bad job and Hillary was a lightning-rod. We can disagree about what was the “defining” issue, but you can not say that I’m not offering an alternative plausible explaination for why we lost congress that year.
<
p>
And, lest you forgot, the contract with America did not even call for an income tax cut! Why, because it was crafted based on polls and focus groups, and the people didn’t want ’em. I’m not saying there weren’t tax issues in there, because there were. But we are talking about reducing the income tax. Contract with america — and the Republicans’ take over in 94, did not make that an issue.
<
p>
In 1996, Clinton himself — the one who got the huge tax increase passed — beat Bob Dole. Bob Dole was a weak candidate (and Clinton was not) so I’m not going to argue that Dole’s tax cutting proposals were rejected, but the fact is that Clinton won for many reasons but he was able to increase taxes and win.
<
p>
Anyway, we’ll talk in November. Or if you want to continue this, email me. We’ll go out for a drink, talk taxes, and talk about what we’re doing to make sure that a Dem wins REGARDLESS of which one of us is correct on this issue.
eury13 says
“We can talk about what we need to do in the future when it gets here”???
<
p>
That’s your high and mighty answer?
<
p>
Voters want a governor who makes the future, not who waits around for it to happen and then reacts.
<
p>
Healy and Reilly are making the future when they advocate the rollback. Sure, it’s a bleak, soulless future where children are charged admission to public school at the door, ambulance drivers take Visa, and cops have to pay for their own bullets, but it’s a future, and by gosh, they’re going to make it happen.
<
p>
This is why people voted for Bush. He knew that there would be trouble in the middle east, and he acted. And now we have trouble in the middle east! Brilliant!
<
p>
“Vote Healey – because street lights are for wimps!”
“It’s your money, and you know best how to spend it. But if you happen to think the best way involves public school buses, the Commonwealth would really appreciate it… please?”
<
p>
I’m going to put forth a ballot measure that says “we the people of Massachusetts do hereby want to go jump off a bridge” just to see if Tom Reilly does it.
<
p>
I’m sick of all of this “let the people vote” nonsense. We do vote… for senators and representatives. See? It’s even in their title – REPRESENTATIVES! And if we don’t like the way they (wait for it) represent us, we vote for someone else next time.
<
p>
This is a Republic, not a… whatever it would be if everyone voted on everything. Let’s start treating it like one.
david says
<
p>
So our government here in MA is a hybrid. Mostly representative democracy, but direct democracy under certain circumstances. If we can get the signatures, we get to enact laws. We also get to repeal laws (the referendum).
<
p>
So to say that we vote for Senators and Reps is obviously true, but it doesn’t prove anything, because we vote for ballot initiatives too. Why is the former somehow more important than the latter?
<
p>
Also, as for your “let’s jump off a bridge” ballot question: they tried that with the repeal of the income tax, which is pretty close. The voters rejected it. Guess they’re not so stupid, huh?
eury13 says
First of all, about 92% of my above comment (4.9% MoE) was meant to be sarcastic. (As is the title of this comment, for the record.)
<
p>
That being said, the truth is that I don’t want to know where each of my tax dollars go. If I did, I’d run for something. I’m also pretty sick of ballot referendums. (referenda? referendi?) When I lived in LA there was a question about whether or not LAX police should fall under the control of the LAPD or be run under a separate authority answerable to the mayor (or something like that). Do you know how unqualified I am to answer that question? And I pay attention!
<
p>
Ballot questions can be bought by unscrupulous rich people with too much time on their hands. (Prohibit paid signature gathering and that’s a different story.) They can also advance positive agendas (agendums?), but I think we have some decent state legislators who can do the same thing. (We should elect more of them!)
<
p>
I say let the governor govern, let the representatives represent, and let the senators… well, senate, I guess.
bob-neer says
I’ll donate.
eury13 says
I’ll hold you to that pledge.
frankskeffington says
your New York fundraiser, because money runs the system
trickle-up says
but I can’t imagine it will be anything as passive and defensive and fogged as your hypothetical example.
<
p>
The best way to fight this issue (and again, see the title of this comment) would be to play offense. There are tens of thousands of homeowners who are sick to death of having their faces scraped raw on this every couple of years. Feel their pain and get their votes.
<
p>
The outcome of every override vote for most of us is by definition the lesser to two very bad evils. That is the “choice” you seem to think is so great, and believe me voters do not relish it.
david says
“believe me voters do not relish it.”
<
p>
Don’t relish what? Getting to choose how to spend their money? I was here in 1980 when Prop. 2-1/2 was enacted via an initiative petition. Many, many people were shocked that it passed. But it did – because voters wanted some direct say on their tax rates. Any politician who proposed going back to the pre-2-1/2 days wouldn’t survive the next election.
<
p>
I’ve participated in plenty of override votes and have voted to increase my own taxes more than once. It’s not very much fun. But do not underestimate people’s desire to control their destiny – a significant part of which is their bank account.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
I apologize if you take my hyperbole to be a personal attack. I don’t mean it that way at all. I have nothing but the greatest respect for you and for Bob (whom I’ve never met in person) and Charley and for the vehicle you all have created here that is spawning a wonderful on-line community.
<
p>
The danger with this medium is that it is hard to know when people (like me) who have a dry sense of humor are teasing, as opposed to other people (never me) who are angry. The words might be the same, but unless you know the personalities it’s difficult to see that they can mean very different things.
<
p>
I will try to watch my words more carefully, but let me assure you that I am not a mean-spirited person, and intend to be respectful to everyone and all points of view. Please call me on it (again) whenever I fail (again).
<
p>
In my own defense, David, I think your style of writing does require (or at least seems to trigger in me a need for) strongly-worded responses. I don’t object to your style — I actually find it quite refreshing — but if you are going to be adamant and definitive in your statements, I think you have to expect some pushback.
<
p>
If I may be permitted to also address the substance of your comment,
I must raise an objection.
<
p>
Again, if I may paraphrase one of my candidate’s lines: Deval often says something like, “we have perfected the conversation about how we are going to win elections, instead of explaining to voters why we should win elections.”
<
p>
Let’s put aside the discussion of tactics and let’s talk about what the voters care about; what WE care about. Have we learned nothing from the right in all these years?
<
p>
I don’t want to belabor the point — other commentators have made important contributions to the discussion. But, let’s stop trying to tell people what we think they want to hear, and let’s start talking about out values and our convictions and our values. Guess what? I think most voters are going to agree with us!
david says
bugs up my arse is quite another! 😉
michael-forbes-wilcox says
Sorry my apology wasn’t accepted.
frankskeffington says
…you kinda did blame the victim–your writing style makes me do it!
david says
as you say, it’s hard to get tone across in print. The little emoticon “;-)” (i.e., “wink”) was intended to indicate “all in good fun!” But I guess it didn’t work.
<
p>
So I’ll try it in words: “all in good fun!”
<
p>
All of which is to say: apology accepted, and no hard feelings.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
Yes, I did miss the “wink” — late-night screen fatigue or whatever…
<
p>
I tend to take things quite literally and then get annoyed at people who don’t know when I’m kidding — go figure!
lightiris says
I am worried about exactly what you describe. There are so many good comments on this thread and others about how Patrick should approach the tax issue. I’m convinced that it’s not the message so much as it’s the messenger.
<
p>
Most everyone will concede that Patrick is extremely charismatic. He has a way of making people want to listen to him, want to trust him. So, here’s what I’d like to see him say:
<
p>
“Taxes are a difficult and emotional subject. I know that many of you want to see the tax rate rolled back, and I can understand that. It feels right. But you need to understand something. Cutting the tax rate cuts your local aid. Period. Cutting your local aid makes your property taxes go up and places a stranglehold on your police, fire, and schools. You know that, and it’s a recipe for disaster. So, yes, I oppose placing more pressure on municipalities, which, in turn makes your towns and cities unable to provide the services and education you deserve.”
<
p>
Or something like that.
gary says
And that’s what we hear, but the Town report shows the teacher earning $70K; the Town Manager earning $100K, and so forth. The school grounds look nice and all the gov’ment employees have health insurance.
<
p>
Strong and loaded words but no beef!
<
p>
I hear the Towns are in CRISIS! but yet see no food lines and the Town Accountant drives a nice car.
<
p>
Why last year? The teacher received a 5% raise and the local union got 3.5%.
<
p>
Hard to sell Towns in a crisis and loaded language doesn’t convince me to do anything except vote for a tax cut.
lightiris says
but it isn’t the ones around here. Failed overrides, teacher layoffs, three tries to get a school budget, mold-filled schools, no late buses, sports fees, a falling down police station (plan just rejected at the ballot box), off-site ambulance, and fire trucks that don’t fit in the station.
<
p>
My reality is what the communities in Central Mass face. You are lucky if that’s not the reality in your town.
gary says
…but I do know you’re an elected official and have the perspective of a government employee looking out, whereas I’m the farthest thing imaginable from an elected official.
<
p>
And, I’m from Central Mass, neighbor!
<
p>
So, you’ve depicted failed overrides (that would be the voters decision); teacher layoffs (again, your neighbors’ decision from the prop 2.5); 3 times to get a school budget (3rd time’s a charm); mold-filled school (huh? that’s a budget problem?); falling down police station (construction is typically funded by bonds. What’s the full story?); off-site ambulance (off site? What site? The nearby town that 3 miles away?); fire trucks that don’t fit in the station (who screwed that one up and how would higher revenue help? Buy a smaller truck or build a bigger station to cover up a screw-up?)
<
p>
I’m a voter and I don’t see a crisis based on the problems you’ve described.
<
p>
Convince me.
lightiris says
Personally, I want our children to have a safe building for a school, to have books that are up to date and in good condition, to have class sizes maintained at best-practice levels, to have enough electives offered at the high school level so that kids don’t waste hours in directed study halls every day, and to be able to play sports at school for free irrespective of family income. I want a fire and ambulance response time that is within industry safe standards,to have my streets plowed reasonably well in the winter, and my library and senior center maintained and staffed.
<
p>
Now, I don’t have these things because funding is not there for them. Money buys repairs to school and infrastructure, money puts teachers in classrooms teaching (a topic near and dear to my heart as a public school teacher), money gets streets plowed and sanded, pays for an adequate public safety building with an actual kitchen so that our police chief’s wife won’t be cooking for prisoners in jail anymore, and money buys books for students and libraries.
<
p>
I want those things. They cost money.
gary says
Well, it makes sense to me that the parent ought to pay for sports fees. Or, at best, means test so that the wealthier families pay; the less wealthy don’t. Just agree to disagree I reckon.
<
p>
BTW, more money to schools has, in no study that you can produce, correlate to better student performance.
<
p>
You sincerely claim unsafe schools, inadequately sanded and plowed streets? How many jailed prisoners does the local jail house in a year?
<
p>
Seriously, boy/girl who cried crisis is one reason taxpayer voters don’t respond to the Dem message of increased local aid and no tax cuts.
lightiris says
More money spent on smaller class sizes results in a significant improvement in both student performance and achievement on both objective and non-objective assessment. There is no debate about that among educational professionals and informed lay individuals. None.
<
p>
<
p>
You’re not seriously suggesting that if the town is small enough, the police chief’s wife should be cooking for the prisoners, are you?
<
p>
The town has 15,000+ residents and there were 258 arrests in 2005.
<
p>
Your poo-pooing these things doesn’t make them go away. Go ahead and starve the beast, but we’ll all be paying the price.
gary says
that a crisis is buildings falling down; war; famine; pestilence.
<
p>
A wife cooking for the 5 or 6 overnight prisoners in a local jail in a year isn’t a crisis; a fire building too big for the truck is weird, funny, or just bad planning, but isn’t a crisis; and failing to have a “late bus” for the kids who missed the first one, certainly is not a crisis. I’ll even go on a limb to conclude that teacher layoffs isn’t a crisis, depending of course on the depth.
<
p>
Campaign for an override on the basis of these ‘crises’ and the voters ignore the policitians who cry crisis, even, perhaps, when a real one appears.
frankskeffington says
Iris, you have a town falling apart, yet people still won’t vote for the override. What does that tell you about how they’ll vote next November? If you live in Central MA, then it’s very safe to assune Romney won your town in ’02–probably won BIG. (Except for the city of Worcester, every town west of 495 out to about Shutesbury went R and I know you live in the Paxton area and that town went 2500 / 1600 R in ’02.)
<
p>
Now, how do you think your town will vote this year? They’ll be voting for Healey. (Hey FactCheck–there’s that electoral history as a predictor.)
<
p>
Let’s assume your town will vote republican, no matter who we have as the nominee. (Now unlike the last couple of days, I’m really not trying to start a mini flame war here, but to have a honest open discussion.) If voters in your town knows that the Democratic candidate is opposed to the rollback and Healey is for it–will we lose your town by a wider margin than if we Dems had a candidate that was for (or sorta for) the rollback, like Healey?
<
p>
My feeling is we’ll always lose a town like Paxton for the foreseeable future. We just need to lose by a smaller margin to win in November.
lightiris says
but it’s a neighboring town. Sadly, I expect my town to vote for Healey given past performance.
frankskeffington says
That your town voted Romney and will likely voter Healey. Do you thing that Healey will win with a smaller margin if we had a candidate who supported the rollback?
<
p>
We only need to swing 60,000 or so voters out of 2 million, so shrinking Healey’s margin of victory in towns like yours (and mine–mine’s also a historically red town) will get us a win.
lightiris says
chance of cutting into Healey’s voters, actually. We have a sizable Patrick campaign presence here. We’ve been out canvassing, etc. Healey gave a press conference here last week and no one came despite some pleas from Lew Evangelidis for folks to show up. I sense there’s not much excitement for her campaign, but that might change. We’re gonna give her a hell of a fight, though. I feel pretty good about it.
gary says
frankskeffington says
…Gary, you really seem to be anti-government services and I’m just wondering if you are a Republican or regularly vote Republican?
<
p>
You certainly have a “let individuals decide how there money is spent” rather that a “common-good” approach to things that makes me ask the question.
gary says
If you’re young and not a Liberal you have no heart; if you’re old and not a conservative you’ve no brain.
publius says
frankskeffington says
Are you 21 or 71?
gary says
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/userDiary.do?personId=1153
jimcaralis says
Directed at the comments below.
<
p>
Lotâs of people talking about doing the right thing (on both sides), but no one (that I have read) will even say what city they live in? BTW â born and raised in Everett and living in Medford.
jimcaralis says
lolorb says
having read through your imagined dialogue, there are a number of points that Deval Patrick makes that you for some reason(?) fail to include.
<
p>
Overrides are an ineffective method for funding local services and make budget planning particularly difficult. They pit neighbor against neighbor, with the greatest impact on those who can least afford increases. Retirees on fixed incomes are pitted against young families who require school funding. This is destructive and harmful to communities. Deval talks about the impact on the very fabric of our society. Police and firefighters are being cut from payrolls. In the extreme instances, libraries are being closed and street lights turned off. This is the result of poor management. It is an inequitable method for providing, in many instances, essential and mandatory town services. The impact of “Every Child Left Behind”, an unfunded mandate, was disastrous for our school systems. This is failed Republican management at its most obvious. I cannot comprehend why everyone on this list isn’t screaming about the Republican failures instead of playing into the whole meme of tax reduction. Whoever becomes Governor must deal with the disaster left behind by 18 years of failed management. Why isn’t that the major topic of discussion? Why is everyone falling for the Republican BS that tax reduction solves everything? Why isn’t anyone talking about what Governor Dean did in Vermont (very similar to what Deval Patrick talks about as a model for MA). Why the hell is everyone so concerned about stupid Republican talking points when we’ve got serious problems to remedy?
gary says
<
p>
Who? The voters in 1990 in answer to Question #3. Remember? “Vote no to Question 3, it goes to far.”
david says
used on some sort of animal treatment question much more recently? Something about trapping, maybe? Can’t quite remember.
gary says
david says
they definitely used in then. I just thought I saw it more recently too.
truebluedem says
<
p>
Believe it or not after the GOP pushing of tax cuts for 20 years…people finally get the “Ownship Society”…ie “You are on your own”.
<
p>
Yes the first few years of tax cuts were good pickin’s…
……then people started noticing the pot holes in the road…
………now people notice the pot holes in their wallets.
<
p>
I think that the Dems who call for tax cuts don’t lead ordinary lives… they do not see the horrible degradation of public schools where some cities are actually contemplating getting rid of janitors and making the teachers clean the rooms, or kids bringing toilet tissue to school, everything that hasn’t been tied down in the schools have been thrown overboard ie no more art, music and most sports are pay to play. Ordinary folks in some Ma. cities now have to pay almost 10 dollars a piece for big trash removal ie tv, sofas toys. Some cities are talking about turning on every other street light to save money…let’s not even talk about inadequate levels of firemen and police in the larger cities like Springfield…
<
p>
<
p>
.. therefore making the already tax deficient states scramble to find monies from any where possible by RAISING fees for municiple services or out right cutting services to the public… All one has to do is show the ridiculous increases of instate tuition of the state universities to prove that point.
<
p>
<
p>
… for private schools because the public school system has gone to pot (thank you Kennedy for NCLB), they have to move to more expensive neighborhood for better schools and public safety, instate tuition is gaining ground on private colleges…..
<
p>
<
p>
…and this is not even taking into consideration the widening gap between the haves and have not particularly in regards to minorities and women… today all tax cuts do is to speed up the turning back of the clock in this country to the turn of the century… (Recall NOLA and remember Norquist words “I want to make government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub.)
jimcaralis says
“Doing the same thing over and over again expecting the outcome to change”
<
p>
How many times do we have to loose?
smart-mass says
But your assertion that Bush got 3% more is based on the assumption of a free and fair election.
<
p>
The evidence is strongly against that claim. That does not gainsay any of your points, I just don’t want people to forget the damage of Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.
<
p>
Just my 2 cents…
<
p>
M.
bob-neer says
This is not just about tactics. It is also about what the tax rate should be. I personally haven’t seen anything to convince me that the state couldn’t get along just fine at 5.0%, and the Big Dig fiasco just reinforces my suspicion that a lot of government spending in Massachusetts is disbursed, shall we say, inefficiently. From my point of view, my $200 would be much better invested in cold beer than in helping to pay for someone’s nephew’s summer job supervising ceiling installations on the I-90 connector. Deval Patrick is an impressive candidate, in part, because he has superb business and legal experience — he should put those smarts to work showing how he can give us both better services and lower taxes.
factcheck says
for the Republican talking points. You just made me feel better about the people who say they are opposed to the tax cut but think we should come out for it anyway.
eury13 says
Didn’t you read my earlier comment?!? We have to stop talking about this or we’ll wake public opinion. You know how loud Republican talking points are!
<
p>
You see, public opinion has been napping, which is why it hasn’t been showing up in the polls, but if we’re too rambunctious, it will wake up.
<
p>
And we all know how grouchy public opinion can be after a nap.
joeltpatterson says
That’s a nice taxable income, Bob.
<
p>
Of course, if Kerry Healey’s husband makes a million dollars this year (just a guess), he would get back $3,000.
<
p>
This average cut of $200 statistic gets bandied about too much, and it obscures the nature of who will REALLY benefit.
bob-neer says
Because it is the average reduction in taxes that reducing the rate to 5.0% will bring, according to Reilly. I’m taking his number as a starting point for discussion, because he’s the only Democratic candidates to have clearly stated a preference for adopting this rate (Gabrieli’s complicated proposal notwithstanding).
andy says
Do you pay the Mass income tax in NY? Not snarky, I just don’t know how that works. Are you a resident of NY or MA? Again, no snark. I know when I moved to Mass I paid Mass taxes and not WI taxes.
gary says
Example: Resident in Mass, working in NY, pays NY tax then gets credit for NY tax against MA tax.
andy says
That job that you so smugly dismiss may be a summer job for a teen who would otherwise be hanging out in Dorcester, or Mattapan, or Southie, or Roxbury…get the picture? I am ok that we disagree but I have to admit that I am a little pissed at your selfishness. It really gets me going when the only person we can think about is oneself. I know you are not a bastard Bob but it just is a touchy argument for me.
<
p>
Last thought. Why don’t you want 4%? 3%? What is up with 5%?
michael-forbes-wilcox says
What does the tax RATE have to do with anything? What are we getting for our money?
frankskeffington says
…let’s not confuse a summer works program for needy teens–which is your slant, with a St. Senator’s nephew getting a summer jump as a favor that buys silence to the Big Dig scandal–which is Bob’s slant.
bob-neer says
The summer job crack was a joke with a point: the Big Dig fiasco reinforces the impression may people have that lack of government services is not due to lack of funds (the Dig had plenty of money), but to poor management larded with corruption.
publius says
If voters believe a candidate was competent, honest, cared about people like them, and would try to serve the public rather than put cronies and releatives on the payroll, at least some of them will suspend their disbelief in government and vote for such a candidate. This is what people mean when they say someone is “not just another politician” or, as Mitt put it, not “part of the mess on Beacon Hill.”
<
p>
Being the outsider softens at least some voters’ concerns that you will just piss their money away.
<
p>
Patrick or Gabrieli can play this part better than Reilly, with his 8 years as AG and the support of Menino, Trav, and Sal. On the other hand, Tom can play the tax-cutter role better than Patrick or Gabs.
<
p>
In a Democratic primary, I’d much rather be the outsider than the tax-cutter. In the general, it’s probably more of a toss-up. Worst of both worlds? That’s what we had last time: Shannon O’Brien.
frankskeffington says
I’m not saying Gabrieli has done that, but he’s trying
publius says
Not to mention, someone who is honest enough to tell us what he believes rather than pandering on an issue that has its greatest appeal to a bloc of voters who are going to vote against you anyway.
<
p>
Voters actually like that sincerity thing.
michael-forbes-wilcox says
“BMG: Reality-based commentary.” you say.
<
p>
Bob, how much of the Big Dig was paid for by Mass taxes?
<
p>
Just wondering if you know.
frankskeffington says
Ok, if I’m not mistaken–the first 10 billion was 90/10 paid by the fed. But that last 4 or 5 billion–Mass Pike Tolls.
<
p>
Michael, who is reality based?! The next step in your logic will make you sound liek a bonifide state house hack…hey,let’s not worry about the 14 billion waste–it wasn’t state tax payer money–it was the pay money the feds gave us.
<
p>
And Michael, here you are getting your facts in the way of the way people think. Do you really expect the voters to say–hey, we didn’t pay for that–no big deal? They have no idea who actaully paid for it–they’ll assume it was them.
<
p>
BTW, I pay federal taxes–so that was my money. Maybe you don’t pay federal taxes…
jim-weliky says
I beg to differ. I’ve raised at least one kid through the school system in Boston, and repeatedly had to deal with pathetic fundraisers to buy things like art supplies, cutbacks to math coaches and family support workers and art teachers and music teachers, fundraisers to get things as simple as a decent playground that was more than just concrete, and on and on and on. My kid went to a majority low income pilot school, a great school, but not great enough to prevent most of the middle class kids leave for “advanced work” in the fourth grade, or test into the elite exam schools after sixth grade, while all the low income kids, most of whom just happen to be kids of color, got left behind. I watched my kid go from this school to Boston Latin, where, even though the district is overwhelmingly African-American and Latino, somehow Boston Latin stays majority White. I’ve seen roads that haven’t been paved for the ten years I’ve lived in the neighborhood I live in now. I constantly read about backlogs in infrastructure repair, disrepair of our parks and playgrounds, rising crime rates and declining law enforcement rolls and on and on and on. 5% is o.k.? Not in the state I live in.
goldsteingonewild says
With all respect, Jimbob, Boston’s school 2006 budget is $850 million for 58,000 kids. Boston’s per-pupil spending has almost doubled since Ed Reform Act in 1993. Fewer total kids.
<
p>
Boston teachers had a higher average salary than all of the 300+ other cities and towns in MA – not just central MA, but higher than teachers in Brookline, Newton, Lincoln, Wayland.
<
p>
So you describe a specific cut here and there in your kid’s school, but the big picture is ENORMOUSLY higher spending than before on Boston schools.
<
p>
Meanwhile, the achievement gap, as you suggest in your own observation, remains the same, with the system’s black and Hispanic kids left behind.
<
p>
So if there weren’t art supplies or math coaches, maybe better to examine leadership than state tax rates. Follow-thru on the state tax cut to 5% would possibly trim BPS annual average spending growth rate from its 1993 to 2006 average of 6%+ down to perhaps 5%. Still way faster than inflation.
<
p>
When crime rises, maybe better to examine leadership – a police chief who fled as a crime wave heats up, a homicide team not clearing cases, unimpressive work by DA (EBII’s favorite cause), and a Mayor who, when offered extra state police, declines so not to alienate local cops who might lose some overtime pay – than state tax rates.
<
p>
It’s true that there are a number of state voters who don’t particularly care about the deplorable situation in inner-city Boston, Lowell, Lawrence, etc., and would support huge tax cuts which gut services. Those people exist, and they’re….unappealing and selfish.
<
p>
But there are also many good-hearted moderates frustrated by the waste, and puzzled by those on the left seemingly uninterested in fighting the hacks who waste all of our dough. The hacks are your true enemy! If you care about your son’s black friends whom you said didn’t get into Latin and won’t ever smell a college degree, it’s the hacks – the entrenched interests always opposing reform, always embracing only more and more spending to line their own nests – that are your enemies, not the moderates fighting those hacks. Join us, bro.
jim-weliky says
I’m the first to acknowledge that hackery is a major issue in Massachusetts, as elsewhere (see my various posts re: Big Dig etc.), as is mismanagement. In fact, I’m second to none in my revulsion for the hack-ridden politics here.
<
p>
But you’re not going to convince me that “waste” is what accounts for the pathetic level of music and arts education in Boston (which in fact is declining nationwide as well), or the near total absence (relative to the need) of support services for kids, or the truly pathetic salaries we pay our teachers relative to their contributions or necessary to recruit talent from the private sector(and yes, I’m saying that just because we pay our teachers more than we used to, or more than Mississippi does, doesn’t mean that we are paying them enough), or the dearth of after-school programs, or the increasing expense of our public colleges, or the myriad other ways we fail to provide opportunity, not just for the vulnerable, but for the working class as well.
<
p>
Nor are you going to convince me that just because spending has increased from what it used to be, or amounts to a lot, means that we should be satisfied with things as they are.
<
p>
I’m not at all saying that we shouldn’t do each and every thing you’re talking about re: the massive failures of leadership we’ve experienced, but in the end, what brought the crime rate down by the end of the ’90’s was leadership AND more cops, more services for kids, more resources to work with community organizations and activists to generate a comprehensive response (o.k., plus the overall improvement in the economy brought about during the Clinton adminisration). All of these things cost money, a lot of which stopped flowing just as we were starting to make some actual progress. So no, I’m not satisfied with an either/or dichotomy — we need more money, AND we need better leadership.
goldsteingonewild says
<
p>
Um, my point was that Boston schools pay teachers more than EVERY OTHER TOWN in MA, including all nearby suburbs (with identical cost of living). With a slight adjustment – to pay your teachers comparable with others a few miles away – you’d have more money for the items you want.
<
p>
I’m not sure how the Magnolia State enters our conversation.
<
p>
(In case you’re curious, here’s a wonky but well-argued debate on teacher pay by a couple economists).
<
p>
2. Your view is that $72,000 average teacher salary for 185 work days per year (less 20 sick and personal days, all paid, so 165) is “pathetic.” Okay. We’re a bit afield here from state tax cuts, but:
<
p>
a) What do you think the Boston average teacher salary should be?
<
p>
b) You say you don’t want “either/or.” But gov’t is precisely the business of making choices.
<
p>
Okay, we’ll agree that you’re willing to root out hacks, let’s assume you have more money for moment from increased state aid, now please tell us how you’ll spend it:
<
p>
Most Boston students (about 75%) live in families earning less than $30,000 per year. You can either give each poor Boston family with schoolchildren a state “earned income tax credit” of $500 per year. Or you can raise Boston teacher salaries by $5,000 per year. Which would you choose?
nopolitician says
There’s no way to objectively compare salaries between professions. No way.
<
p>
I would judge Boston’s salary for teachers based on some criteria involving the job market. Remember that? It’s the thing that Mitt Romney ignores from time to time (public defenders not taking cases because the pay is too low? Instead of raising pay Romney want to force them to take cases).
<
p>
1) Percentage of highly-qualified teachers. Boston sits at 89%. 11% of Boston’s teachers aren’t highly qualified. That tells me that even at $72k salaries, they aren’t overpaying because if they were, they’d have 100% highly qualified.
<
p>
2) I’d like to see teacher turnover rates. Turnover is generally considered to be a bad thing, so if 10% of non-retiring teachers are leaving each year, the pay may be too low.
<
p>
3) I’d like to see the acceptance rates of applicants. If no one is applying for jobs, and the quality of accepted applicants is low because of this, the pay is too low for the job.
<
p>
The job market is the only way you can determine salaries. Everything else is emotional and subjective. Should a heroic police officer be paid less than a central planner? If there are 100 applicants for every open police position, and just 1-2 for every open planner position, then I’d say “yes”.
<
p>
Springfield is having trouble with hiring teachers. Although this is manifesting itself because of a lack of contracts, this is a problem for the entire state — if there are 500 teachers in Springfield that are unaccredited, then this means that if Springfield wasn’t less desirable those 500 teachers would be across the region.
<
p>
That tells me that the accreditation process is too onerous for the pay being offered. However, I’m not convinced that raising pay is the only answer, I think that the accreditation process should be analyzed to see if it discourages many good and qualified people from becoming teachers.
<
p>
In other words, is there a shortage because the pay is too low, or because it is too hard to become a teacher these days.
goldsteingonewild says
You wrote: “The job market is the only way you can determine salaries. Everything else is emotional and subjective.”
<
p>
I believe in markets, too. What can we learn here?
<
p>
1. Teachers discount themselves – take less money – to leave Boston and work in the suburbs. This is unusual. In most American cities, it’s the opposite…teachers leave urban schools and earn more in suburbs.
<
p>
Why do teachers leave to take LESS money? Presumably, because the urban schools seem very stressful and disorderly. At least that’s what teachers themselves report in survey data.
<
p>
We’d probably agree that there are two ways to retain teachers in Boston. One is to pay more – hazard pay if you will – while keeping the same bad conditions. The second is to improve the stressful, chaotic conditions.
<
p>
But only the second choice creates a win-win for kids and teachers. The first keeps the same teachers in the same situation which is producing very poor results for kids.
<
p>
2. Teacher wage is only partially determined by market forces.
<
p>
a. Politics matters, too. Unions may be better or worse bargainers – both at the table, and in controlling who sits across from them via elections.
<
p>
b. Top chefs earn a lot more than top teachers. So-so chefs earn less than so-so teachers. That’s because there IS a free market to hire chefs, but not one for teachers.
<
p>
Unions require (a few experiments notwithstanding, like in Denver) teachers to be paid only on degrees and experience, not on classroom success. That constrains the market, holding down salaries of better teachers, pushing up the salaries of weak teachers.
<
p>
3. To your point on accreditation:
<
p>
Boston has 380 not-highly-qualified teachers mostly because they consistently flunk a really easy test. 110 of them were scheduled to be dismissed this summer. The others keep getting more chances to pass.
<
p>
Thus without any wage change, the % of qualified teachers will rise to perhaps 93%. It would not take higher wages as you suggest, just the ability to remove the unqualified.
<
p>
If your goal is get to 100% more quickly, wouldn’t the market suggest they need to fire the uncertified teachers, then pay more to attract qualified math, science, and special ed teachers (undersupply)?
<
p>
I’m curious how you’d recommend we pay for that.
<
p>
We could subsidize the pay raises by:
<
p>
a) paying less to English and history teachers (there’s an oversupply of applicants),
b) cutting other school services (raising class sizes, fewer counselors, less art and music – not that much is left!)
c) raising taxes
<
p>
Which would you choose?
nopolitician says
I would achieve this by a combination of a) and c). However, as you mention, the unions are not going for a). That’s unfortunate, but who says that the unions have to win every point?
<
p>
I don’t see anything inherently wrong with c) because I can’t justify having unqualified teachers teaching our students. That’s egregious, and what’s worse is that we are “rationing” the qualified teachers based on a district’s ability to pay. That means poorer students — those that need the most help — are actually receiving the least qualified teachers.
<
p>
I know that some might argue that this is the best way, but isn’t that kind of like “winners” in basketball? How much fun would the NBA be if it instituted that rule, plus awarded the championship team with the #1 draft pick to boot?
<
p>
I think another alternative is d) make it easier to become a teacher. I’m not sure how “really easy” the test is, nor am I sure as to the relevance of the questions. I’m a technical person, I checked out the Mathematics sample test. First question:
<
p>
<
p>
I doubt my high school math teacher could have answered that one, yet she imparted enough knowledge in me to score high on my SATs and to go to a high-tech university.
<
p>
Here’s another:
<
p>
<
p>
There are 100 such questions on the test. It seems to me that this test isn’t designed to weed out people who are grossly incompetent. It seems designed to screen out all but the most competent. Unfortunately that screens out too many teachers, leaving us with plenty of holes to fill.
<
p>
I also think that focusing on the entry door, but ignoring the “performance” of teachers once they are in the system is, in my opinion, dumb. But there are a lot of things to factor in and a lot of hard questions — for example, do we want a state where the best students are paired with the best teachers (and implicitly, the worst students paired with the worst teachers), or do we want to try and go the opposite, pairing the best teachers with the worst students, and (and implicitly the worst teachers with the best students).
<
p>
Those are hard questions to answer, people generally just want to ignore them.
lightiris says
English teachers may be a dime a dozen, but many of them are not particularly good, especially the ones churned out in teacher prep programs these days. These teachers lack depth of knowledge in literature (Whose publication in 1855 marks the advent of modern English literature again?) as well as in the basics of English language. The MTEL used to be a rigorous test, but it’s been watered down over the years so that a chimp can pass it. And we have teachers who have to take that thing ten times before they pass? Please. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
<
p>
So, Johnny can barely string together a sentence that is syntactically and grammatically intact. He cannot read closely, and he cannot write extended analysis based on one text, let alone intertextual analyses based on multiple texts. Personally, I think the caliber of English teacher in this state is poor and getting poorer, and, if a proposed solution is to single out a specific core subject area as being more important than another, no responsible plan would leave English teachers out of that mix.
jim-weliky says
I wasn’t just talking about Boston salaries, I was talking about salaries throughout the state. And as NoPolitician points out, a low salary in one market is “high” in another. And speaking as someone who was thinking about making a career change from law to teaching, even given my relatively low level of expenses, it just wasn’t econcomically feasible, even with the “mid career” (pretty pathetic) incentives that were on offer at the time. Plus, if your number is correct of $72,000 as an average salary is correct, then that means starting salaries are much lower and that we are not paying enough to recruit and retain talented and committed teachers. Again, it doesn’t follow that the fact that we now spend more than we used to, or that Boston spends more than, say, Springfield (if the comparison to Mississippi troubles you), we are spending enough, or, put another way, that we’ve reached the best of all possible/feasible student/teacher ratio, the best school buildings, the most books, the best playgrounds, the optimum number of EMTs, firefighters, cops, guidance counselors, family support services, the best roads etc. that are feasible and that provide the minimum level necessary to make our state a great place to live and a place where everyone has a fair opportunity for security and stability. THAT should be the measure of social spending, not whether the social spending we have now is more than what it once was.
<
p>
But, as you point out, we are indeed getting far afield from tax cuts. My point is that the choice on offer is NOT the one you’re positing between an increase to teacher salaries in Boston or an increase in the EITC. Rather, the choices on offer involve either keeping the tax rate as it is or reducing it, and/or attacking hackery or doing nothing about it. Were it not for that pesky issue about the initiative [see my comment somewhere else in this mess], my preference is to keep the tax rate as it is (well, actually, to make it more progressive and higher on high-income people, but that, sadly is NOT on offer), AND attack the hackery at the same time. I think that this approach would be an effective way to address the threat that David and others are talking about.
truebluedem says
<
p>
Yeah… there is the super secret magic wand…Shhhhh
bob-neer says
That’s the reality.
frankskeffington says
money is wasted in the private sector also. And I won’t buy the “business can waste money and the market will punish them” stuff, because in most cases they operate in oligopolic (sp?) markets where pissing away money doesn’t affect them. AOL/Time Warner merger results in $100 billion loses! Never mind everyone favorite Eron ect.
<
p>
My point to this is let’s not fall into the anti-government meme that gov. spending is wasted, therefore letâs stop gov spending and privatize everything. (That certainly doesn’t work either).
<
p>
No, I believe we can make gov operate better and deliver services that the private sector won’t. Folks like me (and I assume you Bob) have to make sure that happens by making people accountable.
jim-weliky says
Two things. First, I think more than anything else, a majority (perhaps not a large majority, but a majority) yearn for someone who can convincingly call them to something bigger than themselves. If a charismatic, inspirational candidate gets the nomination, then he’s half way there. If he can also convince voters that he’s not your usual hack who’s gonna waste their money, he’s almost all the way there. If he can also propose property tax reform that can produce real tangible results that voters can anticipate experiencing themselves, then I think they’ll overlook all the “tax and spend” crap that Healey’s going to sling. This, in reverse, is what I think happened with Weld, Cellucci and Romney. (I don’t think Cellucci was bad, and certainly better than Harshbarger as a candidate). Everyone sort of “forgot” about how roads and schools were falling apart, cities and towns were starved of funds, because everyone was convinced by personality most of all, that things would be o.k. with these people in office. So I tend to agree with Publius that an opposition to the rollback alone is not gonna kill us.
<
p>
But second, and this is the thing I keep struggling with, having experienced the legislature completely ignore the will of the voters and refuse to fund, or repeatedly attempt to repeal(and then succeed in repealing) the Clean Elections law, is how do you deal with the fact that the voters enacted a law that the legislature keeps ignoring? I happen to like the initiative process, and think that in a democracy (or republic) where the constitution gives the voters the actual opportunity to rule, then that process should be respected. On the other hand, I think rolling the income tax back is an f—-g disaster, and precisely NOT what we need. So I would like to see a principled explanation from Patrick (whom I support), or, for that matter, anyone here who opposes further rollback, as to why it’s o.k. to ignore the will of the people?
frankskeffington says
…if he wants to respect the “will of the people” and support the tax rollback, will he support public financing which was also the will of the people. He gave me a weasel answer–becuase he is a weasel. (But a weasle I will support if he is nominated.)
michael-forbes-wilcox says
“Jimbob” the “will of the people” as you put it was to pay lower taxes.
<
p>
Duh
<
p>
Who wouldn’t want to pay lower taxes, ceteris paribus?
<
p>
The problem is, the “people” weren’t asked “which services do you want cut to offset the lower taxes?”
<
p>
This is just one reason why democracy is such a bad idea.
jim-weliky says
I don’t see how the “will of the people” is a “straw man.” A majority vote in a constitutional process like the initiative is, by definition, an expression of the “will of the people” as that’s defined in our system of government. It just is. We may not like it, I don’t like it in this particular case, but it is. And sure, we can say that this was a “bad” vote because the voters didn’t have all the information, but there’s nothing in the constitution that says the results of “bad” initiatives (which, after all, have as much of the force of law as a legislative enactment) have less force than ones that we deem to be “good.” So rather than dismiss the question as a “straw man,” how about a principled response?
<
p>
Perhaps one such response might be that in Massachusetts, the initiative process is really a hybrid — it consists of two elements — the initiative itself, and the legislature that’s actually charged with enacting and/or enforcing the law the initiative establishes. Thus, it’s not a contravention of the constitutional process for the second half, the legislature, to decline to enact what the first half has done. In the Clean Elections example, for example, the legislature’s principal sin was, for several years, to attempt not to fund it in literal defiance of the constitution (which requires the legislature to fund initiative laws that require it), rather than repeal it. But once they decided to repeal it, they were once more on solid ground. I don’t know, just a thought. Like I said, I’d love to hear a principled response to this issue.
david says
the rollback of 5.3% to 5.0% passed, but the complete repeal of the income tax failed. Why? Because voters aren’t stupid. They recognized that repealing the income tax would be disastrous in terms of government services on which they depend, and they chose to pay more taxes rather than pay less taxes, recognizing the tradeoff. No doubt some people who voted for the rollback of 5.3 to 5.0 also voted against the repeal.
<
p>
Your argument, it seems to me, basically boils down to your thinking that voters don’t realize that when you reduce the tax rate you may be forcing the government to spend less, which may in turn result in fewer services. I just don’t accept that premise. I think people understand that – I think, in fact, that some voters may want that. Some voters are no doubt “starve-the-beast” types who want to strip government down as far as they can. Those voters, no doubt, will vote Republican, so maybe we don’t care so much about them. But other, possibly Democratic or unenrolled, voters may well think that modest service cuts are worth having a lower income tax. And even voters who don’t want cuts in services may think, why should it be my schools that get cut? Why don’t those fat-cat legislators cut their own salaries, or reduce their fancy benefits, or repeal the Quinn bill, to make up for some of the lost tax revenues? They may, in other words, be challenging government to provide exactly the services it is providing now, but to provide them more efficiently.
<
p>
Can it be done? I’m not enough of a budget whiz to know. But it doesn’t really matter – the point is that many voters believe it can be done, and recent events suggest that they may not be crazy in thinking that government spending could perhaps be the teensiest bit more efficient than it is.
<
p>
Try a thought experiment, MFW. Assume that every voter who voted for the rollback actually knew that some cuts in services were possible if the rollback went into effect. Further assume that each such voter weighed the value of those services against the value of having a lower tax rate, and decided to vote for the rollback.
<
p>
What do you say to those voters? Can you persuade them that you are right?
danielshays says
I think when the mythical average voter hears “We’re going to increase your slice of the pie. And guess what? By increasing your slice of the pie and everyone else’s, that is going to increase the total size of the pie, by making us a business-friendly state” they listen.
<
p>
It may very well be a completely empty argument, but it doesn’t involve sacrifice. It implies to voters that they can have the tax rate where they want it and better services, because usually the candidate saying it is also telling them about cleaning up government waste.
<
p>
Sorry for that digression, but more to your point David: I think this week’s events will underscore any voter feeling that exists to make government do more with less. There was a British general who said: “Men, we have run out of money; now we must learn to think.” The largest single expenditure of “Government” money in MA history and things aren’t working out. The distinction that they were mostly federal dollars doesn’t matter much to voters I don’t think, rather they just see a sort of monolithic government.
<
p>
So it just seems to me that your argument is dead on, and given this week’s events, is likely to resonate.
bob-neer says
DanielShays gets the MVP (Most Valuable Post) Award for this thread.
danielshays says
Is there a trophy involved, or a plaque? Or at least a “Great job!” sticker or a gold star?
lightiris says
who actually said it via Google, but, alas no luck.
<
p>
Do you happen to know who the British General was who is purported to have said that? It’s a fabulous quote.
danielshays says
lightiris,
<
p>
I first came across it in an interview with now-departed Commonwealth Development Secretary Doug Foy (now consultant) in some Harvard Alumni magazine. I had heard the quote somewhere, typed it in to the best of my memory and that is what I got. Very possible that it is a mangled version of the Churchill quote you provided. Alas, I do not know, apologies.
lightiris says
the best I can come up with via Saint Google is an attribution to Winston Churchill:
<
p>
“Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now we have to think.”
crescentcity says
Who are you talking about? Barak Obama?
maverickdem says
that should crystalize this entire issue for just about everyone.
<
p>
Let’s all forget for a moment what each of our respective Democratic candidates is saying about the tax rollback and pretend that they all supported the immediate rollback to 5.0%. Why? Because it will finally allow us to stop advocating on behalf of our respective candidate’s position and instead see more clearly the power of the tax rollback issue.
<
p>
OK, bear with me people. . .I realize this feels a little touchy-feely, but there is a valuable point (at least I think so). . .
<
p>
Same rollback position. . .Support the immediate rollback. . .OK? Now fast forward to November 7. . .Guess what, folks? We have a Democratic Governor. No question about it. Not even close.
<
p>
Why? Because Healey has nothing left. Sure, she still has the old “Republican check on the Democratic legislature argument,” but with the tax issue off the table, exactly what will she be fighting with the legislature for? Needle exchange? Pulleeze. . .Her message rings alot more hollow. Game over. The Democrat in a walk.
<
p>
I challenge anybody to name a single issue that would deliver the same knockout punch as the income tax rollback. There isn’t one.
<
p>
Now do you get it?
<
p>
Now for those of you pointing to the current Democratic primary polls to justify some kind of strong support for maintaining the 5.3% rate, I offer this: the only poll that matters is November 7. Besides, if you are going to treat each candidate as the embodiment of a tax rollback position, the rollback, in some form, wins even among likely Democratic Primary Voters because Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrieli’s combined numbers far outstrip Patrick’s. I repeat: EVEN AMONG LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS! Not your most conservative group of voters.
<
p>
If the General Election becomes a referendum on the rollback, more people will vote for the rollback than against it. I don’t care how charismatic the candidate, I would bet the proverbial farm on it. And if you think for one moment that those candidates who currently do not support an immediate rollback would not swap positions with Tom Reilly in the General Election, well, I think you are crazy.
alexwill says
…we’d have some one as governor who has promised to cut the income tax immediately, which is something I wouldn’t want to happen.
<
p>
Also, you are completely wrong to equate Reilly and Gabrieli on this. Gabrieli and Patrick are the closest to each other and the most sensible: they oppose lowering the tax rate, but are both open to it in the future under certain economic conditions. Gabrieli wants to wait until certain triggers are met, while Patrick wants more generally to re-invest in our commonwealth to grow our economy first. Both are sensible and moderate positions, unlike Reilly and Healey.
<
p>
And this election is not about electing a Democrat: It is about electing the best person for the job. I don’t care about what party, and about 50% of the state’s registered voters don’t either. I think it was you, MavDem, who has said that people want a check on the legislature, and I agree. Reilly cannot be this, as although he does have a strong “get tough” leadership style, he is ideologically the same place as the conservative Democratic leadership, so likely to go along with them most of the time. Gabrieli is even worse off in this position, as he seems to not want to say anything that would get anyone in the legislature the teensiest bit mad at him. Sal, Gab, and Trav would be the weakest combo to run with. I think Patrick is the strongest in this regard, (though I’m sure you disagree) as he has a sense of leadership through building compromise and has also been unafraid to disagree with the legislature’s leadership, but unlike Reilly he is a more moderate and progressive Democrat who will help focus the debate in a positive direction.
david says
Actually, I’d disagree with that. Sal & Trav are pretty liberal by traditional standards. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t charter members of the hackocracy – the two don’t necessarily track predictably.
crescentcity says
MA: How could you elect a Mormon governor? I mean, really, you don’t live in Utah or Arizona, so whatz up?
<
p>
Mormons always support the Mormon Church. Don’t forget that and please, please, don’t elect a Mormon president. The we will all be in BIG trouble.
frankskeffington says
Did you jsut register so you could give bigotted attacks on people. I maybe no fan of Mitt’s and not a beliver in the Mormon Church, but your words are full of hate.
<
p>
My problems with Mitt have nothing to do with Mitt as a Mormon–jsut that he’s proven himself to be a top notch weasel.
crescentcity says
I may be bigoted against Mormons, but that is just because familiarity breeds contempt. I am a third generation Arizonan whose family has been in the territory since before the turn of the century (20th). I am no more bigoted against Mormons than they are against African-Americans and other non-Mormons.
<
p>
Mormons have a doctrine about political involvement that states that the American Constitution will be “hanging by a thread,” and the Union will be saved by the Mormons. They have a political agenda and you would be best served by that knowledge.
frankskeffington says
And a major one at that, if you compare their (old and hidden) attitudes towards blacks with your feelings toward them.
<
p>
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Mormons, I’ve read enough to understand where your coming from.
<
p>
But exposing their ideas to the daylight and watching their ideas wither away under rational scrutiny is far more preferable to burning them at the stake.
<
p>
As far as my spelling goes–big deal, a little dyslexia, combined with late night typing and not caring to proof read. I’d rather suffer from that problem than the hatred that afflicts you.
crescentcity says
p.s. Where did you learn to spell? In the public schools? It’s clear that you didn’t have the benefit of a private education.
sabutai says
Well, most of us are thinking like Democrats. That’s getting us into trouble here.
<
p>
I read lots of people projecting on to voters the following line of reasoning:
<
p>
<
p>
In this line of reasoning, voters take what they observed and insert an intervening variable to foment an explanation (Expectations that voters will link local taxes/services with state taxes/Local Aid are even more complicated).
<
p>
However, it seems many voters make this connection:
<
p>
As some people have tried to point out, especially with the Big Dig the way it is, telling people that the solution to their problems is more government rarely helps. And I’m old-fashioned enough to believe that the message counts, not just the “framing” or a “charismatic messenger”.
truebluedem says
<
p>
14 billion dollars given to Halliburton in Iraq and not a dime’s worth of difference… the infrastructure is now worse than ever before.
annem says
that illustrate the responsible stewardship (or lack thereof) for public spending and include a Cost-Benefit Analysis of how those tax dollars are spent might be useful tools to meaningfully engage the voters on taxes.
<
p>
Sorry if this idea isn’t well thought out or articulated, but I think the winning Dem Candidate for Gov. must develop some creative tools to engage and them educate us/ the public/voters on the taxes issue, otherwise the “Halloween candy” rhetoric of Healy will prevail.
<
p>
Disclosure: I am leaning most strongly toward Patrick and most strongly away from Reilly because I believe Reilly has either lazily or willfully ignored his ability improve our state’s healthcare costs by abrigating his responsibility as AG to hold our state’s “non profit” HMO’s and Hospital systems publically accountable with clear and resonable standards for their “Charitable Institution” tax-exempt status and how each organization spends the monies they collect. How can they post headline-garnering “record profits” in the hundreds of millions while raising insurance premium rates?!! You’d think the business community would call for this oversight too, not just us wimpy citizen taxpayers. I guess its touchy for business lobby groups to decide to take action on this since the same groups, e.g. AIM, often represent the very HMO’s that other businesses they represent are getting a bad deal from.
<
p>
This concern is very relevant to the “Taxes” issue. Isn’t Healthcare the biggest spending item in our state budget/ where our taxes go? HC and Education are the biggies. I want more budget money avail for things like smaller class sizes, better parks and playgrounds, safer roads and tunnels, the arts, on and on… Reilly has been in the role as our State’s AG (for how many years now?) and has had ample opportunity to bring attention to this rip-off of the taxpayer and to call for new regulations if needed, but to my knowledge he has not. I have visited his AG website and the Healthcare section I find pitifully sparse.
<
p>
In contrast, folks might be interested to know that Sec of State Galvin has spoken publically about the need for new oversight and accountability/ enforcable regulations for the state’s HMO’s, largely during the ballot Question 5 campaign back in 2000. Another disclaimer: I plan to vote for Bonifaz in the SOS primary and give money to Jill Stein for her SOS non-Dem campaign. And I volunteered countless hours on the Q5 initiative to establish a binding law to create a state Universal Insurance Coverage Healthcare Program and limit health insurance companies’ Admin. spending to 10%. I was on maternity leave and when the dominant advocacy group for health care reform turned against the Q5 campaign I took my baby all over the state working for its passage.
<
p>
FYI Medicare Admin spending is under 5%. R/T Mass.spending, in Dec 2002, a state-commissioned report was released (I think the state released it on Christmas Eve or thereabouts) by the LECG Consulting Group: http://www.mass.gov/healthcareaccess/ to read the
“LECG Final Report on Universal Health Care Financing and Delivery” and if this interests you make sure to read the related documents including ours, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend Health Care which is an advocacy group that helped launch the Q5 Health Reform Ballot Campaign which led to the legislature requesting the Report be undertaken:
http://www.mass.gov/healthcareaccess/pages/access05.htm
<
p>
The LECG Report includes data tracking the spending practices of the state’s HC industry and concluded that 39% of all HC Spending went to Admin expenditures, not to patient care. That amount was $16 Billion, since total HC spending was $39 Billion for the year tracked. And the state is the biggest payer into the HC system.
<
p>
SOS Galvin was the ONLY statewide elected official–actually one of the very few public officials at all–to support Q5 publicly. The Mass. HMO’s pumped in about $5.4 Million to kill Q5 (public info at the OCPF)–and we YES on 5 folks had about $100,000 to spend (see OCPF). Q5 lost 48 to 52% at the statewide ballot. If all the healthcare advocacy groups had maintained their support for the ballot initiative wee’d likely be way ahead of where we are now on sustainable health care reform and what amount of our state budget is gobbled up by healthcare.
<
p>
So, any takers on the Pie Chart/ Report Card idea? Another creative frame might be comparing the State Budget to a Family Budget and then using the other tools. Maybe all these are out there already. If so, let me know where, please.
david says
if Galvin has been such a faithful ally for the cause you obviously care so deeply about, why are you supporting Bonifaz – whose principal issue is clearly not health care?
annem says
I’m an ordinary person who cares about lots of issues. Like most I’m motivated by values of justice and humanity and kindness, and by knowing that I can help to give everybody an equal chance to live a good and happy life. Like most, if I see an injustice I try to make an effort to address it. Our system of government is in crisis and not many officials are speaking to that. Bonifaz does and will continue to, so I’ll give him my vote and my support.
<
p>
Our healthcare crisis is an injustice of unbelievalbe proportions, if you actually study the details. The greed and abuse of power that allows this to continue is clearly evident if you simply follow the money trail, as is the case with nost issues. The numbers of uninsured keep rising, costs keep rising with no standards or accountability for how most of that money is spent, and quality of care is in the tank in many places and uneven in all. The whole system is a f-ing mess. A real disgrace.
<
p>
But many many other things in our society are also a f-ing mess and a real disgrace. Things didn’t have to end up this way if the folks with the power to make laws, set policy and enforce regulations, etc, were looking out for us ordinary folks. For our rights and interests (the Big Dig, city violence, percentage of candidates running unopposed all come roaring to mind, as does Iraq, Bush/Cheney/Rove, Big Oil, Katrina, etc). These are things that ordinary people really care about, when they have the energy to.
<
p>
Most of these problems can be traced to our present government that is in large measure not accountable nor responsive to the people who elect its members. We’re in desperate need to reclaim our government from the excessive influence of corporate special interests. (Aw heck, it’s full control in many instances–Medicare Part D, anyone?) We’ve got to restore it to a democracy that resembles “of, by, and for the people”–something that’s way too hard to find these days, although Pat Jehlen and Ellen Storey come to mind. I know it’ll never be perfect but I have to believe it can get a lot better–I have a 6 yo and a 1 yo, after all…
<
p>
It is for these reasons that I will likely vote for Bonifaz for SOS. He talks the talk and walks the walk on this stuff. And it is at the core of every issue I care about.
<
p>
I’m a social justice activist who chooses to focus on healthcare for now because its what I know best, having worked in the field for over 25 years, the past 13 of those as a nurse. And from having family members who I love dearly suffer serious illness and then have their suffering compounded directly due to insurance issues (coverage days running out and then being kicked out of the hospital while still extremely sick and not able to care for herself AT ALL)
<
p>
This happened to my sister, who was terribly ill with Schizophrenia for years and years, in and out of 6 hospitals and many group homes until newer medicines were available (Clozapine) that the family then had to fight tooth and nail to obtain for her. What was a nightmare experience for her to be so ill with a biochemical brain disease (and nightmarish for our entire family as well, as other families will tell you) and to have her experience of suffering made much worse and traumatic due to the insurance coverage limitations, and the other large scale dysfunction of the U.S. healthcare system. She’s doing pretty well now.
<
p>
No ill person and no family in our state, or in our country, should have to go through what we went through, but thousands do to this day. I’m a member of NAMI-Mass. Thankfully I knew how to navigate “the system” somewhat on my sister’s behalf, and am a feisty advocate by nature. Not all families have those resources. Our state and our country’s treatment of people with mental illness is still largely inhumane and quite discriminatory, as compared to the resources and care we provide for other types of illnesses. And the state and the country really is us, isn’t it?
<
p>
Also, people who are poor, or who are in a minority racial or ethnic group live sicker lives and die younger. Wholesale injustices with life or death consequences right under our noses. Why do these inequities and so many others persist when our elected leaders know of them and have the power to rectify them, if they were to use that power? See above paragraph #4, please.
jim-weliky says
Just wanted to say that. Among other things, I liked your pointing out that “the state and the country really is us, isn’t it.” There is such a tendency in political debate these days to just assume that the government is a “them” to our “us” when in fact the founding idea of our country was that we ARE the government.
<
p>
Anyway, sorry for your struggles with your sister. I’ve had clients with the kinds of medical issues you describe in the course of my practice as an employment lawyer representing employees, and I’ve been struck by the truly massive levels of complexity and obstacles to getting the care these clients need, especially when they have substantial mental disabilities. It infuriates me. I hope that this health care “reform” just passed addresses this situation to some degree, but I’m not holding my breath. Thanks for your service and activism!
david says
And yet, I have to wonder about something. It sounds to me like you generally like a lot of what Bonifaz stands for and the positions he’s taken on lots of issues, some related to the Secretary of State’s job, and some not. And so you want to support him in his quest for public office. And, since he’s running for Secretary of State, the way to support him is to vote for him for SOS and support his campaign.
<
p>
Nothing wrong with that, obviously. But here’s my question: from your description (and you know a lot more about this than I do), it sounds like Galvin has “walked the walk” on health care, taking on HMOs when no one else wanted to, and backing question 5 when no one else in government did. Is your reason for not backing him now that he didn’t do enough? Or does it have nothing to do with Galvin – maybe he did as much as he could – it’s just that you see it as more important that folks like Bonifaz get into government, and if one of the good guys on an issue like health care gets knocked out in the process, that’s an acceptable price?
<
p>
Please don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to be argumentative. But I am trying to understand the decision process. The reason I think it’s important is that we want people like Galvin – who hold important offices and who, no disrespect intended to Bonifaz, are likely to continue to do so – to keep “walking the walk” on health care and other important issues. What is the message they receive if, after doing that, they can’t count on the support of the communities for whom they stood up against powerful interests? Galvin no doubt took some flack from the powers that be for the high-profile shots he’s taken at HMOs, and probably for backing Q5 as well. I’m sure he was happy to hear positive feedback from the health care community on the stands he took, but what he really wants – what every politician really wants – is your vote, and your support (financial or otherwise) the next time he’s up for office.
<
p>
Again, I’m not trying to challenge you, I’m just playing devil’s advocate to some extent. But I think this is quite an important question, and I’d like to talk about it further. This thread has gotten so gigantic that I may bring it up on the front page in the next couple of days.
annem says
“I hope that this health care “reform” just passed addresses this situation to some degree, but I’m not holding my breath.”
<
p>
Because if I did hold my breath, I’d surely die waiting for Chapter 58 (the new reform law) to achieve the far-reaching and sustainable improvements in healthcare access/ equity, cost control, and quality the we need. Addressing these problems together, in a pragmatic and systemic way, is what’s required because these 3 are the main ingredients of the healthcare mess. Dr. Marcia Angell, former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, had an Op-Ed in the Globe 4/17/06 “Healthcare plan needs dose of common sense” that explains this quite well. For now, here’s a bit of info.
<
p>
If reform attempts address only one problem in the system, as Chapter 58 largely does by purporting to improve access with Medicaid expansions for the poor, state subsidies for the near-poor and the “individual mandate” for the rest of us, then the reform policies themselves are likely to exacerbate the other crisis areas–high cost and poor quality.
<
p>
Our already sky-high and ever-escalating costs and state spending on healthcare will increase. Remember, it’s us taxpayers who will be the biggest payer for the new “state subsidies” to help limited-income folks buy insurance and it’s us who already are paying for the state portion of Medicaid insurance for the poor (and Medicaid was expanded quite a bit in Chap 58).
<
p>
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for helping to provide insurance coverage for everyone–I helped generate countless calls to the legislature throughout the winter and spring in support of the Medicaid expansions and restoration of previously cut Medicaid benefits (dental and eye care–they’re part of the body too, for heavens sake!) that are now part of Chap 58. It made sense to do because Medicaid exxpansions will help meet the immediate healthcare needs of many people. And because I knew that thousnds of citizen activists were working to pass the Health Care Constitutional Amendment.
<
p>
We are finally undertakinng this approach after being part of past failed reform efforts for decades. Yes, some incremental improvements were achieved but many didn’t last; the advocacy community has been fighting the same incremental battles over and over again andwe’ve got more uninsured than ever in Massachusetts. In the big picture it’s kinda like giving your all to fight for a few crumbs. An effective way to keep advocacy groups and activists busy into eternity.
<
p>
At long last, really, many of us (including health policy experts, lawyers, nurses, doctors, labor activists, social justice activists, senior citizens–you name it…well, maybe no HMO or Big Pharma Exec’s) have smartened up and we aren’t gonna take it anymore. The Health Care Amendment will establish a Constitutional Guarantee to “ensure comprehensive, afforable and equitalby financed health insurance” for all state residents and will provide us–the people and our politicians who want to do the right thing–the legal and the political tools to undertake and actually achieve the systemic reforms that are needed.
<
p>
The campaign is largely run on the blood, sweat and tears (especially after what went down in the ConCon on July 12th) of citizen activists, so please join us. We could really use the help. Sign up at http://www.HealthCareForMass.org
andy says
were going to be cracking down on fact abuse? This entire post is devoid of a single linked fact. The substantiation of the claims made here are “people’s experiences.” That is nice except for the fact that we experience things differently. When someone tells me that such and such an election was about taxes I think it would be nice to see the polling data that supports such a claim. A 30 year voting history of one individual doesn’t really qualify. To David and Frank, you are both smart guys, David I know you a litle personally so I have a tendency to trust your impressions a little more, however, your impressions are good for opinion only, not fact. I am not disagree with anyone here I am just asking for someone to please point to actual, acceptable, valid polling data that shows in any of the mentioned elections that the number one reason people went to the polls was because of taxes. If you can do that, then you are go a long, long way towards proving your case. Otherwise it seems that your whole argument boils down to your arm chair impression of an election.
david says
If it weren’t for armchair punditry, the blogosphere wouldn’t exist!
andy says
🙂 Fine.
frankskeffington says
…that was either so offense that 5 people scored it as a “0′ or I never clicked post.
<
p>
It boiled down to this…If you don’t believe that Prop 2 1/2 passed in 1980 or that the graduated income tax lost twice or that the tax rollback passed in 2000, tell me and I’ll do the reseatch and find the links.
<
p>
Secondly, factcheck was just as fast and loose with opinions with no links, but you didn’t call a flag on him/her–what gives on that? Do you only want people that disagree with you to provide links, but those folks you agree with, get a pass?
david says
that you never clicked “post.” I get to see hidden comments, and there’s nothing here…
andy says
I did single you and David out though I can assue you my comment was directed at the entire thread and not just you and David. I thought you made all sorts of reasonable points but I felt like you had a higher burden because you were trying to prove a point. Either way Frank I wasn’t directing anything toward you specifically. On the issue in question on am on the fence and would have liked some substantiation of what you were saying. Collective memory wasn’t good. But as David said, correctly, its all about the arm chair blogging (of which I am beyond horribly guilty!).