Specifically, I am underwhelmed by the Patrick campaign’s response in this morning’s Boston Globe article:
Patrick’s campaign countered, pointing out that Reilly has switched positions on the rollback of the state income tax rate. Reilly opposed the rollback until last year, when he called on the state to lower the rate to 5 percent from its current 5.3 percent.
“If he handles our taxes like he has the Big Dig’s cost overruns, then voters have many reasons to worry,” Richard Chacón , communications director for the Patrick campaign, said in a statement.
So, let’s see, the most effective defense that Deval Patrick could mount was to point out that Tom Reilly began supporting the income tax rollback at the end of 2005 and to raise the unrelated cost recovery issue? Personally, I think it is a weak answer that would only look weaker against Kerry Healey, since none it will apply to her. Our Democratic nominee will have to do better than that.
The bottom line is that the state can afford the income tax rollback now. Just ask Tom Birmingham, who opposed the rollback in 2002, but embraced it last October. And if you argue that the state cannot afford a $500 million tax cut, then you better be prepared to argue that the state cannot afford any of the candidates’ proposed programs that will cost that much or more. Hey, we can’t afford it, right? I don’t think so. Mr. Patrick, just because you might prefer that government program to the rollback doesn’t make one any more or less affordable than the other.
Tom Reilly has said that he will pay for the rollback with an anticipated $1 billion surplus, leaving him with $500 million more to spend than the last Governor – and that is before trimming waste, an area that both he and Deval Patrick agree exist. It seems to me that now is precisely the right time for Democrats to listen to the 57% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters who support the rollback. (And, yes, those are Likely Democratic Primary Voters. What do you think the Likely General Election Voter percentages would look like?)
If not now, when? Perhaps Deval Patrick should show us his math. Perhaps he should explain why his numbers don’t add up on the side of taxpayers. Tom Reilly has explained his position at the debates and in interviews. Show us the spreadsheets, Deval!
Come November, the Democratic nominee will need to make a strong case in order to convince voters that they can trust him on taxes and spending. That argument obviously can’t be, Sure, Kerry Healey, but you always supported the tax rollback and, by the way, how about that Big Dig? How’s that working out for you?
Even Kerry Healey can shatter that glass jaw.
I used to play the arcade version and I could never get past the third fighter, the Bald Bull. He would go into a crouch, then spring up at you with an uppercut. The thing is, you knew it was coming, because his eyes would turn yellow first. But I could never time the duck right to avoid it.
<
p>
Chris Gabrieli’s tax plan is the game-ending uppercut in this contest. You know it’s coming. Can it be defended against?
Bald Bull’s “Achilles Heel” was a jab to the stomach right before his patented uppercut.
<
p>
In keeping with the analogy, that will come when Tom Reilly responds to Gabrieli’s tax plan ad with a much simpler message: Tom Reilly wants to give you the tax rollback that you voted for NOW – no strings attached – while Chris Gabrieli wants to maybe give you your rollback on his terms, kind of like the Legislature has been promising.
<
p>
Jab to the gut! Bald Bull is down!!!
Kind of like this jab, actually:
<
p>
<
p>
The tax rollback isn’t about standing up to the Democratic legislature. It’s about sound fiscal policy. You think that Massachusetts’ cup runneth over with cash?
<
p>
Then how come the town of Southbridge cut 30% of their staff (The only article I found is in the archive at The Worcester T&G that you have to pay for.)
<
p>
How come, between 2001 and 2005 the budget for higher ed was cut by 21%, between 2002-2005, funding for subsidized child care was cut 11%, and between 2002-2004 funding for early literacy was cut by 82%
<
p>
By all means, if you believe that people know better how to spend their hard-earned money than the government, and that these and other programs don’t substantially improve the lives of citizens of Massachusetts, then vote for Reilly or Healey. That’s fine. But let’s not cloud the issue by saying that the tax rollback is some big symbolic metaphor for the next governor’s ability to not be a puppet in the Sal & Trav show.
<
p>
As for the polling results, here’s what I have to say about that – as part of my job, I see poll results from towns all over the state. The top issues are always education and healthcare. Sometimes jobs are up there, or maybe a hot-button issue that’s in the news when the poll is done. Taxes, when compared to the other issues, are not voters’ #1 concern. But when you ask someone head-on “do you want to pay less taxes?” it’s really a no-brainer that they’ll say yes more often than not. (This is why ballot initiatives can be incredibly stupid. You think every voter in this state is going to do a budget analysis to see what the tax rate should be? No. They’re going to decide whether or not, at that moment, they think their taxes are too high.)
<
p>
I don’t know the budget inside and out, but every day there’s another story of prop 2.5 overrides, towns facing budget shortfalls, or programs being cut. When those stories stop, then I’ll consider the possibility that the state just doesn’t need the cash. Until then, let’s cut the crap and discuss the rollback issue for what it is, not what you want it to represent.
<
p>
All right, here’s a crap-free discussion.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
This time of the cycle should be a time for in-depth policy discussion. But whether you go by the Republicans, the press, or most voters, it is not. It’s a shame, but complaining about it won’t win any votes.
Eury, I appreciate where you are coming from and I believe that a segment of the voting population (especially the typical BMG commentor) would agree with you, but I think you vastly underestimate the power, symbolism, and popularity of the tax issue. Remember, 57% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters support the rollback. Don’t you think that Likely Democratic Primary Voters, as a subgroup, are typically more pro-government spending that the electorate as a whole?
<
p>
To be honest, I do believe that “people know better how to spend their hard-earned money than the government.” I also believe that, with focus and discipline, a Tom Reilly can deliver the rollback that Republicans never could and provide modest increases in priority areas of the budget.
If I did a survey asking people if they want $10, 99% of people would say yes (1% would be skeptical and refuse to answer). If I listed better schools, access to healthcare, improving state roads, and getting $10 and then asked people to prioritize them, that $10 wouldn’t be #1. It might make it to #3.
<
p>
Sure, people want the rollback when given the choice, but that doesn’t mean it’s their top priority or that it’s going to be the deciding factor in this race.
<
p>
Heck, the fact that only 57% of likely voters are in favor of it means that people are finally seeing the correlation between taxes and services, and they’re sick of seeing their services cut. 43% said “keep my taxes right where they are. I don’t want any more money.”
<
p>
That is the noteworthy statistic.
Four years ago, 47% of voters wanted to eliminate the income tax. Not roll back by .3, but eliminate the sucker.
<
p>
It’s an anti-tax electorate. Like it or hate it, but it is. We just have to deal with it.
All I could find were reports about layoffs at Old Sturbridge Village.
<
p>
The MassBudget.org report is very selective in its dates. Citing cuts from 2002-2005, when the economy was sluggish, is not big news. It’s not reasonable to expect that spending can continue on a steady projectory all the time! However, it is reasonable to expect that organizations adapt to changing financial conditions.
<
p>
As for the current state of affairs, it looks like Higher Ed got about an 8% from last year. Efforts at this point would be better spent at repealing the Pacheco Law than going after double-digit spending increases. It would allow colleges to make the infrastructure improvements and expansions or save cash on existing projects.
<
p>
With regard to the early literacy program, this was not a program designed to go in perpetuity. It was a grant program designed to identify and implement effective reading intervention strategies. At the beginning of the program, funding was higher. Think of this as “seed money” that a district could use to evaluate new programs. The program is set to end at the end of this fiscal year.
<
p>
As for the reduction for subsidized child care, in 2004, the EEC was established. Consolidation efforts were already underway by FY2003. Unfortunately, the data cited in the “Real Cuts – Real People” report (notes 48 &49) are only attributed to the MA OCCS, so we really can’t verify the information. Whereas the report cites an increase in numbers on the waitlist, subsequent work done by the EEC has discovered many innaccuracies and duplication of waitlist figures.
<
p>
Why is it that the “tax and spend” mentality always concludes that reduced budgets are necessarily a bad thing? This statement: By all means, if you believe that people know better how to spend their hard-earned money than the government, and that these and other programs don’t substantially improve the lives of citizens of Massachusetts, then vote for Reilly or Healey. is really indicative of the leftist mentality that incented Democrats like me to leave the party.
<
p>
A good thing to keep in mind: A government that is powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
Yes, I hope that the Patrick campaign has some better talking points prepped on this matter.
Where’s that coming from? I must admit, I don’t follow events all that closely, but it’s hard to see how MA is going to have a surplus in the current economy…can someone explain?
<
p>
Also, what’s up with the “47% voted to eliminate (income tax)”? Obviously nonbinding, which may mean people were just expressing anger, but that’s scary nonetheless.
And, if the corporate profits and taxes thereon continue on trend, the surplus will approach 1 billion.
As eury13 was pointing out, many of our commitments have not been honored, and funding levels for many programs are below historical levels, especially if adjusted for inflation. And these cuts were made because of the fiscal crisis, not because the programs didn’t deserve the funding.
<
p>
We also need to restore the rainy-day fund because you know the next downturn is just around the corner.
<
p>
As everyone is well aware, localities all over the state are hurting badly because of inadequate levels of state funds. There are many cities very afraid that they will be the next Springfield.
<
p>
When you factor in the needs we now have that are not being met, it’s clear that we cannot afford to cut taxes. I agree that the issue of taxes per se is very far down on most voters’ priority list. Not only that, but folks “get it” — they know you can’t cut taxes without cutting services, and they’re fed up with what they see.
<
p>
So, this Republican talking point may very well appeal to the Garys of Massachusetts, but most voters I know are much more interested in having a Governor who cares about the fate of their school systems and who wants to have universal, quality healthcare. That’s why people are going to be voting for Deval Patrick, not for the Republican-lite candidates who are hanging their hats on the tax issue.
I’m not spinning anyone here.
<
p>
IF the current corporate tax collection trend continues, THEN there will be a surplus over approved budget.
<
p>
What to do with that surplus is a policy decision: rainy day fund v. return to taxpayers.
<
p>
<
p>
Garys of Massachusetts: That sounds like a cloning issue. 🙂
Gary, I didn’t realize you go both ways…
<
p>
Today you trumpet the surplus and wonder what we’ll do with all our money.
<
p>
Yet, just 32 days ago you were warning us about a “structural deficit that the Legislature voted for in 2006.”
<
p>
So which is it? A surplus we have to decide what to do with or a structural deficit that we ahve to address?
There is a structural deficit, but, thanks to the Massachusetts corporations, the DOR is taking in money hand over fist. August numbers should be out any day. Should this trend beyond budget continue, the State will deliver a $1 billion surplus.
<
p>
IF this trend continues beyond budget THEN there will be a surplus.
<
p>
My own opinion differs. I’m actually in the economic camp that has modeled a recession in Q4 with a downturn in the stockmarket on 9/15 (thereabouts) and a drop in corporate profits in Q4 and Q1, 2007.
<
p>
So, I don’t believe a surplus will result. However, I was explaining to someone in this thread where the $1 billion surplus language originated.
Tax receipts are up, you say,
<
p>
You make it sound like their contribution to the state coffers is an unprecedented act of charity. I believe it’s because companies are raking in money hand over fist, to use your expression.
<
p>
And what made this possible? I would say the workers and consumers of Massachusetts. The very same people who are suffering because of the cuts in state and local services.
<
p>
Your solution? Put the extra dough in the rainy-day fund or return it to the corporations. Hey, I just thought of something — how about using it to provide a decent education to the children of this state, our future workforce? How about acknowledging that access to quality, affordable healthcare is a basic human right? Or, as Deval Patrick puts it, healthcare is a public good.
<
p>
Yeah, I know — these are pretty radical ideas in this state where a whopping 13% of voters call themselves Republicans. But, hey, ya never know…
Ernie’s already called for a thousand Charleys — they’re doubtless spawning in his basement right now.
<
p>
So we may have a rumble on our hands, Gary.