“Sound, sane”

Related to the issue of taxation: Although he probably didn’t write the glowing headline, Herald business columnist Brett Arends seems to like what he sees of Patrick’s approach to growing the economy, but sees the inherent political problem:

When it comes to the Massachusetts economy, Deval Patrick says he would have three priorities as governor.

Spend money to improve the infrastructure, from roads to wireless networks, to match our competitors.

Reform the permitting process at the state and local level to bring down costs.

And borrow money to invest in new technology development, from high-tech to biotech to alternative energy, to help win the jobs of the future. Among his proposals would be to offer more technical training at community colleges.

… [Patrick] opposes cutting the income tax to 5.0 percent, saying he would rather raise local aid so towns could cut their “regressive” and “inefficient” property taxes. He would make the aid conditional on towns improving permitting.

This sounds reasonable … if that is where the money actually goes.

Yup, proposal #1 and #3 cost money. And yet … what if you don’t spend it?

Look, Massachusetts is never going to be a low-cost place to do business. You want low cost? Go to Alabama, or Mexico, or Cambodia. On the other hand, if you want a bad-ass, creative workforce, with educational institutions that churn out thousands of talented people every year, and a mature infrastructure so you can get from point A to point B easily … this is your kind of place — or at least it should be. (And it’s pretty here.)

In other words, Massachusetts needs to stay within itself, not try to do too much, just stay within itself and do the kinds of things it knows how to do. Following the example of “low-cost states” is a mistake: You get what you pay for.

Patrick’s problem is in convincing people that they’ll actually get value for their tax dollar … a daunting task.

Please share widely!

0

0