If you haven’t seen it yet, you can watch Chris Gabrieli’s much-ballyhooed new ad, in which Gabrieli criticizes the immediate tax rollback position of Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey as an “election-year promise,” and Deval Patrick’s no-rollback position as the reason Democrats keep losing the Governor’s race, at this link. As the Globe article notes, the ad leaves out an important qualifier, namely, that under Gabs’ plan only revenue increases that exceed the rate of inflation will be devoted to tax cuts. (Gabs’ spokesman told the Globe that “most people watching the ad would assume that.” Um, no. But whatever – it’s just an ad, right?)
And for those who haven’t yet read Gabrieli’s tax cut plan, it’s here.
So here’s a question for Gabs. I get the basic idea of the plan: if it gets enacted, and if revenues are high enough, it would trigger a reduction in the income tax rate. But if there’s a big slump, does the rate go back up? Or is it frozen at the reduced rate until there’s another good year? I assume the latter – that it’s a one-way downward ratchet. But if that’s so, is it really that much more responsible than the immediate rollback position, since it seems to set us up for the same problem an immediate rollback would cause, but just delays it a couple of years? Conversely, since there’s no rollback if revenues aren’t high enough, is it really that much more in keeping with what the voters asked for in 2000 than Patrick’s position? After all, what the voters asked for didn’t depend on hitting revenue targets. Does the plan, in other words, attempt to split the difference, and in so doing, end up splitting the baby?
Sometimes when you are stuck between two bad extremes, the middle isn’t such a bad place to be.
<
p>
Gabrieli’s position is vastly different from that of Patrick’s. In fact, both Reilly and Patrick have taken an absolute position without considering what the future may bring. That is the short term thinking that gets us into large tax shortfalls and surpluses. Neither of which I imagine is good for us.
Gabrieli and Patrick have almost the exact same qualitative position on the tax rollback: they have quantitatively different criteria, but both say we can’t afford the tax cuyt right now, and need to look to the future to see if it will be possible. Deval puts the priority on restoring local aide, cutting property taxes, and reinvesting in the economy to grow the tax base before cutting the income tax, while Gabrieli’s seems to want to everything at the same time.
I would say the difference is Patrick is fundamentally against it, but if we have a huge windfall of cash and he is able to fund the programs he wants then he would favor implementing the rollback. There is nothing wrong with that position in my eyes with the exception that the rollback has been voter mandated.
<
p>
Has Patrick laid out specific criteria under which he would favor the implementation of the rollback?
<
p>
Gabrieli says he doesn’t think it is the best idea in the world but realizes that it was voter mandated and lays out a criteria for implementing it.
<
p>
We all know Reilly’s position (which holds less water given his flip/flop)
<
p>
I believe in the eyes of the public there is a huge difference in their positions.
I looked on his website on the issues section and saw absolutely nothing on the income tax rollback. I haven’t heard much from him about rolling it back at all, and in a recent debate the highlight of his contribution on the rollback was “I’d like to, but look…I believe we should postpone that income tax rollback.” Sounds like an out-and-out denial to me.
<
p>
He may be, ahem, “repositioning” himself now, and I’d be interested to see what the new criteria are. But for the time being, Reilly is pro-rollback, Deval is anti-, and Gabrieli actually hasa pretty clear plan (like the Legislature) to roll it back.
Deval and Chris are both solidly anti- rolling back now: Patrick says grow the economy and see what happens before talking about it, while Gabs lays out a specific set of benchmarks before he’d enact it. It’s good to have a specific plan, but I think it assumes too much about the future to do that now and ignores the fact that it’s not a neccesary or pressing part of rebuilding our economy. I think its more honest to say you don’t think it can even be considered now instead of playing the game of setting up some set of triggers to gradually lower it eventually…
“Deval Patrick’s no-rollback position as the reason Democrats keep losing the Governor’s race”
<
p>
What the ad said was it’s no wonder that voters don’t trust the Democrats on fiscal policy.
<
p>
Sorry, but that’s a completely inappropriate statement from a fellow Democrat in a primary. Frankly, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, and I wondered if there’d be a follow up about how it’s no wonder Democrats can’t be trusted to keep us safe. The next ad, perhaps. No doubt attacking other Democrats as utterly incapable of handling the state’s finances and lacking in public trust is going to do wonders for voter confidence. Ridiculous and way over the line.
That sounds like the Bush administration’s response to Republicans that don’t agree with them on the war.
<
p>
This is exactly what feeds into voter fear of one party rule. There is nothing wrong with a dissenting opinion, especially when that opinion is correct (IMHO).
It’s not a matter of airing honest differences between candidates — insofar as Gabs’ ad did that, it’s totally within bounds. However, I did find the anti-Dem note in the ad to be really gratuitous and ultimately counter-productive even to Gabrieli’s own campaign. If you’re running as a Dem, talk up the Dem brand; that can only help you within the party and if you win the primary. Don’t run down your own party just to signal “independence” — that’s what Lieberman does, and it’s hooey. If you’re gonna be a maverick, be a maverick and say what you think, but don’t gift-wrap a bunch of loaded stereotypes for the opposition party.
<
p>
I think with that quote, Gabrieli made himself a commentator on the race rather than a participant, and that’s going to confuse his message. Just say what you think, Chris, and leave the thumb-sucking to us.
I don’t think he was taking a shot at the Dem party, but taking a shot at the group of candidates that we have put up in the last few elections. All of which have made the Republican’s job of painting Dem candidates as tax and spend that much easier.
<
p>
It is a fine line though, but ultimately I think it was worth it. I believe that label (I won’t say it again for fear of incurring the wrath of MFW) is in the back of the minds of many moderates and it needed to be acknowledged.
<
p>
<
p>
I thought one “problem” we’re trying to avoid is lack of funds, but the other is “one-time shock” problem. Hence do it gradually, no?
When I listened to Chris at a town meeting last week, he indicated a 40/40/20 plan. The first point he made that I remember is he has a specific plan. You may like it, you may not. But you KNOW where he stands and what he’s looking to do. Can you say that about any of the other gubernatorial candidates?
<
p>
40% of ‘excess’ revenues will be invested in infrastructure (including education). 40% will be used to reduce the tax rate. 20% will go to the rainy day fund.
<
p>
If the economy grows at the AVERAGE it has in the past 25 years, he’ll be at 5.0 by the end of his first year. Note we’ll also have a healthy rainy day fund, and the investments made for education, roads and the like. Social programs will be included in the budge as they currently are (but he’s not looking for drastic cuts)
<
p>
Oh yeah, he’s the ONLY candidate I’ve heard that believes we should budget ahead more than one year. Changes can be made, but factor out 5 years. What good is a grant for a police officer, if he’s let go after a year because the grant is up and no one can afford him?
<
p>
If revenues are short, there’s obviously not a surplus to do the above. Note that doesn’t automatically create a hike, but Chris also has specifics to grow the economy. Unlike the Republicans who believe in slashing everything, Chris is going to work on building (jobs which grows the tax base)