Why is Devals position on the tax rollback not clearly stated on his website? After reading sabutais comment stating that he could not find Patricks rollback position on the web site I wondered if he was missing something and went looking for myself and still found nothing. Then I wondered if I was missing something so I ran a Google search on his site looking for mentions of the rollback. I couldnt find any mention in any of his position pieces but did find mention of his position in some old press releases and buried in PDF docs of his speeches.
It seems odd to me that his position on this very important issue is not stated clearly on his website. Is Deval getting worried that his position on the rollback could cost him the election?
for softening his position?
<
p>
That could be one explaination, because of those polls showing that Reilly and Gabrieli are better positioned and more in line with the majority of the electorate?
<
p>
But that quote certainly sounds like Deval’s position, after having heard him speak several times…
From Cities and Towns:
<
p>
From Issues Overview:
<
p>
From Streamlining Spending:
<
p>
The point is that tax policy is important, but the tax rollback is not the only element or even an element worth discussing. The simplest statement I’ve heard from Deval is: “The tax to cut is the property tax”.
My property taxes are among the lowerst in the state.
<
p>
Why?
<
p>
Because we don’t pay part-time councillors full time salaries like Cambridge, Boston, Arlington, and on and on.
<
p>
Because we don’t have curbside pickup of trash.
<
p>
Because EVERY YEAR at town meeting, article 3 applies ALL free cash to LOWER the tax rate before any new acquision/project is considered.
<
p>
Why should WE who have been careful support the feckless mismanagement of other towns with an increased income tax?
your not getting an increased income tax! you’ll probably get even lower property tax! be happy! 🙂
This has been discussed at every debate. Deval answers questions on this at every public event. It’s been in nearly every article about the candidates. Not to mention continuously being posted on blogs like BMG.
<
p>
As we all know by now, Deval firmly believes that lack of funding for towns and cities is harming communities and pitting neighbor against neighbor with regressive taxes. Overrides are causing retirees on fixed incomes to choose between having a roof over their heads or eating cat food to survive.
<
p>
Maybe Deval and his team are smart enough not to repeat Republican memes about “tax relief” (which really means starve the government, give hand outs to corporations and the wealthy, and screw those least able to afford to pay staggeringly high property taxes). His feelings are abundantly clear and concise if you take the time to read his issue statements.
<
p>
His position isn’t courageous, it’s logical and based on reality. He gets it. He isn’t playing the same old losing game. He’s standing up for what he knows to be true. Good for him. Watch the crowd sometime when he speaks about this. I’ll bet you’ll see more heads nodding in agreement than not. Deval Patrick knows that change is needed and he isn’t afraid of change.
I used the word courageous because that is how it has been framed (however difficult to find) on Deval’s site.
<
p>
The other reason I went to his site is because I have heard many people stating what they think Deval’s position is on the rollback and I wanted to see for myself on his site what his position is. No where in any of is issue pieces does it say whether he is for or against the rollback. That is a pretty big ommission.
<
p>
Most voters will stop there and conclude that what they are reading in the media is accurate. This is a PROBLEM!
<
p>
BTW – I do plan on attending his meeting in Wakefield next week to see for myself what his position is.
This kind of issue has to be discussed again and again and again until victory in November. There are new people who aren’t familiar with Patrick’s position, others who haven’t heard the lastest twists … this is not the kind of subject one can, or should, say is resolved, as a campaign matter, until the ballots are cast. The strength of the position will, or should, be emphasized the more it is discussed, or weaknesses exposed, as the case may be.
And alexwill had no problem finding Deval’s exact quotes regarding taxation. I think it’s important to talk about the issue, but I don’t see a problem with not falling into the trap of framing the issue the way the Republicans would like it to be framed. I think Deval’s campaign has done an excellent job of reframing the issue so that it’s NOT about a rollback. It’s about the shell game of taking money out of one government pocket and then pulling an equivalent or greater amount of money right back out of the taxpayers’ pockets through property taxes and other fees.
Are you saying it’s the state’s fault property taxes are high? I don’t follow that logic. Can you please explain?
<
p>
My town saw an increase in state funding this year, as did many towns due to increases in Chapter 70 funds. But our taxes weren’t reduced as a result.
<
p>
Property tax is much more palatable than income tax. At least with property tax, you have a choice. You choose where you live and how much house you purchase. But income tax is a flat rate, so the less you make, the bigger the burden.
…to borrow a line from President Clinton’s first presidential campaign. People do care about the level of their rising property taxes. Patrick, who I support, needs to shift the conversation from the income tax to the property tax. Then, everyone will be nodding.
…that Democrats have been trying to “shift the conversation” ever since Reagan came on the scene, and have thoroughly failedto do so?
<
p>
Or does Deval have some rhetorical skills that will achieve in 10 weeks what elocutors like Clinton, Dean, and Kerryfailed over the last few decades?
If memory serves me right, Bill Clinton actually talked about a tax increase during his first run for president and he won. Granted it was to raise the tax on people who make over $200,000 a year, which he ended up doing. I think that is correct. Fail free to correct me, my memory often fails me, but I know I am not confusing this with anything George Bush II ran on.
…he won despite it. And Deval is setting himself up to win despite a policy at odds with the will of the voters (whether by poll or by previous referendums).
<
p>
Deval isn’t talking about keeping taxes higher on millionaires, but rather on everyone. If he pushed for another tax bracket for high-earners, that wouldn’t be a bad idea at all…
As I started out saying, it’s property taxes people are concerned about now…especially in the suburbs, and Patrick is addressing those concerns in a responsible way. So his policy is not at odds with the “will of the voters.” (How long ago was the so-called tax roll back referendum anyway? It seems like so long ago…)
<
p>
Could you show me a poll where people are concerned about property taxes as a priority — and that they think a governor has a lot of impact on it? Frankly, the real break on property taxes is Prop 2 1/2, something most liberals are against.
<
p>
The rollback referendum was six years ago. I personally don’t believe that referendum or election results come with expiration dates.
I have not found a specific poll about rising property taxes and how the public feels about them, but I know it is a constant subject of debate in my own community. Even Tom Reilly is talking about it, even though he and his wife rent.
But, it’s not (I’ll conjecture) that property tax is too high or out of control.
<
p>
First, 60% of Mass households are homeowners, so 40% rent and don’t pay property tax. A very reasonable response is that rents have increased as the result of higher property tax, but that’s not the case. Rents have been extremely stable over the decade for reasons (vertical mobility, price elasticity) too boring to mention.
<
p>
Second, per capita property tax is $1532. Mass has per capita income of $44,289.
<
p>
So 3.459% of disposible income is cause for outrage? If so, I’ve (anecdotally) not heard the outrage, but maybe it’s there, or maybe it just a talking point for politicos. YMMV.
<
p>
Regardless, develop the scenario where a town receives additional local aid. Then, it’s budget time. It’s the nature of Town Government to then raise the taxes the requisite 2 1/2 percent and proudly exclaim that they didn’t have to pursue an override? Isn’t that human nature?
<
p>
I fully expect additional local aid would reduce override efforts, but am very sceptical it would reduce the increase below 2 1/2 per year.
<
p>
Trade a income tax rollback and expect a savings in property tax? More eye-rolling than tax-rollbacking.
What you are saying is that there is no hope of shifting the conversation to reality and logic? Just give it up and go with the Republican flow? Sorry. That hasn’t worked. Maybe it’s time to give up losing political tactics and actually lead the conversation. Let’s get rid of the DINO’s and have a real Democratic party again that points out the hideous flaws of Republican administrations rather than mouthing their talking points.
…I said you can’t change voters’ ideologies in ten weeks through the noise of a nasty gubernatorial campaign overlaid with fights for the Senate and House.
<
p>
I personally think the Democratic Party is a big tent, and “getting rid” of people who I don’t agree with isn’t the way to go.
What you are alluding to (and I really hope this isn’t the Gabs campaign philosophy, although I’m afraid it is) is that the vast majority of voters have an ideology that goes along with Republican framing. Therefore, a strong Dem leader has no chance of winning without using Republican talking points. How many times do we have to accept this lose/lose scenario and idiotic candidates who play political games instead of speaking truth? It’s far beyond time to change this perception. The Romney administration has failed. The Bush administration has failed. The Big Dig was a Republican administration fiasco. Tax cuts for the rich and big bidness are disastrous. Starving funding to towns and cities is devastating. Voters need only be reminded of the facts and reality, which some candidates just don’t think will work. I’m sick to death of this LOSING mentality.
I don’t see this as a Republican /Democrat difference. Both party platforms contain much more than economic policy. It is quite reasonable that one can be a fiscally-conservative Democrat — I think Gabrielli somewhat falls into this camp.
<
p>
And there have been votes from the state house that indicate just because you’re a Republican doesn’t mean you’re fiscally conservative!
<
p>
That said, I do think it must be frustrating to have found a candidate you agree with and then not see them fight for those ideas with everything they have. However, I don’t believe rhetoric such as
<
p>
Tax cuts for the rich and big bidness are disastrous. Starving funding to towns and cities is devastating.
<
p>
helps your candidate. Eventually, people come around and ask — what tax cuts for the rich? And are our towns “devastated”? What are the facts to support this?
<
p>
For those of us who once were fiscally-conservative Dems, it’s particularly off-putting and drives us from the party, at least at the state level.
There are fewer police officers, fewer firefighters, fewer DPW workers and fewer teachers than there were last year. More personnel cuts are projected for the next several years ahead. Street sweeping has gone from 2/year to once, maybe (I still haven’t seen it yet this year). Leaf pickups that were done by the town have been discontinued and replaced with a for-fee service – a not-so-hidden tax increase. The participation fee for school sports was increased and we’re talking about new busing fees. This is all before the snow starts to fall…
<
p>
Finally, you better believe the next time the unions come asking for pay raises, they’re going to find it hard sledding. Look at the people my town is downsizing – the heart and soul of the Democratic Party are the ones we’re balancing our budgets on.
<
p>
The thing is, the other candidates all seem to take the position that this sort of cutting isn’t happening or isn’t a problem. It is happening and it is a problem – Patrick gets my vote, in part, for being alert enough to perceive this.
if it matters.
by way of example, and not to pick (too much) on Chelmsford but:
<
p>
In your post, you describe a Town in difficult financial straits. Services cut, pay raises in peril, etc…
<
p>
Look at the numbers for Chelmsford:
<
p>
Employee benefits increased from 2005 to 2006 by 27.5% for goodness sakes! Medical insurance costs increaseed by 34.6%. Tell your leaders to (grow a pair) put on the table the notion that town employees must shoulder some of the increasing costs of health coverage and benefits!
<
p>
In f/y 2005 employee benefits were 11.9% of the total budget but in 2006 they were 14.6%. In 2004 they were 10.6%. I’ll reiterate that trend: 10.6 to 11.9 to 14.6 of total town revenue go to benefits.
<
p>
Chelmsford leadership should address this dangerous and troublesome trend.
<
p>
Now, look at the Revenue side:
<
p>
State aid to Chelmsford rose from 2005 to 2006 by 2.9%, from $12,809,758 to $13,176,875 and property taxes increased by $1,400,000 or 2.5%.
<
p>
But yet, with a 10.4 % increase in revenue from ’04 to ’05 and a similar increase in ’06, the town is compelled to cut services.
<
p>
Does this make sense to you?
<
p>
What’s that saying? “Spending” has a hundred fathers and “Saving” is an orphan. More state aid is not the answer to Chelmsford’s problem. IMHO.
<
p>
Any other towns want to see the same analysis? The problem is pervasive.
Finally, you better believe the next time the unions come asking for pay raises, they’re going to find it hard sledding.
<
p>
Well, good for you, if true. We had an override defeated by a 2-1 margin, everyone got their raises, and next time we’ll be wondering why we still have a structural deficit.
These are the people who spend their time making my town a better place to live. Many of them risk life and limb on a regular basis. And now they’re hearing that they don’t need as many benefits, or that their co-pays should be higher, or that their 12% raise for the last three years (not even COLA) is just too much for us to afford.
<
p>
We’ve seen residential property taxes rise 30% since 2002 to go along with our declining services. If there’s a structural deficit, it’s sure as hell not because the teachers and cops are being paid too much.
Whatever happened to you getting some answers about your Chap. 70 allocation? I took a school finance course this past semester at UML, and Chelmsford was one tough nut to crack. It’s clear you’re projected to get more money over the next few years as the new formula is phased in, but it does seem that your adjustments are way behind other districts.
<
p>
That said, a 12% raise over three years — that’s not bad. Certainly outpaces most folks I know in the private sector.
Yeah, it’s Chapter 70 that’s killing us right now. We did get some extra Ch.70 money in the spending spree at the end, but my impression is that it was a bonus, not a raise. I’m a little discouraged that in a year when there was money available we didn’t get it used to fix the system. That’s an ongoing issue here.
<
p>
Because the thing about schools being underfunded is that it never gets contained within the schools. What happens is that the school deficit is papered over by drawing funds away from all the other town departments. Most of the other systems that have suffered under the current Ch.70 system have also had to endure cuts in services and personnel as they try to stem the hemorrhaging in the schools. In fact, the town selectmen and manager here have been fiscally conservative over the years, but the town has suffered anyway. It’s not so much a town problem as it is a state problem.
<
p>
Finally, 12% over 3 years is only about COLA. While it may be good compared to many private sector jobs, that just means the private sector workers are being screwed by inflation (but that’s a different rant).