- Fact: 57% of Democrats favor lowering the income tax rate. What do you suppose the numbers are for those unenrolled voters who we need to win in November?
- Fact: In 2000, voters approved an income tax cut to 5% by an overwhelming margin about 2 to 1.
- Fact: Over 45% of voters in 2002 voted to cut the income tax altogether.
- Fact: The Legislature was a discretionary power of spending with enough freedom to cut the budget to a point where the state could afford the 5% income tax.
Now, some folks may not like these facts, but that doesn’t make them go away. Sure, there are elements in this state that call it “courageous” to stand on one extreme on this issue, urging that tax rates to be kept where they are. Amazingly, there are folks who dismiss the fact that it disobeys the law to ignore the results of a referendum (whether it is Clean Election or tax rollbacks) and frankly undermines the integrity of the system. I dont believe that the ends justify the means in this department.
Simply put, those positions lose elections in Massachusetts.
Because most Massachusetts voters want the tax cut they voted for. They went to the polls and voted, believing their voices would be heard and recognized. Theyve been ignored by the Legislature for 6 years, and don’t want a governor who’ll ignore them for 4 more. I realize many people on this blog are okay with that. Fine. But the people who are okay with that dont make up 50% + 1 of the voting public in this state. They make up the disappointed people in the ballroom on November 7th when yet another Republican rolls to victory.
Some leftists stake their belief that a tax-freeze platform will work if accompanied by an explanation that lower income taxes mean higher property taxes. I agree that is true, but I disagree that its a winning campaign point. How long have Democrats been explaining that if you lower taxes here, they go up there? We don’t have a campaigner so amazing that he can make that argument in a clear, powerful, and compelling fashion in ten weeks, where OBrien, Harshbarger, Kerry, Dukakis, and Gore all failed in their campaigns. A series of flowcharts and diagrams cant compete with soundbites that have phrases like “will of the voters” and “giving your money back”. That argument is the work of a long issues campaign like marriage-equality, not a political campaign.
To those value a liberal ideology, ask yourself this: Who will express your beliefs better a Democratic governor who makes the necessary compromise on the tax issue to win election, or a Republican governor who rolled over her opponent more interested in being “right” on one of dozens of issues than being governor?
at a public forum with a fair number of seniors in the audience. He made a compelling case regarding inadequate state aid to cities & towns, and the problems this causes to local budgets, local services and property tax rates.
<
p>
A series of flowcharts and diagrams won’t blunt the “give you back your money” argument. But a few choice anecdotes about the problems of inadequate state aid, combined with a general theme about our society and the need to think about government in a different way, will.
<
p>
Someone with a compelling speaking style needs to address the issue, and that’s an important reason I’m a Patrick supporter. I think he’s best equipped to be a progressive LEADER — to use his talents to persuade the public to move in a certain direction, instead of either pandering to what the polls say or trying to use cold logic & statistics to counter emotional, sound-bite politics.
<
p>
Over the years, I think liberals and progressives have been mistaken when deciding to support candidates based on a laundry list of issues. “Whoever favors the most things I favor is the best candidate” doesn’t end up picking the candidate who’d actually BE best from your point of view. Heck, I know one person who agrees with everything I do: me. But I wouldn’t be a good candidate.
<
p>
The other mistake some voters make is trying to figure out who would be “most electable.” Democrats did that nationally in ’04, and that didn’t work out so well.
<
p>
There are a lot of intangibles that are very important when choosing someone for an executive/leadership position — personality, charisma, speaking style, management style … all that stuff MATTERS. It matters less when voting for a legislator, where the laundry list approach might be more valid. But the non-policy-wonk, non-political-junkie general public cares a LOT about personality, appearance and style, especially when voting for a president or governor. I’ve gotten over banging my head against the wall and wishing the world was different. Now I’m rooting for the emergence of candidates like Obama and Patrick, who believe in a lot, if not all, the same things I do, AND who seem to have the talent to articulate their positions in a way that could convince and inspire other people to support their policies.
We dont usually have Propositions in this state, a ballot question does not have to be enacted into law unlike a ballot proposition which is what California has, instead ballot questions are sent as laws to the legislature which still has the final say. Id agree that the principled thing for the legislature to do would be to support Clean Elections, the income tax rollback, and any other proposal that the citizens of this state passed.
<
p>
Of course to see the folly in your policy look no further than the income tax elimination vote, nearly 45% of the public voted against themselves since they thought they were saving money and most didnt realize that it would cost them, likewise look at the results of most prop 2 1/2 override votes, in the majority of those yearly votes most towns will have a high turnout AGAINST the override and then people will wonder why their libraries are closed during the summer or why their schools decline.
<
p>
I might agree that it is good politics to support rolling back taxes but it is incredibly misguided policy that would really cripple many of the services in the state, Deval is being courageous for running against politics and instead standing up for what he believes in, this could cost him some support and I do not deny that, but what I believe he can do is support boldly a plan reducing property taxes by a similiar margin while retaining current income tax levels.
what you’re saying about the 2000 ballot question. To be clear, though: that was a law. The legislature did not get any “final say” – it was a law as soon as the people approved it (actually, 30 days later, IIRC). What the legislature did was change the law later on to stop the tax rollback at 5.3%. The process of amending already-enacted laws happens all the time – laws can always be changed.
Local government is no different than state government when it comes to spending. Given an increase in state aid, they would have no trouble spending that money and then some. Raising the income tax would not result in lower property taxes.
I belive when the people vote they should be listened to. Whether it was asking your legislator not to support the former speaker, the tax rate or clean elections. I belive in Democracy.
The issue is whether a the income tax should be lowered 0.3% because of a referendum that was passed in 2000. So much has happened since then…
<
p>
The decrease in state aid to cities and towns has been a hot issue in a lot of communities. Property taxes have increased and/or services have been cut as a result. I think it is the property tax and related fees that concerns people more now, in 2006.
Fine. I’ll concede that no one mentioned raising taxes in this post. However, both the original post and your comment have seemingly drawn a connection between income tax and property tax.
<
p>
For the past six years, even without rolling back the income tax, we’ve seen a decrease in municipal aid. So, I don’t see the connection between the two. The point of my post was that it doesn’t matter — no rollback / income tax increases / municipal aid increase — you will not see a reduction in property taxes.
They won’t get raised. If property taxes stay the same while, while people get raises, in a few years they’ll be back to a more normal rate – at least for a state that is so stupidly dependent on Property Taxes.
<
p>
Furthermore, Deval Patrick’s plan calls for holding towns accountable. You’ll have to read Deval’s plan for specifics, but from what I understand of it Deval links the towns keeping property taxes low to making building projects/etc. in each town cheaper.
New Hampshire, Florida, Texas. That’s dependent.
<
p>
Mass is somewhat over the per capita national average in property tax and Mass Budget and Policy would probably tell you the State is under the national average on a percent of disposible income basis.
<
p>
The problem is that state aid to local is down because
<
p>
1) State spending is up, primarily from state entitlements (same pensions Plus health but for state employees);
<
p>
2) Local entitlements spending (pension, health insurance) is up because;
<
p>
3) Towns are unable to make the entitlements contributory plus institutional spending (i.e. schools) increases faster than inflation, and certainly faster than 2 1/2.
<
p>
There’s your equations for significant reform.
<
p>
About taxes:
<
p>
I find it stunning that Democrats still think they can win on this issue by buying into it, legitimizing it, and ratifying the GOP frame.
<
p>
As Truman said, given a choice between a Republican and a Republican… well, you must know it.
<
p>
I quite agree about Healey, especially if she faces an opponent who has been touting his nuanced, yes-but, asterisked-to-fine-print plan to cut the income tax.
<
p>
So you’re saying that we should embrace bad policy in the name of good politics?
This is what I don’t understand. If you think this is bad policy, you should say that this is bad policy. If you think it’s bad policy, but you support it anyway, you end up sounding insincere or opportunistic.
It is not an “extreme” or “leftist” stance to want to maintain the current tax rates and structure in a state that is middling nationally in state and local tax burden.
<
p>
It is certainly more popular to take the position you and your candidate take. And, all other things being equal, taking it would probably increase the chance of victory somewhat, both in September and November. But politicians who are actually leaders need to take positions on some issues that are not “winning campaign points,” where they believe it is important to do so. Yes, if you do it too often you lose. But I for one am glad that we don’t have direct democracy/government by plebiscite. (Maybe I’m not a leftist…)
<
p>
We’re not “confusing politics with policy.” But if there isn’t a healthy dose of policy in your politics you’re just rooting for your team, for jobs for your hacks instead of theirs. No @#$%ing thanks. (Excessive subordination of policy to politics, by the way, is a big part of what has been wrong with our party in the Massachusetts legislature. And the voters hate it.)
<
p>
And yes, we may just have an “amazing” campaigner/leader who can pull this off and then govern in a way that doesn’t accept the Reaganite paradigm, and in so doing begin to restore public faith in public enterprises. I think this is less likely to come from Gabrieli than from Patrick, and, sadly, increasingly hard to imagine from Reilly. And I think it’s worth working for.
You are correct that it’s not an extreme position to want to have an income tax higher than 5%. But, to not honor the rollback is to disregard the law. I would have much more respect for a candidate who supports the rule of law and then calls for a tax increase.
<
p>
As for restoring faith in public enterprises, I don’t think it’s a question of faith. It’s a matter of scope. The problem with public enterprises is it’s never enough. There are always people just on the otherside of qualifying for aid. There are always more things that could be done — if they just had more money.
<
p>
With Patrick, the legislature will know they don’t have to work too hard. They will have a governor who is willing to consider a tax increase. How then, is he supposed to get results? Will they all just love him as much as the folks on this board? 🙂
<
p>
To oppose the rollback may be to disregard the will of the voters, but it’s not disregarding the law. The legislature changed the law through the usual process of lawmaking. Moving the income tax back to 5% will require another change in the law.
<
p>
As for the legislature supposedly knowing “they don’t have to work too hard” under Patrick, I don’t really know what that means. No Governor can force the tax rollback – Romney/Healey have filed it every year, only to see it promptly ignored by the legislature. Frankly, I think the legislature is more likely to have to “work hard,” if by that you mean set the agenda, under Patrick than under anyone else, since Patrick is the one most likely to walk in with a mandate if he wins.
The point sabutai is making is that he will not win in November because he is ignoring the will of the voters. The rollback is probably bad policy, but you don’t get to enact policy unless you win. Given that most people are for the rollback, Patrick is providing an issue tailored for 30 second spots to Kerry Healey.
<
p>
Gabs’ new commercial tries to highlight the differences of his taxcut with that of Reilly and Healey, their taxcut is bad and foolish, his is good, sound policy. Then he shows Deval, out there by himself, as the only candidate against tax relief.
Then he shows Deval, out there by himself, as the only candidate against tax relief.
<
p>
Deval Patrick has said from the beginning of this campaign that he is FOR a tax cut, but the tax he wants to cut is the property tax, which he feels is a much more regressive tax.
<
p>
Chris Gabrieli does a fairly workable job of not exactly misstating Deval Patrick’s position on taxes, he just cherry picks the parts he doesn’t agree with and leaves the rest of it out. Meanwhile, we’re supposed to buy into his plan that is really just a hypothetical:
<
p>
A “gradual rollback of the tax rate, IF tax revenues increase substantially — more than the rate of inflation.” (emphasis mine)
<
p>
In a state that is hemorrhaging people and businesses at the rate that Massachusetts is, that’s a pretty damn big “if.”
<
p>
Republican Minority Leader Jones in the Globe article says:
<
p>
Gabrieli’s plan “sounds really appealing,” but he said it is unclear whether the tax cut would ever kick in because under state law, much of any increase in tax revenues must go to fund public transportation and schools.
<
p>
I guess it’s no wonder my friend thought Gabrieli was a Republican, he sure seems comfortable with their talking points.
<
p>
I expect that we will see Deval Patrick come out much more forcefully on this issue during the debates.
You say that Patrick feels the property tax is a much more regressive tax. I couldn’t find the use of the word regressive on the page you linked to, nor on the .pdf downloadable from there. Regardless, the state income tax, which is a flat-rate tax is more regressive than the property tax.
<
p>
With the income tax, whether you make $20,000 or $200,000 you pay the same 5.3%. This affects those at the lower income brackets more than those at the upper end. But with property taxes, not only are some people exempt (by not being property owners), but others are exempt (the elderly, for example, have exemptions available to them). Furthermore, with property tax, the individual has a choice — in where they live, in how much house they purchase, and in how they vote on override initiatives.
<
p>
From the perspective of providing tax relief via the most regressive tax alone, reducing the income tax is the preferable route. As an aside, someone mentioned VA. That’s where my mom moved to escape property taxes in MA. And what did she find — she’s paying sales tax for food and clothes! In hindsight, she would have been better off applying for an abatement (which many seniors are loathe to do, or so I’ve heard), or moved to a less expensive place in Massachusetts.
<
p>
But back to the Patrick webpage you linked to. He cites the increase in property taxes from 2000-2005, but what is important to realize is that property values grew by double digits during that time. That’s the cause and effect — higher assessments lead to higher tax bills.
<
p>
As I’ve said before, he could raise state aid til the cows come home but it will not result in lowered property tax bills.
<
p>
Tell that to the 80-year old widow who hasn’t done one thing to her house in 30 years, while McMansions have gone up all around her and her assesment has increased tenfold. THAT’S what’s regressive- the property tax views property value as a measure of wealth and it’s not always that simple.
Property wealth is still wealth. A house is paid off results in a lot of equity to draw upon. And seniros have CHOICES:
<
p>
To stay:
– apply for the property tax abatement that is offered to low-income seniors throughout the Commonwealth
– get a reverse mortgage
<
p>
To go:
– sell and use the money to buy a less expensive, smaller property
<
p>
Just a thought, whose better off: the 80-year old widow, who is retired and living in a house mortgage-free or the 70-year old renter who can’t afford retire? Who has more choices? Who needs tax relief more?
If what she says about the tax rollback is so important, then why hasn’t it happened yet under Romney/Healey?
So the voter mandate — nearly 60% voting to rollback the temporary income tax increase — can be ignored, but the legislature will “work hard” because Patrick will have a mandate? Please. If Patrick is elected, the legislature will know well that the governor will not send back tax increases. So, they won’t have to try. That’s what I meant.
<
p>
In 1989, the legislature voted into law a temporary tax increase. After 11 years, citizens had to organize to get the legislature to do what they said they would do. It passed, and then wasn’t fully implemented.
<
p>
But you forget the first two stages of the rollback did happen. So, either a “Governor can force the tax rollback”, or, as you suggested, the legislature changed the rules — again. Oh boy — if the rest of our laws were in such flux there would be chaos! Yes, I do think the tax rollback is the law — first by its temporary nature in 1989, and then seconded by the 2000 ballot.
The will of the voters in electing the executive and legislative branches of government trumps the prior will of some legislators (maybe) in 1989 and the prior will of voters in earlier referendums.
<
p>
That is a partial description of our state government.
<
p>
Question: If this “pledge” (please don’t get me started) is so all-fired important to “the people,” why don’t the people elect a legislature that will honor it?
: If this “pledge” (please don’t get me started) is so all-fired important to “the people,” why don’t the people elect a legislature that will honor it?
<
p>
This politics thing is hard enough without you daring people to vote Republican!
you can think whatever you like. But the law’s the law. Sorry.
Yes, the law is the law, and those who make the law can do so legally. I didn’t say that a law was broken. I said it was disregarded. The fact that the legislature did so legally is of concern to the 60% of citizens who favor the rollback and who also followed the law in order to have that happen.
<
p>
I agree that with the sentiment of another commenter — we won’t see this happen until the composition of the state legislature changes. But, that’s a long haul. Until then, I want to see a governor who will use whatever authority they have to ensure the legislature doesn’t become a loose cannon — whether that’s changing law to give pension benefits to one of their own, or changing to ignore a voter petition, or postponing debate until after elections.
<
p>
I don’t have too much of an issue with a candidate for wanting a tax rate of 5.3%. But, I would prefer that they be willing to stand up for the people, push for the rollback, reassess the budget, and then increase if warranted.
<
p>
You may not find it a respectable position to do what the legislature did, even if they saved our state from bankruptcy or being otherwise broken in the process by doing it, but it certainly wasn’t against the law.
<
p>
<
blockquote>With Patrick, the legislature will know they don’t have to work too hard.
<
p>
The ignorance continues. Where’s your proof? Show me the money; how do you come to this conclusion? Deval Patrick isn’t the insider candidate and he’s not the candidate who depended on politicians or certain high ranking legislative politicians to get on the ballot. Deval Patrick is the furthest from the State Legislature in this state and many have said – including MSM people – that the democrats in the state legislature may even fear having a Democrat like Deval in the Corner Office because it would mean Deval could set policy instead of the State Leg.
<
p>
I just don’t buy it, you’ll have to sell it a lot better than that if you want others to buy it.
<
p>
<
p>
Again, when did Deval Patrick ever talk about increasing taxes? When? Please, tell me. If he didn’t, what makes you think he would icnrease taxes – especially when state revenue is increasing? Please, show me the signs. Give me the evidence. The burden of proof for this misguided statements lay on you.
I think this has been linked to previously. If so, I apologize for the dupe.
<
p>
You have to remember that there are more taxes than just income and property taxes. In addition to those mentioned in the link, Patrick has stated that municipalities should be free to create additional taxes, such as a meal tax. I didn’t know there was a restriction against it. I suppose I don’t see harm in giving local government the choice, but it’s far from a solution. Boston and other “destinations” benefit from the tax being paid by tourists. But for most communities, you’re only taxing yourselves, your employees, and neighbors.
<
p>
Patrick talks about vision. This is a good thing. But after reading his position papers, it seems like a lot of additional spending. I should tally it up sometime — just a rough on how many times he calls for increased investment vs. cuts/reallocations/savings.
First, to the use of “extreme” — I didn’t mean extreme on the broadest political spectrum. I meant it among the five candidates with any credibility running — including Mihos for the moment. In that respect, the position of a tax freeze is an extreme held by one candidate. Yes, Masschusetts has middling tax rates compared to other states. But I include “hey, you don’t have it as bad as those suckers in…” in my list of weak arguments.
<
p>
And the respect for democracy is divorced from left-right ideology…in fact in most nations it is the right that pushes for direct democracy. One way or the other, I don’t know why we print the ballot if we’re going to ignore the results we don’t like. It’s an insult to the voters.
<
p>
You say “if there isn’t a healthy dose of policy in your politics you’re just rooting for your team, for jobs for your hacks instead of theirs.” I’m not denying the importance of policy, I’m just wishing that Democrats would be smart about it. That’s what this whole post is about. Smart policy is ideas that are good for the state and accepted by the voters. It isn’t about creating obstacles for oneself.
<
p>
Now, if someone wants to throw out smart politics and good policy under the basis of “leadership” (i.e., “saying things I want but other voters don’t want”) go ahead. It seems likes rationalization to me, but to each their own.
<
p>
And if you truly think that Patrick is working at the same level of Bill Clinton or Howard Dean, well, there’s nothing I can say to that.
He’s NOT extreme. To say so otherwise, with whatever obscure definition you want to apply (when no one else I would ever know, Republican, Democrat, or Independent would apply it that way) is misleading at best.
<
p>
<
p>
The process wasn’t ignored. If YOU don’t like the results, why don’t YOU try to change them. What you think the law was – or should be – is what would be akin to a Constitutional Amendment – you’re saying that the state legislature shouldn’t be able to do their own jobs, which is to ward over law.
<
p>
Your entire point is moot when you consider that. Your entire critique is misdirected. If you think voter props should be above and beyond the power of the legislature, you should argue the case to make it so and use this one issue as one example why.
To say that it’s misleading to label an extreme on a spectrum as, well, an extreme, is beyond my comprehension. I used this term in previous posts, and never had a reaction…not sure exactly what it is that has you upset.
<
p>
<
p>
I am trying to change the results, Ryan…by supporting a candidate who won’t ignore voters’ preferences duly expressed at the ballot box. If you’re only respecting referendum results that you agree with, then you’re not respecting democracy at all.
<
p>
Perhaps you should try to change the system, since you object to what comes out of it. We could eliminate direct democracy, for starters…any other parts of the ballot that you’d like to cut?
It’s time to stop taking a dive on taxes. The Live To Fight Another Day tactic of the Democrats has netted us exactly nothing, and I don’t think we should be afraid to go to the mat on this and other issues.
<
p>
None of the candidates is going to be immune from Healey’s attacks on the income tax cut. Reilly “flip-flopped” ( man I hate that term) from a year ago. Gabrieli has an indeterminate plan based on percentages of revenue that will be difficult to defend against the full court ideological press that is surely coming. And Deval has the clear position – or opposition – he has always had.
<
p>
It is evident from my previous post that I think Patrick’s position, should he decide that all roads eventually lead to the income tax cut, is more defensible than Gabrielis word problem. If not, he at least has the strength to assert and get traction on his reasonable appeal against (immdiate) income tax cuts.
<
p>
We have to fight fire with fire here, not fire with pie (charts). Backing down like we always do is going to end up getting us the same end product we always get.
<
p>
On a side note, the lessons to be learned from 2002 are limited here. We are dealing with a different perception of the Republican party than we were four years ago. Their unfavorables are through the roof, and are unlikely to soften. The lanscape is different. Not different enough to sit back and relax, but different enough that I dont think good old Democratic messages are going to get swallowed up by Republican pep rallies.
The Democrats have not won in this state in twenty years. This is probably the most Democratic state in the union. Weld, Cellucci and Romney have won relatively easily in the past 4 elections. What does that tell you? It tells me that good old Democratic messages are not going to work this time either. Seems to me that fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is the order of the day. Deval Patrick and his hardcore supporters just will not hear of it. If they get by the primary (big if) they will learn a hard lesson in November.
In 1990, Silber scared the $%^& out of people. Weld won.
<
p>
The Democratic legislature never offered any kind of opposition to Weld, and helped him, a very talented politician, become an 800-pound gorilla. The economy turned around, and Weld was aided by tax increases put into effect before he took office. We had no chance in ’94.
<
p>
Scott ran a miserable campaign in ’98. Just God-awful. No message. And he blew his chance to embrace being a Beacon Hill outsider: “Finneran’s against me? Great! I’m my own man.” Didn’t happen. We should have won that year, and taxes did not play a big role in our loss.
<
p>
In 2002 the Republicans nominated a very attractive candidate coming off his success at the Salt Lake City Olympics. We nominated the consummate State House Dem pol, someone ready-made for the Gang of Three attack from Romney. You know why it worked? Because it was true.
<
p>
Can we get something straight? We all agree that people don’t like paying taxes. We all agree that people don’t like voting to cut taxes and having the legislature not do it. OK?? But it isn’t the explanation for everything, and it doesn’t mean we all have to turn into “moderate Republicans” to win again. Hell, if it did, most of us on this site would give up politics and get our kicks from something else.
<
p>
Herakles, I agree that there are individual circumstances in each of these races for Democratic defeats. But blaming the structural problems on a series of unfortunate coincidences absolves everyone of blame but the candidates. I think there must be an overarching reason why the Democratic Party has gone 0-for-4,
<
p>
You talk about Weld, and in his prime Weld was good at what he did. But you can also look at him in another light — he left the governorship for this quixotic battle against Helms over the ambassadorship to Mexico, then lost the battle for the privilege of getting his hat handed to him by Elliot Spitzer.
<
p>
Romney, on the other hand…that was a disastrous campaign. (BTW, Birmingham was the consummate insider…O’Brien wasn’t, that was just Romney’s line). The only reason SLC2002 was a success was that the feds took on the security costs after 9/11. That slashed the OC’s operating expenses and gave them more money to blow on transportation, etc. In other words, Romney was saved by big government. And how many times did O’Brien mention this?
<
p>
And this may be heretical here, but preferring a 5% income tax rate does not make one a “moderate Republican” and does not mean that they’re “spouting Republican talking points.” Nevada has a 0% income tax, and a Democratic Senator of some note. New Hampshire, with a 0% rate, is governed by a Democrat.
😉
<
p>
Weld lost a lot off his fastball, but he still had it in ’90 and ’94, the relevant years here.
<
p>
Birmingham wasn’t the only legislative insider in ’02 — O’Brien was too. (For that matter, Reich wasn’t the only real liberal — Tolman was too.)
<
p>
I do think that the public has gotten more cynical about government in Massachusetts in the last 20 years, and that this “structural factor,” if you will, is a negative for us, as the party that tends to think government exists to help solve problems. There are probably more people today than 20 years ago who just want government to do as little as possible and take as little of their money as possible. We get these people, if we get them at all, on issues other than taxes.
<
p>
This year, with R’s on the run nationally, with the visible failure of Big Dig oversight, with Dem legislative leadership less radioactive than in the Bulger-Finneran days, and with the likelihood of a strong nominee and a united party, we may be able to overcome that structural problem. In fact, I’m betting we will.
Sometimes the best thing to do in politics is to remain quite. The voting public has little intelligence, less memory and no clue how government works. When it comes to taxes, however, this public can be very unforgiving. Of all the lies that you tell them, they remember the one about no taxes. Take Dukakis’s first re-election or Bush I’s re-election bids. Both done in on tax lies.
<
p>
The Party should instruct the candidates to be quite about taxes. The time to talk about raising them is when we are in a position to raise them. Not before.
Governor Mark Warner, a Democrat, worked with a Republican legislature in Viriginia to raise taxes to protect local services, and he was incredibly popular when he left office. I think his leadership on the tax issue actually helped increase his popularity with the voters. Mark Warner was succeeded by another Democrat, Tim Kaine, who had the support of Governor Warner during his campaign. And Virginia is considered a red state. I think the significance of the whole income tax rollback issue is being way overblown.
This tax thing is not rocket science. If a candidate has patience, some skill in teaching (yes, that’s right), and the fire of conviction, this tax issue needn’t be an issue. I believe if Deval Patrick has the forum and the opportunity to educate the public, he will ultimately be persuasive and effective. I’m afraid, however, that pols who are vested in this issue are so skittish that they can’t see the forest for the trees.
Was there a voter mandate to rollback taxes? If not than that example makes no sense.
power of leadership, mandate or no. There have been a lot of “mandate” votes over the years that, thankfully, were consigned to the dustbin of history. I’m not a fan of legislating from the ballot box, and, candidly, don’t give a hoot about the “mandate” to roll back the taxes. It’s fiscally irresponsible.
Agreed on the power of leadership, but given this specific situation (not withstanding your position on the rollback) it’s not relevant.
I have to chuckle. When officials in our town’s government were pushing for an override a couple years ago, they also said the voting public needed to be educated.
<
p>
I can assure you that disagreements over fiscal policy do not stem from a lack of education. However, if you’d like to school yourself on the conservative mindset, I’d recommend Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative.
From the State of the Commonwealth address in January 2004:
<
p>
<
p>
Mark Warner worked with the GOP’s 2/3 legislative majority in order to get a blend of tax cuts and increases, most notably the income tax cut for most Virginians.
<
p>
On a separate note, Mark Warner happens to be friends with none other than our own Chris Gabrieli.
Being in favor of the status quo is the extreme choice? So… not wanting to lower taxes means a candidate is “extreme.”
<
p>
Wowzers…
<
p>
I stopped reading right there. No one in this campaign is talking about raising state taxes, there are no “extreme” candidates on the tax issue. To say anything otherwise is to seriously undermine the credibility of your post.
It looks like Coastal Dem needs to read up on BMG’s ratings policy.
Let’s put this in perspective, shall we? Rolling the income tax back to 5% will save the average taxpayer approximately $133/year or $2.56/week, less than I pay for the Globe.
<
p>
Contrast that with the cuts in services and the increase in property taxed and the rollback reveals itself for what it really, truly is: a gimmick.
<
p>
Let’s stop playing into the Republican bumper-sticker mentality and fight the battles worth fighting.
Because it may well, even one might argue probably will, decide the election.
I agree that it may very well be the deciding factor, I’m not saying it won’t be. My point is that if we allow the Chicken Little crowd to define the terms of this discussion, then the Healyites have already won.
<
p>
Our tax burden is 28th in the nation, 43rd as a percentage of per capita income. The rollback is barely enough to pay for weekly milk consumption, but taken as a whole it means over $225 million to the state budget, which will in turn come out of higher-ed or reserves or highway repairs or local aid, etc, etc.
<
p>
What do you want? Do you want your $2.55 or do you want lower class-sizes? That’s the discussion we ought to be having.
<
p>
The rollback is a gimmick and the politicans pushing it are afraid to take a serious stand. Tom Reilly- show me specifically where you’re going to cut the $225 million per year and THEN tell us about the importance of the rollback. Otherwise you’re just the latest in a long line of politicians telling us what we want to hear rather than what we need to hear.
that I have read on BMG in weeks. . .Well done, sabutai.
<
p>
In reading through the comments, a couple of thoughts:
<
p>
<
p>
So, the choice becomes this: do you want a rollback which keeps the money in your pocket or do you want to gamble by using the Democratic Legislature as a pass-through?
<
p>
[Likewise, Tom Reilly will propose a rollback to 5.0%, which will also have to survive the Legislative budget process. However, I would argue that a Reilly election will seal the deal for the rollback, since the Legislature will no longer be able to argue that it is receiving “mixed messages” from the electorate.]
<
p>
Can’t the state predicate increased funding to a town upon its assessent to agreeing to property tax relief terms, much the same way it ties education money to agreeing to administering the MCAS?
but to do it in any sort of meaningful way, you actually would need to raise taxes to afford it.
<
p>
Nobody wants to do that. (Though it’s not really that bad an idea. A penny on the sales tax or increase on the income tax to roll back property taxes, anyone? Didn’t think so.)
<
p>
To elaborate: The legislature can do just about anything in terms of funding and mandates, so it could just amend Prop 2-1/2 and roll back local taxes.
<
p>
Without lots of new state aid, though, to make up the difference–like there was the last time the state cut the property tax–this would just be a disaster locally.
you restore local aid from the state, which you can’t do with an income tax rollback. The question then becomes, can we do it now, leaving the income tax at 5.3%?
<
p>
I have no idea. I’m just pointing out that four candidates (Patrick, Healey, Reilly and Gabrieli) are all offering to give you, the voter, some sort of monetary incentive to vote for him or her. I’m not saying one plan is more feasible than other. It seems to just depend how you would like your money returned to you.
Patrick has said or at least implied that cities and towns getting property tax relief dollars have to be on board with his proposal to streamline the commercial permitting process.