Excellent work over at Mass. Democrant, who followed up on my post on new spending in Kerry Healey’s kickoff speech by taking the time to go through Healey’s incredibly lame 50-point plan (also known as “50 bills that will be DOA as soon as they’re filed”) to look for new spending. Here’s the result:
“A Healey-Hillman Administration would raise the age of mandatory school attendance from 16 to 18, and expand our alternative education options “
“The Healey-Hillman education plan proposed an advanced accreditation for new teachers in math and science that would be rewarded with a higher initial base pay.”
“Provide state funding (through the Renewable Energy Trust) for wind turbines, solar panels and other renewable energy sources on municipal land to foster green power and decrease utility payments for cities and towns.”
“The Healey – Hillman ticket wants every high school student to develop the skills to make financial decisions by expanding the states financial literacy initiative known as HiFi to every school.”
“A Healey-Hillman Administration will expand English as a Second Language and basic adult education classes in urban areas”
“A Healey-Hillman Administration would require work from all federally work-eligible welfare recipients and provide the job training and child care supports necessary to lift families out of poverty.”
“Provide loan forgiveness for students that pursue in demand careers like engineering and forensic sciences”
“Encourage citizens to support Massachusetts-based nonprofits by re-establishing charitable tax deduction”
“Encourage Massachusetts companies to expand and
create new jobs through targeted tax incentives”
“The Healey-Hillman ticket would establish mandatory post-release supervision for all convicted felons. The program would both supervise and prepare ex-inmates for life outside prison including job training, substance abuse treatment and housing options.”
“A Healey Hillman Administration would partner with the Commonwealths leading environmental groups to identify and purchase 50,000 acres of our states most valuable and vulnerable eco-systems to ensure they are adequately protected and expertly managed for the long term preservation of our environment.”
“Introduce Cops in the Halls to curb school violence”
“Schools choosing to be dedicated a Commonwealth Academy would earn additional state funding for implementing four or more of the following programs”
All of these, as well as the new programs in her kickoff speech, will cost big bucks. She doesn’t tell us how much any of them cost, or how she’ll pay for them. So waddaya say, Scot, Brian: any clue how Healey’s going to pay for this and cut the income tax?
Anyone? Bueller?
Thanks for highlighting this David. So where is the media on this? As Charley said I am pretty pissed. Healey has been standing on that stage, debate after debate blathering nonsense and no one is challenging her. She keeps claiming with absolute certainty that Deval WILL raise taxes. Where is her proof and why has no one in the media asked for it? This is just such BS!
How ’bout you?
Any thoughts?
Eyes up front.
<
p>
Who has ideas on how Ms. Healey plans to pay for her 50-point plan?
<
p>
Anybody?
<
p>
[click the soundfile of crickets chirping]
<
p>
[click the soundfile of whistling wind]
<
p>
Don’t make me break out that soundfile of hair growing….
<
p>
I am gonna go out on a limb here, but republicans assume tax breaks lead to increased tax revenue because it helps business?? At least thats what bush thinks… I guess if you look at the Tax revenue numbers for 05 and 06 it would seem to work, but that is ignoring the military spending increases…
<
p>
On the other side of the issue, increasing taxes does not help business by any means..
<
p>
Don’t think i support healey, i am just stating what some, not all, of my economics prof. think…
I just visited the Patrick site, and plainly he is even more of a budget buster than Healey.
<
p>
For those of us not so plain, perhaps you could elaborate…??
Patrick’s .pdf position paper on “Strengthening Cities and Towns” spends much time lamenting the loss of local aid revenue to municipalities. At the same time he wants to reduce property taxes, but also spend more on various programs:
<
p>
“State-mandated school spending requirements have increased by nearly $584 million …However chapter 70 state education aid has increased just under $150 million in the same period…Cries to state government for help have fallen on deaf ears.”
<
p>
He wants a state prescription drug plan, although there is one already at the Federal level.
<
p>
He wants to “create affordable housing” by rewarding communities “that implement plans for construction of smaller high-, low-, and moderate-density rental and purchase properties…”
<
p>
He wants to “Improve Public Transportation”, i.e., “invest in rail and subway extensions.”
<
p>
The above is from just one position paper, and he has several others. His position is as inconsistent as Healey’s. Lower the property tax and increase local aid while providing all these things – how is that supposed to happen?
<
p>
There is no such position paper at DevalPatrick.com. There is one, much like the one you describe, but it is called “Strengthening Cities and Towns for Both Quality of Life and Economic Growth.”
<
p>
<
p>
This sounds to me like a budget already busted so I fail to see where Deval Patrick takes the hit…
<
p>
<
p>
A seriously bloated and flawed plan, which cannot, by law, negotiate bulk prices and with a huge doughnut hole in the middle that leaves many paying more for drugs than they would if there were no such plan. Seriously, this is a money saver.
<
p>
<
p>
Let me get this straight: you argue, it appears, that lowering property taxes, but increasing the number of properties taxed, somehow loses money? Is that correct?
<
p>
<
p>
As a long time commuter, who lives in Leominster and works in Boston and connects via the commuter rail, I say this is long past overdue. But more to the point, why is this 1) a ‘budget buster’? (this is a service for which people pay) and B) somehow more egregious, as you alledge, than that which is proposed by Kerry Healey?
<
p>
<
p>
It’s called investment: quality of life improvements and lower property taxes goes a long way towards reversing the population exodus leading to greater and greater economic growth.
O.K., I suppose it was somehow misleading to give Patrick’s position paper a short title, although you obviously didn’t have any problems finding it.
<
p>
Your starting point was that Healey was a budget-buster. As a Patrick supporter, you need to show that his proposals are “investments” as you say, while Healey’s are mere “spending.” Anyone can claim that an expenditure will lead to a future return, but how can you be sure that the return will be worth it, or that there will be a return at all? Spending more money on schools is considered an investment, and both she and Patrick agree here in a general way, but Healey’s proposals are more specific. Is a state prescription drug plan an investment? How? Or if the state bribes towns to create high-density housing, will there be a return on this investment? Many towns will likely refuse the bribe; my own Boston neighborhood of Allston-Brighton is currently up in arms about a proposed 100-unit condo complex. As for spending more money on mass transit extensions — considering the current state of the MBTA, I have my doubts.