Part of Healey’s “Free Beer!” strategy is to simply assert that an income tax cut can be had at no noticeable cost to the quality of life or economy in Massachusetts. Just keep saying it, and it’ll come true, right? You can have it all.
Well, no. Actions have consequences [my emphasis]:
BOSTON Nearly every state transportation agency is facing an operating deficit and is unable to maintain or expand roads, bridges or transit systems, a situation that threatens to keep new businesses from moving to Massachusetts, according to the head of a business-funded watchdog group.
“We are seriously disinvesting in our transportation infrastructure at really an alarming rate,” Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said at a forum Tuesday.
Two issues to point out here:
1. Kerry Healey’s position on taxes will leave Massachusetts economically weaker. Period. If you like crumbling roads, bridges, and railways; if you want Massachusetts to be more like Mississippi — low-tax and low-value — Healey’s your choice.
2. We need the next governor to make sure that every last dollar spent on infrastructure is wisely, usefully, and effectively spent. That means intense, hands-on oversight of every step in the process, from bidding to construction. And we currently have an executive, legislative and bureaucratic culture with a flatly terrible record in that regard.
How’s this working out for you? Four more years, anyone?
I saw it in the Globe this morning and thought it would be a good post. Nice work.
<
p>
Unfortunately, the Kerry Healey Campaign has flipped a swithh and has gone totally negative cranking out their “soft of crime” mantra on talk radio and TV commercials. No doubt it will get worse and worse as it gets closer to the General.
<
p>
The real crime is the neglect the Romney-Healey Administration has shown the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Kerry Healey’s vision of Massachusetts becoming the Alabama of the Northeast.
I can’t believe that anyone considers the Mass Taxpayer Foundation as even relevant. We’d get better advice on the state of the economy and tax policy by asking Charley’s dog. (got a dog?)
<
p>
Count on this, the answer from MTF will always be: increase individual taxes. Train your dog to say “increase indivdual tax rate” and he’ll replace the MTF.
<
p>
MTF is a special interest group, run by bankers for the benefit of banks and larger corporations using the guise of nonpartisian researchers.
<
p>
You think it’s a coincidence that the Trustees have so darn many Bankers in the seats.
<
p>
The infra-structure problem is the same problem I never stop harping on: IT’S THE ENTITLEMENTS (and health insurance) STUPID
<
p>
Soaring healthcare costs plus pensions continue to chew up the state and communities’ budgets. Government keeps paying 85% of the costs of insurance and Government responds by cutting anywhere else (like roads).
<
p>
There is only one alternative: (1) lower the 85% match, and (2) fix the pension (there’s 106 plans!)(3) go defined contribution for new hires,
<
p>
or
<
p>
and here’s an idea worth considering: drop the employee coverage altogether but allow residents to deduct the cost of health insurance from their taxes.
You’re right — especially at the municipal level.
<
p>
And no, I don’t have a dog. But you can ask him/her anyway.
control the spiraling cost of health insurance; 85% of 500 dollars is better than 50% of 1000
Exactly. That’s my 2nd alternative.
<
p>
Drop the cost of insurance onto the employee, but give them a tax credit. The employee will quickly realize how much the stuff costs. Then, you’ll see the insurance companies react to the pissed off consumers.
<
p>
Under present conditions, towns and cities just keep paying the bill, because that’s what they’ve always done.
Gary, health care is not like free Pepsi, where you just take as much as they’ll give you for free. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, a lot of the time you want people to take advantage of preventative health care to head off future costs. Better to get that diabetes treated than to saw off a limb.
<
p>
“Consumer-driven” health care is bad news — and won’t prevent upward-spiraling costs. It just transfers the burden. Big whoop.
I’m not talking about health care, because people don’t shop for health care, theyjust buy it.
<
p>
I’m talking about health insurance.
I bet that someone in the Government has actually considered the idea and we’re heading that direction. Think about it. All the machinery is in place:
<
p>
1: all residents are soon required to have insurance.
2: companies are, right now, structuring policies to fit every demographic.
3: in a couple of years, healthcare will be even further through the roof.
4: towns, cities and the state will be forced to (slowly) de-couple insurance from wages.
5: folks will have to buy insurance (it’s the law), and there’ll be a bunch of products out there. Ta-daa…the only thing missing is a tax credit for folks who buy their own insurance.
<
p>
I bet that clever Senator Moore has the whole scheme all figured out.
<
p>
You gotta admit, the insurance reform that was just passed in Massachusetts is a lot closer to my imagined steps 1-5 than it is to universal health.
Unfortunately, it also sounds like people will be forced to pay through the nose for crappy insurance “products.” Getting costs down requires a comprehensive restructuring – to the effect that you pay for “health”, not the piecemeal of “health-related services”. We’re only taking baby-steps towards that right now.