This was in the Globe this morning:
Aides to Governor-elect Deval Patrick said yesterday that the state is facing a deficit that could reach $1 billion next year, a looming budget gap that observers say could force Patrick to scale back his ambitious agenda, slash spending, or raise taxes
“Discuss amongst yourselves”
Please share widely!
Must remember to explain jokes
Should he raise taxes?
Note the alternatives: “scale back his ambitious agenda, slash spending, or raise taxes.”
Raising taxes doesn’t sound so bad.
…if he raises taxes he will be a one term Governor and we’ll be setting the stage for another 16 years of Republicans in the corner office.
<
p>
Seriously, Deval has got to show the people of Massachusetts that he’s done everything possible to make state government more efficient and effective before people will accept a tax increase (I thought he already knew we were suffering from the Romney property tax increases,)
<
p>
Even if most of his moves are largely symbolic–like trimming patronage jobs around state government or plugging loopholes in the state pension system for the few who milk it. Of course there are lots of tough battles he could undertake to control costs–like dealing with police details, advocating that medical insurance benefits be taken out of collective bargaining and giving cities and towns more flexibility to control these costs (along with controlling health care costs in the overall state budget), maybe even merging Mass Highway and the Turnpike Authority. Granted he may lose all these battles–but he has to try real hard to affect meaningful fiscal change before people would willingly accept a tax increase.
<
p>
We have a $26 billion budget. A $1 billion deficit is about 4% of the budget. If Deval and his managers can’t institute budget changes that meet this challenge, then I’ve lost hope and it is business as usual.
The problem is that government just seems badly run — worse run than business. If government were well run, then I think raising taxes would be must less of an issue. We’d be less inclined to think we were funding waste, patronage, or ideologically motivated boondoggles. People spend extra on cars or organic broccoli or flat screen televisions all the time. We’d spend more on government if it we got more from it.
<
p>
The first steps really are to show that government can work and to make it work. Then, funding it becomes less of a problem.
What agenda? All I heard was ‘hope’ and a thousand policemen, and that he was going save hundreds of million by cutting waste.
That’s because you apparently can’t use the internet to download white papers, maybe you can’t read…and certainly, your audio comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
<
p>
Yes, that’s snark about your intelligence, because this comment you made was pretty silly.
Explain why these “agressive agenda” items, which are so obvious to someone as intellegent, erudite and pithy as you should cost a billion more than budget.
<
p>
Alternatively show me the links you have, and I lack the intelligence to locate, that show why the budget should require a billion more.
<
p>
Prior to the election, even Mr. Patrick, who also obviously lacked your insight, said otherwise:
<
p>
Patrick: “I have no plan to raise taxes, we have the resources today to do what we need to do.”
Remind me not to tangle with one as sharp as you.
<
p>
As for links: You can start here and when you’re done, I’ll help you look up the next one for you.
<
p>
In the meantime, please don’t be mean to me.
Connect the dots:
<
p>
Sept 6: Michael Widmer, Patrick’s Budget guy, issued a report that said, in 2007 and later, there’s a budget shortfall. No matter. It’s a campaign and there’s no political value to mentioning a 5 year plan, even if 2007 looks like trouble.
<
p>
November 7: “Now what?”
<
p>
November 8: Interview with Keller. “Plenty of cash. Everything’s ducky. No new taxes, maybe.”
<
p>
Sometime before December 27, with the Legislature: “give us our Gazebo or we break your legs.”
<
p>
December 27: “That darn mean Romney. We have enough cash. Overturn those cuts of $380 million. People are hurting. Here, have some cash. Cars in every garage and Gazebos in every pot.”
<
p>
December 29: heh…kidding. We’re broke.
<
p>
Now, truly, I appreciate the link, but can anyone seriously call that ‘white paper’ an “aggressive agenda?” If by aggressive you mean fluffy, then yes. But, yes, I give that Lynn that one, indeed the paper is white. Got me there. She’s a whiz.
<
p>
My idea of aggressive is specific programs with estimates of cost and assessment of benefits derived. Perhaps I’m conflating agressive with specific, if so, my bad. That link’s neither agressive nor specific. Wasn’t specific prior to November 7; isn’t now. IMHO.
<
p>
To wit:
<
p>
–Restore local aid to pre-2000 levels. We’re there already.
–Update the Chapter 70 formula. That’s costs much money to change a policy formula?
–Allow town to tax. That costs State money? It oughta save state money.
–Leverage State’s buying power. That saves money, no?
–Control medical spending. Hmmm…more savings.
–Make streets safer. Ok, I already knew about the 1000
speedtrapscops.–Affordable housing and attract good jobs…not a clue, from the infamous white paper, how he plans to do that, how much it costs, or if it involves red slippers and Oz.
There are plenty of other papers on the campaign website. Google “Deval Patrick”: it’s the first one that shows up.
The projected budget shortfall has nothing to do with Patrick’s agenda.
<
p>
Perhaps you should go back and read the newspaper a little more carefully.