We’ve quoted the Mass. Taxpayers Foundation’s Michael Widmer before — he’s been a reasonable voice on fiscal matters. What’s up with his latest turn as arithmetically challenged lobbyist/hack?
Last week he was carrying water for the business lobby on the loophole closings, because the business climate would suffer, don’t you know.
And now this week, he’s one of the long-faced, serious people telling us we haven’t done or spent near enough on our crumbling infrastructure, with dire consequences for the business climate:
MICHAEL WIDMER: We have to attend to this. And therefore, whatever the combination of difficult political decisions are taken to help address this, people will understand that it’s an absolute requirement to do it because walking away is a death knell for the Massachusetts economy.
Doesn’t anyone see a contradiction here? What’s the story, Mike? If your friends want a better business climate, they should be willing to help pay for it.
Look, this is an opportunity. No one wants to raise taxes, but the business community can help Gov. Patrick and other folks who are inclined to make public investments in infrastructure and other pro-economy priorities like education. There’s a lot of common ground.
But come on, throw us a bone here. Don’t just tell taxpayers to give you stuff, and then go whining when you’re asked to pitch in for the common good.
His message, philosophy,…whatever you want to call it, is really pretty simple.
<
p>
Without agreeing or disagreeing, he’s pretty consistent with his message: The services that Massachusetts demands are expensive and, if the Commonwealth continues to demand the services, the cost should be paid for with an increase in the personal income tax, and not a tax on business.
MTF is and always has been little more than another business lobbying shop, fronting as a “independent, non-partisan organization.”
<
p>
Their 15-member “Executive Committee” which “oversees the implementation of policy” is a virtual who’s who of top businesses including executives from: IBM,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Verizon, State Street Corp, Bank of America, Liberty Mutual and (wait for it) Fidelity. Law firms WilmerHale and Ropes & Gray manage to squeeze themselves on to the small board. As do Children’s and Beth Israel Hospitals.
<
p>
These folks don’t oppose government spending per se (especially on things like roads and bridges), just oppose paying for it themselves. I’m sure MTF could offer many other cuts to government to offset their proposed public spending on infratructure.
<
p>
“A reasonable voice on fiscal matters”? I think not. Let’s try not to sound so naive here at BMG?
FREE LUNCH!
<
p>
When do we want it? NOW!
Best case scenario for the governor is that he’s posturing for the business climate in order to negotiate a way where some business taxes could be increased, but with a very strict understanding that significant money be spent on upgrading infrastructure that benefit them, not on state services they find wasteful.
<
p>
More likely they’re going to ask why they should pay higher taxes when basic infrastructure needs are not being met.
<
p>
But I’d make a deal for the former. There’s job creation and backside taxes raised there in any number of areas.
*The saying goes something like “won’t tax you, won’t tax me, we’ll tax the guy behind the tree.” It’s idiotic of course, but that’s what he sounds like.
<
p>
That said, there is one rather large business tax loophole that could be closed. It would probably be anathema to you to realize that this is a business tax loophole, but in fact, it is. At least levy the same property taxes on educational institutions, such as universities and colleges, and churches, that is levied on homeowners. The fact that the property that is occupied by those institutions is not taxed is criminal. Half the land in Wellesley is occupied by such institutions (and, I have read, half the land in Boston is, as well), and they should pay their fair share of property taxes. If they did, it would lighten the necessity of state subvention of cities and towns. I wouldn’t cry crocodile tears if the educational institutions had to raise their tuition to pay their property tax obligation, given the fact that more than a few of their students come from out of state or even from out of the country.
<
p>
It won’t happen, of course. So Widmer should just STFU, unless he is going to push for it to happen.
I’ve had it with the business community’s rants. They claim: Our public schools are not educating their future workers. Our roads and bridges aren’t being properly maintained. Housing is too expensive for their employees. The list seems to go on and on. But the minute anyone suggests that maybe our corporate citizens should kick in their fare share they scream. How do they expect us to address all of these problems with out some help? Do we have to keep raising property taxes? There’s got to be a point where they realize they have to stop just bitching and pitch in to help. Oh, and by the way maybe some of our political leaders could begin pointing this out.