- The House just approved $170 million more in spending than the Governor, using Tom DeLay-like tactics in forcing members to vote on spending amendments in bulk, without enough time to review. State House News Service quotes one rep as saying of the process, “This is the worst I’ve ever seen.” Does Bob DeLeo understand that rushing the legislature through millions in spending proposals doesn’t exactly increase the public’s faith in the process? How are we supposed to tell prosciutto from baloney?
- The House is dead-set against Patrick’s closing of corporate loopholes, which would rationalize the business tax environment and raise some $295 million. Is there anything wrong with this picture? Spend more, don’t pay for it. Hrmm … They’re pulling nearly all of this extra spending out of the “rainy day” fund. What do they do in the case of an actual fiscal emergency? Break glass?
- And I’m intrigued by DiMasi’s concern for tax “predictability”; doesn’t budget volatility cause every bit as much grief for those who depend on government services, i.e. all of us?
- Did Sal overplay his Caddy-n’-drapes, poor-ol’-me line last week on NECN, since he’s now vulnerable to Mariachi politics?
- Now is the time when Patrick’s subterranean homework earlier this year is supposed to pay off. Supposedly, if he knows the budget inside and out, he knows the levers of influence with the legislature. And he’s got the veto. After 16 years of Republican governors, maybe we don’t know how this game is played anymore. Can Patrick peel off enough legislators to sustain his vetoes?
Please share widely!
Here are some of the answers to your Burning Questions:
<
p>
This is where most of the $175 Million was spent…11 Million in Shannon Grants and 2.5 Million to start funding the Governor’s police training initiative….Full funding of the Governor’s extended day learning initiative…funded the Governor’s initiative of full day kindergarten at 31 Million Dollars..8 Million more in smoking cesation funding…2 Million for Autism funding….8 Million more for the salary reserve of low wage earning social workers….5 Million More in funding for state wide Head Start programs……..Millions of more dollars for substance abuse programs across the Commonwealth….8 Million dollars more in Water and Sewer Rate Relief…..and more money for start and urban parks….
<
p>
I also am sure that many legislators would find it insulting that you would accuse them of voting for these priorities out of ignorance rather than comapssion and belief that they are the right thing to do….Don’t forget that it was the same legislators who filed the amendments that added to this budget…And I do believe that it was voted on unanimously…Even the Republicans who decried the process voted for the budget….and don’t say it was tom delay tactics..That is just insulting!
<
p>
What is it with the continued marginalization of Legislators on this site? It is easy to point to so called “pork” (which I like for my neighborhood) and typical Boston Herald reporting of Beacon Hill. But what hasn’t been reported is how the House worked with the Governor and funded many of his iniatives through the Budget last week…But instead of writing about that – you decide to continue your crusade against fellow Democrats….
<
p>
p.s. Don’t forget that the Speaker, Senate President and the Governor will be workikng together to defeat Gay Marriage inthe near future!!!
I don’t care if the legislature is adding funds to great programs – if they can’t pay for those programs. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Now, when we run out of rainy day funds to pay for them, not only will we have to cut current programs – but all of these extra stuff we’ve gotten used to.
<
p>
No thanks.
<
p>
Deval’s offerring a fair, sustainable method to be able to increase some services and level fund the state. They may not be able to be increased to the extent we want, but they’re sustainable. It’s smart, it’s fair – and it’s going to come back to bite Sal DiMasi in the arse if he thinks he can get away with this kind of idiotic, childish running of the state. It isn’t going to work.
<
p>
PS. I don’t give a rats ass if DiMasi is right on gay marriage. It’s not enough to be right on some issues and let it slide when he listens to business interests on something as important as the funding of the entire state. It’s good DiMasi is standing up for gay rights, but he ought to be standing up for economic justice. The fact that he’s not doing that is quickly sending the message to the rest of the state that he’s not the right man for the job.
All of a sudden the process isn’t “sustainable?” This is how the state budget is and has been run for years and years… theoretical application of the principles you believe state government should use to operate are void of fact and practicality.
<
p>
For the record, the mild tapping of the rainy day fund has gone on for the past several years because many of the programs you feel, I assume based on whatever logic you think you’re using, can’t just be easily cut and restored. All sorts of programs that Cap. D mentioned in his post above are real jobs for people, real programs for the addicted, afflicted developmentally disabled and other citizens in need. DiMasi is doing the most responsible thing for the state, new revenue will cover these costs. What you’re advocating for is returning to Romney rule when the only thing that matters is the immediate perceived “bottom line” to aid sound bite governance.
<
p>
Let’s look at some specifics of how the legislature got it right and your man (blind faith is bad, btw) got it wrong:
<
p>
– Legislature provided more in local aid than the Gov
– Gov Patrick SLASHED funding for HHS, including Millions for disabled citizens
– Gov Patrick didn’t include millions in earmarks to fund vital local programs
– many others, but i don’t really want to do the research now to prove the point
<
p>
Perhaps it’s time to learn more about our state government, Ryan and get yourself a state-house internship!
new revenue growth is going to cover that? We have one good fiscal quarter, with a huge storm looming (foreclosures) and suddenly all is well in the land?
<
p>
Absurd.
<
p>
We need to repeal those corporate tax loopholes. Why? Not only is it fair, fiscally sane, but it was how Deval Patrick proposed to fund direct property tax relief to many families across the state – families who need it, unlike the corps who have been getting away with highway robbery in this state in terms of their paltry taxation.
… for most information regarding the corporate tax package. I find it fascinating that many of you people on here believe gigantic initiatives like the “closing of corporate tax loopholes” should be passed as budget riders and hot have to go through the open, transparent and thoughtful process of a public hearing. I encourage you to at least use the same principles when criticizing DiMasi for one thing and not Patrick for the other.
<
p>
Ryan,
<
p>
Don’t you support something as significant and with such far-reaching economic implications to go through the public hearing process? Also, I encourage you to learn more about revenue, as well as Massachusetts’ fiscal history when it comes to taking a small amount from the rainy day fund in order to not further massacre working families in the interest of later replenishing it.
<
p>
Believe it or not, these people (the budgeters in H. Ways and Means) know a little something about revenue. You, on the other hand could greatly benefit from the offerings of a good ol’ state house internship.
but you’ve got a knack for seemingly being condescending to Ryan, and it ain’t cool. Maybe I’m misreading your tone (I hope so).
You indeed are recognizing frustration and your comment is so noted.
Gov Patrick filed the loophole-closing separately, not as part of the budget. As he should have. I’d much prefer that it stay that way, but it’s the lege that traditionally lumps everything together into the budget debates, stuffing large pieces of legislation into outside sections. It’s a very bad practice that should be curtailed, but there isn’t a lot the Gov can do about it (other than veto the sections).
David, You know that it has been a policy of the Speaker not to include so called outside sections in the House budget since he took office…Over the past two years the House has not lumped any big legislative items into the budget but has fought both the former Administrations and the Senate to consider them seperatley and distinctly!!!!
Yet, the commission Sal set up is stacked so that serious study of the issues isn’t possible. The fact remains that most of these corporate loopholes don’t exist in most other states, so there’s a lot of information and study already available. However, I’d favor more if the Speaker would honestly do it. However, the Chamber of Commerce wouldn’t approve, so he won’t.
Ryan, I suspect your two most recent blog entries explain the increase of spending by the legislature.
<
p>
When the legislature increases spending as the year goes on, it usually means revenues are coming in above conservative estimates. If indeed the Mass economy grew at 4.7%, among the highest in the nation, last quarter, then an above-average revenue report should follow within the next month or so.
<
p>
As recently as two months ago, the legislature was still asserting its intention to follow through on the plan proposed in the fall to fund Chapter 70 at $250 million. That was cut back to $220.
<
p>
As a follower of the ed budget, I interject a hypothesis – perhaps it isn’t such a good thing to lock down school aid so early in the year, after all. The legislature has been trying to bring the school numbers out earlier in the year because school districts have to finalize their budgets for the next year by June. But earlier probably means more cautious; revenues generally grow but are volatile enough that banking on growth is risky given the budget constitutionally must be balanced.
<
p>
How can a state government with volatile revenue streams and a constitutional requirement to balance the budget make reasoned budget proposals starting in Jaunary when the spending committments begin the next fall and continue for a whole year? Now begins wild conjecture:
<
p>
Possible solution – add some ballast. Perhaps the answer is a California-style bond issue. Have the state issue a bunch of bonds – paying out the municipal rate of interest. Put the cash into a stability fund, invested in something conservative but with equal or higher yields than the state bonds funding the account – perhaps a ladder of US treasury issues, plus some local municipal capital bonds. Then, the state could establish its revenue projections in January without having as high a degree of risk of overshooting, and priorities could be established using this single revenue number, rather than the game of boosting spending as the budgeting year goes forward.
<
p>
Of course, we’ve got a stability fund already. But at $2 Billion, that’s hardly enough to accomodate the quarterly ripples of revenues, much less anticipate a multi-year recessionary cycle. You could put more money into that, but doing so would feed the anti-tax, return the money to the people logic; as well as requiring multiple years of discipline and raising more tax revenues than are being spent. Neither seems preferable to the modest game of as-the-year-turns roulette, though I seriously doubt the status quo is enhancing the efficiency of allocations and spending.
<
p>
It’s fiscal insanity to produce budgets that way. You need revenue you can depend on to help you get through those tight years. Repealing loopholes would help do that – Verizon would always be paying the taxes they rightfully should on power lines (that cable companies already pay toward).
<
p>
As for your suggestion on California, it’s not a bad idea to look toward. However, there’s a lot more than just education we have to concern ourselves with, so reliable revenue is key – especially when that income is all about tax fairness.
As much as it is how the legislature has always operated. As I mentioned, doing anything less would mean cuts in jobs, programs and vital services that our people and municipalities depend on.
<
p>
Like I said, I generally am supportive of the closing of loopholes but shouldn’t we have all of the information in front of us — provided by a public hearing — when we go forward with such an important economic decision?
<
p>
Yes or No?
<
p>
Like I said, fiscal insanity. Beacon Hill has created a state-wide sidewalk republican and Massachusetts ain’t reaping the benefits, that’s for sure.
<
p>
Yes, I would favor public hearings, but that committee Sal has set up is a joke. Public hearings is something we almost always should have, on anything. There hasn’t been one instant where I have said “skip the public hearing.”
If you would favor public hearings, why do you support the closing of corporate tax loopholes through the budget — NO HEARING — process as an outside section?
<
p>
By insisting that the legislature comply with Gov. Patrick’s proposal through the budget you are insisting that the legislature bypass a public hearing — presumably by the Joint Committee on Revenue (and perhaps other committees?) — to hear all sides and perhaps improve the Gov’s proposal.
<
p>
So which is it now…
<
p>
Is this that “one instant” when you are saying “skip the public hearing” and pass the Gov’s plan in the FY08 budget?
<
p>
Yes or No?
I don’t put them in yours, do I?
<
p>
I’ve called the legislature to adopt the corporate tax loopholes, of course. Only in your head does that mean I don’t support hearings on them. Hearings are fine, maybe I’ll learn something from them that will change my mind. However, until that happens, I support moving on closing those loopholes – I process I would assume includes hearings.
When I suggested that you need to learn about the theories you write about here. Adding the Gov’s corporate tax loophole package in the budget would remove the hearing requirement.
<
p>
I’m not putting words in your mouth! I’m just informing you and asking you to make decisions based on what you learn.
<
p>
Now that you know the budget rider inclusion of the package would nullify the hearing process do you still support it, as someone who believes in the hearing process?
<
p>
yes or no?
Things like corporate tax loophole repeals generally are passed outside of the budget, but I wouldn’t pass the current budget without making sure the corporate tax loopholes are passed first. You’re not cornering me into any area you think you can; it’s just not going to happen. And, seriously, don’t speak so high and mighty as if you know all and I know jack shit about the process. I’ve been writing about Beacon Hill politics for well over a year now, in addition to having taken classes on State Politics, etc. I’m by no means an expert on the subject, but it’s demeaning for you to explain things like conference committees when I’ve known about stuff like that since at least AP Gov’t in high school. Seriously, unless you’re Speaker DiMasi’s personal aide (and at this point that wouldn’t shock me), lose the snug attitude.
<
p>
Furthermore, there are lots of means to study the issue, such as the commission that has been set up to do so. The commission can be used in leau of a hearing process, given all the people who have agreed to it (our state’s 3 most important leaders). However, the Speaker’s choices to be involved in this committee aren’t exactly inspiring confidence, especially given statements some of those members have made. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for now, but I’ll definitely be looking at any of their final decisions with a lot of scrutiny.
I believe that my questions regarding your position have been 100% legitimate, narrowing after every bit of new information is presented… Maybe you disagree, but I believe all policy statements made were fair, and I continue to believe that your position is somewhat contradictory.
<
p>
Though I am not DiMasi’s aide, I do work in the legislature, which explains why simplistic theoretical discussions about the state budget can easily annoy me when there is a clear and established budgetary process for those interested in learning about it. Most of what I have written on this thread, I believe should be taken as information to further the discussion you provoked when you first wrote about the loophole package. Although clearly combative (which may have detracted from my main point), I was hoping that the info provided by many people on this thread would allow you to boil your position down (again, I generally agree with your position on the large issue, among many other different issues) to something both theoretical and practical — transforming a policy discussion from abstract into law through one process or another.
<
p>
As for my part in offending you, I’m quite (for real) sorry. Again, I meant everything in the spirit of new information to further discussion and certainly not to discourage you from coming forward with theories similar to this in the future.
<
p>
I hope the conversation can be reframed so that this discussion continues without my perhaps combative nature detracting from an interesting and important discussion.
<
p>
I think your perspective as a blogger for a year and having taken a few classes on state budget is an important one for the forum, so I hope we won’t let a little rough and tumble stop the discussion 🙂
For that post. I wish you had spoken about being an aide earlier in the discussion, it’s important to reveal conflicts of interest. I really don’t see the contradictions and think we’ve been skirting around basically the same issues and really only disagreeing on rhetorics, but who knows. The process is going to play out and the Speaker is either going to go into this honestly and we’ll have some fair dialogue, or he’ll go in a la Tom Finneran, and there’ll be a turf fight. Honestly, I hope we have honest and frank discussions here, because the state budget is that important. We’re not talking about a small amount of revenue here, though it’s unlikely a huge burden on businesses. Though, like I said, I’m willing to have that dialogue and here businesses out, they’re just going to have to convince a skeptic.
The problem is, the most dependable revenue source in the state is property taxes. Income taxes are much more volatile. Sales taxes are more volatile. Lottery is slower growing.
<
p>
Hence, a good or bad quarter can radically change what the state can reasonably do, when they’re planning next year’s spending, and their plan is to spend whatever funds are available. So in some ways, it makes fiscal sense for the governor to come out with a conservative baseline, the legislature to sweeten the deal, and the Senate to add some sugar on top of that, with pie in the sky (gazebo by the sea?) one-time stuff coming at the end of the planning year.
Massachusetts seems to rely pretty heavily on the property tax. Other states don’t seem to — I hear about people in other states bragging how their property taxes are under $1000 per year. Yet those states usually have higher sales taxes, and perhaps more under the hood.
<
p>
How do they deal with the volatility you speak of?
but I was suprised to see prop tax revenues plotted against state revenues in Mass, and how consistent prop tax revenues were in comparison.
…the Democratic legislature is good if it is fulfilling its necessary role in the balance of power by opposing a Republican executive (Mass. -2007, USA 2007-).
<
p>
The Democratic legislature is obstructionist and filled with hacks for having its own opinions if it is opposing a hopeful Democratic executive.
<
p>
The fact that the same Legislature turned evil literally overnight can only be explained by somebody in dual doctorates in metaphysics and political science.
<
p>
Hope this clears everything up.
There was nothing “overnight” about this. Last I heard, we elected Deval Patrick by a landslide to eliminate the same old, same old over at Beacon Hill just a few months ago (Sal DiMasi beware).
Good to hear from you again. Just remembering when the Legislature was the bulwark against Mean Mitt Romney, and were feted for overriding his vetoes.
<
p>
Then Deval Patrick won 55% of the vote over an incompetent and divided opposition (what you call a landslide), and it was expected that same Legislature would start carrying water for every idea emanating from the Corner Office. Failure to do so predictably causes some amusing quasi-threats. DiMasi has been in the Mass. legislature before Deval was in Massachusetts, and I don’t think he’s worried about big-talkin’ bloggers.
Why continue to assert things that were never true?
<
p>
I don’t know any current blogger who looked up to/admired the state legislature for fighting “Mean Mitt Romney.” There were tactical battles which we sided with the legislature, but we aren’t fools: we know Beacon Hill is Beacon Hill.
<
p>
And why continue to insist on belittling Deval Patrick’s victory? Seriously, it reflects very poorly on you (bordering on Sore Looserism). If someone wins by more than 15-20%, that’s an overwhelming victory. The election still wouldn’t have been close if everyone who voted for the Mihos voted for the Healey. It was beyond obvious that the electorate wanted change and thus voted for the man they felt best represented that change, Deval Patrick.
<
p>
<
p>
Pray, tell, what are you smoking and can I have some of it?
<
p>
<
p>
Well, he’s coming up againt the Two Ls. He can learn or lose. The same old, same old politics have got to go and if Sal DiMasi can’t be a part of the solution, he’s a problem that will have to go. I hope, for everyone’s sake, that he’ll adapt and actually contribute to the welfare of the people of this state (and not just the Chamber of Commerce).
To quote you: “I don’t know any current blogger who looked up to/admired the state legislature for fighting ‘Mean Mitt Romney.'” In other words, you don’t know of anyone at BMG thankful that DiMasi organized overrides of many of Mean Mitt’s vetoes?
<
p>
No, Ryan, everyone liked the Legislature until something new and shiny came along. Reilly and Gabrieli were loathed for standing in Deval’s way, then it was Healey, now it’s the Lege. I imagine we’ll see garment-rending about “activist courts” before the year is through on something.
<
p>
I realize it’s important to the mythologizing of Deval that he rode a tidal wave to office, and “the people” “have his back.” No wonder people don’t like it when I point out the numbers. Like it or lump it, Ryan, 55% for a Democratic candidate in a Democratic state in a Democratic year is not that big a deal. You can still worship the man while accepting that his victory doesn’t match victorious Democrats in gubernatorial elections in New York, Colorado, Tennessee, Ohio, New Mexico, or Pennsylvania.
<
p>
I keep bringing it up because this perpetual tale that Deval won a resounding victory against a great opponent only leads to overconfidence. The type of overconfidence that leads a new activists from the South Coast to think that DiMasi is vulnerable to a primary challenge. Have you been to his district? People have been voting for him longer than they’ve been using push-button phones!
<
p>
You can echo William Jennings Bryan and say the same ol same ol politics have “got to go” — with about the same success — or you can accept that you need to work with, not against, politicians who agree with you most of the time.
<
p>
How bout this, Ryan — if DiMasi loses a primary in 2008, I’ll fork over $50 to the Obama campaign. If he doesn’t, Richardson gets the fin.
<
p>
That’s not what I said. Here’s what I said:
<
p>
<blockquoteThere were tactical battles which we sided with the legislature, but we aren't fools: we know Beacon Hill is Beacon Hill.
English comprehension for the win.
Loathed?
<
p>
And you can ignore the reality that was the November, 2006 election – the one where Deval Patrick steamrolled his 3 other serious opponents, each of whom were either well liked or earned more than 10% at the ballot box. The fact that anyone could recieve a majority of the vote in such an election is an amazing feat, especially considering the way Deval’s victory happened (he didn’t just rely on winning big in one area, he won every county in the state, most of them by double digits). However, feel free to live in your current state, if it makes you feel better.
<
p>
<
p>
Again, what are you smoking and can I have any of it? It what warped sense of reality did anyone ever consider Kerry Healey a “great opponent?” I’m pretty sure I called the race for Deval at least two weeks before the end of it because of her horrid campaign. At no point do I remember any established blogger in Massachusetts, from MassMarrier to LeftinLowell, to Charley and David – to anyone – calling Kerry Healey a great opponent. At the very best, some of them called her dangerous because of her fundraising prowess and the innate advantage Republicans seemed to have in winning gubernatorial elections in Massachusetts. You have a funny way of remembering the election and maybe that’s one of the reasons why you keep insisting that it wasn’t a big victory. It was a big victory – but it wasn’t against any “great opponent.” Thankfully, Deval Patrick never had one of those, at least during the general election. Part of his success, of course, was the fact that he was a very good candidate who was also able to soundly win a primary election versus two better established candidates, one of whom was far and away considered the front runner for a very long time.
<
p>
Again though, I would never and have never called Kerry Healey a “great opponent.” Indeed, I made fun of her stumbles on my website with great frequency.
Actually, here’s what I said (lol):
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t know why cut and paste failed me before, but English Comp is still on my side =p
<
p>
And I forgot to address your final point.
<
p>
<
p>
You misunderstand what I’m trying to do here. Assumptions (as well as memory) aren’t your forte. Perhaps, next time, you should ask what my purpose is. I’m not trying to drum support for a primary challenge (though, I wouldn’t condemn such an attempt – nor would I condemn it anywhere, becuase it’s part of the process). What I’m trying to do is spread the information on Sal DiMasi and why he’s wrong – to help drum up public support to repeal the loopholes. People like tax fairness and that’s what this is all about, that fact coupled with the fact that DiMasi has been very cozy to certain business segments can help him change his mind – hopefully – if he becomes a public villain over this issue. Few (save Finneran?) like playing the part of Darth Vader, so it’s my hope DiMasi will change on his own. If he doesn’t, then perhaps more drastic steps will be needed, but not even that necessarily includes mounting a primary.
Look at Gene-O O’Flaherety. John Rogers. Bob DeLeo. Paul Casey. Heck, you should hear Lida Harkins ‘addressing’ the caucus once she gets wound up!
<
p>
Do Not underestimate these people just beause they disagree with you. They are tough, and know tricks you’ve never dreamed of.
Your desperation to be smug is as unmerited as it is tiresome. When you call a candidate an “asshole”, I consider that loathing.
<
p>
Being called ignorant by someone who thinks being “well liked” makes you “a serious candidate” — i.e., Grace Ross — is new for me. Thanks for the experience. And also thanks for saying that Deval had a “great victory” while not fighting a great opponent and pulling in the 2nd lowest score for a victorious Democratic governor in 2006. That said, I’m willing to lay this subject to rest — you think it was a great victory, I disagree, and no numbers or facts will apparently change any minds.
<
p>
And my bad, when you said “time to find a primary opponent for DiMasi”, I thought you were trying to “drum support for a primary challenge”. I was thinking that your words mean…what they mean. Oops.
It also says volumes that you would imply that I am a “sore loser” when I wanted Patrick to win the general election, and said so repeatedly. Are you saying that anyone who doesn’t think like you is an opponent, even when he supports your candidate?
And have taken every opportunity since the loss during the primary to remind us of your token support. I’m sure you did well vote for him, but it was probably as meaningful as me voting for Hillary over Mitt Romney would if both those candidates go on to win the primary.
So I didn’t vote for Deval hard enough? That’s cute.
You may attack the governor from the left, for being insufficiently liberal. An attack from the right, however, even if limited to a single issue, is traitorous.
The Enemy, Sal DiMasi received 79% of the vote in 2006. Looks to me that a 55% “mandate” pales in comparison to a Rep’s 79% district “mandate.”
<
p>
People with a different opinion than you are still on your team!
In a state congressional seat, it’s next to impossible to mount a credible challenge against a very powerful incumbent. If he won with less, it would have been newsworthy.
<
p>
And he’s not “the enemy,” he’s what I like to call a disappointment. Someone we may need to replace.
Should replace blind support in our politicians, even when we think they’re fab.
Migraine:
<
p>
Why bother debating him on the issues – To simply say we have to replace men and women who have, for decades devoted themselves to public service and the principles of the Democratic Party, simply because they disagree with some policies of the new administration is simply absurd!
Both the Governor and the House and the Senate will use one time revenue to balance the next budget. Obviously the Legislature will use more than the Administration. While the news of a growing economy in Massachustts is welcome, we are not out of the woods yet. I am sorry if I agree with DiMasi and others that now is not the time to raise taxes on businesses, and I do not think it is childish or idiotic to think that way.
<
p>
A transfer of 10 – 15 % from the fund is not foolhardy when our economy is still not where we want it to be. The fund was created for yeasr like this.
<
p>
The good news on the economy front should giove us warning to stay out of it’s way and let it keep growing. Don’t throw taxes at it now! And if you look at revenue growth in this FY it may be possible for the state to put in what we take out.
<
p>
DiMasi and DeLeo & Terry Murray have been around and it was they who grew the rainy day fund more than 600 Million dollars oover the past three years.
<
p>
Taxing our way to proserity makes no sense because it will never work. Going back tax and spend will be bad news for the Democratic Party in Massachussts. Remember 1990, when the Republicans drove an anti-tax message to the Governor’s office and almost took control of the Senate – the Republican party is looking for us to make a mistake, and coming out of the box with taxes is the opportunity they can use against the Governor and Democratic legislators.
<
p>
Remember that the Speaker was one of few elected individuals who was around during the economic crisis of the late 80;s and early 90s and the early days of the tech bubble that we are still climbing out of – I think I trust the “idiocy” that he brings to the table.
Deval Patrick is not, I repeat not, raiding the rainy day fund. The most he’s using is interest from it, which is far and away different than using the actual funds within it.
<
p>
I also think this statement is false:
<
p>
<
p>
The idea of a rainy day fund isn’t “oh, we’ll use it when things could be better.” It’s a “Oh, fuck, how the hell are we supposed to pay this shit” kind of fund. We simply aren’t in that kind of a situation, however it is looming if the housing market crashes. It’s better to save the rainy day fund for the days that it pours, not this odd trickle from the past year.
<
p>
<
p>
No one is talking about throwing taxes at it, we’re asking businesses to pay their fair share. Right now, they’re not. It’s the people of this state that have had to pick up the pieces – and we’ve sufferred because of it. Right now, the citizens of Massachusetts have been “taxing their way to prosperity” at all their local schools – and you’re right, it’s a fucking disaster. I don’t use the word “fucking” lightly. People are being screwed left and right, be they children who are getting a worse education because of massive cuts or parents that have been paying shit loads of money just trying to keep their schools honest. Meanwhile, businesses are paying less than almost every other state in this country. IT’S NOT WORKING.
<
p>
You’re wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong – and people like you are the reason why property taxes in this state are out of control.
You really should have some experience to back up all of the theories you run with on here.
<
p>
People should keep in mind that the Governor’s budget is simply a policy statement. If the executive controlled the $$ process and the executive, even though you clearly would be happy, our government wouldn’t have balance. The Governor’s budget would have meant a massacre for low-income communities, especially the disability community.
<
p>
Be grateful we have a legislature.
That the Governor’s budget wasn’t perfect. You don’t see me complaining about all the little items because, of course, I’d give deference to our state’s elected leaders on many of them. However, on corporate tax loopholes, I’m right with Deval. That’s the big thing I’ve been fighting for because it would be important to this state.
Ryan,
<
p>
Can you explain why you do not support a hearing process for this legislation? I am not opposed to the closing of these loopholes but I believe the policy proposal could be improved through the committee and hearing process.
<
p>
Issues that have extreme impacts on our economy deserve a fair hearing? I am still not sure that you can support opening up government while supporting major economic decisions as budget riders rather than bills.
<
p>
I think we should really work together to improve the Governor’s proposal rather than charging blindly into the night for the guy we worked for in the 06 cycle. Even his policies can be improved by public hearing.
I did say that I don’t think Sal DiMasi will seriously entertain them, given his highly biased committee he set up to ‘investigate’ the matter.
In the booming dot-com 90’s, receipts so far outpaced spending that the Legislature couldn’t keep up. In fact, one year the personal exemption on imcome tax was increased, giving taxpayers a one-time-only extra refund BECAUSE ALL THE FUNDS (Unemployment, etc.) WERE FULL UP TO THE LEVEL CREATED BY STATUTE.
<
p>
So – was THIS the time to admit that the economy had rebounded, and repeal the emergency tax hike from 1989, and tell the good people of Mass. thank you?
<
p>
HAHAHAHHAHA…
<
p>
No, instead Finneran CREATED the Rainy Day fund as a receptacle for the excess revenue. Because you never can tell! Things got REALLY amusing in 2000, when the RAINY DAY FUND was ALSO full up.
<
p>
IMHO, at that moment, the Lege lost an opportunity to be statesmen instead of hacks. If they had repealed the hike in, say, 1996 – and then had a crisis in 2001, they could say ‘We hiked it once in an emergency, we reduced it as promised, and now we have another emergency’. People would have respected that. Instead, they socked away every penny, saying Surplus? What Surplus? and lost the chance to be honest.
<
p>
Am I glad we HAD the Rainy Day fund when we DID have a crisis in 2002? Sure. Am I glad the taxpayers were ignored when they asked that the rate be repealed? Not so much. To me, refusing to lower the rate to 5%, but keeping that extra percentage point isn’t even economically significant – it’s just a way of reminding the peons who’s boss.
Is a set of two or three tax rates, depending on the fiscal situation. If we had a good year, we could use a lower rate after (using the extra funds made the year previous). If there was a bad year, a slightly higher rate. I think people could get behind something like that.
<
p>
Yet, I’m no expert, so I’m not really going to develop that (surely unoriginal) idea.
The law is here; I talked about it here during the primary, and so did Rep. Jim Marzilli. Basically, in good years, the personal exemptions go up, and when they hit a defined ceiling, then further good years cause the income tax rate to come down.
Usually, by creating the ‘Keep Everybody Happy All the Time & Free Storm Door’ fund they can keep the money for future use instead of having it revert to the little people.
I remember that, now that you mention it. Still, though, that’s only kind of/sort of what I was talking about.
Income tax revenue, particularly at the state level, is volatile. It’s not suprising that coffers would overflow at the end of a boom like the Y2K boom.
<
p>
Demands on the state, though, are much bigger than they used to be. Health care mandates from the federal government alone are enough to require a rising revenue stream.
<
p>
Ed reform, a national phenomena, changed the math on state funding for schools. We decided, collectively, that it was important for every kid to have a roughly equal public education. Given the uneven Prop 2.5 caps on property tax revenues combined with state and federal mandates, it’s suprising how small a fraction of the Mass ed budget is covered by the state here compared with other states.
<
p>
California, for example, constrains prop taxes even more than Mass, and has an income tax rate of 9.3% for every dollar of income over $43,468.
<
p>
Can’t easily compare the Calif 9.3% to the Mass 5.0%. California allows itemized deductions. Mass tax is fairly flat.
California, for example, constrains prop taxes even more than Mass
<
p>
California has a number of other taxation problems, including the requirement that a super-majority of the legislature vote to even raise taxes at the state level. Kevin Drum over at washingtonmonthly.com has mentioned that. But the biggest problem with CA taxes is Prop 13, which was passed with large input from business and largely benefits business interests, not individuals.
<
p>
Given the uneven Prop 2.5 caps on property tax revenues…
<
p>
This is largely correct, but not entirely. Recall that Prop 2 1/2 also provides an exclusion for debt service. So, the electorate in a town can exclude debt service for bonds for the Taj Mahal library, such as they just built in Wellesley, and it will never come under 2 1/2 control.
<
p>
I quite frankly am quite tired of these charades.
<
p>
Can you tell us when the correct time would be to close tax loopholes that give large corporations advantages over smaller local businesses? Loopholes that allow multi-state corporations to shift revenue to other low-tax states to escape paying taxes here? Loopholes that allow insurance companies to avoid paying taxes on activity that other companies pay tax on?
<
p>
<
p>
The phrase I hear more often, especially from business types, is that “cutting your way to prosperity doesn’t work”. If you own a restaurant and sales decrease, should you respond by decreasing portion sizes and laying off staff so that your service gets worse? Or should you invest a little bit, redecorate, revamp the menu, and try and attract more customers?
Seems I’m late… or early depending on your perspective…
<
p>
Charley,
<
p>
I’m surprised that you oppose the transparent process of allowing matters as serious as taxation to go through a legislative hearing process. In fact, rushing the closing of corporate tax loopholes wouldn’t apply to your principle of “rushing the legislature through millions in spending proposals doesn’t exactly increase the public’s faith in the process.”
<
p>
I’m not sure you can have this both ways your top two bullets operate with conflicting principles. Issues that deal with millions of dollars — in spending or revenue generating — shouldn’t be rushed through the legislature without a proper hearing process. This includes Deval’s corporate tax package, which may have implications that reach farther than sound bites and can have a profound impact on our state’s economy. I like Deval too, but I’m not willing to walk quietly in lockstep when an idea hasn’t been properly vetted yet.
<
p>
And for the record, legislators are very involved in the state budget process, spending all week in and around the chamber dealing exclusively with budget issues. Also, interested citizens who are willing to be at the state house or call their legislators can be involved in the process as well. I’m not sure why progressive legislative critics seem to believe (through their criticism) that the state budget should be brought to the people for a popular vote, or whatever other open process they advocate for?
<
p>
Is this not why we elect state legislators?
<
p>
If you don’t like it, run for State Rep, and when you get elected, run for Speaker.
Graphed here , note that revenues since early March have been above the top of the target range established in January.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s too early to know if the news is a lot less bleak than was feared a few months ago, but it’s certainly a couple hundred million less bleak.