I haven’t seen much movement on this commission yet. I hope that if the Lege doesn’t move quickly on appointing such a commission that the Governor will go ahead and appoint his own blue-ribbon panel to investigate the matter. I think a public airing of the pros and cons (in either case) would be a healthy thing, and would create some public support for the Governor’s proposal.
We don’t need such a panel, however, to undermine one of the “cons” — the misconception that having businesses pay their share of taxes will lead to reduced job growth. On today’s front page, we find evidence that it might be a little hard to “stifle” the Mass economy by collecting $295 million of foregone tax receipts.
As US lags, economy in Mass. soars
(By Robert Gavin, Globe Staff)
The Massachusetts economy surged in the first quarter, nearly quadrupling the national growth rate and recalling the technology-driven expansion of the 1990s.
Highlights:
The state’s economy grew at a 4.7 percent annual rate in the first quarter, the fastest pace in nearly 7 years, according to a report yesterday from the University of Massachusetts. The US economy grew at a 1.3 percent rate, its worst performance since early 2003, the Commerce Department said.
The state added an average 5,000 jobs a month in the first quarter, accelerating from less than 3,000 a month in 2006, according to the state Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. Job growth was particularly strong in February and March, expanding at annual rates above 2 percent, similar to those of the Internet boom of the 1990s…
——————————————————————————–
And then, of course, there’s Joan Vennochi’s opinion piece in which she says,
The speaker who stood up to business on health care should also stand up to business on taxes. It’s the fair thing to do.
——————————————————————————–
For those who want to help out with this initiative, I’ve updated the packet on my website that contains fact sheets, graphs, sample letters, etc. As noted there, this is a work in process, and I have reason to hope that our coalition will soon have a website where this kind of material can be found, and an online support form for people to sign. More anon.
Too bad Vennochi didn’t seperate posturing from actual results re: “The speaker who stood up to business on health care should also stand up to business on taxes. It’s the fair thing to do.” Yes, the speaker had a 5-7% payroll tax on employers in the House version of MA HC reform, but it is nowhere to be found in the final law.
<
p>
The MA HC law has a sham “shared responsibility” element that imposes a mandate for individuals to buy their own private insurance product if they don’t have employer-sponsored coverage (costs at a minimum well over $2,000 a year for the premium alone) while the employer “responsibility” is a paltry $295 per worker per YEAR for businesses that do not provide coverage.
<
p>
So while DiMasi might have tried to “stand up to business on health care” he clearly did not succeed in his efforts.
<
p>
Does this have anything to do with DiMasi’s position against closing the corporate tax loopholes? (A case of “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”?…). MFW, I’ll be sharing your materials on this issue widely. Thanks.
Well at least the $295, while not perfect, is more than before $0. We need to start with something as opposed to getting nothing by trying to get everything .(ballot initiative). The perfect is the enemy of the good. We need to work together to make things that are in place better instead of
fighting among ourselves.
the perfect the enemy of the good? I strongly disagree and wish you wouldn’t obscure factual concerns by slinging tired cliches at them.
<
p>
1 the effort to place a healthcare constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot was not “trying to get everything”. That 4 year effort was a sophisticated and thoughtful attempt to ignite a statewide discussion about if and how we should — as a Commonwealth, as a civilized society — guarantee comprehensive affordable healthcare as a permanent right (not as a marketplace mandate) for all residents.
<
p>
2 “perfect the enemy of the good” is used as a weak excuse for not working toward the reasonable goal of getting a reform enacted that will actually work. What we have with the MA health reform law is a case of the mediocre being the enemy of the remedial due to special interests controlling the political process along with their funding many of the advocacy groups.
<
p>
3 “fighting among ourselves” is being confused with truth telling. I happen to think that being honest and forthright is important, even if some find it unsettling (I find it unsettling at times but that isn’t a good reason to be silent). I’ve seen the damage that’s done by folks not wanting to make waves about policies or about dominant positions that are forced upon us, on the state and nat’l and int’l levels. We’ve all been suffering through that, haven’t we?…
<
p>
Yes, we need to work together to make our current reality better. For this to happen it’s essential to understand what our current reality consists of, including an examination of the likely obstacles to making the changes we agree are needed.
…that the MA system is not only not perfect, it is not even good. If someone cannot afford US$3600 (rounded annual) for health care coverage, what are they going to do? Be forced to leave the state? Go underground and show up at hospital emergency rooms?
<
p>
That’s why I tend to favor a percentage-of-income based system like they have in Germany. (I reference that here, because I know it best. France’s system is reportedly on par if not better than Germany’s, but I’m not famaliar with it). The MA proposal makes no sense at all.