DiMasi has some appropriate concerns with the Governor’s casino proposal, but that isn’t the larger issue here. It’s the obstructionism and maintenance of the status quo that DiMasi’s House is engaged in.
Like it or not, we’re facing a serious lack of money for infrastructure and services the state needs. DiMasi, from all appearances, is planning on ignoring them until he’s no longer speaker. But by then, the problem will simply be magnified and more painful to correct.
DiMasi seriously needs to think about his legacy. Right now he’s the cordial, quiet speaker who doesn’t make waves, defended gay marriage, and looked the other way while the state slumped further and further into financial crisis.
Or he could muster some courage, rally his political capital, and take some bold steps that will eventually put us on much better footing, whether it’s closing loopholes, slashing programs, following some of the recommendations of the Transportation Finance Commission, or something else that hasn’t yet been proposed.
DiMasi has a chance for read leadership, or he can keep his head in the sand. The choice is his.
I would just say that DiMasi is under no obligation to increase revenue to fund all the new things that Deval wants. I realize that “obstructionism” is the charge leveled at any legislature that does not do what the executive wants, but that branch is co-equal. The Legislature is not under a great obligation to change things in this state to take in more money for the last of goals here.
<
p>
This isn’t a case of DiMasi obstinately interfering with a necessary agenda, it’s a case of different agendas.
So, let me get this straight. The fact that we need billions upon billions to fix our roads, and god knows how much to put our cities and towns in a safe fiscal situation… isn’t any of DiMasi’s concerns?
<
p>
Here I thought we elected people to actually run government. Let’s just keep the beaurocracy and fire all the politicians, if all we’re worried about is maintaining status quo.
The fact that we need billions upon billions to fix our roads…
<
p>
They don’t need to be fixed all at once, and they won’t be. There aren’t enough workmen to do the work all at once. Moreover, if repairs can be considered capital projects–and many of them probably should be–they should be bonded and the bonds paid off over 40 or so years, like most government capital projects. It isn’t as though the sky is falling, despite Chicken Little.
<
p>
…and god knows how much to put our cities and towns in a safe fiscal situation…
<
p>
I’ve told you over and over again how to help do it: local option income and sales taxes, and stop relying solely on the property tax. Nobody apparently wants to listen.
<
p>
If a town wants to rely solely on the property tax, with the anticipation that manna will be delivered from state government so be it. But the towns should be able to levy local income and sales taxes (not just meals taxes) if it wants to, and if the town’s voters agree.
that in Massachusetts, towns can’t exercise local options unless the state gives them permission to. It’s ridiculous how municipalities have to come, had in hand, to the legislature for permission to act.
<
p>
I’d be thrilled if DiMasi were simply to loosen the laws and allow cities and towns to take their own initiatives on some of these issues.
<
p>
And no one is proposing fixing all the roads at once. It’s up to $20 billion over 20 years, but that’s still a billion dollars a year that we don’t have. I don’t know a whole lot about bonding, but I don’t think that doing it all on credit and expecting to pay it off down the road is the best idea.
Regarding
<
p>
Except that in Massachusetts, towns can’t exercise local options unless the state gives them permission to.
<
p>
That has been my point for at least the last six, if not nine, months here. The state government’s stranglehold on municipal financial sources is ridiculous. That was the topic of one of my earliest comments here.
<
p>
Regarding
<
p>
And no one is proposing fixing all the roads at once. It’s up to $20 billion over 20 years, but that’s still a billion dollars a year that we don’t have. I don’t know a whole lot about bonding…
<
p>
I’ll work in reverse order.
<
p>
Let us say that a town in year 1 wants to build a school building that (with proper maintenance) will likely last for 40 years. It seems to be a bit unfair for the town to have to pay for the construction of the building in year 1, when it will benefit the town residents 40 years hence. So the town sells bonds to support the construction, payable over 40 years. That’s basically what bonding is. Future taxpayers (or whomever) help pay for the usage of the building. Among other relevant terms “amortization” and “amortizing the cost.” Private industry does it all the time with “depreciation” deductions.
<
p>
I’ll give you a little example. Why should I, resident of Wellesley, MA, be taxed to pay for construction of a school building that can–with proper maintenance–benefit residents 40 years hence, when I am probably dead and gone?
<
p>
Going to your first point It’s up to $20 billion over 20 years I have no idea how old these structures are, but, if they are beyond their expected lifetime (when originally built) their “repair” should be considered “reconstruction” and bonded (just as I described above) and paid off over their expected lifetime. Again, why should I, resident of Wellesley Ma be taxed to pay for (re-)construction of infrastructure that can–with proper maintenance–benefit residents…you get the idea.
<
p>
That is what bonding is all about. Paying for the cost over the expected lifetime of the capital asset.
<
p>
I’d go into leasing, but that is far more complicated.
How about taking the axe to some of these feel good programs, stop enabling the “chronicaly unemployed”,
end welfare to the habitually pregnent, encourage or mandate towns to consolidate retirement and healthcare programs etc.
<
p>
There is entirely too much ” give them time and they will come around” attitude with cities and towns.
<
p>
Yes we can can bond bridge repair. let’s do it after we pay off the Big Dig. That trough that had nearly every Massachusetts politicians head in it. We can cut the time our legislature sits and cut their pay. We can begin by having a two party system and start voting non straters and hack politicians out of office. We can cut the state payroll by twenty percent.
<
p>
Yes, the sky will not fall in. Or we can sit around and wring our hands and perpetuate this fraud on the public. We get the government we deserve and it appears we don’t deserve much.
Do you really think a meals and hotel tax would be enough to keep up with the rising costs school face, especially health care? My hometown, Swampscott, is a little town of about 14,500 people. We were about $2 million in debt this year, forcing us to lay people off and close down a school. There’s probably 5 restaurants in the town and an inn. Local option taxes aren’t the solution – they aren’t even really a bandaid for most municipalities. They’ll just soften the blow. (BTW, ‘no one wants to listen’ isn’t really accurate: I was gung ho for Deval’s Municipal Partnership Act, which would have done just what you suggest.)
<
p>
On roads, of course it doesn’t all have to be paid off at once, but it’s a still a great expense. Furthermore, bonds carry risks and I’d rather see a government try to move away from overly relying on them, lest we go the way of junk-bond status.
Of course DiMasi has to work on the shortfall in our budget, whether it be more revenue or less spending. We do elect people to run the government, Ryan, not just a governor. The theme of this diary was not DiMasi’s failure to fix the problem, but rather his failure to adopt Deval’s solutions to the problem. “Real leadership” means “doing what Deval tells him to do”. I disagree with that.
<
p>
PS: Not sure why or how, but the spellcheck is back to running automatically in the posting windows, so that’s a nice change.
I think the real theme of the post was that DiMasi’s been doing lots of nay-saying, without offering any kind of vision of what he wants to do. The post offers, for example, that DiMasi might push for some of what’s in the Transportation Commission’s report, even though Deval doesn’t seem too enamored of it.
<
p>
He should want to do something, shouldn’t he?
My intention wasn’t to cheerlead for the Governor. If DiMasi has other suggestions, let’s hear ’em!
our present governors lack of success at doing anything. personally I think he is just going through the motions.
<
p>
I said from day one that DiMasi was going to call the shots, but Patrick is just out there like a lost child in the woods. Once in a while you hear meek crys, most of the time you hear nothing.
<
p>
I would not be surprised if Patrick leaves the corner office within the next year and Murray runs out the term. This seems to be in vogue now in Massachusetts.
… but that status quo includes a structural deficit.
<
p>
Last I heard, the House budget spends hundreds of millions of dollars more from our reserve funds than the governor’s budget does. That’s not failing to do what the executive wants, that’s failing to govern.
<
p>
If the House really is allergic to all new sources of revenue, then they need to explain what spending they’re going to cut to bring things into balance. They shouldn’t get a pass on raiding the rainy day fund when it isn’t raining. There are plenty of storm clouds headed our way, and we’ll regret all the reserve money we spent before they get here.
<
p>
Last I heard, the House budget spends hundreds of millions of dollars more from our reserve funds than the governor’s budget does.
<
p>
Just how much money is presumed to be in the “rainy day fund”? I have never seen an accounting of that issue.
$2.154 at June 2006. $2.37 at June 2007.
Sabutai – since when are bridges that do not fall down – NEW THINGS?
<
p>
Since when is repairing roads, “NEW THINGS”?
<
p>
Since when is fixing crumbling schools “new things that Deval wants”?
<
p>
I have to admit your logic on this one TOTALLY escapes me.
…I’d put it, whether what is labeled a “repair” should be paid for out of the current operating budget, or should be bonded and paid for over a number of years.
<
p>
I’ve discussed this elsewhere here, and am not going to repeat it in this comment thread. But if a capital construction is expected to have a lifetime of X years, and it has exceded that lifetime, any reconstruction should be considered a new capital project and bonded, with the bonds being amortized over a number of years corresponding to the expected lifetime of the reconstruction.
Raj – your logic works if the entire item needs to be taken down and replaced.
<
p>
But what about resurfacing? What about partial replacements, such as new railings? Street lights?
<
p>
We are behind in even the most basic maintenance. One does not bond maintenance.
<
p>
One bonds projects. Separate items that are major, with a monetary cutoff.
But what about resurfacing? What about partial replacements, such as new railings? Street lights?
<
p>
The state is replacing massive segments of Rt. 128 north of Rt. 9 (perhaps south, too, but we don’t use that stretch). To some extent, it is a matter of judgement–should the replacements be considered capital projects or ongoing maintenance. I would consider them capital projects, but I don’t know when the roadway was originally built.
<
p>
The products of capital projects do not last forever even with proper maintenance. When massive renovations–or reconstructions–are required, they should be bonded and amortized over the period that the renovations–or reconstructions–are expected to last with proper maintenance.
<
p>
I’ve given you the example: why should I pay the full freight in year 1 for a massive renovation/reconstruction for a structure that will be expected to serve–with proper maintenance–for 40 years?
<
p>
What about partial replacements, such as new railings? Street lights?
<
p>
At some point, we get down into what I call “the noise.” What that means is that the amounts in issue would be so low that the capital/current budget distinction is so minor that it wouldn’t make a whole lot of difference with the municipal budges.
<
p>
I doubt very seriously that the amounts for new railings (railings where?) or street lights would be very high. If that’s true, it probably would not be worth the effort and expense to try to bond such projects, particularly at the local level. If the state is doing it statewide, that might be a different issue.
Staring down Romney & Travaglini to force businesses to contribute to Health Care Reform;
Overriding hundreds of Romney vetoes of critical funds for local aid and many of the programs that few but the individuals who need them care about;
Crafting an Economic Stimulus package that is contributing to job growth in the Commonwealth;
Leading the Leadership Lobbying effort to defeat the Death Penalty by one vote;
Helping Democrats beat back Romney’s $3 million effort to elect Republicans to the House and Senate.
<
p>
These are just a few pieces of DiMasi’s legacy that go along with leading the gay marriage fight.
<
p>
This is no history of looking the other way.
<
p>
Policy disagreements are not about maintaining the status quo. Legitimate debate helps find the right path. Uninformed and overheate rhetoric demeans the process.
let’s spin some of those items slightly differently.
<
p>
1. Losing the health care battle to Romney and Trav, so that businesses contribute no more than a token sum if they don’t cover their employees.
<
p>
2. With more than veto-proof majorities in both chambers, it hardly mattered who the Speaker is when it comes to Romney’s vetoes.
<
p>
3. Don’t know much about that one – I’ll take your word for it.
<
p>
4. That was really Tom Finneran’s doing, no? He was a staunch anti-death penalty guy, and he was Speaker at the time.
<
p>
5. Helping? Maybe. But others get a lot more credit for that one, including Phil Johnston.
<
p>
DiMasi was, indeed, a stalwart leader on marriage, and good on him for doing it. But IMHO, the rest of his legacy so far is modest at best. He could use a bit more of the vision thing.
The guy who drank Delahunt’s Kool Aid.
<
p>
God forbid that we have a two party system. let’s not have constructive debate on anything. God forbid that we have someone watching out for the purse strings. if this state comes to ruination like it almost did in the mid seventies, we will surely know whom to thank.
We’d have a two party system in this state if we had two parties that had done anything to earn people’s trust. We do have something close, though — two wings of the Democratic Party of this state who clearly approach government differently.
Your bias towards DiMasi and the Legislature always amazes me!
<
p>
I wouldn’t call Health Care a loss – it may not be what we would call ideal – but if you look at the law it is the House version that got signed. And by all accounts and reports he was the driving force to get that law enacted. Remember Trav was ready to dump reform near the end and Romney was playing politics!
<
p>
It WAS DiMasi who changes Slattery’s vote during the 1997(?) Death Penalty debate.
<
p>
It was Phil Johnston who took the credit for the 04 gains – it was finneran, dimasi and members of he House who actually did the work.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true, at least with respect to the business “pay or play” aspect. I much preferred DiMasiCare to TravRomneyCare, and said so. But the $295/year fee is a bad joke.
<
p>
Obviously, it is Slattery who changed Slattery’s vote. Maybe you’re right about DiMasi being the persuader-in-chief, and maybe not; I have no way of knowing, and you don’t have a link.
Thanks Gonzo
<
p>
<
p>
Where’s the trusted leadership for a informed community debate about all of the revenue streams – taxes, fees, surcharges — that fund Massachusetts’ public structures running our public schools, protecting our public health, building and repairing our public roads etc etc? I wager that most folks know very little about how our government is funded, never mind where their contributions go. Time for more budget transparency on the state and local level I think. How many of us have ever looked at the state’s balance sheet, or their town’s balance sheet? And understood it? Hint: first you have to find it.
One of the most frustrating figures in Beacon Hill history. He’s progressive on so many issues, yet as speaker has refused to truly lead on the vision of where our state needs to go. Maybe he just doesn’t want Deval Patrick to get all his iniatives past. If that’s the case, he ought to create his own ideas and create a bully pulpit as Speaker of the House. Competition of ideas to bring our state to a place where it’s fiscally sound – and better – can only be a good thing. We’re waiting, speaker.
<
p>
In the meantime, he’s absolutely right to block casinos in this state. But he does need to offer his revenue-increasing alternatives. There are plenty of them out there.
Let’s be clear. Massachusetts is not “over-taxed.” Relative to the gross Commonwealth product, we are rather low in relation to other states. But Grover Norquist seems to have carried the day. The governor and the legislature are incapable of talking seriously about an equitable and appropriate tax code and instead are contemplating casinos as tax farms. (Devised by the Romans and used by the ancien re’gime in France, tax farms were state monopolies granted to private entrepreneurs, who had to pay the government money in return for the right to squeeze anything they could out of the peasants.) Sic transit gloria Massachusettsensis.
…all of the states are trying to figure out how to tax the guy behind the tree.
<
p>
Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, let’s tax the guy behind the tree.
Essentially with the way modern government works it is the role of an activist governor to come up with solutions and for the more conservative (with a small c) legislature to block the proposals that are not sound and then force the Governor to reach an accommodation with them. To argue that DiMasi should either support the governors vision 100% or come up with his own entirely different vision is quite silly. Great speakers have either spearheaded presidentail agendas (Rayburn and FDR, McCormack and LBJ) or derailed them (Tip O’Neill and Reagan, Gingrich and Clinton). In those latter two examples O’Neill and arguably even Gingrich both found ways to stop the Presidents agenda and make it Dead on Arrival and then forcing the President to compromise with them.
<
p>
Simply put for the Speaker it is always best that the ball is in someone else’s court but that everyone is playing by his rules. The speaker was designed to be a reactionary politician but rather an activist one.
<
p>
No one is arguing that. But especially in light of the power the Speaker wields, it’s not unreasonable to ask him to have some sort of vision, which no doubt will coincide with the Gov’s in some respects and differ in others. I have no idea what DiMasi’s vision is on anything, other than that he’s against a bunch of stuff.
<
p>
I also disagree with you about “the way modern government works.” There’s no rule that legislation has to originate in the Governor’s office — to the contrary, bills, including the big ones, can and do originate in the House and Senate all the time. Especially when the legislature has the ability to do pretty much what it wants, as is the case in MA, I think it entirely reasonable to expect more than obstructionism from them.
Really. Please post your documentation. I’m getting croaked on my taxes–Federal, state, local, sales, gas etc.
<
p>
USA has a big problem in that we have a myriad of underground economies. We have to restructure our entire taxation system to redistribute the tax burden amongst everyone who enjoys the protections and liberties of this country.
Read it and weep. There are lots of places you could move where it would be worse.
Gas taxes are not killing you, MCRD.
<
p>
It has been 21 cents per gallon for 17 years… in real dollar terms, i.e. considering inflation, it would have to be 33 cents now to equal the value of the 21 cents in 1990.
<
p>
When one considers how the price of asphalt (dependent on crude oil prices) has risen, the state is in a tough position of paving roads with more expensive materials and less revenue for it from the gas tax. Which explains some of those rusty bridges I drove over this summer on my way to the beach.
…going to make a comment using a reference to Fred Sanford, but (since I never really watched his show) I couldn’t remember the name.
<
p>
Recarding MCRD’s comment that you responded to
<
p>
We have to restructure our entire taxation system to redistribute the tax burden amongst everyone who enjoys the protections and liberties of this country.
<
p>
actually we need to restruct our entire expenditure system so as not to waste money on welfare queens such as agribusiness, the defense-industrial-congressional complex (viz. Iraq), the prison-industrial-governmental complex and so forth. Those three alone would free up funds for unfrasturcture repair and reconstruction in the USofA. But it’s not going to happen, because the federal budget, and much of state budges, are nothing more than pig fests.
Fred clutches chest and continues, “the Massachusetts taxes are killin’ me.”
<
p>
Vennochi’s column offers an interesting perspective [http://www.boston.co…]
<
p>
I choose taxes and continued engagement to hold elected officials to task.
If you believe that casino gambling will not in fact generate any real new revenue (as I do, and as Dan Bolsey does) then this is in fact a false choice.
<
p>
Let’s all remember that this is not new money that we are going to find growing on trees somewhere. It is money that is already in the economy.
<
p>
This money, which is already being spent on a wide variety of goods and services in our community, will be siphoned off by the gambling industry. A small percentage (less than 30%) will go to the state, a small percentage will go to casino employees, and the vast majority will go to out-of-state casino owners.
<
p>
At the end of the day, you are going to take billions of dollars out of the local economy so that the state can have a little more money to spend, and a handful of already-wealthy casino owners can become even richer. Keep in mind that the state is generating tax revenue right now from the spending that will be diverted from our economy if casinos are legalized.
<
p>
Then you have to think about the costs taxpayers will bear. Think for a moment about how much one single gambling addict can cost the state in court fees, law enforcement expenses, incarceration, embezzlement losses and bankruptcy filings, just to name a few externalities.
<
p>
Yours,
Carey Theil