OK, Gov. Patrick got one right, too; and used the correct language doing so. The eliminate-the-income-tax ballot question is dumb.
Governor Deval Patrick says a proposed ballot question that would end the state income tax is “just a dumb idea” that would set the state on a road to fiscal ruin.
… In an interview with the Associated Press, Patrick said he has lived in places with no taxes, including the time he spent in Darfur 30 years ago. He says there were also no bridges, no good roads, and no public safety there.
“Civilization costs something,” he said. “If we could have something for nothing, which is the fiction that has been sold by the right for some time now, then we wouldn't have a $19 billion upkeep backlog for the roads and bridges.”
It's a dumb idea. Dumb, dumb, stupid, pathetic, foolish, silly, clownish. Heck, calling it “dumb” is an insult to dumb people. Therefore, I fully expect that our media will give the ballot question the kind of respectful treatment that really dumb ideas so often get — you know, out of “respect” for the 40+% of the public that voted for it last time, never having been informed by the press that in fact, it's a dumb idea. And I am a snake head eating the head on the opposite side …
I also fully expect that hardly anyone will ask Carla Howell et al what programs they would cut. Nursing homes? Health care? Roads? Bridges? Cops? Firemen? Come on, Carla — coraggio!
PS: I'd like to point out that the (oversold) promise of casino revenue feeds into the very same mythology that you can have something for nothing.
from BostonNOW:
<
p>Carla’s fulla crap.
to know Deval isn’t completely off his rocker, but getting the easy things right just isn’t good enough. Not even the Republican governors would have supported getting rid of the income tax, so pardon me if I’m not going to jump for joy that our Governor understands we need an income tax.
<
p>There were some people who worked harder than I did to get Governor Patrick elected, but not a whole ton. I paid attention to more speeches, went to more events and analyzed more of his ideas and positions than I’d ever care to count. I made phone calls, spoke at forums and even held the mic at a town meeting so people could ask personal questions of the governor. So I find it really hard to believe that I’m at this point – being utterly disappointed in the man I worked so hard to elect.
<
p>That’s not to say he hasn’t had some good ideas since coming into office, he just hasn’t stuck with them hard enough to build the coalitions necessary to get them to pass. It’s so disheartening to see him try to build those kinds of coalitions for the first time, at least at a very public level, on an issue that’s anathema to the very brand of politics he sold himself as supporting.
<
p>So, like I said, it’s not good enough that Governor Patrick supports the easy things – at least easy in Massachusetts. We need the visionary leader to emerge that we all thought we were electing, someone who gets the deeply-rooted, systemic problems Massachusetts is facing – and someone working hard to get through to Beacon Hill on ways to solve them.
Not to rub salt in a wound, but I formed the opinuion that this guy was a windbag, the first time I heard him speak and after I read his CV mu suspicions were confirmed. He’s had everything in his life handed to him because he is highly intelligent,glib and a democrat.. Oh, and he’s a minority. The four prime ingredients to get elected in MA.
Dob’t have to be insightful, a visionary, or a consensus builder or an arm twister. Just minority, intelligent, glib, and a democrat. Speaks volumes about this state.
this:
<
p>
<
p>is purely divisive and racist garbage.
I neither said nor intended anything racist. It’s analogous that “good looking people” get things handed to them. It’s a fact. Being a minority wrapped up with all of the other qualities equals a free ride. You don’t think for a second that Louie Armstrong got anything handed to him do you? He worked for everything he received to the day he died. Unlike our pal deval. He was handed an election by the idiot Mihos.
<
p>I love the old fall back: racist. Sounds like Reverand Al.
He doesn’t get everything he can get his crooked hands on: “Your a racist”—-Right!
by a simple sequence of words. Upon analysis by experts in the field of political correctness(something similar to the IRS form 1040).
Same for bigot, homophobe and red neck.
First, the fact that he is a minority not only is neither here nor there, but it certainly didn’t give him an advantage to being elected. After all, he’s one of only two African Americans to ever be elected to a state-wide position in the history of this state.
<
p>More importantly, the fact that he’s intelligent I generally would find to be a bonus – as would the majority of this state. Electing dummies to executive office clearly hasn’t worked out to this country’s advantage since 2000.
<
p>So, to answer your question, no – I don’t think he’s clueless or even incompetent. I think he’s running up against a very powerful Speaker of the House – and I think he’s been listening too much to corporate interests over his own progressive base. Corporate interests have reigned surpreme in Massachusetts for as long as I’ve been alive, it’s time we make policy that makes sense for the citizens of Massachusetts, not just the profit margins of Verizon and a casino lobby that would like to expand here to the detriment of the state. He’s only a fraud in the sense that he hasn’t become the politician that many people were expecting he’d be as a candidate. Hopefully, he’ll realize his errors, realize he’s going to face a strong Republican in 3 years and start to make amends.
Please. Barak Obama’s race is an issue in the national election as was Deval’s.
<
p>Mike Dukakis is intelligent. He hasn’t an ounce of common sense. His largest liability.
<
p>Politics has become a beauty contest in USA. As a matter of fact, everything in USA has become a beauty contest.
<
p>Why Mitt Romney and not Huckabee. Because Romney looks presidential and Huckabee looks like Gomer Pyle.
<
p>Why did Bill Clinton get elected, other than the fact that GHW Bush didn’t know what a grocery scanner was? Women thought he was “cute”. Isn’t that nice. Half of our population votes for someone primarily because of their looks.
We both know that folks in MA were dying to elect a minority just to prove that we are not a bastion of biggots
<
p>Folks in MA were dying to elect someone other than an idiot. Which is what Kerry Healy was and remains. It may be unfortunate–in your view–that we had to select between a minority and an idiot, but those were our only options. A minority is better than an idiot, any day.
<
p>Grow up. I might have preferred the “fat lesbian” from the Green party, or even Christy Mihos, but they weren’t viable obtions.
…the dialog concerned candidates in a specific election.
the sooner progressives realize Deval is not one of us the sooner we will get a governor fighting for our interests, not moneyed interests
<
p>I’m not going to say “I told you so” but the writing was on the wall well before ’06…
I think progressives knew he’d be a corporate oriented embarrassment in a lot of ways, but didn’t care. Progressives care more about funding progress and envisioning the posthuman future than providing good, caring services and justice.
I didn’t think that “I am Legend” was part of the progressive agenda…
<
p>Progressives support electoral reform that favors We, the People. It’s about small d Democracy and making sure that the people run government, not corporate interests. It’s about taking corporate money out of politics. I would also say the vast majority of progressives support policies that include empowering all people to take full part in society – such as improvements to civil right laws, universal health care and a strong and easily accessible public education system for all ages.
<
p>We’re also about doing what’s necessary to solve problems this country faces, tackling the big issues, as opposed to sitting idly by or allowing for the status quo to continue – for example, trying to tackle Global Warming. I don’t think progressives care about that issue because they’re Greenie Environmentalists – I’m certainly not (my idea of taking part of the great outdoors is walking my dog on the beach) – but we recognize the math, science and subsequently, the problem. That’s one reason why the “reality-based community” tends to comprised by people who also consider themselves a part of the progressive movement.
…have you actually read Matheson’s masterpiece? I have.
I’m sure that’s given you all sorts of insights into the progressive movement. Because we all know that progressives really want to turn the human race into big, scary, super-rabies infected, hairless dummies. You’ve unearthed the entire progressive movement’s secrets. That must make you special or something…
Patrick and Obama share the same Hollywood tested lines about hope versus fear, and how we should ignore fears and vote for hopes and dreams. Your example, global warming, I think is not a progressive issue at all. It is a “fear”, and thus it has not been a focus by Patrick or Obama or progressives in general. When they talk about it, they talk about “investing in alternative energy” and other corporate/entrepreneurial/academic schemes, even if they are really bad for the environment. All energy use causes heat and takes energy to get the energy, even if it is “alternative”. Until I see progressives advocating for less energy use, and slowing and/or stopping “progress” even if that progress would “empower” people, I think they’re the problem.
<
p>And posthumanism isn’t a science fiction movie, it is a major movement and popular worldview that informs the opinions and actions of progressives, such as supporting “full funding” for genetic engineering research and “reproducitve liberty” to achieve liberal eugenics. Progressives want to bring about post-genderism as fast as possible, and that requires not only stepping on the poor and polluting the planet, but doing it all in a crypto, facist, orwellian way, destroying civil rights along the way.
Take a few short breaths and bear in mind that we’re living in 2008, not 3008. There are no progressives out there, that I know of, arguing for the use of biotechnology to remove gender from the population…. that’s just crazy talk and won’t ever happen. It is NOT a part of today’s progressive movement. Nor are there progressives seeking to end civil rights: that’s the oppositive of the movement’s ultimate goal.
<
p>Do progressives tend to support transgendered people? Of course, that’s a civil rights discussion and progressives tend to support civil rights. However, transgenderism and post-genderism are two completely different things, I don’t care if you found a Wiki that tries to make that link. For all I know, you could have written that yourself. LOL.
<
p>Furthermore, I think you’re confusing Wilson’s progressives with today’s model 2.0. I don’t know a progressive today who is in favor of policies that promote eugenics, at least in the contemporary definition of the word.
<
p>One of the big mistakes by progressives back then was to support policies that actually promoted eugenics, but those progressives learned from their mistakes, given what was going on in many mental health hospitals as well as what happened in Germany. There were a lot of things that early progressives supported, because they may have seemed logical, but have completely failed in what they aimed to accomplish: such as California-styled ballot initiatives and recalls. These mistakes probably account for why that progressive movement died out – and the new one that has reemerged today is completely different.
There are no progressives out there, that I know of, arguing for the use of biotechnology to remove gender from the population.
<
p>Maybe progressives are just too dreamy to realize what exactly they are arguing for. Or maybe they know there is no need to argue for it, since it is proceeding at full speed with full funding, H1B visas, corporate incentives, unconstitutional agreements with brutal dictatorships, etc. What else is there to argue for?
<
p>I’d love to see progressives argue against postgenderism and transhumanism, since there is so much to gain by enacting a law against using biotechnology to remove gender in reproduction or design or modify the genes of people, like postgenderists and transhumanists want to do, and like labs are currently spending unknown gads of money developing. I’d love to know how much is being spent, wouldn’t you?
seriously, you’re starting to sound like that egg-and-sperm guy…
<
p>It was only moderately amusing for a short while, then it got old fast.
You just can’t bring yourself to criticize transhumanism and postgenderism, can you? They’re essential to your “hopes and aspirations”? You thwart efforts to stop eugenics and transhumanism and postgenderism, despite how incompatible they are with civil rights and equality and environmentalism and universal health care and despite how much is to be gained by stopping them.
<
p>
I’m sorry, I’m just not taking the bait. This conversation has gone past the point of absurdity. I’m heavily read and ingrained in today’s progressive movement; eugenics and postgenderism isn’t a part of it. It’s so far removed from what actual progressives are thinking and talking about, that it’s almost funny.
Good, because “actual” transhumanists and transgenderists and eugenicists are part of their own movements, working toward their goals and aspirations very effectively, and those goals are in opposition to progressive goals. Achieving what you are thinking and talking about will only be possible by renouncing transhumanism and prohibiting it. But instead, all Deval Patrick wants to do is figure out more ways to make biotech companies happy and keep research unregulated and fast-tracked. And like this blog, which is back to how this little diversion started, Patrick is not “one of us” if “us” is the non-transhumanist progressive you claim to be. He appears to favor transhumanist priorities over all others.
He’s had everything in his life handed to him because he is highly intelligent,glib and a democrat.. Oh, and he’s a minority. The four prime ingredients to get elected in MA.
<
p>I’ve been living in eastern MA since early 1979. As far as I can tell, most of those who were elected to public office have been white, and mostly of Irish Catholic descent. Some at the local level were of Italian descent, but, as far as I can tell, the first mayor of Boston who was of Italian descent was–ta da!–Tom Menino, and he became mayor only because the former mayor, Ray Flynn wanted to duke it out with the Pope in Rome.
<
p>All of the governors since I’ve been paying attention were white, one (Volpe, and possibly Cellucci) presumably of Irish Catholic descent, and the rest Brahmins.
<
p>Of course, MA did have the honor of having the first Negro elected to the US Senate since Reconstruction, but that’s hardly an indication that being a minority is a prime ingredient for getting elected in MA. And, just to remind you Mr. Brooke was elected to the US Senate as–ta da!–a Republican.
but, “Negro”? Come on…
…a sarcastic reference to MCRD’s “minority.”
it’s very difficult to read sarcasm on something as 2d as the internet, especially when the entire post was a serious piece of historical context. So using “Negro” as sarcasm in the past paragraph isn’t going to be picked up as sarcasm by most.
It’s a lesson I’ve learned all too well – people mistaking my sarcasm for actual truth. I was only trying to – politely, mind you – let you know that it’s easy to make that mistake, especially when the entire post isn’t sarcastic or satire and the switch is flipped fast.
In a meritocracy, we expect responsibilities to be handed to intelligent people. What? You prefer we do this at random? In backroom deals?
When did Massachusetts institute the income tax? I’ve tried to google an answer to no avail.
I tried google again and it seems we got the income tax in 1911-ish or thereabouts.
They seem to do well. How about the remainder of the states without an income tax. I will vote for the abolishment of the income tax, not because I don’t want tp pay taxes, but if I pay, then everyone pays. I’m tired of being discriminated against because I’m emplyed, and I’m tired of the hackerama in Massachusetts as is most hard working taxpayers. I would like to think I’m not dumb. Just sick and tired of being sick and tired. This time around, since the legislature chose to ignore the voters and maintain the 5.3% tax rate, I’ll bet perhaps 52% of voters vote to abolish the tax. Then let those fools on Beacon Hill deal with that.
If you have pretty much the same demographics throughout the state (and to me NH does seem very homogeneous), it doesn’t really matter whether you are collecting the taxes locally through property tax or at the state level through income tax. In MA there’s a huge disparity between Dovers and Wellesleys on one hand and Springfields and Fall Rivers on the other hand. If we had nothing but property tax to fund local services the poor towns will not be able to afford an adequate level of service. So collecting income tax at the state level and unequally redistributing it to towns via the mechanism of local aid is very important.
It means that the standards for service in one town are vastly different than another, and it means wealthy communities can afford to do what’s needed and poor ones cannot.
<
p>No statewide taxes was also a nightmare with regards to equal education funding…I was living up there when they were going through that, it was amazing how stupid it all was.
I Agree.
In the abstract we could wish for no taxes of any sort, but as that is an unlikely event than it seems to me that the best options is to pay the taxes as localy as possible.
When I send my tax dollars to Washington someone there always seems intent on investing the money in some other country or in something for which I have no interest.
If the dough is sent to Boston, little if any of it makes it back anywhere near home.
While I trust myself to know best what I would like to do with my own money … if it absolutly must be stolen from me via the long armed coersion of government then let that arm at least originate here in town and not someplace across the state.
Their budget is a nightmare, their process for funding causes all sorts of problems. I attended/worked at UNH when they rescinded promised funding in the middle of the college’s fiscal year, causing serious disruptions in staff around campus. That was back when they had a DEM governor (Shaheen) by the way who also refused to propose any sort of statewide tax to steady the state’s budget. They also ran afoul (and couldn’t f-ing fix it, either, the lamebrains) of their own constitution by the way they funded public ed.
<
p>No, NH might be improving, but it’s only because the idiotic notions up there are (slowly) dying. Their public education for instance was a joke…I know, I went through it, both in rural and in city schools. I wouldn’t raise a kid in those schools, if I had any.
My home state has no income tax, but the sales taxes and fees are exorbitant. Except for rent, my cost of living actually decreased when I moved here. Everything from alcohol to cigarettes to car insurance was cheaper. Even gas cost less here (or at least did). And we don’t charge tax on clothing.
<
p>There’s no such thing as a free lunch.
I noticed the high sales taxes and fees when I lived in Texas. I rented at the time, and the cost of rent–for what in Eastern Massachusetts would qualify as a luxury apartment, was cheaper on a monthly basis than my college dorm room had been in the early 90s. The cheaper rent more than made up the shortfall, and by a wide margin. I’m not sure what impact property taxes would have had, had I owned rather than rented. Doubtless the difference would shrink.
<
p>As for fuel, I found it to be absurdly cheap there (I lived there in 1988)– $0.67 per gallon at Speedway for most of the year– when gasoline was $1.30ish back in Massachusetts, and well over $1.50 in Boston. I had nearly 300 miles per week in commuting, and still spent only about $10/week at the gas station!
<
p>Another significant difference in cost of living was the brevity of the heating season. I assumed that the summertime need for A/C would offset the wintertime savings on heat, but found that running the A/C in hot weather is significantly cheaper than heating in cold weather. Heating in January ran the utility bill a lot higher than did cooling in August. I’m not sure where central Texas gets its electricity, but I did note that it was a whole heck of a lot cheaper per kwH than it is in Massachusetts.
Rest assured that rents went back up. 🙂 It’s still cheaper than here; most places are. Mass. taxes are still surprisingly low, all things considered.
<
p>The Texas gas tax was raised to 20 cents per dollar in 1991. Friends there say the legislature is considering indexing it to inflation. If they do, they’ll have perfected the regressive tax.
<
p>A quick unscientific check (I called a friend) says gas in Dallas is running $2.90-$3.00 at the moment. Dallas city sales tax is 8.255, BTW.
<
p>The Texas constitution requires that twenty-five percent of the tax goes to education. The legislature is considering an amendment to eliminate that requirement as well. Seems roads cost money.
joeltpatterson @ Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 15:27:39 PM EST Howell declined to answer, saying the burden of proof is on lawmakers to justify each program.
<
p>Actually she’s right that the burden should be on lawmakers to justify each program. The problem is that each program develops a constituency, which makes it difficult to deep-six the program. I’m sure that you remember the “military base closing commissions” in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Those were established precisely because none of the congresspersons wanted military bases closed in their states or districts, so they conceived of the notion that an “independent” commission would be able to identify bases that weren’t necessary for closure. That didn’t work very well, either.
<
p>Just to remind you, a number of US military bases were closed in Germany following the collapse of the USSR. But the massive Ramstein complex is still there.
<
p>MCRD @ Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 13:11:44 PM EST Does New Hampshire have an income tax? No, but it has a property tax, which, according to what I have read is relatively high. And it has tolls on many more roads than MA does. You want to go to Ogunquit? The last time we went, almost 20 years ago, it was a high toll each way. You want to own a house in Nashua, not only would you have to pay an exhorbitant property tax, but if you wanted to work in MA to pay off your mortgage, you’d have to pay MA’s income tax, which actually is quite moderate. NH might not have a sales tax, but unless NH is different than other states it levies a property tax on commercial property that is baxed on turnover (revenue), so you are paying an implicit sales tax when you buy there, even though it is not explicitly labeled as such.
Yes, NH does have high property taxes. They also have a lot less government. Their legislature is by and large unpaid and in session only a number of days. They work by the KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid. The Massachusetts legislature is a cesspool. Why can’t we have an accross the board sales tax? Why must I pay through the nose, who someone a few doors down pays little or nothing. Why must I be penalized because I chose to keep a nice home? Nationally, why do 25% of the population pay 80% of the tax. Average income earners in MA who want to live a decent life style and educate their children are getting soaked, yet others, well—-they just slide merrily by. Everyone, who enjoys the opportunities that this country offers should be required to contribute.
Their (NH) legislature is by and large unpaid and in session only a number of days. They work by the KISS principle.
<
p>No, they work on the “make someone else pay” princi;ple, and hide the “who someone else” is. Whatever. If you want to go up to NH, buy the overpriced merchandise to subsidize their exhorbitant property taxes, and, quite frankly, I won’t care. When the credit card companies are required to report purchases to the home state, requiring you to pay a “use tax” I’ll shed a crocodile tear for you.
<
p>Why can’t we have an accross the board sales tax?
<
p>I had been led to believe that MA has an “across the board sales tax.” As I’ve made it clear, I would prefer local options taxes, including local options sales and use taxes.
<
p>Nationally, why do 25% of the population pay 80% of the tax.
<
p>Thank you for not providing a citation to this figure. I suspect, but because of your dereliction of your duty to provide a citation, that you are referring to federal income taxes only. As I’m sure you know, there are many other taxes, both at the federal and state level.
<
p>Average income earners in MA who want to live a decent life style and educate their children are getting soaked, yet others, well—-they just slide merrily by.
<
p>What you seem to ignore is that those of us who do not have children in public schools and who never have, are subsidizing you. Your whining is falling on deaf ears.
The school building, insulation, or elevators were never inspected by a building inspector, none of the teachers went to a public university or college, your kids didn’t use sidewalks or roads to get there, and the school never went for public grants?
…his children in parochial schools are protected by police and fire departments, without the schools having to pay a dime in property tax.
<
p>In point of fact, IIRC, towns are required to provide bus transportation for children going to and from parochial schools, on the same basis that they provide transportation to and from public schools. I don’t recall the caption of the case, but it’s a US SupCt case at least 30 years old.
Because they make >80% of all income?
…when he was asked why he robbed banks. The response was, because that’s where the money was.
<
p>Poor folks don’t have the money.
If you take a percentage of all taxes paid that is paid by high-income people, it certainly will be high. So you will always have this right-wing propaganda “Is it fair when 2% of the people pay 50% of the taxes?”. But when you start comparing incomes the story is much different. Warren Buffett offered a million dollars to a CEO who could prove that his tax rate was higher than his secretary’s. No one applied.
…the “taxes” that are referred to are usually merely income taxes, and then, usually at just the federal level. There are a number of hidden taxes and fees even at the federal level (excise taxes, import duties on goods, etc.) that are not taken into account in their screed. An they usually do not take into account the taxes, including the regressive taxes such as property and sales taxes, at the state and local level.
<
p>And that is pretty much why I ignore their screeds.
Please offer a cite or some form of mathematical computation from a convincing source that will give a rational metric for “poor” in USA. By poor do you mean like Darfur poor? Poor as in starving.
<
p>There is a reason that there are those amongst us that have less than others.Is there a blame to be laid? Are you responsible for the “project” in Wellesley? Why did you choose to live in Wellesley and not a less affluent neighborhood in USA or perhaps Europe?
<
p>I worked hard my entire life. My brother rarely got off his ass to do anything, never contributed FICA, sporadically filed income tax returns, periodically paid child support when threatened with imprisonment and currently enjoys poor health and a baseline existence. Should anyone who enjoys the fruits of their labors will supporting this man?
Apollo 18 was the first album I ever bought and its songs along with most of TMBGs hold a special place in my heart, they were my favorite band back in my middle school days.
<
p>I Palindrome I is especially clever, but “fingertips” hands down the magnum opus of that albumn.