Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Clintonism and Income Tax Repeal in Massachusetts

By

Results out from the State House News Service poll may attract most attention for presidential primary numbers, but they also indicate that the income tax repeal initiative is starting out where it stopped off in 2002.  (See question 18: http://www.statehousenews.com/…

Respondents were nearly even split on the question with 45 percent in favor and 46 percent against.  Perhaps most noteworthy was the fact that significant percentages of Democrats, though a minority, at this point favor the question.  These results show that Deval Patrick will have to make this one of his major issues for the rest of the year: the state cannot advance education and health care if it loses 40 percent of its revenue.  At the same time the numbers also show how deeply Reagan-era assumptions about taxes and government have sunk into a supposedly blue state, and they show how little change 8 years of Clinton brought in the public’s assumptions about policy, taxes, and government.  

No state in the country has ever considered a tax cut remotely as radical as that now being considered in Massachusetts, yet Governor Patrick will be in the position this year of defending core areas of government activity. The Clinton administration between 1992 and 2000 had the best chance to date of convincing the public that their tax dollars advanced vital goals, but for the most part the Clinton administration utterly failed to make this case or to even try to change public perceptions, especially after 1994.

On the matter at hand it is predictable that some will leap in with comments to the effect that this is a good thing, but the vast bulk of state spending is not directed to wasteful programs, however defined, but to core missions in education and health care.  Enrollment in MassHealth is somewhere around 1 million., and supporting this program takes up more than 7 billion dollars, including funds the state receives in the form of federal matching funds.    Many of those who say they would do away with the state income tax would likely oppose taking a measure that could seriously threatened health coverage for that many people.  The state presently spends more than 4 billion a year on k-12 local education, and once again many of those who say they want to do away with the income tax would probably not want to lay off thousands of teachers or approve massive property tax overrides.  You can’t make up a 40 percent revenue loss by reducing government waste-real or imagined.  The only way to make cuts of that magnitude would be to radically cut spending on government programs and the real money in the state budget goes to health care and education.

Between now and November Governor Patrick will need to engage in this kind of public education, in part because the Clinton administration utterly failed to make a case to connect taxes to key public services.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. that polling on ballot questions, especially this far out, is notoriously unreliable — much worse than for candidates.  Past experience, as I recall, is that “yes” votes are overstated by at least 10 points in typical opinion polls.  So I wouldn’t be ringing the alarm bells too loudly on this silly question just yet.

  2. You assert this connection, particularly the latter, several times — but what concrete evidence do you have to support the claim?

    <

    p>I think the more likely reason so many people voted for this measure the last time it was offered is because they believe that much of the spending of the Massachusetts state government is unnecessary, or at least not what they want. Any connection to the national policies of the Reagan and Clinton governments are only tangential.

  3. As you can imagine I’m practically salivating over the idea of slashing 40% out of the budget and becoming a no-income tax state.  

    <

    p>The problem as I see it is that for “progressive”, the government can never be big enough.  It can never be too big, there’s always more that can be spent on, so it only ever grows.  Worse, huge dependency-inducing entitlement spending is nearly impossible to decrease since cries of cruelty to the disadvantaged immediately ring out whenever such a cut is proposed.

    <

    p>I think the only way to reduce the size of government it to slash it down, hard.  Not all the way to 0, sure, but a 40% cut sounds – just about right.

    • Tell us exactly what you would cut, and then tell us how you think that would go over politically.

      <

      p>In all seriousness, I’d love to find programs that are truly worthless, or just not all that helpful. So tell us what you’d cut.

      • You will never agree on the things that should be cut.  Furthermore, while I too would cut everything that is worthless, I’d also cut much more than that –

        <

        p>Many things can have some worth (at least to the recipients!) but be a net negative to society and/or unfair or at least not delivering worth to the taxed.  (Maybe the bar is:  does this spending help everyone?)  Other things can appear to have short term worth but induce long term dependency and also harm economic growth, etc., and thus are debatable as positives or negatives.

        <

        p>Nevertheless, you ask a fair question but I’m going to have to pore through the budget to answer it.  This will take some time (and you won’t like the answers) but I’ll do it.  Any sources you have to FY07 or 08 budget breakdown would be appreciated,although I’m sure I can find some myself.

        <

        p>Aside:  Horrified that I want to cut 40% without knowing what to cut?  As I mentioned earlier I think the onus is on the spenders to justify more than 60%, not the reverse.

        • the size of government isn’t really going to change. We’d just have to look elsewhere for the revenue. I find it hard to believe that 40% of state government is waste; people will demand to keep those services. If the income tax is eliminated we’ll see a huge spike in sales taxes and property taxes. Fees for all kinds of things will rise. How would that be an improvement?

          <

          p>Why can’t the idea of a progressive income tax get more traction? Seems to me a lot of low- and middle-income people would save money on their taxes, which could be incredibly popular. I suppose the cynical answer is that power rests with the wealthy.

          • the size of government isn’t really going to change.

            <

            p>The size of the government has been in constant change for 100 years or so.  It has been growing.  

            <

            p>I dont understand how property tax rates would skyrocket for lack of income tax – is so much of income tax really being returned to the towns from whence it came?  I didn’t think so.  Furthermore, people will be better able to pay local tax with the 5% of their income that the government does not take away from them.

            <

            p>Progressive income tax will drive people out of the state – mainly the ones you want to keep (and tax) I suspect.  However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think a great idea would be to ban progressive income tax at the federal level and allow it at the state level.

      • First, I’d cut costs in MassHealth/Medicaid by, oh, say $325 Million.  Like Mr. Patrick promised before the November 2006 election.

        • Which of the approximately 1 million Massachsuetts residents on MassHeatlh would you then remove from the rolls if, as would be likely, the cuts would reduce the number who could receive health insurance?

          <

          p>If  you did cut 325 million from Mass Health where would you cut the many billions of dollars more covered by the income tax revenue?

          • In 2003, benefits were reduced.  Specifically, eye glasses and dental. The coverages were restored so that now, a MassHealth dental recipient has better coverage than most in private insurance.

            <

            p>With regards to the bigger question, a personal income tax elimination would mean a significant change to the financing of the State:  a series of cuts, new revenues, fees, etc….

            <

            p>In this re-tooling, I can’t imagine an elimination of MassHealth, but can imagine significant changes to the coverage.

            • Well, would they be able to buy that coverage, or afford dental care if they weren’t on MassHealth?

              <

              p>Are you suggesting that people not go to the dentist if they can’t afford it? Bad idea.

              • Are you suggesting that people not go to the dentist if they can’t afford it? Bad idea.

                <

                p>Your idea.  Read my post; I didn’t say it.  If you can’t counter my argument, don’t make shit up.

                <

                p>I just said that Mr. Patrick promised to save $325 million on Medicaid as part of his platform.  I’m just taking him at his word as a means to save money on the budget.  Do don’t think he was exaggerating with his promise do you?

                • Aren’t you the on confusing what he said?  Was he eliminating redundancies, etc?  If we are to take him at his word, then we need to know what was said.

                • “Deval Patrick today released a plan for the more efficient, streamlined government he will lead as governor, identifying specific savings of over $735 million. His strategies include limiting legislative earmarks, enforcing wage and hour laws, improving detection of Medicaid fraud and increasing budgetary transparency.”

                  <

                  p>Of the $735 million, $325 million was Medicaid savings from, I reckon, all that fraud that must, as we speak, be ongoing.

          • Most of the details ARE paid out of tax revenue.  You think the Big Dig cops were privately paid?

          • Link

            <

            p>Seriously, think about it.  How many private roads do we have?  Police details are for the most part on public road and bridge repair, and public construction projects.

      • I’d require all towns to participate in the GIC unless their actual health costs were lower than GIC cost. Public Unions be damned.

        • I’m down with this. Blue Cross Blue Shield will follow the customers into the GIC.

          <

          p>Gosh, gary — you’re sure we should use government power to bargain down prices with private companies? Sounds pretty statist to me.

          • Gosh, gary — you’re sure we should use government power to bargain down prices with private companies? Sounds pretty statist to me.

            <

            p>Statist, communist, progressive or conservative.  It would work, had leadership given it a chance.   Leave your ideological blinkers at the door.

      • Assuming a 25/75 health care match is good business for State employees, then the same match ought be the law for teachers, troopers….  

        • Wow, plenty to cut in HHS and Education.

          <

          p>Did you know that METCO costs $20M?  All that for a program that discriminates purely based on race, nice one.  

          <

          p>Also its hard to think that removing this:
          Chapter 70 Payments to Cities and Towns 3,725,671

          <

          p>wouldn’t be offset by leaving the money in the cities and towns to begin with.  But then again, I guess you wouldn’t be able to redistribute it as the government sees fit (from ability -> to need of course), so surely some unfairness will be perceived in that.

          <

          p>Aside from that I suspect that we could and should also easily lose half of the items on this page:
          http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2…
          as well as at least half of the DOE overhead.

          <

          p>So we cut education in less than half and have saved $2+B.

          <

          p>Now HHS, 48% of the pie (see:  entitlements will eat us all) is the obvious next target.  What can we remove here?  Can we chuck masshealth?  Medicaid?  Anything that is a transfer payment can be phased out, sooner or later.

          <

          p>Imagine what would happen to health care costs if government demand suddenly evaporated?

          • Makes sense.  Why don’t we just scrap public education as well.  Freeloaders are taking advantage of people without children in schools.

            <

            p>Imagine what would happen to education costs if government demand suddenly evaporated?  

            • wording but totally opposite economics, since health care is already provided by the private sector regardless of who is paying, and education is mostly not.

              <

              p>But yea, you should have noticed that I wanted to cut the hell out of state education funding, I said as much in the post.  

              • I had a job that didn’t pay health benefits for about 6 years (and it wasn’t a bad job either), so I paid out of pocket.

                <

                p>oh, I’M the private sector! I get it.

          • Imagine what would happen to health care costs if government demand suddenly evaporated?

            <

            p>Ummm … nothing.

            <

            p>It’s not government that is demanding healthcare services; it’s citizens that are. If you did away with government healthcare you wouldn’t change overall demand one damned bit.

            <

            p>If you did away with Burger King it wouldn’t somehow change the demand for beef, would it? Granted, Burger King would no longer be buying beef from the wholesalers, but its customers would still be demanding burgers and would be forced to buy them from McDonalds, Wendy’s, etc. who would, in response, need to buy more beef. Net change in the industry? None.

            <

            p>But this gives me an idea of how we can cut some money out of the budget without any loss of service. Let’s cut all the funding to whatever schools demolisher attended. Clearly they’re not doing their job very well.  😉

            • Sorry but,

              <

              p>

              It’s not government that is demanding healthcare services; it’s citizens that are. If you did away with government healthcare you wouldn’t change overall demand one damned bit.

              <

              p>FYI Demand is defined as how much money might be paid for a (levels of) product or service.  If they can’t pay much, the entire demand curve is far lower than if they can all pay the full amount.  The intersection of demand and supply pegs the price.  So the fact that people “demand” something is entirely different than the concept of economic demand.  (Next time pick a better title for your post)

              <

              p>Also,

              <

              p>

              If you did away with Burger King it wouldn’t somehow change the demand for beef, would it?

              <

              p>Burger King selling beef (supplier) has nothing in common with the government paying for health care.

              • I’m perfectly well aware of what “economic demand” is. It’s an aggregate of everbody in the market’s individual demand and the prices they are willing to pay.

                <

                p>But let’s not forget, when the demand curve shifts leftward (a decrease in demand) both price and quantity decrease. “Ah-ha,” you say. “Price has decreased. See I, demolisher, must be a genius. I’ve just solved the healthcare problem.” Except there’s that pesky little fact of decreased service.

                <

                p>Do you really think that, just because you’ve killed off MassHealth, uninsured folks will stop having accidents and needing to go to the emergency room? Do you really think that poor infants are going to stop getting sick and poor mothers are going to stop needing prenatal care? Of course you don’t, because you know that they won’t.

                <

                p>So, what will they do? They’ll go to the hospital anyway and, because the law doesn’t allow the hospitals to turn them away, they will be provided with the service (in the emergeny room, which is extremely expensive — but that’s another issue) and the state will end up picking up the tab.

                <

                p>And … wait a minute! … since the state is back in the market paying for, i.e demanding, service for the uninsured, the demand curve shifts back to the right and the equilibrium cost of healthcare returns to where it was to begin with.

                <

                p>Where are the savings now?

                <

                p>Or, I should say, “Where’s the beef?”

          • I assume, then, that you support either the repeal of prop 2 1/2 or the creation of some new local tax?

            <

            p>Otherwise, where’s the money coming from?

            • will still have all that money as it won’t have been taken from them in the form of income tax.  So the towns if they need it can just take it directly from them.  Except without all the graft and frictional waste.

        • One has to ask the really big question:

          <

          p>What should government DO?

          <

          p>Should the state get out of the health care business?

          <

          p>business regulation?

          <

          p>Education?

          <

          p>Public safety?

          <

          p>Environmental protection?

          <

          p>Transportation?

          <

          p>

          • I know it’s just pushing costs up to the federal level, but they often push cost down the other way (NCLB, REAL ID, etc.).  Getting State governments out of the Health Care business would free up significant resources for education, transportation and, yes, tax cuts.

            • MassHealth recipients receive subsidized coverage because they cannot otherwise obtain health insurance.  How would cutting their health insurance enable them to obtain private coverage that they cannot currently afford?

              • If the Federal government creates a universal health care system, we wouldn’t need to have MassHealth and could use that money elsewhere.  Health costs are growing by double digit percentage points each year, straining not only state governments, but private companies who give their employees health benefits as well.  Americans spend much more per capita on Health than other developed nations for a lower standard of care.  Our current system is broken and needs to be radically redone.  Freeing up state resources for other things would be a fringe benefit.

          • To get the Government to ask the big questions probably takes a crisis, otherwise it’s business as usual.  Maybe this Proposition is just what the State needs to re-examine its priorities.

          • ………HOW do we pay for it?

            <

            p>Is it possible for our elected leaders to lead a series of public conversations about the important public structures that educate our kids, keep our public spaces clean, stimulate and support economic development and job creation etc. etc. and also engage us in a fact based briefing about all the various revenue streams that currently pay for those public structures?

            <

            p>Maybe with all of that information in our brains we can engage with our elected leaders in a transparent public process of deciding whether our current tax policy is fair, adequate and stable?

            <

            p>Now that would be real civic engagement.  

            <

            p>Or do we have to jump start that community conversation ourselves?    

        • While I appreciate Gary’s efforts, they really just scratch the surface.

          <

          p>Interesting though that in less than 3 minutes I listed 4 areas have potential combined savings of about $1 billion, or 10% of the total personal income tax revenue.  Are my suggestions so off target?  

          <

          p>In 2003 when the dot com bubble burst, Romney and the Legislature were able to find nearly $2.0 billion of cuts.  The Commonwealth survived, even thrived:  crime didn’t leap, poverty didn’t rise, kids who would have been educated still got educated. Advocate wailed, but then, that’s what advocates do.

          <

          p>The real question is, what would/will the Government do, if the proposition passes?  a) ignore it b) re-tool the budget.

          <

          p>I’ll optimistically assume (b) re-tool. Where to re-tool?

          <

          p>We’ll probably see broad 9C powers given to Governor who’d have no choice but to cut and he’d make choices that would be similar to Romney’s choices in 2003:  1) cut all departments 2) freeze step contracts 3) raise user fees 4) I can imagine a sales tax and excise tax increase 4) toll I-93…. 5) lower local aid.

          <

          p>Why, the choices are limitless.

          • crime didn’t leap, poverty didn’t rise, kids who would have been educated still got educated.

            <

            p>Perhaps not wherever you live, but in Springfield, those three exact things occurred.

            <

            p>Crime increased dramatically after the 2003 budget cuts. Murders in Springfield went from 12 and 13 in 2003 to 17 in 2004, 18 in 2005, 15 in 2006, and 20 in 2007. Robberies, assaults, break-ins are all up from 2000-2002 time period. Drug-related crimes (prostitution, etc.) are on the rise, likely because some of Romney’s cuts eliminated drug treatment programs, and also because the economy, quite frankly, stinks unless you’re college-educated.

            <

            p>I seem to recall that Boston is also experiencing a serious uptick in murders, isn’t it?

            <

            p>An article in the Republican last week described how poverty is increasing in Springfield schools, growing significantly over the past five years. It has increased from 27.2% of the kids living in the district under the federal poverty line to 33.2%. Going by federal guidelines of free or reduced-cost student lunches, over 77% of Springfield’s students qualify.

            <

            p>Springfield has had all of its high schools labeled “dropout factories” with a 50% dropout rate, over 1,500 (out of 2,500) teachers have left the district because salaries have been ratcheted down, and little progress has been made in MCAS scores. Companies are bemoaning that they can’t find educated workers, and are looking to move elsewhere because of this.

            <

            p>So all is not rosy in this state, even if it is rosy in the wealthier portions.

            • Crime increased dramatically after the 2003 budget cuts. Murders in Springfield went from 12 and 13 in 2003 to 17 in 2004, 18 in 2005, 15 in 2006, and 20 in 2007. Robberies, assaults, break-ins are all up from 2000-2002 time period. Drug-related crimes (prostitution, etc.) are on the rise, likely because some of Romney’s cuts eliminated drug treatment programs, and also because the economy, quite frankly, stinks unless you’re college-educated.

              I seem to recall that Boston is also experiencing a serious uptick in murders, isn’t it?

              An article in the Republican last week described how poverty is increasing in Springfield schools, growing significantly over the past five years. It has increased from 27.2% of the kids living in the district under the federal poverty line to 33.2%. Going by federal guidelines of free or reduced-cost student lunches, over 77% of Springfield’s students qualify.

              <

              p>It’s a big stretch to suggest that a city’s increase in murders from 13 to 17 in 2003 to 2004 was the result of lower tax revenues.

              <

              p>Also, if poverty is now increasing in Springfield schools, it’s increasing during years where the revenues have relentlessly increased.  

              <

              p>Maybe increased revenue increase poverty–taking tax dollars away from working families and all.  

              <

              p>More likely the two statistics have little to do with one another.

              • You’re the one that made the connection by suggesting that crime hadn’t increased. Now that someone has shown you that it, in fact, has increased in some areas, you turn around and say that it’s a stretch to suggest a connection?

                <

                p>Exactly what kind of rhetorical system are you employing here? I must learn it, so that I can dispatch with other people’s arguments in the same cavalier fashion you do.

                <

                p>  

                • Exactly what kind of rhetorical system are you employing here? I must learn it, so that I can dispatch with other people’s arguments in the same cavalier fashion you do.

                  <

                  p>Sure, watch and learn, it’s called fact based.  [Crime decreased: http://www.disastercenter.com/…

                  <

                  p>”But, but, but…murders increased by 2 from one year to the next in Springfield.  It must the the budget. I’m sure it was Romney!”

                  <

                  p>No, that single digit is statistically irrelevant and anecdotal, but thanks for spinning.  

                • Most of the savings from Romney’s “cuts” (and I blame the lege for this too) came in the form of either reduced aid to municipalities or imposing fees for some gov’t services.  Those were the 2 biggest things.  

                  <

                  p>If you can find reports of layoffs of state employees, I’ll read them, but I’m pretty sure buck-passing was all that happened.  Brave Romney.

                  <

                  p>The cuts to municipalities have lag time, we don’t like laying teachers and cops off so we use every accounting trick in the book to play for time while we hope the lege comes to its senses.  That’s why you saw the big aid cuts in 2002, 2003 and then all the municipal layoffs in more like 2006, 2007.  Of course, if we ask for an override at the municipal level, then everyone’s just SHOCKED at how all of a sudden we could not have any money.

                • In 2003 there were 140 murders in the state. Then the budget was cut and, lo and behold, the murder rate jumped to 171 in 2004, 178 in 2005 and 186 in 2006.

                  <

                  p>This is not statisticaly insignificant.

                  <

                  p>Was this a result of reduced local aid? I don’t know. Nor, I suspect, do you. But it’s certainly not a stretch to suggest the aid cuts may have been a contributing factor.

                • I think the additional 7 murders of 2005 over 2004 was because of Michael Jackson’s acquital in 2005.  It just made me so mad….

                  <

                  p>Or maybe it was the sunspots, or the release of that lousy movie, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or maybe the aid cuts of 2003, or maybe the aid increases of 2004, 2005 and 2006.  

                  <

                  p>Actually to suggest any of those things caused an extra 7 murders is pretty silly.  

                • Ignore the fact that the murder rate jumped from 140 to 186–a 32.9% increase–and focus on the one year in the range where the change was only 7 deaths or 4.1%.

                  <

                  p>If it had only jumped by 4% for one year and then dropped back down, you’d have a case. The fact that it was followed by another 4.5% the following year and was preceded by a 22.1% jump kind of blows your argument out of the water.

                  <

                  p>But I’m not even arguing that the cuts were the cause of the jump, I’m merely arguing that it’s not “a stretch” to suggest that they may be a factor.

                  <

                  p>You’re an intelligent guy. You understand perfectly well. You’re just trying to win the argument by muddying the waters because there’s no other way that you can.

                  <

                  p>I don’t hold it against you.  😉

                • … here is a slightly greater degree of specificity.

                  <

                  p>It probably isn’t a stretch to suspect that cuts may have been a factor, even perhaps a major or overriding factor.

                  <

                  p>It is a huge stretch to conclude that cuts may have been a factor, even perhaps a major or overriding factor.

                • To conclude anything from this limited (and, admittedly, contadictory to the overall crime trend) data would be foolish.

                  <

                  p>I simply object to dismissing the suggestion out of hand merely because it fails to match up with certain people’s (cough, cough; points to gary) ideological viewpoint.

  4. Look at how dramatically the support slides from Yes to No as the level of education goes from High School to Post-Grad.

    <

    p>Does it really take 6+ years of college to learn how to add and subtract numbers?  I must assume that many of the supporters believe that we can eliminate state income tax and yet suffer no reductions in state-funded programs.  If you simply asked me whether I would like stuff “for free”, I would probably say yes, too.

    • Does it really take 6+ years of college to learn how to add and subtract numbers?

      <

      p>The answer: it depends on the numbers.  Ring theory addition is tricky.  Field theory is built on addition and few other properties, but is generally taken by advanced mathematics undergrads or grad students.  Number theory, including the equations of Diophantus and the last theorem of Fermat involve some tricky addition and subtraction.  Basic Linear Algebra is undergrad stuff, but playing with tensors containing imaginary numbers — even adding them — can be tricky if you want to maintain specific properties within the sums.  Summing probabilities or combinations/permutations in Combinatorics is often graduate level work.

      <

      p>Adding and subtracting small natural numbers?  Kid’s play.  Adding and subtracting in some areas of mathematics?  Tough stuff.

  5. is wasted by the headline and references to Clinton and Reagan.  Just kind of takes with wind out of the post.  

    <

    p>So the reason why there is a ballot initiative is because of Reagan and Clinton?  Good grief.

    <

    p>It has absolutely nothing to do with is bordering a state like say NH?

    • Reagan ceaselessly beat the drum for “smaller government” and less taxes, and even Clinton maintained that “the era of big government is over.”  That anti-government, anti-tax rhetoric has so strongly affected public perceptions that since the Reagan years, it has become political suicide even to advocate raising taxes either at the state or federal levels.

      The last time taxes were substantially raised in Massachusetts was during the budget crisis of 1989-90, and it pretty much cost House Speaker George Keverian his political career.  Every politician knows this, and that's why even Deval Patrick has never advocated a tax increase to solve the pending budget gap, but has instead had to rely on hoped-for casinos.

  6. I think you miss the boat on what Clinton did.  Government went from large structural deficits to balance.  Funds rose by about 15% as a fraction of GDP, and the shift in taxation was modestly progressive.  Spending fell as well, as a fraction of GDP; most of that by scaling back cold war military expenditures but some of it was by streamlining; I think that was helpful in establishing that what the government did spend was worth paying for with current taxation.

    <

    p>The ballot question in Massachusetts, I think, is as much about cutting off the possibility of raising more revenue from the income tax as it is about actually winning a repeal of income taxes. The level of support it has achieved, I think at least in part, is because the legislature hasn’t followed through on the prior ballot question to limit the income tax to 5% – I approve of the legislature’s choice but believe that’s why there is such high support for the repeal question.

    <

    p>As noted in another post today, Massachusetts pays less of it’s public education bill out of state revenues than the national average – and this is in spite of Prop 2.5 limiting local revenues.  Many people would like to see more of the burden for schools shifted to the state level, to better equalize what is actually spent on different kids and do that in a more progressive way than with property taxes.

    <

    p>If the ballot question does pass, it would be problematic for the state.  Maybe a new governor could go the California route, and sell a few tens of $Billions of bonds, to punt the problem down the line.  Yeee haaaaa!

    <

    p>I wonder what’s in it for any politician that steps up to defend the income tax in Mass.  Few have been willing to propose raising the income tax, as that is considered toxic.  But I think your Clinton example is wrong, and that if Clinton were governor here, he’d establish the connection between the income tax and a disciplined government, and the ballot question would be voted down by 60% or more under his leadership.  Wonder if Deval Patrick can do that.

    • As noted in another post today, Massachusetts pays less of it’s public education bill out of state revenues than the national average – and this is in spite of Prop 2.5 limiting local revenues.

      <

      p>Just to illuminate that statistic–Budget and Policy always does this–Massachusetts spending per student was $11,267 in 2005, trailing only the states Connecticut, NY, NJ and Vermont on a per student basis.  table 8

      <

      p>It’s Massachusetts’ high per capita income that causes the percentage to be average on a per capital basis.  

      <

      p>Budget and Policy in the interest of objectivity should present per capita data, but doesn’t.

      • I agree with your figures, but still agree with Mass Budget and Policy Center’s conclusion; Mass funds less of it’s public school burden at the state level than most other states.

        <

        p>I think one of the reasons Mass has high per capita income is that we’ve got a highly educated workforce, and one in which many of the participants are smart enough to be willing to pay the same fraction of their income towards schools as in less wealthy, less educated states.

        <

        p>The policy center’s intent, I think, is to better equalize opportunity and spread the burden more progressively, more than it is to simply increase spending on education.

    • took a much more responsible line on taxes and spending than Reagan did, and managed to balance the budget to boot.  But in my view, Clinton did engage in anti-government rhetoric, which has made it tht much harder today to support higher revenues to support government programs.  Clinton and Gore’s National Performance Review cited government bureaucracy as a focus for public blame and scorn and encouraged privatization and deregulation.  None of that really saved the money they thought it would, but it did some harm to the concept of public service.

  7. Honestly as a fiscally conservative Democrat I support drastically cutting taxes and spending. And if only 30% of the state was supporting eliminating the income tax I would join them in protest. We spend tons of money on government services and honestly some of them aren’t that great. My public high school was the typical teachers union dominated fife that had very little incentive to actually change the way it taught kids or have kids actually pass tests and graduate. The roads in this state are not that great, the Big Dig has not improved traffic that much, and the MBTA is notoriously unreliable.

    <

    p>To me the push against income taxes is a protest against the fact that we have awful government services, and no the way to make them better is not to pump them with more revenue which mainly goes to pay redundant personnel but to instead actually manage the systems better.

    <

    p>This is why the state continually elected GOP CEO governors since since they wanted real results to fix the government services and the large reason many of these governors failed (excluding Romney who choose not to govern) was because they had a legislature addicted to giving its supporters jobs and sending back pork barrel projects.

    <

    p>Yeah Id rather have crappy roads, trains, and schools than none which is what gutting the income tax would cause, but perhaps we can eliminate the payroll tax, reduce property taxes, and starve the beast another way to force it to reduce its size and become more efficient.  

    • And if only 30% of the state was supporting eliminating the income tax I would join them in protest.

      <

      p>Why?  Because, even if the Proposition passes, there is at least some high probability and precedence that the Legislature will simply ignore the outcome.

      • To “ignore” it, by which I assume you mean they’d keep the income tax where it is, they’d have to repeal the law enacted by the voters.  So they’d have to act.

        <

        p>But I agree that there’s a good chance they’d do so.

    • The legislature is addicted to pork because the voters ask for it. I would love to be proven wrong, but I doubt you can find any examples of an election that was won by somebody promising to not put any pork in the budget for their district. Do you know of many voters that complain to their legislators about the wasteful spending in their own district?

      <

      p>Everyone is against pork in general, but in favor of it when they benefit. This is the primary source of government budget problems in this country. People want taxes cut to force the government to trim back, but want all the trimming to come from other places so that they won’t be affected by it.

      <

      p>The governor is the only elected official who has an incentive to cut projects. But if the governor vetos all the pork projects, the legislature will override the veto. It would take a lot of work to convince people that they are better off having all the pork projects cut and that it is dishonest to complain about government waste while asking for it at the same time. I don’t think it is a battle that Patrick is interested in, even though it would allow him to move forward with the rest of his agenda more readily than anything else would.

      <

      p>The only strategy that I could see working would be if the governor could find enough legislators to sustain the veto that would all agree that cutting the pork is good and necessary. It would take a lot of political work to find enough legislators. And he would have to promise to help campaign for them when the people in their districts complain about the cuts in their own districts.

      • When those tax-cuttin’ Republicans send out press releases touting all the money they bring back to the district.

Archives