And almost immediately after taking office, the fresh new Governor disappeared behind the curtain, presumably in order to familiarize himself with the real levers of power: the budget. Leaving the noisy public square created a vacuum, soon to be filled by the middle-school hijinks of the press: Oh. My. God. You so totally did not buy a Caddy. As we all know, middle-schoolers don't always mean what they say. They missed you, Governor — they really did. So did the rest of us.
Hey, we got some interesting new twists, mostly of the techo-fix variety. We got a podcast. The governor went on the radio to take questions on a regular basis. A good faith effort, the “civic engagement tool” at DevalPatrick.com briefly was a point of interest for some productive mouthing off to the governor … and then became ignored by both the petitioners and the petitioned.
The Governor introduced his Municipal Partnership Act, a raft of sensible and very necessary reforms to strengthen and rationalize the revenue streams of cities and towns. Acting predictably as the sockpuppets of Verizon et al, the legislature balked. Patrick threatened to sic his grassroots hordes on the legislators, who yawned. The cities and towns are in crisis, but the legislature is not. Their jobs are safe, their phones are safely staying on the hook. Why?
The groundwork hadn't been laid. People could be forgiven for asking, What's in it for me? Property tax relief? Well sure, but it wasn't billed as the “Property Tax Relief Act”, or the “Save Our Schools Act”, or the “Keep the Firehouse Open Act”, or whatever. The Governor's side of the engagement was never couched as What can I do for you? It was Help me sell my agenda. Sure, it was and is a good agenda, but who knows that? What's a “municipal partnership”, anyway?
And what else will you remember about the Governor's legislative proposals? The Life Sciences bill — which sounds like something the lobbyists can take care of pushing without all that much grassroots help. Again, what's in it for us? Oh, and then we've got the casinos. Let me just ask this: If Gov. Patrick had spent the first few months attending town meetings and really getting a feel for what the people of Massachusetts hold near and dear to their hearts, do you think casinos would be in the Top 10? Don't think too hard, you might hurt something.
I know, I know … you've got to have money to accomplish big things, and that means economic development — and theoretically the state skimming some casino cash. Yeah, we're in deep trouble on infrastructure, and we want to expand rail to New Bedford, and have universal pre-K and a health care law that doesn't go pffft. Can I suggest that this approach is completely backwards? People don't mind casinos, but there's little case to be made that we absolutely need them, as opposed to other kinds of more benign economic activity. No: First you find out what we need, then you find the money.
The public is much more likely to support getting the revenues if they know what they're for, with as much specificity as possible. They'll be much, much more likely to give you a real shot at the more ambitious, expensive goals if they know that you've scoured the budget for savings. That means everything from health care and nursing homes all the way down to police details. Some of these things Patrick has gotten right, but on other things he's given up some frugality-cred presumably for the sake of easy, nice relationships with the lege: The budget restoration in early 2007, the 70% compromise on the GIC bill. (Hey, how's that working out? Here's one mayor who is unimpressed.)
===
Here's the problem, and the solution: People don't care about public policy. Not inherently, not for its own sake. Sure, I care, but even I have to squint my eyes and wait for the momentary headache to pass before I read about health care policy. I mean, I'd rather watch baseball, all things being equal.
No, they care about their own lives: Their incomes, their kids, their houses, their jobs, their commutes, their health, (yes) their taxes. And contrary to the conservatarian FYIGM (F#$% You – I Got Mine) attitude, most people have some moral imagination — or at least a sense of social reciprocity — and do include their wider communities in their concerns. And if you're lucky, you get a critical mass of folks who really care about “externalities” like the air, water, or global warming catastrophe … things that really aren't external at all, as it turns out.
The Governor gets this — no, scratch that, Candidate Patrick understood this:
“We have got to have the resources for the shared responsibility of citizenship,” he said, explaining why he resists the no-new-taxes gimmick. Of course it's the taxpayers' money, he went on. “But it's also their broken road. And it's their overcrowded school. It's their broken neighborhood and broken neighbor.”
Governor, if you're not out there, in public, talking directly to your constituents, driving the agenda … someone else will do all that. The legislators will claim that they know their territory better than you. And they'll be right. The business interests will claim that they know where their bread is buttered better than you. And they'll be right. The radio show hosts will claim that they know their callers better than you. And (for what it's worth), they'll be right. And the rest of the media will simply follow the ball wherever it's kicked.
It's your job to go out and listen, endlessly; to help us define the common good, over and against the parochial, the narrowly self-interested, the inertia-laden; to illuminate and delineate the choices we face; to show what we have to gain by working … uh … together. As in, Together We Can.
Sure, we know you complained about governing by sound bite and photo-op, and professed to want to do the work of governing. We're not asking for more ribbon-cutting ceremonies at pharma plants, newly-rubberized playgrounds … or casinos, for that matter.
But we're asking you to delegate some of the details to an empowered, brilliant, ambitious team of department heads. (Hey, there's Leslie Kirwan. There's Ian Bowles. More like that.) And start to set the agenda again. Most states — heck the Democratic Party as a whole — would kill for a guy who can listen, persuade, and define the agenda the way that you can. That's real work — it's not showboating. Nah, put it this way — the showboating is the work.
Go back to that tremendous, intoxicating night, November 7, 2006:
Tonight we celebrate, but soon our thoughts must turn to governing. We are charged with an awesome responsibility. We have a mandate to revive this economy, to assure excellence in every public school and college, and to deliver on the promise of decent health care. We have a mandate to make the streets safe and housing more affordable. We have a mandate to get the Big Dig right and to help the creative economy flourish. We have a mandate to change the way we do business on Beacon Hill and to keep the grassroots aliv
e and growing. And that mandate is Commonwealth-wide, and it comes from everyone here and everyone in the Commonwealth in search of a reason to hope.
The grassroots is where things grow. The substance and success of Gov. Patrick's agenda will come, must come from that.
Next, in a few days: The landscape, the obstacles, the money.
that kills all the roots was clearly needed here. That way the man behind the curtain is free to rape and pillage with a mere policy change statement.
Tomatoes perhaps, or better yet let’s bring back that tar and feather thing.
What happened?
<
p>(Looking forward to the rest of this series.)
I attended his session in Dartmouth. There were 35 +/- speakers, all of them brimming with ideas. With the possible exception of former Rep. George Rogers, who was shilling for a New Bedford casino.
<
p>Some stuff DID come out of it – most tangibly, the OpenMass web site. The bill I spoke on behalf of had its hearing on Oct. 22, and it wasn’t dismissed out of hand (yay!).
<
p>Civic engagement is an intrisically wonky thing – ironically, it suffers in election years, especially in one like this with so many horse race aspects to it. We all need to keep on keepin’ on, and remain relentless.
<
p>For example – I was just reading this on RedState – there is a pending executive order which would strip the most recent Federal pork-o-rama of earmarks – details HERE. Now, THIS is a civic engagement issue, and it’s up to us to keep our eyes on the prize of governance, as well as politics.
But it would have obscured the Wizard of Oz reference. You can only have so many outside references in one sentence before it gets confusing …
We would’ve GOT it, really.
Let’s be honest. This guy is an empty suit. A majority of the voters listened to the Pied Piper, and swallowed his nonsense hook line and sinker. Doesn’t it seem reasonable to be highly skepticle? Ask for specifics? How much fantastic nonsense must an individual spout before people start to doubt the veracity or the possibility of actually implementing outlandish promises.
<
p>You get what you deserve, and Massachusetts deserves Deval Patrick in spades!
<
p>Everyone thought that it was the neatest thing, having a certifiably nutcase, AKA, Christy Mihos, effectively sabotage the election process for revenge and spite. Oh wasn’t that the grandest thing.
<
p>You’ll all rue the day that Chris Gabrielli wasn’t your nominee. He was by far the best candidate and he was treated about as shabbily as could be imagined. Anyone think that Dimasi/Travaglini wanted Gabrielli in the corner office. You can bet your backside they didn’t. You got played like a fiddle.
I had lost a lot of respect when he flip flopped on running and betrayed Tom Reilly, but at the end of the day I think hed have done a far better job than Deval has. Oh well. On the other hand hindsight is 20/20 and in another universe I might be here griping about Gov Gabrielli and saying I told you so that we shouldve elected Deval.
What history book are you reading out of? The way it actually happened was Reily was ready to pick Gabreili and then at the last minute switched to Marie St. Fluer. Only then, after he got the shaft, did Gabs decide to run for Governor himself.
shafting Mayor Murray of Worcester….
<
p>Gabrieli (Springfield Control Board) couldn’t figure out not to do another national circus search for Police Commissioner when Ed “the joker” Flynn left for Milwaukee. Bad decision fiscally and politically when everyone knows that Fitchett who was passed over for “the joker” should have the job.
shafting Mayor Murray of Worcester…. Gabrieli (Springfield Control Board) couldn't figure out not to do another national circus search for Police Commissioner when Ed “the joker” Flynn left for Milwaukee. Bad decision fiscally and politically when everyone knows that Fitchett who was passed over for “the joker” should have the job.
And bad assumption to think that Gabs would have been able to beat Healey, if he had been the nominee. We could all be here bemoaning Governor Healey’s appointees and program cuts, and the deadlock between her and the lege over her calls to reduce the income tax rate.
<
p>I wanted three things from DP: protection of marriage rights, return of the state to the RGGI, and responsible funding for human services. He’s 3 for 3 so far, and I have no reason not to expect more over the next few years. Maybe those who feel so disillusioned should be a little more patient and adjust their expectations. It’s way too early to write this Governor off.
Great looking yards, after all, require constant effort. Grassroots don’t grow on their own: they need to be watered, weeded, and tended. Personally, I think Patrick should scale back the casino plan to one den of inquity, or drop it entirely, and focus on things that matter, as Charley suggests.
If you allow one, you open up the federal process for tribal casinos. Now, there’d be at least 3 casinos anyway – and two of them would likely give no tax revenue toward the state of Massachusetts.
You’ll see the results of unfettered building of casinos. You can’t drive ten miles and you’ll see honky Tonk slot machine parlors everywhere. They are gaudy and ticky tacky with booze bottles and beer cans everywhere. Beautiful scenic forests ditted with these abominations. It’s unbelievable.
<
p>I honestly don’t know the sequence of events that led to this but it is truly repulsive. Once one tribe was given the green light, apparently tribes and subgroups had to be given the legal authority to promote gaming because they are more common than convenience stores.
<
p>Is this what we want? Perhaps DP should take a junket to the Seattle area.
over the years have been the ones who created a strong partnership with the legislative leadership. Some have chosen not to do this — either because they found it distasteful or because they chose to “run against” the Legislature. The ones who realize, though, that legislators are close to their constituents and are viewed affectionately by them (yes, affectionately: people tend to really like their own legislators) and provide a window into the everyday concerns of people in the community. Together, the Executive and Legislative branches can then craft policy formulation and laws that address those concerns.
<
p>There is still a role for gubernatorial leadership in this kind of relationship, but it is a role that is requires a careful balancing between setting forth high principles and accomodating legislators’ concerns for their districts. It has to be properly deferential of legislative perogatives, while feeling comfortable with the knowledge that that execution of the laws themselves will reside mainly in the Executive branch.
<
p>There is also a major role in this process for the Commissioners in the state administration. These appointees run state agencies that also have important constituencies, and each such agency has a legislative committee that likewise attempts to be responsive to those constituencies. If commissioners do not have very close working relationships with the relevant legislative committee chairs, there will be a disconnect, and a governor will find his best attempts frustrated. (Interestingly, on this front, the Commissioners can actually have more influence that cabinet secretaries because they actually run the agencies.)
and well said too.
that a good relationship with the legislature and a close relationship with the grassroots are mutually compatible, not necessarily at odds with each other.
<
p>The tension arises when legislators feel an unwarranted safety in ignoring their constituencies. Gov. Patrick won’t know if that’s true, and won’t be able to apply pressure if it is, if he’s not out and about, taking questions and using the bully pulpit himself.
Dukakis then proceeded to finish what he was interrupted in completing: the ruination of the Massachusetts economy and implementing the “Big Dig”.
Patrick got quickly got past his skill set this year. His mistakes were those of the politically uneducated, based on the idea that his good intentions and post-campaign excitement would be enough to carry the day. He didn’t know how to mobilize the grassroots or exactly what the grassroots were. He created his website, which, as far as I’m concerned, is a gimmick.
<
p>When he should have been setting out a new style of deck chair on the Titanic, he just rearranged them. He appointed the usual suspects to head committees, putting in Democrats, but certainly not delving into untapped, unempowered resources.
<
p>But he’s still learning. It’s only been a year. He gave himself a bad start with poor chief of staff and communications director. A lot will depend on what he learns, how and how well he learns it.
<
p>Mark
Isn’t progressive grassroots wonder-guv Spitzer in NY doing even worse? And remember what they said about Bill Clinton’s first year in office.
<
p>From the very limited view of Mass politics I’ve had this year, I do agree with the sentiment that Patrick needs to get his arse over to the Legislature and throw a few garden parties. He seems to be reluctant to replace his “outsider” hat with an “insider” hat now that he’s elected. But every governor needs to be an insider with their state Legislature — at least, if he or she wants to get anything done.
Spitzer & Clinton stumbled because they failed in introducing worthwhile causes (Spitzer- ID reform, Clinton- Healthcare reform).
<
p>Patrick is sticking his neck out for, of all things, casinos. He deserves to get beat, and get beat badly.
or the car. Are you saying they should? I mean, there is a whole range of second-order criticisms about them–bad symbolism, bad political instincts, tactical ineptness–basically, look what happened and how it has hurt his agenda.
<
p>I agree with that critique, and wish it had been otherwise, but I don’t feel betrayed because the Governor got new curtains and taxpayers had to pay for them.
<
p>I’m a lot more concerned about the shift to casinos from closing tax loopholes, frankly. Casino revenues be included in the budget as a ploy to sell them to the legislature. Why not Municipal Partnership Act revenues, in that case?
<
p>That said, it’s still early days, and the proof of the sausage is in the eating, however messy the sausage factory may be.
What’s the difference between raising state’s revenue from closing loopholes versus opening casinos?
<
p>One takes money from corporations, which have earned the money from consumers, the other takes money from corporations, which….
Commenter gary is off to a roaring start…
… so what does it matter from which river you drink?
<
p>uh… yeah.
While I understand your frustration, I want you to know that some of us have taken a very long look at the Telecom tax situation and are not in favor of this. This doesn’t mean we are following in lockstep with Verizon or any other company, but are looking at this issue over a long time period. Mostly we get complaints that Legislators do not do this. However, we do try to be deliberative and thoughtful. I have spent the last twenty one years trying to create jobs, and by extension, tax revenues from new industry in this state.
<
p>The Governor has suggested that we should tax telephone wires and poles as well as other equipment that has been tax exempt in the past. He has stated that the reason for this tax exemption has long since past and that we have a completely built out telephone system that should be taxed.
<
p>There are several reasons why we should not tax this system without a close look at what that would mean.
<
p>At the present time we are in the exact situation that we were in 1915 when the telephone tax exemption was enacted. However, instead of asking the phone companies to build out a voice transmission system, we are asking them to build a data transmission system. At present, one third of the state doesn’t have broadband access to the Internet, and one third of the state is underserved. At the time that we are asking companies to invest in Massachusetts, repealing the tax exemption would be one more impediment to expansion of a data transmission system.
<
p>Also, the $78 million that the Administration has stated would be collected from the exemption repeal would be passed along in higher rates to ratepayers who are, in most cases, property tax payers. These are the same people that we are trying to give a measure of tax relief.
<
p>And if we were to tax the telecommunication wires in the state, each community would add their portion of the $78 million that would be paid to local communities as property tax. The telecom companies will then most likely depreciate their equipment faster than is the current practice as it would be advantageous to do so. If that value is reduced and their taxes are reduced, then the new growth will be paid for by the community at large. Again, these are the people we are trying to give tax relief.
<
p>Finally, yes,telecom companies don’t pay property taxes, and electric companies do, however, the electric companies don’t pay sales tax on equipment, and telecom companies do, so these things have a way of balancing in the long run.
<
p>My point is simply this; one can’t take one factor out of context and try to change it without looking at the overall picture. The administration is fond of saying that our corporate taxes are in the middle of the pack on a national basis, but you can’t look at that without looking at the cost of doing business in Massachusetts. If our corporate tax burden is low and that balances the fact that unemployment taxes are second in the nation, health care costs are third, and labor costs are way above the national average, you will hurt our ability to create jobs and therefore more corporate taxes if we are even more out of balance by only adjusting corporate taxes. That is why some of us have been saying that we need to look at the overall tax policy in the state to ensure fairness, but also a policy that lets us grow our economy. Look, if we want more tax revenues, we can increase everyone’s taxes or we can get more taxes by having more people pay taxes by creating a better economy. Here is Western Massachusetts (and elsewhere in the state) where our ability to create jobs is severely hampered by our inability to access broadband, increasing taxes on telecom companies is just another impediment to fixing our economy. To me this is not a wise policy decision and is one that further hampers our ability to create real sustained revenues for a quick hit of short-term revenues.
The “close the loopholes” mantra was a spin job aiming to scarf up tax revenues and the real tax policy issue was far more nuanced than the Governor articulated?
<
p>Why just colour me wide eyed ingenue.
That’s an angle I hadn’t considered, but it makes one wonder: Is this wider broadband rollout forthcoming? Is it happening now? I think it’s reasonable to ask if we’re getting revenue, rollout, or neither.
While Rep. Bosley is right to be concerned that Verizon et al may delay rollout of broadband to Western MA if the telecom loopholes are closed, even the broadband companies will admit, when pressed, that they have no plans of rolling out broadband to that area in the near future anyway. It seems to me that unless we can get promises from telcoms that they will actually go through with investment in Western Mass, we shouldn’t believe that they will if the loopholes stay open just because they say they won’t if the loopholes are closed.
<
p>What I don’t understand, though, is if there’s so worried about it, why can’t Western MA towns just give Verizon a waiver on the property taxes they’d otherwise collect? That would encourage them to invest in broadband there without penalizing communities where there is little to no investment in phone infrastructure.
Any time anyone wants to regulate or tax a phone company (net neutrality, open access, etc.) we always hear that it is going to destroy a broadband rollout. Only the rollout never seems to happen on the promised schedule and the US keeps lagging lots of other countries (with higher taxes and more cumbersome regulation) in broadband cost, availability and penetration. I’ve heard that song too many times before and I’m not buying it.
I don’t think the situation is like 1915, in this regard, because the telecoms were actually creating the lines – at a timely rate. The people in this state without Broadband have been waiting for years and years. I don’t think the Telecom industry deserves tax exemption for doing a job they clearly aren’t doing, for a very large segment of the state. It’s akin to paying Haliburton to do jobs that they haven’t actually done in Iraq.
<
p>Furthermore, the profits of telecom industries are gigantic. The loophole cuts on them would not make a dent in their profits; they’d represent less than 1% of their total revenue inside this state.
<
p>And it’s not as if our current tax exemption on the lines has helped keep telecom prices low in this state – Mass consumers pay Verizon more than the national average for landlines, etc. More importantly, elsewhere across the Globe telecom companies bundle cable, phones and faster broadband than we even have for $35 a month. You can’t even have a landline phone in this country for that price. They make huge profits and aren’t offerring competitive prices for consumers. No matter how anyone slices it, Verizon doesn’t deserve special privileges: they don’t give consumers any special privileges, it’s such a small sum of their profits that we’re talking about that it won’t cost jobs or make rates noticeably appreciate in this state.
<
p>We need the revenue and if we don’t want casinos, there has to be some other way that we get it. Closing many of these corporate tax loopholes is perhaps the fairest way Massachusetts can help close the gap. If legislative leaders are afraid of job losses, they should be more afraid of not having the revenue to keep up our public transportation system, our roads and bridges and our best-in-the-nation public school system. In the long run, that will be far more disastrous to our economy than getting rid of ancient and unfair corporate tax loopholes.
At present, one third of the state doesn’t have broadband access to the Internet, and one third of the state is underserved.
<
p>Just last summer, in our little hovel just outside of Munich, we had DSL installed. It uses the same wires as our telephone service (splitters are wonderful) and provides the same speed as our FIOS service here in our hovel in Wellesley (which also uses splitters). You don’t need fiber optics (FIOS) service to get broadband service. Unless Verizon has taken down the teleophone lines and poles in western MA, which I doubt they have, they could easily provide DSL service there at virtually the same data rates that would be available over fiber optics. And they could pay the property taxes on their telephone system infrastructure.
<
p>Finally, yes,telecom companies don’t pay property taxes, and electric companies do, however, the electric companies don’t pay sales tax on equipment, and telecom companies do…
<
p>Other than electric meters, what equipment would electric companies be selling to end users? Your comment is nonsense. Electric companies pay sales taxes on depreciable equipment that they use themselves.
<
p>Quite frankly, Mr. Bosley, the more that you post here on this topic, the more that I wonder whether you really understand what’s going on.
I was under the impression that DSL requires the user to be within a certain maximum distance from a switching station, and that switching stations have historically been a function of the density of operating telephone numbers. Thus, in rural areas where there are fewer telephone users, there are fewer switching stations, and thus a greater liklihood that any particular user is too far away to utilize DSL.
I was under the impression that DSL requires the user to be within a certain maximum distance from a switching station
<
p>is true of VDSL (very high bit DSL), which is on the order of 50 Mbps. We have 15 Mbps in both locations, have two computers connected in a home-based LAN in the US (one, a laptop, over a radio link in the US) and have never ever come even close to maxing out the bit rate.
<
p>The limitation isn’t due to the bit rate, it’s due to the fact that the servers that we’re downloading from can’t provide data at a bit rate even close to one that might cause a problem. Even a download rate as slow as 5 Mbps would be quite satisfactory, and that should easily be available anywhere.
<
p>But this topic is completely orthoganal to the issue of whether Verizon’s poles and wires should be subject to property taxation. The Wellesley DeptPublicWorks pays the equivalent of property taxes on its utility infrastructure, even though the money merely goes from one pocket (we have a town electricity distribution system, which is actually quite responsive) into another. Why can’t Verizon pay taxes on their property?
We used DSL in Boston about 6 or 7 years ago, and found it to work very well, though I do recall a big fuss about the switching. We were very happy with it, and switched away when we moved only because the cost for telephony was outrageous compared with competitiors. Now we have a cable modem.
<
p>And I think this tangent relevant; Bosley argued that the exemption is needed to encourage (or, to be fair, to avoid discouraging) broadband expansion into rural areas.
<
p>You pointed out that it is already available, without the need to rewire the world, and I pressed you on the limits of the available technology.
<
p>Though it is clear that this is all an issue of raising more taxes, rather than of “fairness” it does seem that a reasonable compromise would be a sort of “to the extent that” exemption that is actually tied to new infrastructure investment.
<
p>Electricity producing companies have an exemption on equipment purchased and used in teh production and transmission of electricity. i.e. no sales tax on most purchases.
… but for what its worth I found the exemption form and it shows at least the availability for exemption for transmission lines.
…, the MGL citation was on the form:
<
p>Massachusetts General Laws (MGL), Chapter 64H, sections 6(i), (r), (s), (qq),
G.L. Chapter 64H 6(r) and (s). This point is not even a bit controversial. The exemption for electricity production is similar to the sales/use tax exemption available to manufacturers for equipment used to manufacture goods for resale. The exemption has been around forever, then in 1966, a letter ruling was issued that passed the exemption on to contractors of utility companies for personal property used in the production and transmission of electricity.
<
p>You probably owe Mr. Bosley an apology for being so quick to react to his comment with your ignorant comment.
“Electric companies pay sales taxes on depreciable equipment that they use themselves.”
<
p>Is that really true? I know that on some government contracts where contractors supply equipment, sales tax is waived or reimbursed for the procurement. I know its not exactly analogous, but it makes me think that it might not be an unreasonable suspicion that something similar happens with some utilities. Even if they do pay sales tax on things like utility trucks and such, it might also be true that they don’t pay tax on procured transmission equipment like poles, transformers and wire.
I know that on some government contracts where contractors supply equipment, sales tax is waived or reimbursed for the procurement.
<
p>…particularly in a cost-plus contract. It’s been a long time since I did gov’t contracting, but end-users paid sales tax. The contractors may have been reimbursed by the government for the sales tax, but the sales tax was still paid.
… the sales tax for the end user here? The end user isn’t buying transmission equipment, they are buying a service.
<
p>I’m pretty sure the waiver or reimbursement is avialable on all kinds of government contracts… cost plus fixed fee, fee for service, fixed price, whatever. The salient part is that that the government owns what is procured by the contractor for the project at the end. Sometimes when these kinds of contracts come up the government imposes restrictions (or prohibitions) in any fee that can be collected from this procurement component of the project.
What would be the the sales tax for the end user here? The end user isn’t buying transmission equipment, they are buying a service.
<
p>Most countries that levy VAT-type taxes, including Canada with its GST (Goods and Services Tax) levy the taxes on services as well as goods. The failure of the US states to levy the tax on services is one reason why I reject the idea that American-style “sales” or “use” taxes should be raised to eliminate the income tax. Lower income people spend more on goods and less on many types of services as a proportion of their income, than do higher income people.
<
p>About 20 years ago, the state of FL tried to include “services” in their “sales” tax, and that resulted in such an uproar among service providers there–particularly among lawyers(!)(which is why I know about the incident)–that it was quickly rescinded.
Indeed, supposedly Americans don’t even have to pay any income tax on money they earn from selling services or labor. That movie is pretty interesting, it’s fun to watch him interview all these nervous IRS guys. Apparently they manage to throw people in jail anyhow.
If by “pretty interesting” you mean a crackpot production of some tax-protester fringe elements broadcast widely from some bunker in Montana.
<
p>Seriously, the 16th amendment was never ratified? Let’s debunk that notion straight away. What follows is a list of the cases where tax protester had their heads handed to them by the Federal Courts after claiming they owed no tax on their labours because the 16th amendment wasn’t ratified:
<
p>Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).
<
p>Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
<
p>See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
First, you must think us morons in Western Mass…all we have to do is use our phone lines??! While that is precisely how I get DSL, a lot of the state is not close enough to a central station to get DSL by this method. There are places without cable tv and are left with dial up.
These are not my figures, but those of the state regulators as well as the Mass Technology Collaborative. They have been working on this problem for years.
<
p>And by the way, DSL is not good enough for some high tech businesses who need to compete with a global telecom system that makes ours look slow, so we need to upgrade our lines throughout the state as well as the nation.
<
p>Second, I am not talking about selling equipment, but paying taxes on equipment they use.
<
p>To answer a few other points here, I am not happy with the speed of broadband rollout and am unhappy with the actions of the telecom companies, but to take more money out of this system makes no sense. Companies are investing in Massachusetts and hundreds of millions have been spent over the last few years to install fiber optic cables, but most is dark and unconnected so is of no use until the system is completed in many unserved areas.
<
p>Having chaired the Government Regulation Committee I know that some of the increase in our phone bills has come from the 911 system that we created and some has come from the increase in excise tax passed along by the telecoms.
<
p>I am not happy with the phone company and have taken them to the SJC in the past to try to make things fairer. But we are not served by a tax that is ultimately passed along to the taxpayers and will slow down this system even more.
<
p>
Though I realize that others are far more knowledgeable about this issue than I am, I am left to wonder if the perfect is being made the enemy of the good on the expansion of broadband access.
<
p>Of course re-wiring the world with fiber-optic is a huge capital investment. But it seems that there are alternatives between fiber and dial-up. Are ther not technologies that are significantly faster than dial-up that are available to use with the present infrastructure, even if these technologies are not as fast as my cable modem or your FIOS system?
If this tax is such an impediment to broadband development, how is it that the entire rest of the state’s infrastructure was built before the telecom companies started restructuring on a large scale to avoid paying property taxes for subsidiaries, etc (something that started only a few years ago)?
<
p>Why should I be worried that this tax will be passed on to the taxpayers if the money is going back to the cities and towns directly? It seems to me that my town will need less property taxes from me in this case, and my property tax would be lower than it would otherwise be. In the worst case, everything will even out. In the best case, the telecoms’ threats to raise rates are hollow (a particular likelihood in areas such as mine with a lot of telephone and broadband competition) and I’ll have static rates and lower property taxes.
<
p>Finally, how is it possible that this tax will both be such a burden to the telecoms that they’ll have to scale back their operations in Western Mass and that they’ll pass on the costs to the consumer? It seems to me that if they pass the costs on directly it will have no effect on their bottom line and they should continue their rollout as planned (if there is any plan). If it’s a burden to the telecoms, it’s only because they were not able to raise their rates. I have trouble believing that they can simultaneously cry poor and raise rates commensurate with the tax increase.
So can someone with information answer the obvious questions?
<
p>
DSL is slow…
<
p>Apparently you missed my comment above that our DSL in our hovel just outside of Munich is approximately as fast as our fiber-optic service here in our hovel in Wellesley (~15 Mbps).
<
p>I sincerely am unclear as to what the difference is between DSL and “broadband.” If the difference is copper vs. fiber optic lines, the copper can do pretty much as well as fiber. Over in Munich we get cable over copper (as we used to do with Comcast in the US). Over in Munich, we get DSL (as well as ISDN service) over copper. Verizon refused to provide us with DSL over copper here in Wellesley, they wanted an excuse to install fiber. The installer indicated that the company wanted to install fiber in virtually all new installations. To channel Marshall McCluhen, the medium is not the message; the medium is the mechanism by which you get the message.
<
p>I sincerely do not understand Bosley’s objection. It seems to me that, if Verizon believed that there was a market opportunity for DSL/Broadband, or whatever you want to call it, they’d take advantage of it. If they don’t believe that there is a market opportunity, there are other technologies that would work, such as wireless Internet service.
<
p>But the issue is completely different than that. The issue is whether Verizon should be exempt from property tax on their property. I’m amazed that Bosley apparently doesn’t understand the difference.
Certainly much faster than dialup, and at least the equal in actual practice of coaxial cable. Dunno about fiber.
You don’t need to know history when you’ve got ideology!
All the valid criticisms above notwithstanding, Patrick’s administration has brought some very positive and long oveerdue improvements at the agency level towards greater civic engagement and responsiveness of state government.
<
p>The previous Republican administrations (also with help from some Dems like Silber) had turned some of our regulatory boards into rubber stamps or vehicles for promoting an ideological agenda. Given the limitations on appointments and other red tape, the Patrick administration has actually moved remarkably fast to reform some of these areas.
<
p>Witness the appointments of Paul Reville and Ruth Kaplan to the Board of Education. The Board of Ed now has a diversity of viewpoints not seen in many years. They have enhanced their public comment process and are beginning to become more responsive to the needs of the public they serve. I imagine changes over in Malden will proceed much faster in 2008 with a new Commissioner and the unveiling of Patrick’s education plan.
<
p>The Department of Public Health has seen even more dramatic changes. Patrick made a brilliant appointment in Commissioner of Public Health John Auerbach. John immediately took to a tour of the Commonwealth, holding community meetings in every region of the state to present local public health data and to hear local concerns. I attended several, and it was apparent that John was truly listening. The dialogues are an ongoing tool and are now in their third (I believe) round. All that from an office that had angered many communities outside of Boston by closing regional offices and ignoring the diversity of the state. Patrick’s appointments to the Public Health Council (the Board that oversees DPH) have also brought an unprecedented level of openness and democracy to that Board. The change in this respect over on Washington Street has been so dramatic that people almost don’t know what to do with it.
<
p>I agree with most of what Charley wrote, but to be fair the administration is laying some good ground work. These types of reform are slow, difficult, and frankly boring. But, they are critically important if the Patrick administration has any hope of delivering on its promise over the next few years.
Could you say the theme of Deval’s campaign was: “The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me“?
<
p>Should give pause to the people in Iowa tonight.
it was “Hope for the best, and work for it.”
<
p>But yes indeed, there are some similarities.