Today’s Globe reports that Deval Patrick’s far-reaching plan to front-load the repair of Massachusetts’ decaying bridges (411 of them) has quickly picked up essential legislative support:
[T]he proposal picked up key backers immediately, including House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and organized labor. Legislative support is crucial because it will require passage of a special bond bill….
DiMasi applauded the plan yesterday, and when asked whether the state could afford the bonding, said, “Yes, I think we can.” … “This is the kind of focus that I thought we should [have been] taking in the last three or four months instead of other issues that were dominating the landscape at the time,” DiMasi said.
Murray left the speech without addressing reporters, but later put out a statement saying “by taking action now, we can start to make up for decades of neglect.” Her spokesman said she supports the governor’s proposed price tag of $3.8 billion.
Are there naysayers? Sure. Treasurer Tim Cahill thinks it’s too much to borrow, and prefers his own plan to borrow $700 million to fix 10 bridges. One wonders if Cahill isn’t a tad miffed about his more modest plan being upstaged, though surely such considerations never enter into policy discussions on Beacon Hill. And Michael “No we can’t” Widmer predictably thinks it’s too expensive, presumably preferring to wait for the jobs fairy to help out the folks looking for work.
We have to fix the bridges sometime, and the longer we wait the more it will cost and the worse condition they’ll be in. And one of the best ways to stave off recession is to put a lot of people to work at jobs that pay pretty well, doing work that will provide economic benefits for years to come. The Gov, the Speaker, and the Senate President are right on this one. Just do it.
And in other encouraging news, the legislature on Tuesday postponed debate until today on the various tax measures. Why is the postponement good? Because of this:
The House was expected to begin debate this afternoon on legislation that would allow about $356 million in tax increases for smokers and the state’s largest corporations.
But about 20 to 30 Democratic legislators were challenging DiMasi’s plan for not being aggressive enough.
That’s our progressive caucus right there (thanks Jamie!) — the folks who, along with the Governor, recognize that the Speaker’s plan doesn’t make sense as currently drafted. He needs to move toward what the Governor has proposed: close the loopholes, and cut the corporate excise tax in a responsible way.
Could it be — could it possibly be — that by the end of this legislative session we’re going to see the beginnings of a genuine progressive vision of government taking shape on Beacon Hill?
<
p>Deval is “Yes we can!” Sal is “Yes, I think we can.”
That smallest engine got the needed food and medicine over the mountain, when a larger engine failed, by huffing along reciting, “I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.”
What it really is:
<
p>Deval is: “Yes, I say we can!” and Sal is all like: “Yes, we will if I say we will!”
<
p>The fact is, all of these episodes demonstrate that nothing will happen unless the lege agrees. The break of the logjam in the last few months is, I think, that the Patrick adminisration has realized this and done a much better job at politicking. And I think this is a good thing, because things are finally starting to move.
We need to eek out every last cent we can from ending the tax loopholes, so hopefully the progressive coalition in the house can get DiMasi to bend as closely to Patrick’s plan as possible, and even that isn’t enough.
Wow.
<
p>Let’s borrow our way into fiscal insolvency. And then some! Why do I think the $3.8 billion estimate is really $15 billion?
<
p>MBTA: $19 billion
Mass Highways: $3.8 billion
[your agency name here]: $___ billion
Isn’t it unwise to try to repair every single bridge at the same time? There are only so many construction crews that are capable of doing good work, do we really want “new jobs” fixing our bridges, or maybe just funding enough so that the “old jobs” can do the jobs they are not able to do now because of lack of funding (for materials, equipment, low-level labor, etc). I question the likelihood that all 411 bridges are about to fall down in the next few years, I bet Cahill is right that only 10 or so need immediate attention.
<
p>And what’s with all this “let’s pay for everything with bonds” stuff? Bonds are just a way for rich people to secure their savings, make a reasonable guaranteed return, and force future tax payers (and smokers and gamblers) to pay them back. They are usually MA tax-free, too. Those future smokers and gamblers aren’t even born yet, and yet we want to saddle them with huge debt, and bridges rebuilt hastily by untrained crews. This is Big Dig culture full force, is it not? Let’s get the same cement contractors, while we’re at it. The state is not a way for rich people to make themselves richer.
<
p>I think we should pay for the bridge repairs ourselves, right now, since we are the ones in danger, not unborn people thirty years from now, and if that means major cuts into cough biotech and universities and film boards and commissions on GLBT youth and things like that, and/or property tax overrides and things like that, then that’s what it will take.
“They are usually MA tax-free, too.”
<
p>Yes, but the alternative is a higher interest rate on the bonds.
<
p>By the time 10 get fixed, there would be 20 more about to fall down.
<
p>Let’s hope they can combine purchasing in a way to make it more cost-effective to run several projects in parallel.
<
p>I think the best time for the State to initiate projects is when economic times are poor, as it not only fills some of the work void, but the costs should be lower both for borrowing and the work.
of muni bonds not being subject to Fed or State taxes (which essentially limits their purchase to wealthy individuals – pension funds et al need not apply unless the trustee is a moron) is that the issuing authority gets to pay a far lower rate. You may have problems with rich folks “dodging” taxes (ala TH Kerry), but point in fact if you want to subject these bonds to taxation then you have to dramatically increase your borrowing costs (which may or may not be made up by capturing the taxes paid by the same individuals who are your client). No free lunch.
Because you didn’t like my specific proposed cuts, perhaps, or because you think we should fix all the bridges at once, or because you don’t like my analysis of bonds? Or just because it criticizes one of Patrick’s proposals?
Deval stated that he wanted to renegotiate the repayment schedule to remove some of the burden on the taxpayers, yet he turns around and wants to add further debt burden?
<
p>The level of debt our children will be burdened with is unbelievable. Per capita, we are the most heavily debt burdened state in the country. What is wrong with you folks? Don’t you realize that this is not a credit card, where you can declare personal bankruptcy, or a company and go Chapter 11. These debts don’t go away. To exacerbate the issue, if we get in financial deep water, our bond rating will go from AA to BB and the rates will skyrocket. This spend, spend, spend, has to stop and we have to cut 80% of these BS programs which promote and support all of these phony non profits we have in this state. California has and will again be looking at insolvency and where will the run—to the White House. Not Banks, Not Financial/Investment firms, not states, no one is responsible for anything anymore. Spend, spend and spend, then gamble, and when you go down the crapper, run to the federal government. Well thanks to that moron in the White house and the idiot in the senate and the simpleton in the house, we are drowning in red ink. America has been spending we do not have for forty years now. When the house of cards comes down, it is you folks who will be walking around wringing your hands trying to figure out how this happened and then begin to immediately assess blame to everyone else but yourselves–the very place where the blame legitimately resides.
<
p>YOU CAN’T SPEND MONEY YOU DON’T HAVE!
<
p>We are in over our heads.
Of course he has the option to just print some more.
Millions of American homeowners (and their mortgage holders) would be vastly amused at that statement.
<
p>Otherwise this sounds like a “welfare queen” style statement, heavy on the myth, light on the facts.
Two or three years ago the state started in on redoing the Rte 53 bridge over Rte 3 by the Hanover Mall. Once they ripped one lane off (so the only thing keeping you from plummeting onto Rte 3 right now are some jersey barriers), they discovered that the bridge was in far worse shape than they thought (and had budgeted for).
<
p>Now there may be arguments on the republican v. democratic approach to politics, but when it comes down to local issues, there generally is a right and wrong way (i.e., there isn’t a “progressive” or “conservative” approach to picking up trash and plowing the roads – you either do it right or suffer the consequences at the polls). In this case, you have a bridge that is in peril, and the reaction was “we don’t have enough money right now – just leave it until we get funding.” If you go into what you expect to be a routine physical and the doc discovers that your appendix is about to burst, you take care of it then and there – you don’t wait until you’ve saved up the funds to pay off the hospital.
That I don’t like, and wasn’t evident listening to DP talk to Tom Finneran yesterday morning on WRKO. DP was saying by refinancing current debt that the extra would allow for the additional bonding. Thought he was implying savings would come from taking advantage of more favorable interest rates, not from lengthening period of borrowing. Why doesn’t he just see if he can get an “interest only” loan from Ameriquest…
<
p>I’d put down those cups of Kool Aid folks; increasing debt AND increasing length of payments isn’t what I’d call fiscal prudence after all. Let’s not drown out Tim Cahill quite yet; after all he’s talking about our money here…
MA mandated health insurance before reducing costs.
<
p>Actions are needed now to reduce the costs of public building projects before sinking us further into debt.
<
p>
And we discovered that there aren’t enough doctors (as MCRD predicted we would) to see all the new patients, who decide that since they are paying 300 bucks a month out of their pockets, might as well go to the doctor. That’s what will happen with our construction crews and engineers too, it’s not like it’s easy to build a good bridge, it has to be done right.
A request for $3.8 billion in bridge funding and not even a mention of the gas tax. Outrageous.
<
p>Since 1991, the gas tax has eroded in value as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas. In ’91, the gas tax was roughly 13% of the price of a gallon of unleaded. At today’s prices, that would be about 40 cents, versus the current 15 cents, and would yield about $600 million in additional revenue. Instead, we pay less than 5%.
<
p>It’s time to restore the gas tax and have the bridge users starting paying a more reasonable share of maintenance and repair.
<
p>If the Governor wants the bond bill, here’s what should come attached:
<
p>1. An immediate 10 cent increase in the gas tax, which wouldn’t even be the highest among neighboring states.
<
p>2. A 5 cent increase each year until the gas tax is 20%, at which point the tax is converted from a constant to 20%.
<
p>3. Pay off the MBTA debt.
<
p>4. Add tolls to 93 and 128.
<
p>5. Institute peak-period pricing on all tolled roads.
In February, the average price for a gallon of unleaded was $2.98. A 15-cent gas tax is just over 5%.
And isn’t the current gas tax .235 per gallon?
There is an additional 2.5-cent levy to fund an underground storage tank (UST) remediation fund.
<
p>I did my math based on the gas tax minus the UST component.
<
p>That said, I screwed up a lot of the math. It should read:
<
p>Since 1991, the gas tax has eroded in value as a percentage of the price of a gallon of gas. In ’91, the gas tax was roughly 19% of the price of a gallon of unleaded. At today’s prices, that would be about 57 cents, versus the current 21 cents, and would yield about $1.2 billion in additional revenue. Instead, we pay about 7%.
I wonder which is more dangerous to the non-user, smoke or liquor? Or, if you like, more expensive in terms of overall health care costs? Though the latter might go to tobacco, I’m not so certain about the former.
Come on. Where is the section on locking in future maitenance money or tying the funds to better asset management or something that resembles modern day management practicies.
<
p>Of course no one is going to oppose this after the bridge collapse.
<
p>yes, we can do a little better?