I also question her “MA is 8th or so in tax burden.” She doesn’t think the other methodology for measuring works (the one that puts MA 37th or thereabouts). She thinks measuring by per-$1000 percentages is the wrong way to do it. That it’s the total amount of dollars. She’s wrong. In fact, the argument that this website makes against the per-$1000 measurement actually makes my argument for me (bold mine):
Many low-income states rank very high on the list of tax burden per $1,000 of personal income. For example, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, Idaho, and South Carolina all rank higher than California. Why? Because personal income and population density in those states are low, and it takes a higher proportion of their incomes merely to provide a basic level of government and infrastructure. More densely populated and higher income states, like California, spread those costs over a greater tax base, allowing a slightly lower tax burden per $1,000 of personal income.
Yeah, and? Living in a prosperous state means that revenues are bigger for the same percentage of income. If you live in Nebraska and make $1000 and are taxed 12%, versus living in MA and being taxed 9% of that $1000, your tax burden (the percent you pay of your income) is worse. If you live in MA and have a 9% burden but make three times as much as the person in Nebraska, your total dollars paid will be higher but it’s still a proportionally smaller amount of your total income.
Therefore, measuring total dollars is the incorrect measure, not the percent per $1000, and Howell is so wrong about our tax burden in Massachusetts. And, to boot, I’ll take our standard of living and median income over Nebraska’s any day of the week. We have, for our larger available budget (and MA’s prosperity is the reason why we send out more federal tax dollars than we get back – because it helps Nebraska make up the burden they face as a less prosperous state), one of the best education systems in the country, some of the best infrastructure. My friend was mentioning today that when she moved to MA from VA, she remarked on how much better we treat our seniors here than there, with low-income senior housing readily available. Not so in other states. We have a decent (though constantly under fire) public transportation system.
All of which is threatened by Howell’s Committee and its ballot question.
Next, she says there is at least 40% waste in the state budget, but she couldn’t name any specific instance, or number, or anything, in her hour with us. She mentioned overpaid contracts, hackery, and the like, but without saying what percentage of the budget each item of complaint takes up. Just some vague “there’s a there, there.” Sure, but is it 1% of the state budget? 10%? Are the costs actually justified and you just don’t understand why they might be?
Lastly, and a point on which I wholeheartedly agree with Howell, is the lack of transparency in the budgeting process and the need to measure what government is accomplishing (which, by the way, takes overhead, and cutting spending doesn’t solve that problem does it?). Progressives are all for this, and have constantly advocated for it, whether that’s fixing the redundancies in the so-called quasi-independent agencies like the Mass Turnpike Authority or asking for better access to the legislative process.
However, and this is the key point that ties Howell not to a desire to merely rid the government of waste and abuse, but to rid the state of government itself, is that the Committee for Small Government is talking about waste and opacity in selling us Question 1, but aiming for something that will do anything but fix this. What will a 40% drop in revenues do to fix the problems of transparency in the legislature or waste in spending? Not a thing.
If eliminating waste, gaining transparency, and measuring efficiency was the central raison d’être, the impetus, the very belief core for getting Question 1 on the ballot, a method which will not accomplish that stated goal (though she claims that Gov. Patrick is going through the state trooper/Turnpike Auth reorganization because of the fact this is on the ballot – what a gianormous stretch)…anyway, if this was the motivation behind this initiative, wouldn’t these things be much better accomplished by proposing a ballot question which requires line-by-line budget transparency by government? Imagine for a moment you are approached by a petitioner, asking you to sign to support a ballot initiative which will force the legislature to adhere to certain standards of accounting and transparency, to justify spending based on measurements of previous spending…you would sign in a heartbeat. I would too. Blogs and activists on both sides of the aisle would be clamoring to spread the word. Imagine the percentage that ballot question would pass by. Imagine the message that would send. We can disagree on what we want government to do, but we would at least be able to have the discussion about that instead of whether or not there’s waste and transparency and graft.
However, that’s not the route these guys took. Why? Because they are selling the snake oil of the elimination of waste. But that’s not the real reason to cut out the legs from our government. Indeed, the answer lies right in the name of their committee – the Committee for Smaller Government. They don’t think government should deliver the services that most average people think they should get. But if they told you that, you would never vote to kill 40% (really, 70% after you account for required budget spending) of the state’s revenues.
They took a page from George W. Bush, who called his pro-lumber bill Healthy Forests Initiative, or his pollution-increasing bill Clear Skies. If you knew their true motivations, the real outcome they are hoping to achieve, you would vote no on Question #1 in November.
is in the low single digits, percentage wise, according to last week’s guest on LeftAhead, Michael Widmer.
<
p>Howell unfortunately just doesn’t get it. She’s attacking the symptom instead of the disease. Target the waste, not the budget. Getting rid of the income tax won’t get rid of government waste. Many of the most ‘wasteful’ authorities in Massachusetts – according to most who get angry with that third rail – is from entities that get their funding mainly outside of the income tax, like the Turnpike Authority. If Carla Howell put the Turnpike Authority on the ballot, now that’s something a broad coalition of people could rally behind…
Vote no on Question 1, because after all the Big Dig cost what it cost. It was after all the biggest civil construction project in the world.
<
p>Just me, but if you’re saying there’s not so much waste in government, I’m not sure that’s really the best argument you guys can toss out there.
<
p>Carla Howell: “…er, I guess I’ve never really heard anyone defend the Big Dig like that…”
I know a LOT more about it than she does.
<
p>And know people who know even more than I do.
<
p>NO ONE says the Big Dig was perfect. Especially regarding the fraud (leaking concrete) and of course, there’s NO excuse for causing a death. And the people responsible for that are paying, BTW. But if you think quality control on the biggest civil engineering project in the world to date was going to be able to catch everything, when you have subcontractors lying or omitting key information to get around that QC process, then you’re being unrealistic. Hell, building a school in Lowell had QC problems, and that was just one school building. Should we stop building schools then? (Though you’re insane enough to say yes, most people aren’t.)
<
p>With regards to the price tag, if you look at the cost “overruns” there are some justifications for them.
<
p>1) cost of materials skyrocketed over time.
2) inflation, while during Clinton’s time manageable, still happened (probably related to #1)
3) the scope the of the project got bigger as it went, and it was a useful thing too. A LOT of work got done underground and really OLD infrastructure got rebuilt (wiring, sewer, water, etc). It was work that would be stupid NOT to do while digging around down there, because it would cost MORE to do it later when it failed. Some of that stuff was over 100 years old and not adequate to the needs of the city. Now, there is a modern infrastructure under much of the city to go with the hugely improved traffic flow (which is good for commerce and will pay for itself in time).
4) the city was supposed to continue to function while all this insane amount of work was going on beneath the very elevated highway that was slated to be replaced. You do NOT dig underneath a mammoth structure like an overpass casually. The technology that was employed was in many instances cutting edge. There were several layers of stuff to protect – an elevated highway, tunnels with trains going through them. Say what you will about the cost overruns, but unless you know what they paid for, you shouldn’t run your mouth. And that goes for a good portion of the media, too.
It’s great you know more than Carla Howell about the Big Dig and the cost of concrete.
<
p>I’m just saying that you’re not going to convince too many people about the efficiency of government by citing the Big Dig. Its reputation is transcendent.
than any other thing necessarily. And it irks me, because citing the big dig is OK if you want to make the case against government, but not OK if you want to actually make the case that people are talking out of their ass?
<
p>Give me a break.
I don’t mean to be sarcastic (this time) but how do you seriously measure government waste? Do you go there and ask the government workers? Do you ask their managers? These people are all about keeping the status quo. They will invent reasons for their jobs.
<
p>Many times the only way to cut waste is to take some chances. The private market place often says “… business declines are forcing us to cut 10% across the board…” When his happens (I’ve lived thru many of these) people will adjust and pick up the slack. In some cases they find 10% wasn’t enough and other times it was to much and adjustments are made.
<
p>These issues end up being about jobs, plain and simple. Have you seen the debacle of the Police Officers in Woburn protesting and picketing the flagmen working construction sites yesterday? They initially complained about flagmen saying it would create “UNSAFE” work sites. BULL! They want their detail paychecks. Yesterday was a great example of union members creating an “UNSAFE” work site by their protesting and attempting to gum up the streets. THEY WANT THEIR MONEY AND SAFETY HAS ZERO TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE!!!
<
p>How could you cut the waste by replacing the Police with flagman if we relied on the Police, their supervisors or Town Managers? You couldn’t, sometimes the “gut” of the public is a good bellwether of how things are. Or as Judge Black said of pornography and I believe true of government waste…, “I know it when i see it.” Well sometimes waste is hidden and “protected” and we will have to rely on other methods including elimination with the backup plan of reinstating where needed.
<
p>I think question #1 goes deep and I will vote for it an try to tell all my friends to vote yes as well. And remember, the citizens of Massachusetts voted to rollback the state sales tax to 5%. What happened? Even if this vote passes why should we believe the Beacon Hill uni-party triad (Gov, House, Senate) will not simply ignore it like they do other referendums which the citizens pass?
<
p>You do it by spending money to measure government waste. Specifically, you hire people, either internal or consultants (the latter may be better because of an external perspective), to review operations and
<
p>You will never eliminate all “waste”. Nor should you. Why? Because it may not be worth it.
<
p>For example, if you consider personal phone calls to be “waste”, you can certainly eliminate them, but you will likely wind up with distracted employees who are waiting to hear back from a doctor or something, or an employee who will now need to go to the bank instead of transferring money via the phone.
<
p>Or you might also eliminate someone from taking home an occasional pen by implementing a system where pens are signed out and returned at the end of the day. Would such a system be worth the number of pens that disappear? I doubt it.
<
p>Certainly “fraud” should be completely eliminated, and serious “waste” should be eliminated, but lower levels of “waste” will always exist. This is just a cost of doing business.
the sales tax is 5%…
<
p>$47.3 billion total in Massachusetts state government income and spending of which $5 billion goes to local.
<
p>$27.1 billion total in Massachusetts city and town government income and spending of which $5 billion comes from the state.
<
p>$69.4 billion in combined total revenue and spending for Massachusetts cities, towns, and state government. (To accurately portray the numbers, we counted the $5 billion in shared revenue only once.)
<
p>Unless the voters ratify Ballot Question 1 and make it law, the state government will collect $12.6 billion in income taxes this coming year.
<
p>Ending the income tax would reduce the $69.4 billion combined total city, town, and state revenues and spending in Massachusetts by 18%.
<
p>Or, alternatively, ending the state income tax would reduce the $47.3 total Massachusetts state government revenues and spending by 27%.
<
p>Debunk away! Ms. Howell’s source. Be critical of her advocacy, but not her transparency.
<
p>
<
p>Now that’s not fair. Go back and listen. She never claimed there’s 40% waste, she plainly referenced a survey that indicated that residents believe there’s 40% waste and indicated that because of the lack of transparency no one can know where all the money is going. She’s particularly critical of lack of transparency to the outpouring of money to 501s.
<
p>Then, the question, are we 5th highest taxed state in US, or 35th. It all turns on the measure of $ per capita versus % dollars per capita GDP. I have NO idea which is fair or correct, so I say, just disclose them both. Reality and all.
<
p>All in all, a good podcast.
It’s on all the lawn signs, dude.
If the lawn signs participated on the podcast–the subject of this thread–they were very quite. Audio and all…
She even floated the number 70% at one point. She didn’t “plainly reference” anything. Nice try at being dishonest, though.
Someone ask her where the 40% came from.
<
p>She replied it came from a survey of residents.
<
p>Someone challenged her that most of the people in the US, when ask how much of their tax dollars went to overseas aid replied 25%, when in fact it was much less. By reference the 40% was an uneducated guess by residents
<
p>Ms. Howell disagreed, and said that the average person is aware of government waste, but never claimed that 40% was her own number.
<
p>You can agree or disagree with Ms. Howell, but she “plainly referenced” the survey of residents. the survey in fact says that those survey claims 41% of tax dollar are wasted, so MORE than 40% is quite an accurate description of the survey.
she said it was at least 41% and very likely more. I was on the show and know exactly what she said. You can try to distort that as much as you’d like, but it doesn’t change what she actually said during the show.
to run for State Auditor. The current State Auditor does not seem to be doing much of anything as far as I can tell. Can anyone here recall an instance when Auditor Denucci has effectuated any kind positive policy change, despite the fact that he has been State Auditor for the past 20 years? Let’s let Carls Howell put her money where her mouth is. If she finds waste and fraud then great. If she doesn’t then we can all be more confident in our MA state government.
Through all the posts there has never been any list explaining where the state is going to cut $12-13 billion dollars in waste. That is because it is impossible to do so without massive and enormous cuts that have nothing to do with waste.
<
p>If you support Prop I after laying off all state employees you still have not gotten half way to the 12-13 billion figure. Let’s assume that prisons, highway maintenance, state police, judges, and UMass are all completely useless and of no value to the state. Who cares if we have no one to run prisons and if Massahcusetts has no public universities!
<
p>OK, but what do you do next:
<
p>How many thousands of teachers, firefigters, and police do you then want laid off to get the necessary cuts in local aid?
<
p>How many hundreds of thousands of your neighbors do you want kicked out of Mass Heatlh to get the necessary cuts in health care spending?
Last night, Emily Rooney had pro and con guests on her ‘Greater Boston’ public affairs program on WGBH. The man for the tax elimination insisted over and over and over that billions of dollars could be taken out of the budget easily, but when pressed many times just refused to provide even one instance of waste. Instead, he just continued the line that there are billions in waste in the budget.
… to what Krugman described on the ‘supply-side’ religion.
<
p>I have no doubt there are people who sincerely believe that tax cuts increase revenues (and cure all sorts of other ills) and preach the Laffer curve as the new new testament,… with the promise fishes and loaves for everyone. I also have no doubt that there exist people who really believe that there is so much waste that it is possible to cut 40% of revenue without harm (or sustainable short-term harm followed by readjustment).
<
p>Separate from those groups, however, is a group that far from merely cutting waste or taxes, want to drown the government in a bathtub,… starving it of revenue in order to kill it’s ability to accomplish much at all.
<
p>To paraphrase Krugman… the last group find the first two groups extremely convenient and will do little to dissuade them of their assumptions..