Today’s Globe reports that a coalition of Massachusetts business groups is pushing for a 25-cent increase in the state gas tax. This is great news for all who care about repairing our state’s crumbling transportation infrastructure, and increasing public transportation options.
What caught my eye, though, is what Senator Steven Baddour (D-Methuen and cochair of the legislature’s transportation committee) is quoted as saying in response to this proposal:
“This coalition is profoundly out of touch with the struggles of working men and women of our state.”
It is easy to for a Democratic legislator to accuse business leaders of being “out of touch” with the lives of working families.
Hence my question for Senator Baddour: Do you also believe that AFL-CIO President Robert (Bobby) Haynes is “profoundly out of touch” with the concerns of working families?
I ask only because on February 6, a good two weeks prior to Deval Patrick’s 19-cent gas tax increase proposal, Bobby Haynes, speaking at the Pioneer Valley Central Labor Council’s legislative breakfast in Ludlow, implored his audience of elected officials and union leaders to advocate for a 20-cent gas tax increase. (Haynes also said we need to return the income tax back to 6 percent, a sentiment with which I also wholeheartedly agree.)
So, Senator, If you truly believe these business leaders are “profoundly out of touch” with the concerns of working families, will you also go on record saying the same about Bobby Haynes?
And about time, I might add!
<
p>Your post is “right on the money” imho, for a couple of reasons:
<
p>1) it is snide (that’s one step below snarky, but you’ll get there…)
<
p>2) you’re absolutely correct: if we need to protect low-income families, there are other things we can do, like raise the personal exemption, or extend the sales tax to things poor people don’t do, like ski resorts, landscaping, and other such services…
Thanks for the BMG welcome.
<
p>And thanks also for your articulate and informed comments in favor of Deval’s proposed gas tax increase on the MassDemsForum listserv and elswher.
<
p>–Leo
Like Wilcox said, you can do snide, but leave the snark to the professionals. Like me & AmberPaw!
A recent poll from the Herald showed 90% of people against the gas tax with 9% in support. There were earlier polls showing more support but changes in the economy and people getting more educated about where the tax will be spent may make previous polls invalid or less accurate.
<
p>The question in the poll (4,790 votes) was ;
<
p>
<
p>Who’s out of touch? Looks like Bobby Haynes is!
Not that this is a big surprise, but for anyone initially startled by the poll numbers JohnD provides, note that the “poll” is a wholly unscientific, Herald web-only poll.
<
p>That’s barely above asking a Magic-8-ball about the question.
And if the poll went the “other” way, would you discard it so easily?
to support your views, or do you rely solely on unscientific propaganda?
Neither Leo, Senator Baddour nor Bobby Haynes seem to be able to support their statements with any facts (or even polls). While it is only a poll and I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, I don’t see any supporting data here other than the anecdotal remarks. Did you want to say anything about their unsupported claims?
<
p>Did either of you read the original diary or have any comments supporting or not supporting it? Or did you just feel like lobbing a few hand grenades?
that you are the one who is responsible for your own comment, not me. Leo et al make good arguments, but unlike you they are not offering up bogus data. To say you would not bet the farm on a Herald online poll, is about as disingenuous a statement as one can make in public discourse.
I only “wonder” since you haven’t said a word about. So Leo says a coaltion of business groups and AFL-CIO President Robert (Bobby) Haynes want $.25 and $.20 increases in the gas tax therefore Senator Steven Baddour (D-Methuen and cochair of the legislature’s transportation committee) is wrong to say “This coalition is profoundly out of touch with the struggles of working men and women of our state.”
<
p>Is that how you make a good argument here?
<
p>BTW… the market dropped almost 300 points yesterday. I don’t know if people are upset though because I haven’t read any polls on it yet.
that objecting to your use of a bogus poll is sufficient reason for a comment. But while we are on the subject, disingenuous forms of argument are a bore. Either you have a fact based case for your position or you don’t.
<
p>Anyway, it seems to me that Leo has a good point in that Haynes is certainly a legitimate spokesman for many working people. One would be hard pressed to say Haynes is out of touch with working people, unless of course one were to rely on bogus online polls from the Boston Herald.
Senator Steven Baddour (D-Methuen and cochair of the legislature’s transportation committee) is not in touch with any working people? Your comment says I either have a “fact based” case or I don’t. Does Leo have a fact based case? One would be hard pressed to say that Haynes would say “anything” against an issue that brings money to his union workers, period!
<
p>Bogus poll… this site often has polls as part of the diary… are they all bogus?
What an impressive assemblage of strawmen and red herring! Marvelous!
<
p>Leo wrote a short diary effectively debunking the senator’s claim that gas tax advocates are out of touch with working people. He cited the leader of the state AFL-CIO as a spokesman for working people who thinks a gas tax would be a good thing.
<
p>The purpose of his diary was simple and it was a point well made.
…as part of the parade!
<
p>Good comments on a specious series of “arguments”…
<
p>More to the point: do we want to govern by plebiscite? I’m opposed to that in principle, though I do believe the peoples’ right to petition against grievances should be preserved.
<
p>However, when civil rights are voted down by a simple majority (as they were recently in CA, for example, when Prop 8 took away the rights of people to marry), where are the protections for minorities?
<
p>So, if a poll falls in the forest and it’s wrong, does that mean we should do what it says? Whether scientific or not. Slavery used to be legal in this country. Was it okay then, or was it wrong then, too, but just legal?
<
p>What I’m getting at is that we should be doing the right thing, not just the popular thing.
<
p>If a poll asks, “Do you favor raising the gas tax?” I can almost guarantee the outcome. But what is not asked is the follow-up question, “Okay, then, if you don’t want to raise additional revenues by raising the gas tax, how do you propose to fund the needed reforms in our transportation system?”
<
p>As Secretary Aloisi has said, we can’t follow the mantra of the Senate, “Reform first, revenues later.” Some reforms require revenue. A good example is taking the payroll off the capital budget and putting it in the operating budget. You can’t do that unless you increase the operating budget. And you can’t do that unless you increase revenues (unless, of course, you want to cut local aid or other programs!).
<
p>Governing sure isn’t a cakewalk, and voters seem to want it both ways — more service, less cost — life doesn’t work that way!
Thanks Michael and indeed, people who confuse even the best of polls with reality or some “inevitable” future are sadly out of touch.
<
p>For example, those people who believed in polls as ultimate truth must have been sorely disillusioned by the 2004 Democratic primary victory of a once obscure pol named Deval Patrick.
<
p>Yes, diary polls are bogus as well.
First lets examine the
<
p>Steven Baddour’s asserts that “This coalition is profoundly out of touch with the struggles of working men and women of our state.”
<
p>The poster is asserting that this is false.
<
p>What would it take to dispute the senator’s assertion credibly? You’d have to show that generalization was inapplicable, presumably by showing that some significant component of ‘the coalition’ doesn’t actually have the property of ‘being out of touch’. So now the question is does the poster have anything to back up that ‘a significant component of the coalition does not have the property of ‘out of touch’? His evidence is to show that the AFL-CIO President isn’t ‘out of touch’. He doesn’t show it very clearly, however. He’s either implying that the characteristic isn’t applicable to him because he’s the president of the AFL-CIO or he’s relying on unstated but generally known (he thinks) elements of his character. Furthermore, by singling out this one person, he doesn’t really address a large enough subset of ‘the coalition’ to be able to draw conclusions about it’s general characteristics. He might be implying that the audience of elected officials and union leaders agreed with him, but if so he leaves this unstated.
<
p>That’s how you criticize his argument, not by citing a bogus poll.
<
p>On the flip side, I’m not convinced there is an agreed upon understanding of what or who the Senator means by ‘coalition’ in the first place. Not to mention that the Senator’s assertion assumes that paying the gas tax is overall self evidently ‘bad for working men and women ‘. I don’t think this is a reasonable assumption either. It might be like “Democracy”,… the worst option except for all the others.
Reread what I wrote. I don’t judge Baddour’s asserting to be either true or false.
<
p>It is easy to claim that business interests are “profoundly out of touch” with working families. Whether true or not, this is an easy claim for a Democratic politician to make.
<
p>I want the Senator to make the same judgment about Bobby Haynes, a prominent and passionate labor leader. . . . or rethink his premise.
<
p>In short, put your cards on the table. If these business leaders are out of touch so is Bobby Haynes, Deval Patrick, Tim Murray, etc.
<
p>If Senator Baddour has a bone to pick, he should pick it with the big boys.
<
p>Or he could tone down the rhetoric and engage–really engage–with the Governor’s reform and revenue package on it’s merits.
<
p>–Leo
<
p>
“It is easy to claim that business interests are “profoundly out of touch” with working families. Whether true or not, this is an easy claim for a Democratic politician to make. “
<
p>I’ve said as much.
<
p>Your claims about what it would take to refute his assertion I think needs work. He claims there is a ‘coalition’ (which he conveniently doesn’t define) and that it holds a certain characteristic. For you to claim that the fact that Bobby Haynes doesn’t share this characteristic necessarily debunks Baddour’s claim, you’d have to show that claims about this one guy will hold true for claims about the coalition. If you want to assume that position, I guess that’s fine for you, but don’t be surprised if others don’t assume that Bobby Haynes speaks for Baddour’s ‘coalition’.
<
p>I’m not expressing an opinion, just laying out the logic in an attempt to remain intellectually honest.
I can’t speak for Hoyapoal, but for me?.. no.
<
p>Would I discard it so easily? Yeah. You simply can’t draw a conclusion about the general population based on polling from a self selected sub-population that is largely non-exemplary of the larger population. Simply put, I at least try to not read into things more than is valid.
Apologies.
The Globe conducted a real poll (not an online poll) back in December which found residents against a gas tax increase by something like 40%-55%, but nevertheless favored it over other options (raising fares or tolls).
<
p>We need new polling on this question, especially since the proposals are more concrete than they were back in December.
<
p>But that is no excuse to rely upon on-line click polls. Yes, I would absolutely discard such a poll. That you decided to rely on such obviously flawed data and present it as if it was a real poll damages your credibility on this issue.
I know I lack credibility and agreeing with you won’t help it but I agree that a new “real” poll should be done by a unbiased group (CLT or should we go the other way with a democratic left leaning newspaper framing the question the way they want it for us to find out how people in MA really feel. Why don’t they just fill in the numbers now)?
<
p>
You’re being nitwittily conservative or conservatively nitwitish here. As much as you conservatives like to talk about the cold hard facts (and against relativism), you think the truth depends on who’s saying it.
<
p>The Herald poll is crap because it’s unscientific, not because the Herald is crap. Fox News is crap, but its polls are taken seriously by serious people because they are scientifically conducted.
<
p>Polling is a science. It begins with sampling. In order to have validity, a poll either has to question all the people in a population or sample them randomly.
<
p>A scientific poll uses a randomizing process, such as a computer program that dials random phone numbers from a defined population such as Massachusetts citizens or registered voters. (There are also some statistical calculations involved after votes are collected, but your confusion concerns sampling).
<
p>The people who respond to “polls” on the the Boston Herald site are not a random representation of any group, not even of Herald. Next thing you’ll want us to oppose the gas tax because Howie Carr says so.
<
p>
It wasn’t the uber poll on this issue, I know. And I wasn’t staking my life on it either. And like I said, none of the other people commenting on this issue, including the original diary had “any” data to back up their argument.
up if you asked.
<
p>Maybe next time. :>
It is pretty easy to vote multiple times on most web polls. A handful of people can easily rig such a poll, and indeed it happens all of the time.
<
p>
That’s what “obtuse” means.
<
p>On your previous diary about recession, you got lambasted for the second time on collecting data by the same biased method on the recession. Here you reference a poll in which bias is built into its design. You reference it and add a layer of snark.
<
p>Do your pants all say “Kick me”, do your shirts all have targets printed on them, and do you wave red flags at bulls at every opportunity? How unfair life must be!
Mass residents supported a gas tax increase in a december poll. But look at the poll: When those polled were asked to choose between raising tolls on the turnpike or raising the gas tax, the tax won out 48 percent to 42 percent.
<
p>Poll: would you prefer to be beaten half to death by a crazed politician, or killed by one?
… the lesser of two evils is the choice before you.
We shouldn’t be looking at two regressive taxes and having to choose between them. Let’s look at the entire state revenue stream and make it fair, equitable, and adequate.
<
p>This whole discussion is a reminder of how sadly neglected is the “big picture” of how we pay for “the things we decide to do together.”
<
p>That said, tolls have the advantage that they tax not only Mass. residents, but everyone who uses our roads. Gas taxes probably, too, except for the brief interlude when we might have a slightly higher gas tax than neighboring states (not an equilibrium condition!).
<
p>But, hopefully, both of these forms of revenue will decline as we encourage people to switch to mass transit (assuming we can solve the chicken and egg problem of how we pay to get a high-quality and useful transit system!).
If not now, when?
And another 6 for that if I could
Come on people help me out here.
How would that go anyway?
<
p>Q: Do you want a tax increase? Everyone would say no, right?
<
p>Q: Do you want to pay a gas tax? Again, no.
<
p>Q: Do you want to pay a gas tax if we absolutely guarantee we’ll fix the roads, bridges and give you a free pony? Close, but probably yes.
<
p>Q: Do you want to pay a gas tax or we kidnap your wife? Again, close.
<
p>Q: Would you rather pay a gas tax or income tax? That was the Globe poll and it weighed narrowly for gas tax.
<
p>Tax polling. Gotta be pointless, no?
It’s an online Herald ‘click’ poll. Can’t really make many assumptions about it’s general unpopularity based on this poll.
For far too long, the discussion about raising the gas tax has been Beacon Hill and Boston-centric which is why, starting tomorrow, I – as the Senate Chairman of the Joint Committee on Transportation – am going around the State to hear from people who live and work outside the City to hear how they feel about paying more at the pump. I want to hear what the Greater Haverhill Chamber of Commerce has to say about this issue, not just the Boston Chamber of Commerce. I want to hear what the people who own gas stations in Pepperell, Williamstown and Millville have to say about what will happen to their businesses if we raise the gas tax. I want to hear from representatives of ARC to hear about how the “Hummer tax” will hurt their ability to transport disabled individuals. None of these issues can be discussed on a ‘click-here’ poll on a web site.
<
p>Since the Governor raised the idea of raising the gas tax 27 cents and now 19 cents, I have received hundreds of calls and emails from working men and women who tell me about their daily struggle to keep their families above water financially. The idea that this tax only costs citizens a “cup of coffee” a day is exactly the point – many workers have already chosen to forgo that cup of coffee and donut or Subway sandwich and now we’re asking them to dig into their wallets without fixing or reforming our broken system first. I have always said we can’t reform, restructure or tax our way out of this problem.
<
p>No one sector of the citizenry should be held responsible for fixing this financial mess that we are in. I, along with the Senate President, remain firmly committed to “reform before revenue,” – that is, reforming our broken transportation agencies before we increase or add any new revenues. I am not opposed to a discussion on new revenue, but it needs to come after an agreement on reforms. If we seek additional revenues now, there are those who will take the money and run. Once the reform issue is resolved, I would be happy to discuss all revenue options for our transportation systems.
<
p>This may be an unsettling view of the state to some readers, but it is the reality we are living in, and the impact of this issue is felt far beyond the city limits of Boston.
Thanks for your comments here at BMG.
<
p>I know you are opposed to the Governor’s gax tax plan, but what do you think about the rest of the Governor’s restructuring/reform package? The Governor’s plan was filed after the bill that you filed (here’s Sen. Baddour’s BMG post announcing his plan back in early February) — how how would you characterize the differences between your plan and the Governor’s in terms of the reform and restructuring aspects?
Thanks, Senator, for joining the conversation. I’m glad the Committee is holding hearings around the state. I will see you in Springfield tomorrow afternoon.
<
p>Does “reform before revenue” mean that reform and revenue must be linked (as in the Governor’s proposal)?
<
p>Recall that the Governor says (and I believe him) that he would veto a tax increase that did not include with it major reforms, such as those he has proposed (and which I fully support).
<
p>Or does “reform before revenue” mean that “I won’t vote for a tax increase until we have agreement on reforms”?
<
p>Or does “reform before revenue” mean “Thanks, but no thanks. There is no way I will be voting for a gas tax increase of any size in 2010”?
<
p>Or does it mean something else, entirely?
<
p>And (sorry, but I must still ask) if the coalition of business and business-supported organizations (not just the Boston Chamber) is “profoundly out of touch” with the concerns of working families–as, in fact, they may well be–does that also mean that Bobby Haynes is equally “out of touch”? For that matter do you believe that Deval Patrick is “profoundly out of touch”? Tim Murray? (If so, let’s get it out there.) If not, why not?
<
p>(Sorry for the terseness of these questions. I do appreciate your engagement on this important issue.)
<
p>–Leo
count the pot holes on this trek across the state?
<
p>Reform before revenue may sound like a great slogan, but it just sounds like a new bill for my mechanic when my car hits a bump that whacks my wheels out of alignment again (happened last winter – why not this one?).
<
p>BTW – if we don’t pass this hike, the current tolls commuters in my area (NOT Boston) will be paying will go from around $1k a year to $2k – and that’s including a lot of working and middle-class paychecks. In an economy that’s going disastrously bad, I’d rather that huge chunk of money going as discretionary spending in our local economy rather than seeing more open storefronts from those businesses going under. That’s how much $1k a year is in this economy when you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of commuters.
<
p>There are implications behind cheap sloganeering. The implications are that no gas tax means everyone pays more in the end, and people from where I live will pay a helluva lot more. We need politicians who can be honest on revenue, not cheap slogans.
Thanks for commenting, Senator.
<
p>Agency consolidation, reducing overlap, eliminating some of the do-nothing jobs for the cousins and friends of legislatures — we’ve all known for a long time what needed doing. Why not last year? And, why not now walk and chew gum at the same time?
<
p>As both a frequent long-distance driver — I’m doing Boston to Springfield and back tomorrow — and one of the 1.3 million people who use the T every weekday, I have to ask, can’t you cut the waste, consolidate, and raise the revenue, in one fell swoop? We can’t wait any longer. And half measures won’t do. You wrote:
O.K. So we need reform, and tax, and waste cutting. All three. You’ve been working on this for years. We still have 23 and out pensions at the T, swaptions at the Pike, and we are way out of compliance with federal promises to build better public transportation like the Green Line to Somerville (which my family could really use, by the way). Our public transportation systems are 1) wasteful; 2) massively underfunded, even beyond the waste; and 3) not servicing nearly enough people.
<
p>Why not solve all three together? The federal highway people are within inches of freezing our funding because our finances are so broken. Please, Senator, we need some serious adult negotiating. Right now. With a long term solution to move us towards our transportation future, not recreate the highway/sprawl of the 1950s.
Senator Baddour’s comments appear to be more of the same. We have seen the same foot-dragging on transportation issues for years from the legislature. While the previous administrations have shown little interest in reform, although Romney took a swing at some of the reforms Baddour is suddenly embracing, the legislature had every opportunity to “reform” the transportation system. Why do Baddour and legislative leaders sit safely on the sidelines sniping at the Governor’s proposals and no one calls them to account for their years of inactivity. Our transportation problems are not new and Baddour has been the chair of the Transportation Committee for more than 6 years. Yet, his response to the Transportation mess is “we’re awaiting the Governor’s plan…” Where is his plan? He’s the chair of the flippin’ committee.
And that brings up a question, to whom should the chairman of a committee be primarily accountable on issues before that committee? His or her district or the Commonwealth? Baddour’s chairmanship of Transportation appears to be driven far more by his interest in protecting his district from tolls on the north-south highways than equity and solutions for the Commonwealth. If I recall his response when the previous Transportation Secretary mentioned that tolls on the north-south highways were on the table for consideration, it was something like – that’s a non-starter for this committee. This is not leadership.
Sorry for the lack of support for this recollection but there are others out there who should recall Baddour’s allergic reaction to tolls on roads running through his district.
So pass the reform provision tomorrow. Like someone else said, you’ve certainly had ample time up will now to do something about these long-standing problems. What are you waiting for? We all know the legislature will fold like a cheap suit before the almighty power of the Carmens Union so-and-so’s cousin at the Turnpike Authority. If you’re serious, strip out the revenue provisions and bring the reform package to a vote this week!
I’m glad to hear you’ll be in Springfield today. You’ll get an earful from voters who don’t trust what they’re told by any politician, I’m afraid to say.
<
p>That’s too bad, because I fully support the Governor’s proposal, which offers to (try to) fix all of our transportation problems at once. You seem to be saying that the Senate can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. From what I hear, you have a lot of company (including my Senator).
<
p>There is an enormous amount of rage out here in the West about all the broken promises that we have experienced over the years. It’s not just the gas tax, but that’s a big part of it. If I hear the phrase “Big Dig” one more time, I may just scream, but it’s the symbol of the perceived Boston-centric governance of our state that citizens west of route 128 have.
<
p>So, “reform before revenue” is a catchy slogan, but it won’t work, in my opinion. First, some reforms require money, so where is that going to come from? Second, trying to get something for nothing is just a continuation of the shell game we’ve been exposed to for years, one that bankrupted the Turnpike and left our state with a transportation debt load that is the highest in the nation. It sounds to me like you’re proposing more of the same, and I think it’s time to step up to the plate and act responsibly; to pay for what we do, in other words. Third, if you spend money now (by borrowing it or cutting other programs), when are you going to raise the needed revenue? Not this year, I take it. Next year, in an election year? Unlikely. Leave it to future generations to worry about? Well, we are the future generation that has inherited years of neglect and disingenuousness, and we are the ones who have to pay the piper, like it or not.
I am very gratified to hear people challenge the Senator on what precisely “reform before revenue” means. Right now, every single time I hear that, it sounds like a dodge for saying “I’m not going to support a tax increase”.
<
p>And let us remember that “I’m not going to support a tax increase” means by implication that “I’m going to support a toll increase, a fare increase, and continued degradation of roads, bridges, and public transit.”
<
p>I fear that it is an excuse for inaction. I truly hope that I am wrong.
<
p>Let’s have a grand bargain. The Senator gets his reforms — which I hope includes stuffing all of these agencies under the Executive Branch, so that we know whom is responsible; and the agencies get the money they need to thrive.
because, after decades of bitter experience, we know to a near certainty that the government of this Commonwealth will piss away 99.997 cents of every dollar raised, and in a relatively short period of time, we’ll again be talking about what new tax is required to maintain “our” high standard of living.
Widely acknowledged to be at least among the best in the country. That matters, right? And a comprehensive, functional public transportation system is actually a huge deal in terms of quality of life.
<
p>Some tax money is pissed away (MBTA pensions). Some is not (schools).
Why has it taken the gas tax proposal to make it an issue?
<
p>It appears that the Governor’s proposed legislation attempts to do both at once. If it doesn’t adequately address the reform issues, or creates new ones, have at it.
<
p>It appears that NH will be taking on the gas tax issue with a proposed 15 cent increase, 5 cents per year for the next 3 years. If passed, that partially address the border case issue. Maybe the MA legislation could temper the gas tax for stations near the border to prevent another flight of the consumers.
especially in the context that RI, CT, and NY all have higher gas taxes than MA. Do you have a link for the NH considerations?
http://www.businessweek.com/ap…
Let’s do what we need to do. I think the idea of people driving across state lines to buy cheaper gas is a total myth. I can see NY state from my living room window, and I don’t know anyone who drives into MA to pay lower gas prices. Sure, if they’re here anyway, maybe they’ll fill up before going home.
<
p>I’ve never seen a study on this, but only anecdotes and people who “know” this to be true. I doubt it is of any real economic significance. People just are not that sensitive to the price of gas. Look what happened when gas went to $4 — did people cut their driving in half? Not by a long shot! Sure, it went down — by what? 2% to 5% from accounts I’ve seen…
Senator, how do you feel about this “reform” proposal:
<
p>”The legislature should restore the MBTA management rights and give the MBTA the tools it needs to keep costs under control.”
<
p>This would get rid of onerous work rules that ensure inefficiency and duplication. Instead, consistent with the union contract’s overall wages and hours provisions, management would determine staffing and service.
<
p>What say you Senator? If you oppose this, why do you oppose it? Do the staffers in your office have work rules to ensure that two of them are involved in every photocopying job you request?
I hope that you’re going to be exploring all sides of this issue rather than just focusing on whether people want to just pay a higher gas tax. Of course people will tell you that they don’t want to pay a higher gas tax — that is a false one-sided choice.
<
p>There are a lot of other angles out there. I personally support an increase in the gas tax, though I think some of the items proposed should be changed resulting in a lower increase.
<
p>In my opinion, the “reforms” don’t go far enough because I don’t see a reasonable reason for MBTA employees to get a full pension at age 55, since this is very different from both the majority of private sector workers (who have 401ks) and even the private sector workers who do have pensions. If there’s a good reason for that particular age (fewer accidents?), it needs to be publicized. (I recognize that reforms are forward-looking since the past is an agreed-upon contract).
<
p>Why don’t we reinstate the tolls on the western part of the Pike? The Pike is in a quasi-state right now — it is “user fee” in the east, and “subsidized by the east” in the west. The biggest complaint in the west (I live in Springfield) is that we shouldn’t subsidize the eastern part of the pike with gas tax money, it should be collected from their tolls. Seems like a no-brainer to quash that argument by eliminating the double cross-subsidy as much as possible.
<
p>Why is the “alternative tolling methods” important right now? I recognize that it will someday become important, but why not limit this increase by kicking that can down the road a bit? All-electric cars aren’t imminent.
<
p>I hope that each and every state senator and representative votes based on a full understanding of all the issues — not just based on “polling” or even asking the man on the street what he thinks. We do not live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy, and this issue perfectly illustrates why — because the issue is very complex and most people will not look at all angles. Ultimately the representative’s philosophy will decide his or her vote, but as long as the vote is based on reason rather than the wind, that’s fine with me.
<
p>Oh, and when you’re talking to those people, none of which will tell you they are happy about paying more at the pump, maybe tell them that since this discussion has started, gas prices have increased close to 19 cents — with that money going to oil companies and foreign governments, rather than the state. It’s something to think about.
I live in Burlington. When I go to Boston, I don’t go south on 128 to I-90. I go north on 128 to I-93. Hello Stoneham!
<
p>Going to Allston, Brighton, Fenway, all those places west of downtown? I-93 to Storrow Drive. Hello Stoneham!
<
p>Hey, Stoneham! You don’t want me driving through town? You want my 10 year old SUV clogging and polluting Newton and Waltham instead? Raise the gas tax and get rid of the tolls on the Pike!
It’s only when you get out to Lexington / Bedford that the Pike starts becoming more direct.
I never drive on the local roads past the Burlington Mall. I get on Route 3 off of Route 62, because I live up near Billerica. I hate going up to 93, but it’s free.
Short. To the point. Short. Provocative. Short. Stimulating. Short. Fun!Short!
I was under the impression that union support was being witheld until such time as the unions saw what reforms were being proposed. They, at least in the quotes I saw in the news, were committed to protecting the transportation workers.
<
p> For my posts on this subject, I am including a link to my blog.
<
p> http://www.danielbosley.blogsp…
Will the Mass labor movement stand for the overall public good or will they protect the parochial interests of the Carmens Union (who believe they are entitled to life, liberty, and an 80% pension at age 45).
Good to hear from you, Rep. Bosley.
<
p>And thanks so much for all you’ve done over the years to inform your colleagues and the general public about the false promise of casino gambling and slot parlors. You deserve a lot of credit for helping to keep slot machines–an insidious form of predatory gambling–out of Massachusetts. I look forward to your continued leadership on this important issue.
<
p>As for the labor breakfast….Bobby was speaking just to the issue of the gas tax.
<
p>He was passionate about the need to raise the gas tax by 20 cents. (And of returning the income tax to six percent.)
<
p>You are right about the State Fed withholding support for the Governor’s bill at this time. Some of Deval’s proposed–and badly needed reforms–touch on current union contract language.
<
p>–Leo
It’s irrelevant whether the AFL-CIO leader is in or out of touch with the ‘forgotten man’.
<
p>First, Union membership is less than 20% of the Massachusetts workforce, so even though the Union speaks for 20% of the workforce and that’s a serious number, it doesn’t speak for 80%, which is a more serious number.
<
p>And second, he must support the gas tax. Gas tax means more money directed toward construction. Construction means prevailing wage jobs. Prevailing wage jobs means more union jobs. Because he’s a union leader, he has no choice but to advocate for the gas tax. It’s his job. His opinion is clouded by that particular bias. It’s like asking government workers if government workers are entitled to a wage increase.
speaks for 20% of the Massachusetts workforce? Sure 20% is less than 80%, but why shouldn’t the AFL-CIO leader have a voice in this debate?
<
p>The claim that his opinion is clouded by bias suggests that no one who has considered the tax should be allowed to speak. The bias comes from thinking about the implications of the gas tax for the union membership. Yes, a gas tax would help put more union members to work and bring more income to their families than they pay out in higher gas taxes.
<
p>Why shouldn’t they have a voice?
I didn’t say he shouldn’t have a voice. Simply read what I typed.
<
p>I said his opinion is biased toward the relatively small faction he represents. It so happens that there’s just no unified bully pulpit to speak for the 80% he doesn’t represent, nor the non-workforce, the silent majority that also does not have a paid representative to speak on their behalf.
<
p>Although there’s apparently no polling data, I’m confident this is accurate: there’s some significant opposition numbers to a gas tax increase-opposition far in excess of the 700,000 Union members in the state.
Everyone’s opinion is biased.
<
p>If you ask the guy who is commuting 90 miles a day to his job, but not on the pike, he’s biased against raising the gas tax.
<
p>If you ask the guy who is commuting via one of the tunnels, he is biased in favor of raising the gas tax.
<
p>Everyone has their angle — it is not fair to call someone “biased” (a word that has a negative connotation) without acknowledging that everyone is biased.
<
p>Is “clouded by bias” a term of admiration? You seem to be suggesting that a union leader’s opinion is not freely formed and therefore not worth discussing. Did I get that wrong?
<
p>But where you see clouded by bias, I see informed by examining the question at hand. If the answer that he gives is beneficial for his constituency, well, that’s his job, right? To advocate for his constituency. You appear to be dismissing his views because they aren’t the same as your own or of the views you impute to the “silent majority.” In fact, not you, nor I, nor anyone else here knows what the “silent majority” thinks because as you say, there is no reliable polling.
<
p>The union is not out of touch, nor are they an insignificant part of either the electorate or the Commonwealth as a whole. When you represent 20% of our workers, I’ll take you as seriously as I take Mr. Haynes.
It seems to me that a leader of the AFL-CIO had better advocate for things that are in the interests of union members or he needs to find a new line of work.
<
p>Though conservative, gary is a pretty straight shooter who does not burden us with meaningless talking points or unsubstantiated innuendo. (At least, not often!) And I disagree with him most of the time. But he writes well. You get terse, tight comments spiked with memorable phrases.
<
p>Speaking of memorable phrases, “clouded by bias” is very pithy, isn’t it? But don’t read too much into it. Mr. Haynes’ biases are often good and laudable biases to have and I hope he remains thoroughly clouded with them for the remainder of his career.
<
p>Isn’t it perfectly reasonable, though, to question the speaker as well as the speaker’s comments — especially when we’re trying to measure something like public opinion?
are great until they drive out solid analysis. Union leadership has evidently evaluated this proposal and judged that the pros outweigh the cons. That’s a significant recommendation in light of the fact that there isn’t any data on what the other 80% of the workforce thinks.
<
p>Of course they evaluated the proposal in light of what would be good for the union members. That seems to me to be a point of support for the bill, not a reason to dismiss their support as something ‘clouded by bias’ or ‘out of touch’.
<
p>It is not reasonable to suggest that because the support for this bill comes from a union figure that considering that support is somehow akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse (e.g. “asking government workers if government workers are entitled to a wage increase”). And to claim the existence of a ‘silent majority’ that opposes this bill and has put the same level of work into evaluating it as the AFL-CIO has is neither pithy nor apparent. For what it’s worth, that’s not a problem unique to gary in this debate.
<
p>
This post challenged Senator Baddour as follows:
<
p>
<
p>To state what should be blindly obvious, the question is 110% loaded and should rightfully elicit no response directly from Mr. Baddour.
<
p>I thought I was clear earlier, but apparently not: It’s irrelevant whether Bobby (how quaint) is in or out of touch with the concerns of working families.
<
p>Is he out of touch? Who knows. Maybe. Here’s a guy making a cool $130K with benefits, representing an organization that claims only 16% of the workforce.. He’s shilling for the gas tax because – as I stated – gas tax means state construction means prevailing wage means union jobs. It also means NON-UNION workers need not apply.
<
p>Ok. Well paid guy shilling for State largess and jobs that exclude Non-Union workers. Out of touch with “concerns of working families”? I’m thinking yes.
<
p>
The implication that none of the 80% agree with the union position is highly suspect, to say the least. please show your work.
The implication is that you can’t know what the 80% think based on the 20%, which is true unless you can show (or assume) that the 20% represent a similar enough population that correlates well with the 80%.
but, when discussing 80% of a population the size of MA, you can be sure that at least one person thinks just about anything. Said another way, there are few issues at all for which any 80%-of-MA population have a unanimous opinion.
It’d be just as fallacious to make a representation that the 80% disagree than agree with the 20%. It seems a reasonable assumption that some part of the 80% will agree, and as such harping on the 20% figure as if it were some kind of ceiling is also fallacious.
<
p>Polling question: Do you want to pay more taxes?
<
p>I expect the answer would be a no from at least 80% of the population from that precise question.
Governor Patrick’s remarks at today’s hearing will be streamed live at the Channel 22 (Springfield) web site.
Senator Baddour was recently quoted in the Globe that he likes Manchester’s NH airport since it is more convenient than Logan – though Methuen is about midway.
<
p>Last year in the Eagle Tribune, Sen. Baddour said he wants to move Massachusetts jobs to New Hampshire (see below).
<
p>By Bill Cantwell
Staff Writer
Eagle Tribune 08/13/08
<
p>HAVERHILL – State Sen. Steven Baddour said the Bradford MBTA train layover station will move to Southern New Hampshire, where a new commuter rail stop also will be built, despite the governor’s veto of the plan. Gov. Deval Patrick vetoed the plan this week as part of his action on the state transportation bond bill. The bill contains transportation projects statewide that were approved by the Legislature. The governor said he vetoed moving the layover station because the MBTA does not have enough money for the project.
——
<
p>How many people are currently employed in this layover yard? If some are NH residents, they pay Massachusetts tax as non-filers. If the layover yard moves, NH residents working there will pay Massachusetts zilch.
<
p>Also, how does the Senator propose paying for this? Is this our top funding priority for the MBTA which has over $5 billion dollars in debt? Shouldn’t moving a layover yard be a lower on priorities than extending the commuter lines to New Bedford and Fall River, to help working families in Massachusetts more easily commute to Boston?
<
p>If Senator Baddour has since disavowed this crazy idea, I apologize, but with his recent comments about Manchester’s airport, I would hope that he, as a state employee, would support an airport that pays workers here in Massachusetts, especially since the time savings is likely not much more than five minutes.
I would question his judgment. He can get there more easily from his home than I can from mine, and I strongly prefer Manchester. I’d have to live inside 128 again for Logan to be even as good a choice.
<
p>Did Patrick’s veto also derail extending the Lowell commuter line to Nashua? If so, I’m disappointed. There are working families north of Lowell, too.
move to New Hamshire
Buy guns
The New Hampshire House just voted to raise the gas tax in their state by 15 cents!!!!
<
p>From the Union-Leader:
<
p>
<
p>[[…..]]
<
p>
<
p>New Hampshire drivers would pay 11 cents more per gallon in gas taxes than Massachusetts drivers currently do.
<
p>”Taxachusetts” is a myth.
<
p>Our current gas tax is pitifully low. Inadequate revenue–not Big Dig cost overruns–is the cause of our crumbling transportation infrastructure and our highest-in-the-nation transportation debt load.
<
p>–Leo
perhaps not NH but getting priced out of Mass?
That is definitive.