UPDATED: Thanks to alert BMGer garrett3000 — who moonlights over at RMG 😉 — for posting the sales tax roll call. Here it is.
A disappointing result, to say the least. If you’ve got intel on who DeLeo had to strong-arm at the last minute, we’d love to know about it. (Ernie, that’s your cue.)
As far as I can tell, neither of our alleged newspapers has posted the House’s 108-51 vote approving a hike in the sales tax to 6.25%. If you have it, or know where I can find it, please post it in the comments.
Oh, and don’t take too seriously this “veto-proof majority” business. There’s a long way to go before this becomes law — how, for example, will Senate President Therese “Reform Before Revenue” Murray react to the House’s action? — and we’re only talking about two votes in the House. Stranger things have happened.
If this sales tax increase goes through, I’ve made my last purchase of any size in the Commonwealth of MA.
…This would increase the cost of a $100 item by $1.25. Driving to NH will not make sense for anyone who has to burn more than a half gallon of gas to do so.
that the value of your time is zero.
To shove it where the sun doesn’t shine is priceless.
“Thank God I live in a border town.”
<
p>The Commonwealth is doing all it possibly can do to drive a stake into the heart of the small retail businessman.
As HR’s Kevin notes below in a different context, one is still liable for sales tax on purchases made online. I question how many are actually collected. I suspect HK would agree that in practice, it is difficult to enforce this rule, especially when border states like NH build giant cheap-liquor emporiums right across the state line.
MA imposes a wholesale level excise tax that has the same economic impact as a retail level sales tax and, therefore, exempts liquor from sales tax. Because liquor is exempt from the MA sales tax, it is also exempt from the MA use tax.
<
p>MA does go after some use tax evaders. MA recently won a case in the Appellate Tax Board that requires Town Fair Tire to collect use tax on behalf of it’s customers if the customer has a MA license plate on the car to which the tires are attached. I’ve seen cases where MA has assessed use tax on very large purchases like airplanes, boats, or expensive artwork. As a whole though you’re right, it’s a hard tax to enforce and its a hard tax to increase voluntarily compliance. Especially since most people don’t even realize they owe a use tax to begin with.
that the MSP would stake out NH liquor store parking lots looking for Mass plates on cars being loaded up with booze. They don’t do that any more?
What I can tell you is that ch 64H sec 6(g) exempts sales of alcohol from the sales tax, and ch 64I sec 7(b) exempts from the use tax any sales that are exempt from the sales tax. So legally there is no use tax liability imposed on alcohol brought to MA from another state.
<
p>After a little more digging, ch 138 sec 21(g) contains a fine for purchasing, selling, or possessing alcohol that has not been subject to the wholesale tax. That provision is enforceable by the state police. So while you technically don’t owe use tax, I guess you can be subjected to a fine for purchasing alcohol in NH and bringing it into MA.
I seem to remember the VA/DC line having similar activity, and the deal was that you could transport across state line for personal use, but no more than that. What’s personal use? Basically, the duty free limits — one or two cartons of smokes, two handles of booze, that sort of thing. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but that was the gist.
It is perfectly reasonable to point out that more people may end up making purchases out-of-state and not pay they use tax, but it is another matter to loudly proclaim that one is going to do so oneself.
<
p>If you do so, please don’t later try to assert in future posts that you are a “law abiding” citizen or make load complaints about public officials getting caught not paying enough of their taxes.
<
p>So for the record, going forward I don’t want to hear any of these types of comments from either Old Scratch or JohnD… 😉
Or are you Ned Flanders?
<
p>I’ll do all I can to “game” the system whenever I can. It’s the Massachusetts way . . . what’s good for the goose and all that.
but that doesn’t take revenue away from the state. I would not travel to NH to cheat the state out of tax revenue. But I also don’t make a big deal about being a law abiding citizen or calling out politicians for their tax issues, and as long as I don’t hear those types of comments from you in the future, I have no personal problem with you cheating as much as you can get away with.
<
p>BTW, “gaming the system” means you are obeying the letter of the law, but you are suggesting you will outright break the law; that is different.
<
p>
that the $20K automobile just went up by $250, and no clear legal way around that.
Because that is what you would be doing if you make significant purchases in other states and fail to pay a use tax in MA.
white-collar crime.
the republican has the western mass roll call. that’s about it.
here, for your calls to state legislators. And send them a photocopy of this article while you’re at it.
<
p>David’s absolutely right — this thing’s no where near over yet. We need that list of voters & we need to be calling the state senate till the phones wear out.
Lists the votes of the western MA legislators.
<
p>Big Bobbie’s smile is going over like a lead balloon….maybe a dirigible is on the horizon for DeLeo?
Check it out http://sn.im/gvam7
But thanks.
http://www.redmassgroup.com/di…
<
p>Sorry.
<
p>Snurl is acting up. It’s causing me nightmares on twitter.
People have some explaining to do.
What happened to the burgeoning progressive caucus? It looks like they all fell right in line. Disappointing.
Disappointing indeed. I look forward to their posts here or elsewhere explaining their votes.
Better to get some added revenue into the pot, and save and support the most vulnerable, than none.
<
p>I do not fault those who voted yes to get more money back into the pot, nor those who voted no due to concerns about their local businesses.
<
p>I do fault those who voted NO because no matter what taxes are suggested for an increase, they will vote no. For these “starve the beast fanatics, no matter what legal orphan, homeless person, or addict in need of treatment suffers or dies, they do not care.
<
p>But this vote is not a done deal.
<
p>Even if a sales tax increase passes, it is neither enough to catch up the back log of infrastructure repair and get our state out of the hideous practice of borrowing to pay for current payroll – nor enough to fund the services needed to prevent tragedies among the most vulnerable.
<
p>I stand by my original post that a “menu” of additional revenue streams are needed AND that progressive taxation is inherently more moral.
is that, if the House vote stands and the Senate goes along, the lege can (and will) declare victory, move on, and not solve anything. Then we’ll be right back where we started six months from now.
<
p>Whereas if a few progs had stood up to DeLeo, he’d have to play ball with the Gov. Maybe move along some bills that would actually save some money, like pension and/or transportation reform. Maybe go along with his sensible revenue ideas, like extending the sales tax to candy, soda, and — here’s a good one — gasoline, thereby effectively giving the Gov his gas tax hike that really is a good idea. But no.
<
p>Too bad.
You can all the revenue in the world to a bad process and you won’t get good results. This additional revenue will go in large measure, sooner or later, to funding cozy pensions and back-room back-scratching without significant reform.
<
p>I have enormous sympathy for this argument but, sadly, in practice I think it is just like appeasement: in the long run, not only will one not get what one wants, one may make the overall situation much worse. That doesn’t help anyone, except for the insiders.
there’s no strategy to this tax hike. There needs to be a purpose. At best, it delays the inevitable — huge cuts to T, larger tax increases, etc. – by a year, tops, without doing a single, solitary damn thing to address our infrastructure needs.
<
p>Contrast that to Patrick – who’s plans would have gone a great way toward solving our transportation woes, and provided funds that would have protected specific needs of the state, ensuring those programs weren’t continually on the chopping block — and you see a real strategy behind his revenue options. This sales tax wouldn’t have been a bad idea to provide for other avenues — or perhaps to go directly to cities and towns — and maybe that would have been something more appetizing (even if it was a sales, as opposed to income tax)… but those things didn’t happen.
<
p>And instead of meeting the gov half way, passing some of the reforms and tax options, the speakah strong armed the legislature & who knows how much of that $900 million will be going toward earmarks.
How much of this money will be left after the legislature ignores reform proposals:
<
p>- $50 million — around 6% — will be going to restore the Quinn Bill funding.
– $60 million — around 7% — will go to keeping state employee healthcare contributions at only 15% (http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy10h1/exec10/hbudbrief21.htm)
– Does anyone have a specific FY2010 dollar figure on pension reform? I don’t think it will be too big… maybe $10m… but tack that on.
<
p>I feel like I could keep going here… and probably get up around 30% of the new revenue pretty easily.
when we could get a Progressive Income Tax. The best solution is to increase the income tax but everyone, Gov. included, think people are too stupid to understand that taxes are taxes and if you want services you need to pay for them. The reform proposals are great, but they are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the total revenue needs for transportation, education, human services and local aid.
…in two years, when we could not get one trying for the last 50 years?
might provide the impetus for a progressive income tax, but I just don’t see that kind of leadership coming out of this group of legislators. 🙁
From State House News:
Rep. Frank Smizik (D-Brookline), noting that he agreed with Patrick’s preference for a higher gas tax over a higher sales taxes, said Patrick was reprising his campaign rhetoric pillorying Beacon Hill mismanagement and turning lawmakers into targets of his promised reelection bid.
<
p>This Smizik putz is the embodiment of the dysfunctional process of the State House. He AGREES with Patrick’s position that a gas tax is preferable to a sales tax. But he VOTES with the Speaker to raise the sales tax — when his vote would actually matter!
The Legislature is way too sensitive about this if this sentiment is widely shared. The governor is way too ignorant not to see this coming. Plenty of blame to go around
He tried to play ball with them and not “govern by press conference”… but to no avail. The legislature is fundamentally dysfunctional. All that most of them — even our “Progressive Caucus” — care about is not crossing the speaker, getting their stipends, getting a good office and committee assignment, and getting “their share” of earmark dollars. No one gives a shit about policy. You see it in their protestations that they only want to take “one vote” on raising taxes. No one even pretends to argue what makes sense in terms of economic or social policy!
I don’t mean to get dragged too far in this (I agree with the Guv on the sales tax, actually). All I know is that Deval’s major legislative push — casinos — was announced to the public before it was announced the the Legislature. When he didn’t get his way, leaks started flooding out of somewhere that eventually chased Sal out of office. If you were the incoming Speaker, would you see the governor as your friend?
<
p>Yes, the Legislature is dysfunctional. But do you believe that we have any reason to believe that the governor’s actions will make it less so? That is the real long-term problem, and I would like to see some real progress to a solution.
Wikipedia on the ethics charges against DiMasi:
<
p>
<
p>Let’s not re-write history.
I’m saying that the State House would be essentially empty — much of the executive branch included — if these people were targeted the way that somebody targeted DiMasi. Remember the presumed friendships, the daily front-pagers on the Globe that say nothing?
After the hammering that the Patrick people get in the papers, they really are the ones with the relationship and the pull to do this? It’s not the way he operates anyway.
<
p>You don’t have to look far if you believe the leaks about DiMasi were motivated by the pro-casino folks. You just have to look at the editorial pages of the Globe to figure that one out. If there’s anyone to blame for that sort of witch hunt, if indeed it was, you only have to look at the media.
<
p>But that’s not Patrick’s fault, just because he was proposing the casino bill.
<
p>You seem to have a serious chip on your shoulder when it comes to Patrick. I like a lot of your commentary here, but I think you are blinded and totally unfair when it comes to assessing the Governor sometimes. I say this as someone who’s pretty quick to critique him when I disagree with him.
I think you might well be correct that a tide of metaphorical blood would be rolling down Beacon Hill if the flagrant corruption were exposed and the perpetrators held accountable.
<
p>So be it.
<
p>I think you are dead wrong about somebody “targeting” Mr. DiMasi — in fact, I think just the opposite is true. The evidence indicates that Mr. DiMasi operated a corrupt machine oiled by “loans”, shady mortgages, and a multitude of favors handed to well-connected “friends”. Were we supposed to simply shrug our collective shoulders and walk away from the Kronos scandal? Do you think any reputable journalist would do the same?
<
p>Far from being targeted, I think Mr. DiMasi was protected by a multitude of people, including various contacts at the Globe, until the stench grew too strong to be ignored any longer.
<
p>I think that Ms. Wilkerson certainly deserved the exposure she got. The difference between the treatment she received and that accorded Mr. DiMasi — from the Globe, the Governor’s office, the lege, and all parties concerned — is striking.
<
p>The fear that most of Beacon Hill — “much of the executive branch included ” — operates the way Mr. DiMasi operated is precisely why state government is held in such low esteem, and is a direct cause of why desperately-needed tax revenue increases are now so nearly impossible to enact.
<
p>Sooner or later, a majority of our elected officials need to act as though they understand that basic good faith — especially in matters of venal conflict-of-interest — is a fundamental requirement of public service.
<
p>Enough with the press releases, grand public speechifying, and skillfully adept back-room politicking. All those are important and vital — and all of those mean absolutely nothing in the absence of genuine public trust.
<
p>A clean sweep is needed, and if it would result in a temporarily-empty State House, then please let me know where I can acquire a nice broad stiff-handled broom.
We might not always agree, BrooklineTom, but I admire your spirit.
There’s a little bit of clear commentary for one.
I meant “Cognos” when I wrote “Kronos”.
<
p>I plead the fifth in response to any further questions about the slip … 🙂
– Rules reform to prevent “omnibus” amendments written by the leadership coming in at the 11th hour
– A legitimate opposition party with a coherent philosophy
– An end to stipends for legislative leaders
– A joint committee system
– “Development banks” to dispense capital budget funds — rather than the earmarks through the W&M committees
– New legislative devices similar to the base closing commission — you appoint a group of experts, they devise a policy, and it gets a mandatory, non-amendable up or down vote. Imagine if the Transportation Finance Commission’s proposal had an up/down vote.
<
p>Getting a little crazier…
– the clean elections system
– unicameralism — one fewer veto point in the legislative process; one fewer place for the interest groups to get their amendments included
How can we be well served by a system that pays legislators about $60,000 a year. It’s no wonder they cling so desperately to whatever perks they have been able to milk from the system.
I agree that 60k makes legislative service very unattractive to any professional, especially one with a family. My point is that giving the speaker power over a substantial portion of the legislators’ income promotes dependency on his whims.
for progressives, some of whom I have spoken to, is that if you work in the House, you KNOW that no other proposal is gonna come to the table. That’s the nature of working under a regressive hack like DeLeo.
<
p>So you are faced with this: have the budget blow up and tell your constituents to start cutting services, teachers, etc. Or vote for it even if it’s the worst option. Because it’s the only option that’s gonna come out on the table so far as you are able to tell.
<
p>I do not envy those progressives this choice.
<
p>As David said up thread, of course, standing up to him (by 2-3 votes) and forcing him to play ball with the Governor on the reforms or other revenue options, that would be ideal. Or better yet, the whole caucus does this, and the group stands together.
<
p>However, that would mean the loss of any scrap of power the progressive caucus has at all ever again, until DeLeo leaves or stops being pissed, whichever comes first (guess where my bet lies?). That means loss of power for constituents as well, harder reelection campaigns since you can’t do as much for your district, etc.
<
p>Retaliation from the Speaker has a LOT of detrimental outcomes, and honestly, I can’t blame anyone for making the choice they do to pick their battles carefully. The whole system is DAMN rotten. For a democratic (little d) body, there’s precious little DEMOCRACY in the state’s House.
About 100 years ago members of the US House finally got so fed up with the heavy handed way Speaker Joe Cannon ran that chamber that they pushed through some long-overdue reforms. One of their ringleaders (I forget who) gets a chapter in JFK’s Profiles in Courage, which is where I first heard of this episode. The Speaker should not get to decide what comes up for debate and vote. When I did model congresses in high school any legislation that cleared committee was considered by the whole chamber, usually in the order in which it was reported out unless the agenda was altered by appropriate motion and vote thereon. I realize that wasn’t the real world, but it seemed to work and nobody complained the staff was playing favorites or rigging the outcome. The Speaker should not assign chairmanships or determine who gets money for their district and who doesn’t. He should preside over and administer the House – nothing else.
That sounds like convenient cover and I don’t buy it.
<
p>First I don’t believe this would have been the only proposal. In fact I will go as far to say that we WILL see another proposal because the backlash from this will be so bad that we will see some votes change if it comes to an override vote.
<
p>We only get the change that we are willing to work, fight and VOTE for. This was a vote for the status quo.
<
p>All this talk of reform and change is just that. We are not going to get any real change unless someone (or group) is willing to stand up and be perhaps stake their political career on making it happen.
<
p>The “progressive” caucus had a chance to make a difference and failed miserable.
<
p>The Governor is 100% in the right here.
<
p>
From what I’ve been able to gleam, this was pretty much do or die for revenue increases.
<
p>I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that it’s understandable.
<
p>And yes, we should hold those people, and the others as well, accountable for that. I’m just not sure the circular firing squad is really necessary.
he just got a gracious, polite, and frank explanation of why I disagreed with his vote and what I expect him to do when the veto override comes up.
Write or call your rep. Tell them what you think.
I’ve asked him for permission to publish it here.
<
p>I’ll let you know what happens.
No reply from Mr. Smizik yet on my request for permission to publish his response here.
Here is the text of the email I sent Mr. Smizik:
A veto-proof majority would be needed in the Senate as well.
<
p>Time to start calling the Upper Chamber.
I’ll be calling my state senator to oppose the sales tax hike despite the ham-handed and counterproductive acts of the governor. He’s pushing the right idea the wrong way, but it’s still the right idea.
<
p>And frankly, regardless of your feelings about Deval, that may get you further than echoing the Commonwealth’s answer to Boris Yeltsin.
And carry a big stick. The speaking softly (working with the lege in meetings and such) wasn’t working. So why not take out the big stick?
<
p>I am SO sick of the whining from the legislative branch sometimes. It reminds me of local pols in Lowell whom I would love to fire. “Cowtow to ME!” seems to be the underlying theme.
I can only walk uphill for so long. If people want to believe that whining to the public is a “big stick” and not a flag of surrender (as it has proven to be for the last decade) in the long run, fine. If people want to believe that blazing after DiMasi after he ruined Deval’s casino dreams was speaking softly, fine. I just don’t see things that way.
<
p>I can’t imagine what DeLeo offered/threatened to get that veto-proof majority, but I can certainly see how Deval’s new confrontational attitude gave him all the motivation he needed to turn this bad idea from a legislative failure into a policy failure.
who continually throw in conspiracy theories. Sorry.
<
p>Bottom line: DeLeo sucks, but we progressives KNEW this would happen since DiMasi resigned. This isn’t like, new or anything. We knew what we were getting, unfortunately, it was marginally better than that ~other~ guy.
<
p>We progressives knew we would have this sort of fight on our hands evnetually (we would have too to some extent with DiMasi though he was coming around). The fact that Patrick had enough patience to wait a little while to see if it could be worked out in a less confrontational way actually makes him less what you think he is, not more.
I guess we agree to disagree.
I know a good number of people who were at the State House yesterday advocating for revenues to cover the budget shortfall. They are mostly advocates for low-income families and social workers.
<
p>They were pushing for the sales tax increase and rallying people to support it against the Governor’s veto threat. They wanted the revenue it would bring to support the programs they and their constituencies need.
<
p>These are not people interested in propping up hacks or maintaining some entrenched political machine. They don’t care if the Governor or the Speaker “win.”
<
p>So who’s right?
Their hearts are in the right place, but they are selling themselves and their constituents short. Sure, they might get a few scraps from the new revenue, and I can respect the argument that is better than nothing, but reform now will produce better and more just (not just, just more just) government in the longer run.
It doesn’t make for good government. And it’s not good for progressives in the long run.
All the advocates up there yesterday and who called into the virtual rally are not confused and understand the inherent contradictions of working in a the public policy arena populated by ordinary human beings whose main mission is to win a measurable positive change in the lives of their constituents and get credit for it.
<
p>And we will be up there again today and will be there tomorrow and Thursday and Friday to work with our legislative champions who will be fighting to get some of that sales tax revenue dedicated to restoring some very important programs.
<
p>It ain’t fighting for crumbs people, it’s real civic engagement. Fighting for a share of real money to be able to begin to rebuild and repair real programs that serve real people in the short run. I posted this diary a few minutes ago.
Why do you think you’re always rebuilding and repairing? Because the underlying structure isn’t sound. Of course, perfection is only for the divine, and we are just mortals, but Massachusetts should do better than this.
Do you care who gets hurt in the process?
<
p>Let’s say, for sake of argument, that Reps had rallied and opposed the sales tax yesterday. There may have been some factions pushing for other revenue options but there wouldn’t have likely been consensus, and few would have been excited to take a vote for something without having a sense of whether or not the Senate would support it down the road anyway. So nothing passes and the budget continues with no new revenue.
<
p>So then MRVP gets cut in half, local aid loses 25%, and a few hundred earmarks for deserving local programs go unfunded. Some people lose their homes because the subsidies are no longer available, some more kids end up getting into trouble without after-school programs or community activities, and cities and towns have to cut some teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. But that’s okay, because we sent a message to the Speaker that we want something better. And maybe in a few years something will be different and it will all be worth it.
<
p>There are plenty of ways to fight for change that don’t hurt so many people in so many ways. And although you may be willing to take the risk that without the sales tax hike something else would have worked out, clearly a lot of other people weren’t.
Black and white are not the only alternatives — unless the people at the top require that to be the case. The ones who are responsible for people getting hurt in the long run are those who vote for bad government and the maintenance of a dysfunctional status quo.
<
p>Reform before revenue: let’s see some reform, and there starts to be a case for revenue. As it is, we’re just getting a big tax increase at a time of economic weakness to pay for a wasteful and poorly managed system — as excruciatingly detailed here and elsewhere over the past few years. More to the point, there is no good reason to be opposed to reform — unless your friend is about to collect a gold-plated pension. Not impressed.
<
p>As to people not willing to take risks, I agree with that, but the risks they weren’t willing to take were to their own perks and privileges, not tender care for the least well off among us. Please.
You say we’re paying for a wasteful and poorly managed system, I say there are millions and millions of dollars going to programs and services that are vital for many people throughout Massachusetts.
<
p>Neither of us is wrong, but I’m not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. Let’s enact reforms. Transportation reform is in conference committee. Pension reform is too. They are moving through a process that is almost always slower than we’d like it to be. If they come out of that process and aren’t good enough, let’s do the work we as citizens need to do to make them better.
<
p>What I don’t agree with you (or the Governor) about, is holding hostage the other half of the equation (services) while the reform details are ironed out. This is not an either/or scenario. We can fund our priorities and reform the system.
But since we’re reduced to this cumbersome form of dialogue-by-post …
<
p>I think the basic difference is that I don’t share your optimism about the reforms. I think that what will happen is: if the legislature is able to force through enough tax increases that will be it. Their friends will be taken care of, the pensions etc. will keep their gold plating, and we can call it a day. Down the road, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, that could have gone to useful causes will instead be wasted. We can’t afford that this year.
<
p>What are you afraid of? That the state government will shut down? That they will really implement the cuts they claim? Fat chance. That would cut off the gravy train, or at least make it much harder to sustain and expand, which is an important part of the goal.
<
p>A far more likely scenario is that if the legislature really sees that there will be no revenue without reform, why, magically, meaningful reform measures will be enacted. The whole thing could be done quite quickly, committees and all, if people really wanted to get it done. Where there is a will, there is a way.
While you may not share my optimism, I don’t share your pessimism that this vote and issue is indicative that the large and active group of progressive legislators who we’ve supported and elected are willing to throw their principles to the wind at the first “boo” from leadership.
<
p>We may not have a progressive majority in the House, but we’ve made a lot of progress over the last few elections. Looking at that roll call, I don’t see a single solid progressive voting no. Maybe Sandlin or Rice depending on how you define progressive, but out of 40+ names of hard-working progressive leaders, they all supported this tax hike. I honestly don’t believe they would have all done it if they didn’t believe it was the right thing to do.
<
p>Now I’m not saying it was the best thing that was conceivable, but politics is often the art of what’s possible, and in this case maybe this is the best that was possible right now.
<
p>So let’s keep fighting for a progressive income tax so that in a few years we can make it happen. Let’s make sure to follow up with all our elected officials to ensure that the reforms we want actually happen. But in cases where we don’t get our perfect outcome, let’s not be so quick to throw our allies under the bus as only serving their hack overlords against all better human decency.
public institutions like public education, public safety, public health, social services, environmental protection, elder care, child care etc are indeed sound. And like physical structures they need to be maintained and occasionally repaired when they get broken.
<
p>And many of them have been severely underfunded for years because of a series of tax cuts over the last 15 years that add up to — are you ready for this– about 3 billion dollars less in our revenue stream. Almost exactly the amount of our structural deficit.
I was wondering if anyone was surprised by the votes of specific legislators. Here’s one for starters: It appears Rep. L’Italien voted in favor. This surprises me because she represents a district with easy access to NH and as a progressive representing a conservative district her hold on the seat is tenuous. As she is a progressive and supporter of the Governor, I thought she might vote against for those reasons as well. What say you all?
whether someone was a “strong supporter” of Gov. Patrick played no role in the voting pattern. In fact, it appears the opposition on this vote was concentrated in the 495 belt where the Gov is actually weakest politically. I could be wrong, but I think every Boston rep voted for the sales tax. For whatever reason, the Governor had no suction with the reps, even his own supporters.
<
p>I genuinely hope a lot of these freshmen lose. They’d rather cover their asses in internal House operations than stand with their purported ally.
I went through and looked at who precisely were the “no” votes among Ds. Basically, they came from two camps:
1) Reps on/near the NH border
2) John Rogers and friends
<
p>I didn’t see a single progressive supporter of Gov. Patrick. Not one! That’s amazing when you think about it: he lacks the ability to maintain the support of even one of his “supporters”.
<
p>I know you all will tell me about how DeLeo threatened and cajoled, etc. But are you telling me he didn’t come down on the 35 Ds who ultimately voted no? Why did they stand fast while the liberals folded?
…so maybe you neeed to think for a moment about your position. The progressives are smart enough to see that there is no real difference between raising the gasoline tax and raising the sales tax. Both are regressive. The meals and hotel tax would be good….but there has not been any outcry to raise them any more.
Taxing anything will lower the amount of its activity. I want to lower the amount of gasoline consumed in the Commonwealth. I do not want to lower the amount of commerce transacted in the Commonwealth.
<
p>Also, the gas tax would be tied into transportation investments that need to be made. The sales tax is general revenue that will end up as earmarks to cement DeLeo and Murray’s power.
Increases the pressure for reform, which is progressive.
are already in the crapper. Couldn’t really bring ’em further down.
BMG has him voting yes. The Worcester Telegram has him voting no.
Who is correct?http://www.telegram.com/article/20090428/NEWS/904280485/1116
I zoomed my screen to 200%, I still see a y next to Kujo’s name.
I think you’re looking in the wrong place. You’re seeing the Y for Scibak. There’s an “N” in front of Kujawski, which indicates he voted no.
Thank you. I know he has spoken out against raising taxes. That is what sparked my curiosity.