(via Outraged Lib.) That's our budget situation: Catastrophic. Those are the words of the Massachusetts Taxpayer's Association's Mike Widmer in describing the $3 billion revenue shortfall by April. That's compared to original estimates of $21.4 billion — a stunning 13.5% shortfall. Cripes.
Surely this reinforces the need for reforming how taxpayer money is spent. But no one, no one should pretend that we're not going to have to raise taxes. I just don't believe that MA voters believe in the “starve the beast” attitude on the far right. There may be folks who show up on the boston.com comments section who think we can just trim some of the waste/fraud/abuse and be done with it … but it just ain't so.
We have the best public schools in the country. We have health insurance for all but a very small percentage of the population. We have any number of other programs that protect the highly vulnerable, and serve the public's quality of life pretty well, on balance.
We cannot simply cut our way out of this, unless we're willing to go down the road of cheating our kids out of our good school system, and materially hurting any number of vulnerable people (the elderly, the mentally ill, the otherwise uninsured).
We deserve to get $1 of value for $1 in new revenue. So let's do the reforms — all of them, but let's not kid ourselves: We're going to need a lot in new taxes to maintain any semblance of the services we generally deem necessary. We may not have the luxury of picking and choosing the gas tax vs. the sales tax vs. the candy tax vs. etc. We may need 'em all.
And speaking of not wasting a crisis, let's address the progressive income tax again. If we want to minimize the actual pain felt by taxpayers, this is the most humane way to do it.
We may have some tough choices to make: What if some of these taxes act as a counter to the stimulus? Do you choose services, or the economy? Most would say the economy, I recognize … but what if the loos of services (roads and transport, say) is itself de-stimulative?
Gut check time for everyone. It's not just a series of decisions for the governor and the legislature to make … this is really about the public's mood. It's up to us to decide what we're willing to do to protect the things we've heretofore deemed important.
but my response is can you really say “anyone” has been serious about reform? Your plea for us to drop the “starve the beast” mentality would have a lot more legs if we were all sitting here reviewing the long list of COMPLETED pension reforms, benefit reforms and an absence of hackery and patronage in our state. Instead we have seen nothing but window dressing and the barest essence of any serious reform.
<
p>If you want the regular person to support tax increases they need to now their money will not be burned by cronies, double pensions and retirees turned consultants (getting 2 paychecks from the tax payers).
<
p>I am with you that at some point we may need new revenues, even if only temporary (like that would happen). But I’ll be damn if I will support one stinking penny of new taxes until I believe we are serious about wasting our money with REFORM being a mandatory precursor.
If you’re trying to fill a bucket with water, you’ll never get anywhere pouring more water in if you never plug the holes on the bottom.
… we have to be careful in that if we let the perfect become the enemy of the good, we’ll not just miss an excellent opportunity to push reforms, but we’ll exacerbate our fiscal situation in the meantime,… possibly so much that the ‘solution’ after taking too much time pushing for the perfect will necessitate a fiscal fix without much reform for expediency sake.
Asks the Governor in today’s announcement about the community forums, in dozens of cities and towns across the state.
<
p>While he states the obvious,
<
p>
<
p>he is silent on the not so obvious.
<
p>Can he, with the help of the brave few of us who are willing and able to advocate for meaningful reforms AND adequate revenues, generate enough positive public support to convince at least 130 members of the House and 30 members of the Senate that they can vote for meaningful reforms AND an adequate balanced package of taxes and not get beaten up by the overwhelming number of constituents calling in to say no new taxes?
<
p>How do we convince our neighbors and friends (and relatives) that we will need additional revenues just to finance the reforms, and even more if we want to address the structural deficit and begin to stabilize, not even restore, some of the basic public structures that keep our communities and our commonwealth healthy.
<
p>Remember we’ve been through this before — economic downturns and structural deficits in 1977, 1987, 2001, ……all solved with a combination of cuts, reforms, and new revenues.
<
p>Geez, John Volpe and Elliot Richardson campaigned and won public support in a referendum for a 3 cent increase in the sales tax in 1966 and went on to win re election by a wide margin. And they were Republicans managing a fiscal crisis and a commitment to reform and modernize our broken mental health and public welfare programs.
How much more clear can it be that there is only one solution:
<
p>-Can’t raise taxes more than what has been done;
-Can’t cut transfer payments
-Rainy day fund down to $1.3 billion
<
p>What’s left?
<
p>-Sell stuff (pike, casino license)
-Cut labor costs
<
p>First, Treasurer Cahill is right, but is kind to say that Governor Deval’s talk about pension reform is showboating. The Governor focus is unfathomably cynical or else stupid to proclaim a few immaterial pension changes as meaningful reform when any such change, even if 100% adopted will save virtually nothing over the next several years.
<
p>Can someone please ask the Governor “what is the anticipated dollar benefit to the 2010 and 2011 budget if your pension reforms are adopted 100%?”
<
p>I’d be surprised first, if he knows, and if he knows, I’d be amazed if the number exceeded a few hundred thousand dollars.
<
p>We could actually be wittnessing the failure of the 2nd liberal state, unless, for the same reasons and with the same solutions at hand, NJ beats Massachusetts for the title..
<
p>Do you realize that from 2003 to 2008 tax revenue grew at a 6.5% rate and we spent everything and borrowed more? Had the State “merely” spent at a 5% growth rate, the stabilization fund would be fat right about now.
<
p>NJ’s Governor Corzine:
<
p>Substitute CA, NY or MA everywhere you see NJ.
<
p>
“Do you realize that from 2003 to 2008 tax revenue grew at a 6.5% rate…”
<
p>Is that figure adjusted for state GDP? State population? Inflation? What’s the rate? 6.5 over the period total or annually?
6.5% annualized from 2003 to 2008 gross rise in tax revenues received by the State.
… can find annual State GDP, population, & income figures for the same period so we can have a proper look at the context of the revenue numbers?
First, look at the population. Hmmm…first problem, a population that has grown only 5% over 10 years. (millions)
<
p>1999-6,144
2000-6,175
2001-6,363
2002-6,408
2003-6,432
2004-6,439
2005-6,434
2006-6,429
2007-6,434
2008-6,450
<
p>Then, the workforce, over the same period. Eek, worse news, the workforce has grown even slower. (millions)
<
p>1999-3,294
2000-3,318
2001-3,357
2002-3,364
2003-3,399
2004-3,468
2005-3,408
2006-3,381
2007-3,371
2008-3,406
<
p>But, because of the mix of jobs, the private workforce has been more productive, and has increased its personal income at an impressive rate. (millions)
<
p>1999-154,549
2000-174,388
2001-179,116
2002-176,504
2003-180,248
2004-192,668
2005-198,825
2006-208,522
2007-226,070
2008- Not available
<
p>You’ll also see that the Government employees’ have been allowed to keep pace nearly precisly with the private sector rate of growth. Bad policy in my opinion, to encourage someone with hefty raises to remain a government employee at the expense of opting for productive employment, but of course that’s political and YMMV. (millions)
<
p>1999-16,172
2000-16,885
2001-17,461
2002-18,130
2003-18,527
2004-20,061
2005-20,214
2006-21,647
2007-23,473
2008-not available
<
p>Taxes, being very nearly flat rose over the 10 year period with the rise in personal income not to mention the related corporate income.
<
p>Until about five years ago, when taxes and spending began to rise at a rate that exceeded the rate of growth in personal income. While obviously unsustainable, there was no political will to hit the brakes, and the Commonwealth, rather than laying money aside to the Stabilization Fund, opted to fund a very, very expensive Universal Health AND paid no meaningful attention to 1) the rising Pension and Medical Benefits to Employees 2) rising education budgets. As a result, State employee wages actually outpaced private wages for the past 5 years.
<
p>And here we are, which is why it appears IMHO that the only solution is to eliminate heads, or reduce wages/salaries and benefits because the State simply can’t afford the state labor it has amassed on the back of a flat or shrinking population and workforce.
<
p>Source of all data
<
p>
Workforce date is in thousands, not millions.
I will agree to calling the pension reform “showboating” if you can convince Republicans to stop raising examples of individual pension abuse up the flagpole every couple months.
<
p>It may be showboating, but it remains an important Republican/conservative tool to “prove” that waste exists in government — therefore no taxes should be raised until all waste is eliminated.
<
p>By the way, I’d like to see the individual breakdown of spending and taxes from 2003 to 2008. I suspect that by lumping 5 years together, and also including 2008 (which saw a big drop in tax revenue), you’re portraying something different from reality.
Taxes for 5 years in billions from here:
<
p>2008 – 21,009
2007 – 19,849
2006 – 18,593
2005 – 17,191
2004 – 16,055
<
p>Total spending is here.
What is “other” and is Medicaid really costing us $8 Billion/year?????
“other” is everything else: governor’s office, legislature, judiciary, commonwealth connector, office of education, attorney general, comptroller, sheriff, treasurer, HHS, public works…. sum of many ‘little’ things.
Uh, Gary, those numbers are in MILLIONS, not “Billions”.
<
p>I used the inflation calculator provided by the US Department of Labor to transform these into inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars — and to extend Gary’s look-back period by a few years:
<
p>2008 – 20,756
2007 – 20,363
2006 – 19,618
2005 – 18,723
2004 – 18,079
2003 – 17,377
2002 – 16,956
2001 – 20,121
<
p>What Gary’s argument fails to acknowledge is that we cut too deeply in fundamental infrastructure spending. Specifically, I call your attention to the SLASH imposed between 2001 and 2002. Expressed in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, tax revenue was SLASHED from 2001 to 2002 by 15.7 PERCENT, in ONE YEAR!
<
p>A significant portion of the spending increases and corresponding tax revenue increases results from REPLACING things that should NEVER HAVE BEEN CUT in the first place.
<
p>That was the same year, not coincidentally, that the lead bullet was placed under the skin of the MBTA — injecting the poison that is now killing it.
<
p>In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cumulative increase since 2001 has been just 3.16% — over a period of 7 years. That is a yearly increase of less than ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT.
<
p>Whatever problems beset us, runaway taxation IS NOT among them.
True, the numbers are millions, not billions. Typo.
<
p>The “slash” in 2001 was the dot com bust and even considering the slash, spending redoubled to successfully make it up and still managed to outpace inflation.
<
p>So your point is that growth in goverment outpaced inflation. I agree. It did.
<
p>I never wrote that ‘runaway taxation’ was an issue, but rather that Massachusetts has had ample tax revenue over the prior decade, and has unwisely spent it.
Surely you jest.
<
p>The “outpacing” you describe is swamped by the noise in the measurement.
<
p>Meanwhile, your “explanation” (“the dot com bust”) ignores the facts. From just one of many sources, the Massachusetts personal income tax rate was cut as follows:
<
p>1999 – 5.95%
2000 – 5.85%
2001 – 5.60%
2002 – 5.30%
<
p>That’s an 11% reduction in the personal income tax rate, over a four year period.
<
p>The rightwing promoted these reductions. The rest of us said, at the time, that the results would be catastrophic.
<
p>They were.
Well, to be fair, a majority of the voters did vote them in.
My point is that the rightwing heavily promoted these cuts, ruthlessly attacked those who attempted to explain the facts about their impact, and pandered to the greed of the voters.
<
p>Sadly, too many voters fell for the lies.
The insidious silent majority of right wing radicals in this state has brought us to the precipice of disaster. They have brainwashed the ignorant masses, despite the heroic efforts of the left to save these fools from themselves and preserve the critical revenues needed to run this glorious commonwealth.
<
p>I hate those guys.
I am legion; I am many.
… why we seem to have an issue with accountability around here.
So was it that the 2001 cuts cause the subsequent boom and the current year bust? BTW, during the dot com bust that roughly coincided with the individual rate cut, corporate Excise receipts fell off the table then recovered.
<
p>Those years you reference: In all but one cycle from 2001-02, tax revenues rose. You claim the decrease of .65% in the personal tax rate caused the bust of 2009 yet it’s quite clear, with your own analysis that receipts were pouring in at a growth rate exceeding inflation.
<
p>How can you support that the .65% rate cut CAUSED today’s bust? Dazzle me. How did one cause the other?
I didn’t say that the cuts caused the dot-com boom and bust.
<
p>I said that the cuts destroyed our infrastructure, and destroyed our ability to handle the impact of subsequent recessions.
<
p>Oh, and by the way, conservative luminaries like Richard Posner and Alan Greenspan have agreed that the fundamental conservative dogma you present “has failed”.
<
p>From the former (Posner):
<
p>From the latter (Greenspan) clip (3:38):
<
p>You’re arguing that the tax cut of .65% in 2001 was catastrophic. Yet, I’ve presented to you matrices of data that show increases in tax revenue, increases in borrowing, increases in spending, increases in capital expenditures, all exceeding inflation, somee by your own calculations.
<
p>Then you explain to me that Posner and Greenspan say we should regulate. WTF? Where’d that come from?
<
p>Summarized, my argument: 1) tax revenues have been adequate over the decade, outpacing inflation; 2) spending has outpaced revenues and inflation 3) labor costs (including pension and medical) have grown to a point we can’t afford because of 4) a flat or declining population and workforce and a decline in private sector personal income.
<
p>Anything outside of these 4 points is a fabrication of my position.
<
p>
You asked:
<
p>I do not claim that the Massachusetts personal income tax rates between 1999 and 2002 caused today’s nationwide depression.
<
p>I argue, instead, that the failed conservative dogma — which appears to motivate your defense of those cuts then, and causes you to resist needed tax increases now — caused the current depression. Hence my cite of Posner and Greenspan, who share my opinion.
<
p>Let me return to the Massachusetts question.
<
p>If you quit changing the oil on a reliable but old car, it will eventually fail. When you stop adding oil because “it’s too expensive”, the engine will eventually seize up. Maybe not a day later. Maybe not a month later. But it will eventually catch up with you.
<
p>When those things happen, and you have to either repair or replace the car, your “increased costs” aren’t because of inflation. They aren’t because your mechanic is overcharging you (though she might be). They aren’t because the car dealer is ripping you off (though they might be).
<
p>Your increased costs are because YOU STOPPED CHANGING THE OIL.
<
p>The argument you present here is handwaving and sophistry.
<
p>The decision to reduce the personal income tax rate was driven by self-centered greed wrapped up in cheezy rightwing dogma about “supply side economics” and “improving the business climate”. The intent was to “starve the beast” — and the attempt succeeded, especially in the case of our bridges, tunnels, and public transportation.
<
p>You stopped changing the oil, and now the engine has seized.
<
p>I submit, that the argument, if sophist ought be easily disproved.
<
p>If government growth failed to keep pace with inflation then arguably taxes were inadequate over the decade. Pretty simple argument, really.
<
p>You said that the personal tax rate cut was an attempt to ‘starve the beast’ and you said ‘the attempt succeeded.’
<
p>In reply, I showed you that tax receipts increased over the past decade at a rate that exceeded inflation, and you proved it with your calculation. Further, in the calculation we’ve ignored the rate of growth in property taxes, which, if added to the mix would mean that tax growth rate exceeded inflation by even more.
<
p>Seems pretty obvious that State government has grown over the decade and your argument is ‘yeah, but not enough’ or else, ‘yeah, but they wasted the money.’ If the former, how do you know, and if the latter, then thank goodness we cut the rate and they didn’t get the chance to waste up to their true potential!
I think you’re right on target about the limits of cost-cutting reforms and the need for significant tax revenues. While I don’t think the Gov has played his cards very well, I agree there’s far too much public anger about ripoffs and abuses of power to make those revenue choices without cleaning up some of the mess first. I’m not talking right-wing, starve-the-beast anger — I’m talking about general public anger. My progressive friends are as angry as anyone about padded pensions and insider consulting contracts and politically connected toll-takers making twice as much money as teachers or social workers. Even if the house/senate can muster the votes, the backlash would be unbearable and it’s a sure fire way to elect another Republican governor in an overwhelmingly democratic state. If we do this wrong we’ll pay a political price for decades.
<
p>I have to strongly disagree with you about a constitutional grad tax amendment, though, and refer you to a previous thread on that topic. It’s just a knee-jerk liberal position (sorry!) that isn’t based on any factual analysis, wouldn’t solve our fiscal problem and wouldn’t necessarily make our taxes any more progressive.
http://www.massbudget.org/docu…
<
p>a.) we need to save more dough, yes yes.
b.) we still need more dough.
c.) where are we going to get the money from?
d.) we should tax the rich more than the poor, because the poor need their money for basic life necessities.
e.) the outright prohibition of a progressive income tax is flat stupid. (haw)
But it’s property and sales taxes — not the state income tax — that’s driving the regressive pattern on your chart. The last comprehensive analysis I’ve seen on this subject backs that up. I believe our state income tax, which taxes unearned income at twice the rate of wages and salaries, is actually more progressive than most states that claim to have graduated income taxes.
If the whole structure is regressive, then that needs to be changed. The clearest, most plain, understandable, transparent way to get progressivity would be through an income tax, rather than twirl dozens of other dials, inviting both political mischief and plain old unintended consequences along the way. Hell, let’s cut the sales tax and increase the reliance on the income tax — in a progressive way.
<
p>Simpler, fairer, less pain. That should be the mantra.
Much of it was corruption. Out and out theft by the MBTA, Turnpike Authority, MWRA, Massport, the other mysterious and covert “authorities”. Egregious fiscal irresponsibility by several state agencies most notably the department of public safety. The felonious complicity of the Massachusetts state legislature in the midnight awarding of pay raises and larding of unearned and unwarranted pensions to every hack who was connected to the senate president or house speaker. The entitlement bestowed upon illegal aliens visibly ensconced in many of our communities and hailed as immigrants fleeing death and torture from perfectly functioning societies. The same illegal aliens who use USA to commit an unarmed robbery on our taxpayers by coming here to deliver anchor babies and pillage our state coffers for health care, fraudulent civil suits, sending billions of our dollars to wherever home is, filling our schools with children who cannot speak English and then demanding bilingual education, filling our prisons with those who would perpetrate rape upon our legitimate female citizens and kill more US citizens everyday than those servicemembers that die everyday in war. The criminal public employee unions and the many employees that go out on disability pensions on a regular basis who then work under the table.
<
p>And now you want more taxes? Over my dead body.
<
p>Fix this sewer we call Massachusetts State Government and rid us of the vermin that occupy our state legistlature and executive offices. There will be no need to raise taxes.
I think this “analysis” is dead wrong.
<
p>I think that “what got us to this point of collapsing into fiscal abyss” is nearly three decades of setting public policy based on this kind of rightwing tax-cutting tripe.
<
p>Our bridges are falling down because we stopped funding their maintenance or replacement, and simultaneously destroyed the public transportation alternatives that lessen demand for them. The MBTA is collapsing because we not only stopped funding it, but in addition saddled it with massive Big Dig debt while simultaneously cutting off its ability to meet the resulting interest costs.
<
p>I’ll try to ignore the xenophobic blather about immigrants.
<
p>Our prisons are, in fact, filled with violators of draconian and completely unnecessary and unsuccessful drug laws — mostly violations of marijuana and cocaine possession. The assertion about “those would perpetrate rape” is pure hate-filled bigotry, totally unsubstantiated by fact. The biggest threat faced by women in Massachusetts today is violence at the hands of their fully-legal natural-born-American male spouses, partners, and boyfriends. Rightwing extremists prefer to distract us with lurid fantasies that spring from their own projections of their own misogyny and bigotry rather than from anything remotely resembling “fact”.
<
p>Yes, the corruption is abysmal and yes it needs to be stopped. Mostly because the corruption gives batteries to the bullhorns of rightwing extremists who have already inflicted grave harm. The fiscal total of the corruption is a drop in the bucket compared to, for example, the amount of tax revenue cut by the rightwing (always in the name of “improving the business climate”) or the total amount of revenue from much-needed tax increases that haven’t been enacted because of the constant harping by rightwing anti-government extremists.
<
p>Yes, fix the corruption in Massachusetts government. Now. So that we can raise taxes, because the need for new taxes is desperate.
<
p>2. Micromanaging cities and towns from Beacon Hill. Central planning didn’t work in the old, failed USSR either. More local control would lead to more nimble response times and better handling of certain infrastructure issues.
<
p>3. Punishment placed ahead of either education or treatment leading to exponential growth in the prison population, court cases, and indigent defense [this attitude seems shared by the ever-growing un funded mandates in the criminal law context, failure to support families by the Department of Children and Families with a reliance on foster care rather than family supports such as young parent programs, and prosecution of economic crimes with the same zeal as violent crimes].
<
p>Just for starters.
<
p>You’re blaming the fiscal problems of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the right?
<
p>
<
p>I’m guessing that the guy who supplies Brookline isn’t among the incarcerated.
<
p>Yes. There are plenty of rightwingers in this state — and in this government — with a capital “D” after their name.
<
p>What policies, other than cutting taxes and slashing spending, has the rightwing proposed in Massachusetts.
<
p>I’ll ignore your cheapshot about Brookline.
That some of the D’s would be R’s elsewhere, but there’s no way that these types dominate the landscape.
<
p>The root of the problem is pretty simple. Our elected reps only priority is self preservation. They stick their neck’s out for nobody. They are not creatures of ideology.
<
p>Just to be clear, I wasn’t taking a shot at Brookline.
<
p>
Spending at a 6.5% annual growth rate, a rate that exceeds any measure of inflation, and blaming anyone except the spenders for the current fiscal “crisis”.
like infrastructure maintenence, so we don’t have to hear panicky squealing about bridges falling down from people who want to raise spending again.
Your claimed “6.5%” annual growth rate is pure fantasy.
<
p>The primary cause of the catastrophe is the tax CUT of nearly 16% promoted by the RIGHTWING between 2001 and 2002.
<
p>The dot com bust in 2001, and drop in revenue and subsequent cuts caused a budget crisis 8 years later?
<
p>That’s some ‘butterfly effect’ you got going there.
The Massachusetts personal income tax rate was cut by 11% between 1999 and 2002. Tax revenues fell by 16% between 2001 and 2002.
<
p>The impact of those catastrophic decreases has been developing since then. You don’t need any fancy butterfly effects — how long does it take for concrete and steel to crumble and rust when it isn’t maintained?
<
p>I have no idea. I’m pretty sure steel and concrete begin to deteriote immediately upon creation. But chemistry notwithstanding, transportation and public works budget has grown nicely.:
<
p>millions of dollars per year on transportation and public works line item:
<
p>1999 – 137
2000 – 228
2001 – 162
2002 – 139
2003 – 218
2004 – 189
2005 – 316
2006 – 282
2007 – 350
2008 – 347
<
p>Of course the General fund doesn’t tell the whole story since nearly 100% of road/bridge/capital is bond funded.
<
p>Criminy! That too has grown at a higher than 5% annual rate. and Together we have become the most indebted, per capita state in the US!
<
p>”but,but, but … inflation! There, I’ll save you the typing because both rates of growth exceed inflation over the period.
<
p>
The bridges, tunnels, and railways — the fundamental transportation infrastructure of the state — fails because this is New England — it snows, rains, freezes and thaws.
<
p>I have loudly and relentlessly argued for the elimination of waste, corruption, and mismanagement in our government, I agree with you (and everyone else) who is appalled by the pervasive corruption and incompetence that has accelerated the destruction of our basic transportation infrastructure.
<
p>Nevertheless, when we “defer” maintenance, when we fail to replace structures at the end of their useful life — when we return the capital needed to fund those replacements to the taxpayers, so that they can spend it on $300 a seat Red Sox games — we create the current transportation infrastructure problem.
<
p>Inflation, taxes, recessions, and so on are external forces that state-level decisions have very limited influence on.
<
p>The concrete does crumble, the steel does rust, the bridges do wear out. We squandered the resources needed to address that basic and obvious reality.
<
p>Now, those who led the charge in that squandering would do well to at least acknowledge their role in the failure — much as Mr. Posner and Mr. Greenspan have done.
<
p>Even more importantly, we must change our behavior. Our task is harder now, because the hole is deeper and it will cost all of us even more to dig out of it.
So your argument is that even though the State had a pile of money and spent it freely, it wasted it?
<
p>You sound like a conservative! Welcome to the dark side. Let’s throw those wasteful bums out.
Not exactly …
I keep hearing this whining about “our prison system is full because we incarcerate kids who give wedgies…”. Well fix it! Representing myself but I suspect I maybe speaking for many others on the “right”… if you think we should free non-violent inmates and stop incarcerating criminals for committing minor offense, call your lawmaker in this single party state and change the laws. Should be a no-brainer right?
<
p>The Gov is putting a new Crime Prevention Bill in which will address part of this
<
p>This is good as long as the “drug offenders” are users and not deales…
<
p>
<
p>This should stay as since we really really don’t want dealers selling to kids…
<
p>
<
p>How relavent is the “whether school is in session”? Does my speeding ticket fine change if I speed by a school on Saturday? Does my armed robbery charge get dropped if my gun wasn’t loaded?
<
p>Let’s get some support behind this bill and ram it through faster than a Legislative pay raise.
<
p>Next issue…
<
p>In this case, your penalty goes up if you live in an urban area versus a rural area. Why? Because in a dense urban area, you are virtually guaranteed of selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school because there are so many schools around. In rural areas there are not.
<
p>This translates into higher penalties for drug dealers in urban areas — for the same crime of drug dealing. Bet you didn’t think of it that way, did you?
Big fucking deal. You do realize that 1000 feet equals 330 yards which is a little over 3 football fields. Are you trying to say if we look at a map of Boston and draw 1000 foot circles around the schools we will virtually cover the city?
<
p>If someone is selling drugs near a school then the penalty should go up and if the drug dealer is too STUPID to know this then we are enriching the gene pool by getting him off the streets for 2+ years.
<
p>Stop with these types of arguments and start trying to get the drug users out of prison. Drug dealers sell drugs to people and ruin lives… don’t defend them.
I would like to know how much this ad is costing our state. It has been running for a week and it is starting to annoy me that we are spending money on this. It is showing on national channels, not just local. If I have seen it at least 5 times, then I’m sure the message is out. So let’s save some money and take it off the air.
Or buy a shorter run the next time.
<
p>
Another Coakley commercial. That’s two in the last hour, on MSNBC. AAAARRRRGHHHH. Stop wasting money!!!!!!!!!
Someone please tell me these are being aired for free.
Are you kidding? So is this worth spending money we don’t have? Maybe this would be great when the state is in good shape, but doing this now is just plain stupid.
<
p>
Great, now the computer challenged are going to be confused.
I am on the roads all day ( sales) all i see are state police cars everywhere i go, i see four of them lined up on the mass pike, i see them blazing down HOV lane, i see them everywhere – am i missing something or is this a police state?
<
p>we have too much of everything, 351 towns/cities, do we really need 351 town clerks? honestly?
<
p>go out on the water in and around boston harbor, state police, environmental police, state police, town police, city police, harbormasters, how much crime occurs on the water? are these just “payoffs” to the good ol boys who kissed the captains ass?
<
p>i will pay more taxes if you can show me a simple math equation:
<
p>1. amount state takes in taxes, fees, etc etc
2. amount state spend on services
3. cost of delivering these said services
<
p>my guess is that it costs about $1.10 to dole out $1 in serivces, i would love to see the number, when govt is efficent, running lean and mean, i will gladly give more to maintain these cops on the water, town clerks in orange mass, and the gas for the statie to blaze down the hov lane, until then i will resist
I’d like every vehicle that has sirens or emergency lights — police, fire, ambulance, etc. — to be equipped with a GPS locator that records the vehicle location, along with a timestamp, each time the sirens or lights are activated and deactivated. I’d like those results to be published on the web in real time. I’d like to see each call timestamped and recorded in the same system, and published in the same way.
<
p>In short — I’d like it to possible for any citizen to determine the purpose for any exercise of the emergency lights and sirens. I’d like it to be possible for independent entities to investigate, using real data, whether or not police, fire, and ambulance personnel do or do not abuse the privileges given them.
<
p>I don’t know whether we have too many or too few police cars. I don’t know what they do all day, and I don’t know what they don’t do because they are so busy doing whatever they do.
<
p>I do know that police, fire, and emergency services make up an important share of taxpayer costs, and I think all of us — including police, fire and emergency personnel — will benefit from more transparency about their operations.