So, you and me and every other actual person in this state is with nearly 100% certainty looking at a tax increase — not a standstill, an increase — in the very near future.
God forbid the corporations should see a delay in their tax cut, though. The Senate today rejected a proposal to freeze the corporate tax rate at its current level of 9.5%, instead allowing it to fall to 8.75% next year. *sigh*
The folks who believe that everyone should share the pain:
Chang-Diaz
Eldridge
Donnelly
Galluccio
Jehlen
Pacheco
McGee
We’ll keep posting the updates as we get them.
Please share widely!
Sure, you and I will. But the REAL reform debate has been lost and those folks on the hack gravy train are still among the protected class. And I believe that goes for Senator Donnelly, who after spending most of his fire fighting career as a full time union offical is collecting a full fire fighting pension (under the assumption he had a dangerous job) NOW gets to collect a full salary as a State Senator!!!! (If he as passed on this double dipping, I will gladly apologize.)
<
p>And then you have Sens. Chang-Diaz and Eldridge who write 600 words about the need for a tax hike in the Globe, but couldn’t muster a word about any reforms or cuts in programs that don’t work.
<
p>Yes, they support Patrick’s reforms, which are a start…but way to late to provide creditablity to the mantra “reform before revenue”.
<
p>Progressives have made a pack with the hacks…for revenue only and the people of Massachusetts are not stupid. They see through this crap. Hopefully I’ve shown my progressive skin around here…I have certainly tried to articulate those values to the boneheads over at RMG…(and I’ve really tried to stop any conserative netroots efforts over there with an occasional poke in the eye). So my disgust with what is playing out (revenues or we’ll burn the house down) should not be dismissed as some conserivative rant.
<
p>I’m a progressive, but I’m not a sap. My income is down, my job is in danger…I will STILL gladly make more of a personal scarifice for the betterment of all. But don’t take me for a sucker and continue the hack system we have. At this moment in time, any elected advocating one penny more of new taxes, without meaningful reform, it being irresponsible to the taxpayers in this state. And I’m just not talking about reforming the pensions and the no-shows…frankly I think the money we invest in human services are not well spent…what happened to all talk about tearing down the silos of services and making the system work better…oh ya, that was Deval in campaign mode and not as Governor!
<
p>I’ve followed the debate here about reform before Revenue and folks like Charlie, you and Bob seem resigned to the fact that reform (real reform) has lost out and you’re accepting the revenue side relucantly because of all the cuts. Well, the I don’t think the voters will accept that in 2010.
<
p>There is no handwriting on the wall…with Deval’s poll numbers the way they are, if the Reps put up a Charlie Baker or a Mike Sullivan (not Christy…maybe, Godforebid, Scott Brown)) the Blue Angels are sky writing that the Dems will lose the corner office in 2010.
<
p>
I think we’ve been pretty clear that we’re squarely behind the Gov’s insistence on getting some meaningful reform passed. He’s threatened to veto the (almost certain) sales tax hike if that doesn’t happen, and we’ll back him 100% if/when he does.
<
p>Today’s issue, though, is taxes and the budget, and it’s happening right now. So that’s what I’m writing about.
<
p>I think the Chang-Diaz/Eldridge op-ed was appropriately limited to taxes. They had, as you say, 600 words. Tough to cover more than one topic in that much space and say anything coherent. They’ve both been out front on reform, and I expect they will continue to be there.
<
p>Re 2010, neither Scott Brown nor Christy can win, or even come particularly close. Charlie Baker’s more of a threat, but he’s got to shit or get off the pot soon. Mike Sullivan … I dunno. I think he wants to make some money. Plus, he’s got a lot of GWBush baggage, as well as a string of embarrassing rulings from Judge Wolf to deal with.
<
p>I agree with you about the Donnelly double-dipping story. Bad news.
No significant reform has passed prior to the new tax discussions.
<
p>I second Frank’s comment.
…but I want to know what happen to the last two years of hope over cynicism? Sure it remains to be seen if the Repubs can get their act together for 2010…but by the simple metric of comparing platform and rhetoric vs behavior and accomplishments…Deval Patrick contract does not deserve to be renewed by the voters of Massachusetts.
<
p>Regarding Chang-Diaz/Eldridge op-ed, anyone who makes a case for increasing taxes in Massachusetts WITHOUT mentioning the need for reform, is making a very unpersuasive case. Its like arguing Cheney was a terrible Vice President without mentioning torture.
they’re not out there fighting for savings and reforms when they’ve both just passed amendments vastly improving the Senate ethics bill and have been at the forefront of pushing for reforms and savings in the Senate. Why not target people who are actually contributing to these problems on Beacon Hill, not trying to solve them?
First and foremost, Ken Donnelly worked as a full-time Fire Fighter. He served as a Local Union officer, elected by members of that Local Union, and still worked as a a full-time Fire Fighter.
<
p>Senator Donnelly was elected by Fire Fighter Union members across the state as the PFFM’s Secretary-Treasurer. And yes that is a full-time union position. However, PFFM officers MUST pull shifts as full-time Fire Fighters under the Union’s constitution.
<
p>So Ken Donnelly worked as a Fire Fighter, putting his life on the line, throughout his career and earned a pension.
<
p>The VOTERS elected him and his Union background was discussed extensively in 2 campaigns.
<
p>Is it your contension that no one who is retired and collecting a pension should hold elective office? Or do you just discriminate against public sector workers who served the taxpayers with distinction for 30 years?
<
p>And his voting record is quickly showing his commitment to progressive issues.
He earned the pension. It’s his.
<
p>My objection with him is this:
<
p>
<
p>And what have we today? An abused pension systsem with little oversight and multiple retirement boards each with their own rules and overhead, and a future generation burdened by an enormous unfunded liability.
<
p>Kudos. Pension oversight was significantly his, and look what we have as a result.
He earned his pension. He is earning his salary. If you look at his voting record so far he is voting with the progressive.
This was off my radar, so I didn’t call about it. Glad I live in a district with such a sensible, hardworking state senator.
Do you have a link to the votes? What was the reasoning behind it? Trickle down economonics? Or to draw business to the state? Neither of which I believe is a sound reason for corporate tax cuts. Total disappointment. : (
Info from someone inside the building.
doesn’t seem to have made the news.
<
p> Not an hour of private employment experience among them. What’s it take to get some diverity in the Senate?
since it is only going to offset some of what they are getting from us in the sales tax hike…(infuriating, are you kidding? How can they do this? Must we bow down to those poor corporations who will fight to the death to avoid paying employees a living wage)
<
p>I did a little research and found that it seems these tax cuts were promised last year…Still, everything has changed so this tax cut should have been put on hold.
<
p>Passing along this old news, I’m sure you all discussed this as it was happening.
<
p>
I like Governor Patrick’s proposed cut better.
<
p>So did the loophole reform have any effect or did the corporations find a new loophole to satisfy their needs?
I can’t wait to see those extra funds trickle down to the working class people of this state. Gee, do you think they’ll get a bonus this year? Or Wow, how about a “cost of living” raise? Hmmmmm. Really doubt it.