Some gory details on new taxes:
The conference budget contains a sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent…. The conference budget also generates approximately $80 million from the removal of the alcohol sales tax exemption…. The budget also includes a municipal relief package that allows cities and towns to raise additional revenue locally to maintain essential services provided by schools, police and fire departments. The plan allows municipalities to adopt a local option meals tax of .75 percent and also a 2 percent lodging tax…. The municipal package also eliminates the property tax exemption on poles and wires located on public property and public rights-of-way….
Some of what that means:
Sales tax revenues will help restore important services that were previously cut, including $10 million for Prescription Advantage, $6.5 million for youth violence prevention grants and $4 million for universal pre-K…. [Sales tax on alcohol] will be used to restore safety-net services such as substance abuse programs, community health centers, domestic violence prevention, elder care and early intervention programming.
Here’s an interesting tidbit on the transportation front:
The proposal establishes the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund, which will receive $275 million annually from sales tax revenues for use by transportation authorities and agencies in all areas of the Commonwealth. This transfer will avoid the need for any devastating increases to the Turnpike tolls, MBTA fares or the gas tax in fiscal year 2010.
Really? That’s all it took? I’m surprised, but what do I know?
And of course, we can’t forget this:
The conference budget also … allows Massachusetts to participate in the popular multi-state Powerball lottery game which would bring in additional money for cities and towns
Woohoo!
It would be amusing if it weren’t so pitiful to see how out of touch the legislature is. Between Wilkerson stuffing cash into her bra and the former Speaker doing a perp walk one would think that ethics reform would be the first order of the day.
<
p>I used to laugh when esteemed commenter MCRD said that many people in Massachusetts consider members of the General Court to be common criminals. Now I’m not so sure. I don’t think that, personally, but I’ve been convinced that many do — with some justification, unfortunately, based on recent events. Refusal to legislate ethics reform feeds those prejudices.
<
p>If the Governor does not veto this I think he will suffer real political damage, as you point out, for both policy reasons (see above) and political ones (his word).
<
p>The best thing for the Governor, and for Massachusetts, would be if he can fracture the legislature enough to prevent an override. Then things would start to get interesting. Is it fair to say that only a hack would vote to override the Governor in the event of a veto? Are we up for another game of “Am I a hack or not?”
Governor, please veto the sales tax increase.
<
p>This will cripple the economy of MA along the New Hampshire border, and will have a negative impact along the Rhode Island border.
<
p>Plus the transportation reform does not address the 23 and out provision.
<
p>Yes this is a very difficult year and there will be painful cuts in worthy programs. Still we can’t have tax revenue to fund these programs until the economy rebounds. So why increase a tax that will have a long term negative impact on economic growth?
<
p>Veto the sales tax. Make the case to legislators that an increase is the wrong move. The voters know this!
<
p>Fighting the Beacon hill culture and investing for the long term is why you beat Tom Reilly and Kerry Healey! Please don’t let us down now.
I too am concerned about the sales tax increase, one study I saw (that I can’t now find to quote, said actual additional revenue will only be 600 mil not 900. Any business near the New Hampshire border will suffer.
<
p>Is the 23 and out provision not addressed? If not that is a mistake.
<
p>I don’t know enough yet if the Gov. should veto this. I would agree that a veto is in order if the Gov. would then back an increase in the income tax, scrap the sales tax increase and demand the transportation and ethics reform that he wants.
The transportation reform bill changed this to 25 years of service and 55 years of age instead of 23 and out…
The awaited final Ethics Reform bill (which will be released shortly and does not have budget consequences) should not stop the Governor from signing the budget. The Governor did not make that a contingent. He was looking for reform in budget related areas as prelude for his signature.
<
p>He got the Pension and Transportation reforms…which do impact the budget…so he can feel free to sign the budget as soon as it lands on his desk today.
<
p>I think the whole ethics reform discussion has gotten muddled. We do have laws on the books already against criminal acts of bribery, fraud and theft which apply to all elected officials…they just need to be enforced on a diligent and regular basis.
<
p>The ethics reform being put together as an attempt to restore public trust has more to do with campaign finance issues, lobbying rules and the behavior of elected officials and those who would influence them for personal gain. Nothing wrong with setting down some tough rules…but it’s so much not much without enforcement. The Ethics Commission is a weak investigator and had become a place that marginally ethical politicians would turn to to get a quickie review and a “kinda clean bill of health”…to deter a criminal investigation and discourage DA’s and the AG from pursuing a real investigation into matters. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just refer all complaints to real law enforcement for investigation and prosecution rather than waste time and resources on the Ethics Commission?
“Scaccia exemption” (exorbitant gifts are okay unless you can prove a direct link to a specific official act), the legislature’s exemption from open meeting laws, the state ethics commission’s inability to obtain documents from legislators, all these things make state laws against bribery and corruption all but unenforceable ? Sure, it seems like Federal investigators have been able to eventually catch the most egregious offenders, but what about the stuff that goes on under their radar? The Boston Globe essentially spoonfed DiMasi to the Feds- nobody at the state level (Ethics or AG) seemed capable of doing anything at all to him. It seems that the Massachusetts ethics laws and state anti-bribery statutes are absolutely ineffective right now. Hence the biannual appearance of the Feds to save the day.
<
p>Is this how we want things to continue? To perhaps have the FBI set up a permanent office inside the state house to monitor those incapable of controlling or policing themselves? Or should we demand that the legislature hold itself to some higher standards before they take more of our money? I vote for the latter.
According to your write-up, he got at least 2 out of 3 things he said he wanted, perhaps 2.5/3
<
p>If Deval is willing a veto bill that “only” gives him most of what he wants, that’s his business. It will speak volumes about his ability to work with the other branches of government. The Legislature is rather aware that they don’t really need his support to write a budget. It’s been a good detente this month in terms of the Lege at least seeking it…if Deval doesn’t sign because he got almost everything he wanted, then the consequences are on him.
Holding back the Ethics Reform piece until after the Governor signs the budget could be a deliberate and wise strategic move. There may be a section in the proposed reforms that will actually curtail the Governor’s own campaign fundraising and re-election resources. Perhaps they are holding back as not to have that proposed reform interfere with getting the budget passed and signed.
<
p>Makes sense….because those proposals do not impact the budget appropriations.
he welcomes restrictions on his own fundraising. (Can’t find a link, but I know I’ve heard him say that he would welcome revisiting the $5500 candidate/party end-run.) And in any event, I suspect he’ll have no trouble raising money.
Can just admit he is powerless, and slink on down to DC to his new appointed position. I’m sure Ibama will take good care him. Because he’s never getting elected to anything again. CHRISTY2010!
The topic at hand. Maybe if I said Tim Cahill?
… to react to whatever aspects of what you wrote that he wants. He just happened to react to the most absurd part. If he finds the rest of it absurd I’m sure he’ll let you know.
<
p>The zeal with which some progressives are salivating at the prospect of state government fiscally imploding astonishes me. Maybe that would be the best for some abstract ideal, but not for flesh-and-blood citizens who depend on state services. Is the goal to become California?
<
p>We are where we are for a host of reasons, including a “good ol’ boy” culture in the Legislature that goes back for generations and is often outright corrupt, and Governor Patrick’s unwillingness or inability to put his shoulder to the wheel and seriously engage with the Legislative leadership and progressives in the Legislature to begin to change that culture and accomplish reform.
What’s the time frame for having to sign it? What if they pass ethics reform early next week? Then he can sign ethics, then the budget. Boom bam.
The Governor has 10 days to either sign, send back with amendments, or veto a bill once it gets to his desk.
Sit on it for nine days, then send it back with minor amendments. Who knows — in the mean time the lege might get that ethics bill done.
<
p>Keep in mind, Patrick gets a lot of the things he’s been talking about for a long time. They’re relatively minor (telco poles, local options) but they’re in there.
I mean, prolong the process for nine days for what again?
<
p>Towns are waiting for budget numbers, and if Deval sits on them for nine to no end, he ain’t making those towns happy.
has ever returned a budget in less than 10 days (except in the era when only five days were allowed). As you are no doubt aware, it is a very large document, and the Gov and his staff have to go through it line by line for possible line-item vetoes. Having gone through the process myself when I worked in the State House, I can tell you that 10 days is a completely inadequate time period to really do the job properly — after all, how many months has the legislature been sitting on this thing? It’s not a question of “stalling” or “sitting”; it’s a question of responsibly exercising the (inadequate) time allowed by the Constitution.
Today is day one.
<
p>The Governor has nine more days to make his case directly to the public. Nine days to demonstrate to the lege how the voters will react to their refusal to tackle ethics reform in a substantive way. Nine days to, perhaps, persuade the lege that 23-and-out has to go for current, as well as future, employees.
<
p>Nine days to demonstrate that there’s a new sheriff in town.
<
p>I hope that that means nine days of carefully-orchestrated appearances, press releases, TV commercials, youtube videos, photo ops, etc. The strategy has already been mapped out, right? The troops are already briefed, the necessary groundwork laid, and the Governor is now pulling the trigger. Right?
it would be great. The question is what happens if the lege boots the ethics bill down the road. Rather as they’ve booted ethics down the road….
he has no choice but to veto. Simple.
I very much hope the ethics reform bill gets signed ASAP, but I think it’s worthy to note that the reason it is not on Patrick’s desk along with pension and transportation may be that it was passed long after those other two bills. While transportation and pension reform were passed in March/April, ethics was passed in mid-May, the week before the budget. Sure, it may be being held up on purpose, but it could also just be that they haven’t finished hammering out the differences.
<
p>Just throwing it out there…