We all want to live safe, healthy lives.
In Massachusetts, public services that we care deeply about – education, public safety, services for the elderly and disabled, and environmental protection, to name just a few – are hurting.
For our public structures to function effectively, they must be maintained and sometimes repaired or entirely redesigned. Our current revenues are not up to the task.
Is it possible to imagine a revenue structure that brings in adequate funding in an equitable way? If so, what does that look like?
Representative Jay Kaufman, Co-chair of the Joint Committee on Revenue, is currently planning a series of community forums on the implications of our revenue decisions moving forward.
Please join The Public Policy Institute for a special Insider Budget Briefing, where Representative Kaufman will lead our discussion on how you think we should fund our public services.
The tuition for the session is $10, and includes a light supper. If you are unable to pay the fee but want to join us, please let us know.
To RSVP for this event, or if you have any requests, comments, or suggestions, please contact Carmen Arce-Bowen at (617) 275-2833 or carmen@realclout.org
EVENT INFO
- Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 – 5:00-7:00pm
- 30 Winter Street, 9th Floor [Map] Boston, MA 02108
- Please RSVP by Wednesday, July 22nd to carmen@realclout.org
Almost Home, a model parole and post incarceration placement program, funded through the much maligned “earmark” tactic had won the support of some hard headed local pragmatic politicians, according to the Worcester Telegram quoting Sheriff Guy Glodis.
<
p>
<
p>Another example of a good program, that could be revived if we only could build the political will in support of an adequate balanced revenue package this fall.
<
p>Cross posted at ONE Mass
The better question is “how should we run the state?”
<
p>I contend we can run the state on 30% less revenue, and not affect a single transfer or benefit program.
<
p>Unless you consider state, MBTA, MTA, Massport, and Steamship Authority employees a “transfer” or “benefit program.”
I agree that with a significant capital investment, the Red, Green (underground), Orange, and Blue lines can be automated — allowing a significant reduction in labor costs and accomplishing a significant increase in both convenience and also lower operating costs (the Washington DC Metro operating costs are significantly lower when trains are automatically accelerated and decelerated).
<
p>With another slug of capital, the existing above-ground portions of the B, C, and E lines can be put underground and automated — again improving service and further decreasing operating costs.
<
p>Is that what you’re proposing? If so, I agree.
to a private entity, just like the City of Chicago sold the Skyway to Cinta. Let them figure out how to make improvements to the system. God knows the MBTA can’t get out of their own way.
The skyway is a highway, not an entire transporation network.
I don’t know how often you ride the commuter rail. But up until a few years back, Amtrak ran it, and ran it pretty well. And then we sold it to a consortium of private corporations.
<
p>Did the operations of the commuter rail improve or not? I’ll give you two guesses.
I’m glad you have faith that we could run our state, without affecting benefits and services, with 30% less revenue, but the fact that you believe it makes it no more true than the spaghetti monster. Sorry.
Dissolving the Mass Turnpike Authority, laying off all MTA employees, removing the tolls, and replacing the lost toll revenue by increasing the gas tax would increase net revenues to the state.
<
p>See here for MTA financials.
<
p>I have done a quick analysis, and by eliminating all MTA operations, taking down the tolls, and replacing the lost toll revenue by increasing the gas tax, I can generate an additional $209 million in NET REVENUES to the Commonwealth.
<
p>This is appx. a SIXFOLD increase in NET REVENUES to the state.
<
p>I keep paying pension and retiree costs, repair and maintenance, and interest expense on all the debt.
<
p>And every year, as retiree health and pension liabilities waned, that net revenue figure would go up!
<
p>And there are other ways to enhance revenues that the MTA can not and will not consider because it was antithetical to their continued gravy train employment and bureaucratic largess. Selling off some of their excess real estate comes to mind. And why not do a sale-leaseback of their Transportation Building headquarters?
<
p>Why is this not a no-brainer?
<
p>Similar analyses apply to the MBTA, Massport, and likely all facets of state government.
<
p>So I think I’m being generous when I claim we could operate the state with 30% less revenue and not cut into a single transfer payment or benefit.
on the Pike – I’d much favor a gas tax to the tolls, because tolls are so costly to collect and maintain. But that doesn’t get to anywhere near 30%. 30% is a holy grail figure you “believe in.”
<
p>Can’t follow you to the MBTA of any other public transit authority in this state. You simply can’t get rid of it and still maintain those services – and whether you use those services or not, millions of people in this state do. We need them.
the mythical “reform” that happened didn’t even touch the calamity that faces us down the road. Anyone one this board know what GASB 45 entails? Ryan, maybe we should talk sometime and run over math – this crap has been going on in this state and RI for too long. When your eyes are opened on the abuses, we might even turn you into a Libertarian (I’m not, but the junk and abuse that I see does turn one into a cynic big time).
He’s been throwing this random number around for a while now, backed up by the same “single example”. He’s not serious.
Try it this way.
<
p>Spending per capita, in 2007, in Massachusetts was $6838. 8th highest state in US. Let’s cut that by 30%: $4,787. Do any states manage on such a meager redistribution? Sure: Kansas is 36th at $4766, with 14 additional states spending less. It’s not an unreasonable assertion.
<
p>Try 20% reduction to $5,470. $5,470 is very nearly the average of all the states! So a 20% reduction in per capita spending makes Massachusetts average. And the meaningful US average is probably lower; Alaska probably should be omitted as an outlier.
<
p>Massachusetts is a typical ‘crisis of abundance’ state. Boston and its large metropolitan area economy generates a lot of revenue to supply said revenue to a small state. It generates plenty of tax and spends readily.
First let us look at all the numbers and lets get all the facts out on the table.
<
p>Massachusetts has experienced a $9 Billion tax cut already, which is a 30% cut in Revenue the spending side has been trimmed with 9C and this latest FY11 budget by $5 Billion or a 17% spending cut. So stop with the cuts they have already happened and unless a tree grows that flowers dollars there will be more cuts coming not less so your assertions that we need to cut have already happen. So lets open your eyes and see the trees.
<
p>Boston as usual you list half the facts that you better start considering if you want to really make a dent in turning this economy around and Gary same goes for you. One if you just shut down the MTA and lay off everyone tomorrow you will be paying unemployment for the next 1-2 years for 90% of the employees 2nd their are costs associated with removing the toll booths and taking over the facilities none of this gets done for free so your savings are three years off at the very best and with inflation and the need to kep up the road you are likely to see less then a quarter of that revenue and only if you can find a way to WALK on the out standing Bonds and swaptions from the big dig that the MTA is stuck with. Dumping them into the general obligations will come at huge cost upfront and likely higher rates which here again eats your savings. NOW BOYS don’t forget who stuck those bills into the MTA Romney/Swift/Cellucci/Weld NOT DEVAL.
<
p>Same goes for the MBTA the legacy costs along with Debt along with unemployment cut your numbers to shreds. You tell half a story and your telling fairy tales as usual.
<
p>Lets now throw in to your points an equation that increases credit card defaults from out of work individuals. Mortgage defaults. Reduced consumption, which leads to fewer small businesses surviving, large retails cutting, manufacturers with fewer sales, The need for fuel assistance and Food Stamps free lunch at schools and guess what both of you your points are totally false.
<
p>You are looking at just one small point in a sea of an economy you are both not worth the time it takes to read.
<
p>Now to the broader point can we continue to streamline well guess what their is no choice the economy is continuing to contract and the loss of equity and value of the entire country has fallen and is still sliding south. The issue needs to be not throwing enough crap at the wall to see what sticks but to make decisions that do not cascade into new problems and expands or increases the slide.
<
p>So save your keyboard and the rest of us from having to read such crap and look before you leap your suggestions would wind up costing us money in the short run and likely save us little or nothing in the future. Or at least do us all a favor and go do your leaping out of sight maybe the Quincy quarry would be a choice because in this case your not offering any thing of true substance.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
<
p>Sorry Edward, it’s simply not true. Look at the DOR figures ending Mid-June 2009. $17.3 Billion. Now, look at the DOR tax collected June 2008: $20.9 billion. Substract the small number from the big one and it’s $3.6 billion, not 9 billion.
<
p>
<
p>Well, now that’s just a bunch of random words given that the DOR says tax revenues are down 12.2 %. They report; you decide. It’s DOR’s numbers, not mine.
<
p>
<
p>I assume you mean FY10 budget, no? Governor signs $27 billion dollar budget., right? Now, here’s the 2009 expended of $27.5 billion.
<
p>But, other than if by $9 billion you mean 3 and by 30% you mean 12 and by 17% you mean 2.5%, and by $5 billion you mean $500 million, you’re spot on target.
<
p>This is factual: 2009 spending was the highest in the history of the state. 2010 budget is the 2nd highest in the history of the state.
<
p>
Included in the 10 Budget is $7.522 billion in federal stimulus revenues available for the FY 2010 budget. Which are included so factor in that into your calculations to see what revenue has dropped in Massachusetts I stand by my 9 Billion dollar figure
<
p>So take this years budget of 27,046,010 cut out the $7.522 billion in Stimulus your down to 19.6 Billion approximately. Look at the projection of revenue from DOR and the Senate Ways and means of 17.5 Billion in revenues.
<
p>Then lets look at historic budgets
<
p>2010 $19.6 Billion Federal Stimulus $7.5 Billion
<
p>2009 $28.16 Billion Federal stimulus 0
<
p>2008 $28,05 Billion Federal stimulus 0
<
p>2007 $25.6 Billion Federal stimulus 0
<
p>2006 $23.9 Billion Federal Stimulus 0
<
p>2010 Budget (not 2011 stand corrected) is 2 Billion in cuts to the actual spending level for an 7.1% Cut in spending for 2010 with increased fixed costs of 2-4% depending on the numbers you read and from what sources and you are over 10% on average in dollar cuts in 2010 and with out Federal stimulus you are well over 30% in cuts from Massachusetts generated revenue.
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2…
<
p>http://www.massbudget.org/docu…
<
p>http://www.mass.gov/bb/gaa/fy2…
<
p>Ad in the last FACT that revenue in June is down another 248 Million or 1/4 of a Billion and Massachusetts Generated revenues are down close to 16 Billion. This is lower then revenues almost a Decade ago. The Massachusetts Economy is off by almost 1/3 of what it was this is effecting all categories from payroll tax, capital gains, sales, excise, hotel/motel, fees every category is off by 30%.
<
p>And please do not suggest if we cut deeper it will not have an effect on the other mechanisms of the economy because that too is False.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
You’re not even bothering to follow the links to DOR or to the Comptroller are you?
<
p>First, you list ‘historical budgets’. That makes no sense. Who cares what 2008’s “budget” was if actual spending was different? Compare 2010 budget to prior year actual. You will see that the budget of 2010 is a decrease from 2009 actual by less than 3%. The 2010 budget if accomplished will be the 2nd largest spending in the history of the state.
<
p>Second, you say the 2010 budget is $19.6 + $7.5 of federal Stimulus. That’s not right. The $7.5 is Federal reimbursement. For an apples to apples comparison, consider that 2008 had federal reimbursments of $6.9 billion. So the comparisons, apples to apples would be:
<
p>2010 $19.6 Billion Federal
Stimulusreimburse $7.5 Billion2008 $21.1 Billion Federal reimbuse $6.9
<
p>Geez…come on Edward, use some common sense here. You’re saying the state’s only bringing in $19.6 billion? For God’s sake, the tax consensus forecast is $19.53 billion.. In addition, the state brings in fee income, federal grants, lottery etc…approaching $10 billion. Lottery alone pulls in net of $4 billion.
<
p>
<
p>I gave you the flippin’ link to DOR. Revenues from taxes are $17.3 billion through mid June. Yes, the remainder of the month collections are down, BUT NOT NEGATIVE. And the $17.3 billion doesn’t even include the Massachusetts generated fees.
<
p>Tax revenues are down by about 12 to 12.5 % from last year. Not 30%. Show me 30%; I’ve given you a link to show 12.3%. I have given you a Massachusetts government generated link for every single number I’ve posted. 30% is bullshit. Don’t go full Chicken Little on me.
<
p>I agree: tax revenues are down (by 12%) (dor site); spending is down (3%) (governor’s own words).
<
p>
those numbers are down from those projected for collection July 1 2008- June 30,2009 and the number shown is 17.1 billion. Now we know that the number for the balance of june came in lower then the figure quoted thus far in the month down to (248) million from (217) million. The original projection for 09 was north of 19 Billion and was lowered through out the year by Secretary for A&F to 18.4 Billion look for the () (*) notes which were down as I said before from the estimates of about 21 Billion dollars. Now much of that money came in in good months of July, August, September and October when collections were just beginning to soften and then go into the tail spin of November 2008.
<
p>We have failed to hit the mark for any month since and the number has been revised downward several times.
<
p>The point being this that the current estimate is some where just over 16 Billion and as a result of the continueing slide it is expected now (things could change up or down) that the number is to high. The budget reflects a $5 Billion dollar cut in anticipated revenues about 25% now with some of the cuts we will not have all the matching funds to get a dollar for dollar match in some programs so the overall spending in the budget which is a differant figure from the ones you are looking at are down even further.
<
p>I stick by my figure of the revenue to be spent historically and under a normal economy is approx. 30% this puts our budget closs to the levels of a decade ago and with out stimulus next year or a greatly reduced amount maybe less then 25% of the 7.5 Billion figure we may see huge cuts to all levels of service or even a larger tax increase in order to keep core services funded along with Debt Service and Health care. If you look closely I think you will see that those historical numbers are for part of the year before the economy collapsed and revenue fell off the table. They do lag what is happening on Main street because many of the numbers reflect income and sales and business preactice earlier in the year.
<
p>As I said I stick by the facts
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
You’re going to use Kansas as an example? Really?
<
p>You want Massachusetts to be more like Kansas?
<
p>Gary, if you really feel that way, by all means, go move there. I hear the grass is greener…
You dissin’ Kansas? AND, the other 14 states that spend less per capita.
They have the wrong priorities. In what way is that a secret?
Then add to your list: Arizona, Çolorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, all of which spend 30% less per person.
Though, thankfully, several of those states are on the upside, or at least were before the economic collapse. (Colorado, for example, got rid of a disastrously bad voter initiative from a few years back that cruelly handicapped that state.)
we essentially don’t have county government while other states do. the county spending in other states pays for things that MA pays for here. no hard facts in this comment, i know, but just something to consider.
Good point.
<
p>My point was that a 30% cut, at the State level, as bostonshepard suggests, is not nonsense, but rather within the realm of possibility if not probability because it appears that would match the spending of several other states.
<
p>20% cut, at the State level, would match the spending of many, if not most, other states.
Barnstable has an active counthy governmetn with county projects and a county assessment and even a representative county government, the Assembly of Delegates.
The savings may be wrong, my approach may be faulty, I may have overlooked some major point. But the number isn’t random. I’m willing to engage you in a legitimate accounting critique.
<
p>But this?
<
p>
<
p>Yes, this the same old bullsh*t from progressives and the largest, entrenched state government interest group … state government. Don’t touch spending. Ever. Don’t bother. Raise revenues. Always.
<
p>At some point, taxpayers get tired at the sound of your tin drum and Prop One will pass. Then you’ll be forced to face operating government with a lot less.
Send me the spreadhseet…my email is on the profile page. Back it up.
<
p>Your 30% fiction has been disproven over and over again, but yet you cling to it. That’s why I say “don’t bother”. There’s been a welter of facts thrown at you, but you cling to your magic number because the last thing you want to do is see anyone pay their fair share.
bs hasn’t followed up on his bs yet….
Nothing is the same any more with this economic crisis and suggesting what applied 5 years ago to today is ignorant. There are cascading effects to every action in this economy when you displace one group here it sends shock waves through a system so over stretched that the risk is it snapping back. Can some issues be done yes the reform package on Pensions and Transportations took great steps forward can others be done maybe but you can not in this economy just throw it up in the air and take pot shots at it with out in my opinion blowing the whole thing up.
<
p>So yes you have failed to look at the consequences of your actions and the real dollars they will consume and over a time frame that is to long and to far in such a fragile economic time.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
We should fund the state government, if that’s what you mean, with a tax structure which maximizes economic growth first. Review the tax and regulatory structure and find what is retarding productivity and job growth and cut it out.
You are correct that the Government provides for one thing opportunity and it does so in a whole host of ways. Though opportunity we see economic growth and just as importantly stability. Currently because of factors way out side of the states control the Economic systems have collapsed and the State and it’s revenue are being dragged down the black hole with the rest of the country. The reasons why and how are great to understand to help regulate for the future but do little to help put the pieces back together. It is my opinion that this is going to take years and my reason are the following, we have lost value in the entire country no in the entire world, this value lost may reach as high as 30% thus pushing the value of all goods, services, possessions to the value they had over a decade ago thus what we have been operating on for the Decade + has been pure speculation of value that was not their. As a result the roll back of all of this is both dramatic and painful.
<
p>Now suggesting that the state and the Country must make due with revenue of a decade ago with today’s costs is not a crisis I don’t know what is? So opportunity is suffering and is in this time un important because of the lack of faith now controlling investment and entrepreneurial expansion.
<
p>This leads to Governments second role that we as both a Commonwealth and a Country have taken on over the centuries and most recently during the Great Depression; this is the role of a safety net. Under this role we as a nation and a people accept the assumption that not everyone will prosper under true capitalism. A host of reasons exist from illness to disability through factors out side of an individual’s control. Thus we created social safety nets to look after these people and to help to weather them through their storm with a hope of allowing them to return to the advantages opportunity has to offer.
<
p>Now when opportunity is missing the social safety net grows instead of remaining stagnant or even shrinking. Putting more pressure on the role of government to fund these services to prevent further damage to society.
<
p>These two obligations consume 100% of revenue in normal times for states and our country. In economic crisis the demand for investment in opportunity and the cost of social safety nets grows at a time when revenues are falling along with the broader economy.
<
p>In capitalism where taxes are based on the economy be it income or value their is no system that can be solely based a revenue stream that is generated by the economy to perpetuate the economy just as there is no engine that can create enough energy to power itself and then some to invest in the future. At least we have yet to solve either with a working model.
<
p>The Federal government is the only vehicle that can borrow on the value of the future of this country and it is doing so. What can be debated and should be debated always is the % that goes into safety nets and goes into restarting opportunity. My own personal feeling and belief is the US has over invested dollars into the businesses under the label to big to fail AIG was a huge mistake and anyone with an ounce of ability will see that we have in fact invested more in that one corporation then we have in the Auto industry and the stimulus put together. AIG on the surface has taken $200 Billion in cash from the federal government and has forced the printing of over 2 Trillion additional dollars by the fed to support AIG and those industries suffering as a result of AIG’s business practices and promises This certainly is a concentration of our scarce resources in just one entity and when you add in the additional Wall Street bail outs you will see nearly another $500 Billion investment in to big to fail.
<
p>While we have spent $784 Billion in stimulus more then half has gone to social safety nets and about 25% have gone to opportunity funding while you ad in 60 Billion to the auto industry and another 75 Billion for the rescues of the Financial divisions and you still come up way short of the dollars used to support AIG and Wall Street.
<
p>So the hope of solving this crisis in the short run is severely damaged by the formula of distribution of the future value of our Country and to the Point Sea it has reduced the dollars available to invest in future infrastructure to foster future growth and Opportunity.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
<
p>You’re describing stimulus funding. That’s not what I’m talking about. Obviously the people in 1999 were fine with their budget. Massachusetts has not had a population explosion since then, however it has had an explosion of government obligations. You may find those valuable but you need to pay for them. The people in 1999 seem to have got by without them however.
<
p>If you feel you need them though, then you need to remember that there is only one ultimate source for all this money, it is the private economy. Your responsibility is to find the level at which you can tax the private economy which does not hurt it enough to hurt the revenues for your social programs.
<
p>To go semi-metaphorical on your larger point, the source for all economy activity, for all life really, is the sun. There are countless examples on this site alone where you will find people trying to block out the sun with one regulation or another, because let’s face it, some people don’t like other people getting money, and sometimes making money is damaging to the environment or exploits weak people. So I don’t accept that there is nothing the state can do to help out its own economy. The state of Massachusetts is an enemy to new business and new ideas. The state should not be in the business of coming up with new ideas or paying off established industries to stay here, that’s a recipe for corruption. The state should set a level playing field for all and back off from picking favored sectors.
<
p>
I was not referring to stimulus funding but merely pointing out the fact that the Federal Government can deficit spend where as most states are by they’re constitutions not allowed to do so. They also cannot print more dollars when they need to.
<
p>Your point,
<
p>
.
<
p>is well made and quite accurate on its assertion that we need to limit taxes, what we are currently facing in this economy is a rapid drop in revenue/taxes at a rate which does not allow us to meet the obligations of Borrowing and fulfill the key roles of government of providing opportunity and social safety net roles which was the key point I was seeking to make. Faced with this critical situation the choices are few and far between. We can cut areas of the budget which are not mandated by law such as our Debt obligations and by so doing eliminate social programs to a % of the population for those individuals effected their options are few and their situation is dire. We can raise some taxes to soften the blow and take a few dollars from those that have more to try and maintain critical programs. I think you can read about several here on BMG Amber has posted 2 wonderful pieces about the effect of some of the cuts are having on the most vulnerable. It is a tricky balancing act to avoid hurting the rest of the economy that is quite clear.
<
p>The issue of increased obligations since 1999 I would suggest try since 1989 and the start of big dig borrowing has certainly got the state backed into the corner but do not lose sight of the fact that those jobs which the Big Dig provided over the last 2 Decades were a key to the heights our local economies climbed. It should be no surprise that with out 17 Billion dollars being pumped into the Eastern Massachusetts economy that there is a real void in tax revenue as income disappears from our area.
<
p>Still to your original point
<
p>The point being that their is little left in the bucket to spend on the broad initiative of promoting growth when so much is headed into debt service and social safety net programs as well as the necessary functions of government such as public safety.
<
p>My point should be clear that no system of taxation is sufficient to meet your request and provide the services they have been doing for centuries.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
A way to cut down on elder care.