Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Brown backers said ‘yes’ to taxes

By

For many in Massachusetts and across the nation, Scott Brown’s January 19th victory is being widely hailed as a victory for anti-government, anti-tax crusaders. Brown won big in suburbia and Dedham was no exception (55 percent).

But on the same ballot, Dedham voters also voted by a higher margin (60 percent) to increase their property taxes. The reason voters chose to override the Proposition 2 ½ levy limit? Dedham chose to invest in their schools.

Dedham’s override will pay for a new school and athletic field. While some residents were apprehensive about the investment, others saw it as part of the town’s common interest, as Ruth Hamilton, 73, pointed out in the Dedham Transcript:

Hamilton said she thought many seniors voted against the Avery because they were “afraid their taxes will go up,” but did not fully comprehend what it meant.
“It protects us,” she said, noting that the town’s foundation is its schools. “If you don’t have good schools, people aren’t going to move in. This is a great victory.”

Voters often select candidates based on personality. On override, voters vote their values. In Dedham, the voters clearly value opportunity. They saw their investment as a way to create educational opportunities for their children and as an investment in the future of their town.

Town Administrator William Keegan summed it up: “People have become very civic-minded here, and they’re very interested in pushing the community forward, which is a great thing to see.”

Cross posted on ONE Massachusetts.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. When it comes to infrastructure, like schools, roads, bridges, police stations, fire stations – either we take care of what we have and meet current needs, or the bill later in human costs as well as money will go up exponentially.

    <

    p>Brown’s voters KNOW “It is the economy stupid” and they seem to know “Without good schools my house isn’t worth spit.”

      • take more cuts or start paying now, one way or another.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>MEDWAY –

        <

        p>From left, state Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, speaks to the Medway Board of Selectmen last night at Town Hall as Rep. Carolyn Dykema, D-Hollison, and Rep. Jim Vallee, D-Franklin, look on. The three legislators reported on the state budget and its impact on Medway.

        <

        p>

        Contrary to what Gov. Deval Patrick has been saying, the town’s legislative delegation last night told selectmen to expect a 5 percent cut in local aid, and recommended building that loss into next year’s budget.

        State Rep. James Vallee, D-Franklin, said there are some “funny numbers” baked into the governor’s budget, such as proposed taxes on soft drinks and candy.

        Those taxes are unlikely to get through the Legislature, he said.

        “If I were a betting man, I’d say 5 percent is our floor,” said Vallee. ” … We won’t raise taxes this year.”

        • “The Legislature would rather you lose 5% of your local aid than tax soda and candy bars”

          <

          p>no?

          • I’d say the Legislature would rather you lose 5% of your local aid than raise revenue.  Yes, the governor proposes the most incremental way to raise revenue, but we can do better than that.

            <

            p>It could be the corporate tax, (oh noes!  companies might move to South Carolina where there is an unskilled labor force!), raising the gas tax for the first time since the Soviet Union fell, or I daresay having the guts to go for progressive taxation.

            <

            p>If we’re going to do it, do it right.

  2. We can not continue postponing taking a balanced approach to the fiscal gap we have in the state. A balanced approach does not mean just implementing cuts or using temporary funds such as the rainy day fund and federal stimulus money, it also means raising revenue!

    <

    p>How long can we go as a Commonwealth without supporting more and substantive revenue options and preventing cuts that put in risk our public structures?

  3. FYI, it is mathematically possible that most of the Brown people vote against the override. And nobody in the picture is holding both signs.

    <

    p>That aside, there’s a hypocrisy about this “anti-tax” “anti-government” stuff.  

    <

    p>I’ve worked on overrides for schools and a senior center.  Seniors who fought against the school overrides had no trouble fighting for the overrides for the senior center; and walking into that senior center to vote for Brown and keep government’s hands off Medicare and Social Security. What??? YOU don’t get a government check every month? You don’t have health insurance? Ain’t that too bad.

    <

    p>And many of those parents who worked with me on school overrides also walked into that senior center and voted for Brown. Even held signs in the cold and rain for him. Damnit government’s too big; but we need more AP classes in the high school.

    <

    p>People with health insurance don’t want government to insure those who don’t. Free market will take care of the problem. Until my for-profit health insurer raises it’s rates 25%. Then it’s a government problem.

    <

    p>People don’t mind taxes if a) it’s the other guy getting taxed and/or b) it directly benefits them.  

    •  With a machete! Except MY program. My program is worthwhile, everything else is wasteful.
      I liken it to: “throw the bums out!” “Except my guy, he’s the only good one”.
      And I’m sure the school override advocates had no problem voting against a senior center.
       

  4. During the election, Brown was criticized for having voted FOR an override in Wrentham.  He said he did so as the school was necessary, and it was his option to support a major one time expenditure.

    <

    p>I worked on 2 1/2.  And it has the override clause for EXACTLY that reason – to allow a town to make a large capital expenditure which cannot be paid for in a single budget, or fund other necessary expenses, with the consent of the entire electorate, not just the Mayor/Council/Selectmen.  One of the immediate consequences was the incresed use of debt exclusion votes – a temporary rise until the explicit budget item is paid for when it vanishes, lowering the rate, instead of a perpetual increase long after the school/truck/road is paid for.  Voting for a specific override really isn’t the same as a tax on toothpaste, or a levy on exhaling air as a carbon emission …

    <

    p>Conservatives often say yes to taxes – taxes that are well defined, for an agreed-upon purpose, and voted for by the many instead of the few.  Unlike the gaping maw of new taxes to increase a General Fund, to be used for giving pols cousin’s a free sick day, or Canadian software, or legal fees for extortionists, or…

    • – taxes that are well defined, for an agreed-upon purpose, and voted for by the many instead of the few.

      <

      p>I think that rule applies to everyone, not just conservatives.

      <

      p>That’s why public health people were able to win a tax on tobacco even though many said it was a regressive tax because it disproprotionaly affected low income people. (Of course because disproportionally more low income people smoked, they also disproportionally got cancer.)

      <

      p>Anyway the same rule applies to the Governor’s proposal to remove the sales tax exemption on candy and soda and use the revenues to pump up public health programs to combat obesity.Same disproportional arguments apply. Regressive tax, regressive obesity.

      <

      p>Think we’ll get the conservatives on this one?

      • Tobacco tax money (as opposed to settlement money) goes to health care and cessation.

        <

        p>Sales tax on tonic and candy goes to the general fund.

        <

        p>Can that be made specific?  To MassHealth dental, for instance?

        <

        p>Or to the general fund like the rest of sales tax to ‘balance’ the overall budget?

        • Repeal sales tax exemption for candy and soda – Repealing this exemption serves important public health purposes and will support critical wellness and prevention programs, as described in a separate budget brief. Repealing the exemption generates $61.6 million, and nearly $10 million is used to support school building construction.

            • as proposed by the Governor

              <

              p>Wellness in Fiscal Year 2011

              <

              p>

              The Governor’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposes eliminating the exemption for soda and candy.  In addition to generating over $50 million for public health programs, the repeal of the sales tax exemption is a critical first step to discouraging the consumption of these unhealthy items.  Net proceeds generated from removing these exemptions, as well as the $100 million in sales tax revenues estimated to be collected in fiscal year 2011 from alcohol sold in package stores, will be deposited into the Commonwealth Health and Prevention Fund to support critical public health programs.  All other food products that are currently exempt from the sales tax will remain exempt, in line with the exemption’s original intent to ensure the affordability of necessary goods.

              Childhood obesity is an epidemic in Massachusetts and the nation.  Obesity in children has tripled since 1980.  More than half of adults and nearly one in three high school and middle school students are overweight or obese.  Consequently, the percentage of adults in Massachusetts with Type 2 diabetes has nearly doubled in the last decade.  Diabetes not only causes serious illness and premature death, but also is costly.

              <

              p>Of course the Legislature could amend this language targeting the revenues and send it to the Gneral Fund and every other damn thing.  

Archives