Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Jobs

By

I am the Republican Candidate for State Representative in the Eighth Suffolk District. I think my nearly thirty years of experience in the private sector will better serve the people of my district and of the Commonwealth as our greatest challenges are jobs and the budget crisis created by the out of control spending of the last 3 years.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Why isn’t this titled “Fees” or “Taxes”? That’s what it seems to be about.
    • I am never convinced that private sector experience qualifies for public sector responsibility. Legislating is not managing and it is not business owning. It requires a rather different skill set.
    • There’s a bunch of vague talk about taxes and fees. Since the income tax rollback, the state has never caught up and continues to suffer a structural deficit. And, unlike the federal government, the Commonwealth cannot run a deficit. So it seems crazy to be reducing state revenue now — especially when, during a recession, state services are needed all the more. And don’t tell me you’re going to eliminate the Department of Waste.
    • The Patrick Administration has plans to grow industries. If one does that, one certainly gets a steady stream of jobs. That requires certain kinds of investment. Why is that the wrong approach?

    • “Taxes and fees” only one of my three points. The other two were regulations and mandates so that is why it was not called “Taxes and fees” as you suggest.

      <

      p>Legislating requires managing budgets and taking care of people. In the private sector, one has to manage revenues and expenses and take care of customers. I think if legislators spent more time thinking that way the public would be better served.

      <

      p>Sorry about the “vague” talk but it is an 80 second video to get people thinking about the issues (which you obviously have) and not a “White Paper”/Policy Statement.

      <

      p>You are factually incorrect about a lack of revenue causing our fiscal crisis. It is a spending crisis. State spending on core programs was $19.45 billion in FY 2007. In the first budget under Governor Patrick in FY 2008 it was $25.9 billion, a $6.5 billion/30% increase in one year.

      <

      p>Overall, there has not been a cut in the budget. State directed spending of tax payer dollars has increased every year.

      <

      p>In 2006 total spending (remember that nearly 45% of State Spending is off budget) was $45 Billion. 2007 – $48.9 Billion In 2008 – $50.8 Billion. 2009 $51.8 billion Projected for 2010 $52.6 Billion.

      <

      p>All my numbers are from http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=os…

      <

      p>Those are the Statutory Basis Financial Reports put out by the Commonwealth.

      <

      p>No I am not going to eliminate the “Department of Waste”.

      <

      p>I would overturn the Pacheco Laws that deny private companies the ability to bid for government contracts.

      <

      p>Cost to tax payers? $200 billion/year.

      <

      p>I would eliminate the Bio-Tech Bailout bill.

      <

      p>Cost to tax payers $100 billion a year.

      <

      p>I would eliminate the Film Tax Credit.

      <

      p>I would enroll all Medicaid recipients in the Massachusetts Managed Care Program.

      <

      p>I would give Cities and Towns the ability to negotiate their own health and pension benefits (Just like the Commonwealth has).

      <

      p>I would convert the State pension fund from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan.

      <

      p>All of the changes I outlined would save the taxpayers roughly $1.5 billion a year and not require a single cut to local aid, educational aid or a cut to safety net programs.

      <

      p>Just a thought.

      • In the private sector, one has to manage revenues and expenses and take care of customers. I think if legislators spent more time thinking that way the public would be better served.

        “Private sector” enterprises all have one basic and overriding goal: make a profit. Everything they do, and every method they use, is controlled by that goal. Only things that contribute to making a profit are valued. Not helping the disadvantaged, not protecting the powerless, not educating the population, not anything that fails to contribute to profit. That does not even remotely align with the purposes of government.

        <

        p>Successful businessmen are good at making money. That is not related to good government.

        <

        p>Look at the results of the privatizing of government functions since Reagan. Show me how any of those functions are done better than they were before. Here’s an example: When I was in the Army, all Army facilities in a war zone were built by the Corps of Engineers. All of them. Army engineers are paid the same as all other soldiers. In the Iraq War of occupation, military facilities were and are built by private companies, most notably KBR/Halliburton. Look how that turned out. It’s not just the money.  

        • Private sector enterprises are supposed to be self-supporting, including allowing the people that work at them to survive and want to keep working at them.  Their overriding goal is usually to stay in business, even if it means the owner loses money sometimes.  Often, their goal is to provide their service outstandingly and serve people.

          • I am not thinking of criminal enterprises, but all for-profit ones. The stated goal of such enterprises may well be to serve people, but the impetus for making a profit is never absent, and is overpowering. Please give some examples of companies that stay in business without making a profit. I see where you said “the owner loses money sometimes,” and that is the usual case in the beginning of a corporation’s life. Those that continue to lose money disappear.

            <

            p>I’ll help you out: Aaron Feuerstein gave up a ton of money in a losing effort to keep Malden Mills’ employees on the payroll after a disastrous fire. This is notable precisely because his selfless efforts are so unusual. He lost the company to creditors.

            <

            p>Private-sector enterprises are supposed to self-support, as you say. The “allowing the people that work at them to survive” part is usually seen as irrelevant, and making it an actual goal of the company often results in some less-benevolent corporation taking it over – as in the case of Malden Mills – and putting a lot of those people out of work. That is the model that the “govern like a business” proponents actually want to apply.

            • I recognize that you weren’t responding directly to me but I wanted to offer my 2 cents.

              <

              p>You remarked about dcsurfer’s comment that private sector enterprises are supposed to self support. In terms of big business, I think a lot of the anger from both the left and right at the bailouts of GM and Chrysler was that they didn’t self support. Ford has as have many other auto makers. That anger is doubled at some Wall Street firms and banks that even when they don’t receive bailouts they do not “self support” because there business model is built on FDIC insurance of their deposits and cheap money from the Federal Reserve and the implicit guarantee of too big to fail. Don’t even get me started on Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Sallie Mae.

              <

              p>My original video was about creating jobs and that happens overwhelmingly in small to medium size businesses. Now my last employer was a smallish national restaurant chain; 200 units with about 12,000 employees. Technically a big business but very dedicated to it’s people and to it’s customers. At the management level we spent countless hours in meetings and at the unit level looking at how we could make the guest experience and employee experience better. Whenever an employee was under performing our first questions was always “What are we doing wrong?”

              <

              p>I personally think that kind of model of “govern like a business” would be a good thing to bring to government. We monitored sales and costs on an hourly, per shift, daily, weekly basis and made adjustments. I understand that government can’t operate that way but we have to do better than putting programs in place, regardless of our ability to pay for them and never revisit them. There has to be a Common Sense, balanced approach to providing needed services as efficiently as possible.  

              • I appreciate your anecdote about your most recent employer. I agree that lessons from private enterprise can be valuable in government.

                <

                p>Nevertheless, I fear you miss a fundamental difference: your employer existed to make money for its owners. Government exists to provide services for the public. I don’t doubt that your team worked hard to maximize “the guest experience” and the “employee experience” — this is because an enlightened management concluded that this is the best way to assure profitability. Surely your employer also shut down under-performing stores from time to time.

                <

                p>No sane person argues against “common sense”, nor apple pie, nor the flag.

                <

                p>The difficulty is that a government does not have the option of shutting down a non-performing store. Unless you’re George Bush talking about New Orleans, a government doesn’t have the option of closing Lawrence — people live there.

                <

                p>This is, by the way, the fatal flaw of the free-market approach to health care. When the cost of repairing my treasured two-seater exceeds my ability to pay, I take it off the road. No sane parent will do the same for their seriously-ill child.

                <

                p>The free-market supply-and-demand model assumes that it is possible to set a finite price for whatever resource is being bought and sold. This convenient model simply doesn’t work for government services (most famously, national defense) and health care.

                • You claim that government doesn’t have the option of shutting down a non-performing store yet the government in Massachusetts government is shutting down services all the time. And they are doing so regardless of whether they are performing or not.

                  <

                  p>Patrick is furloughing DDS employees despite the fact that they are 100% paid for by the US government.

                  <

                  p>They are shutting down homeless shelters, veterans service centers, the list goes on and on.

                  <

                  p>Yet we still pay legislators to walk to work.

                  <

                  p>We keep on hiring staff at $100,000+ a year.

                  <

                  p>We passed Romney Care to pay for health insurance for all but still charge businesses $33.60 per employee to pay their healthcare costs when they become unemployed. Oops. But we don’t actually use that money for their health care costs. It gets transferred to the general fund.

                  <

                  p>I am not arguing that we don’t need government. We actually ask government to do some important things. We need a GOOD government to do them.

                  <

                  p>And as you say…no “sane person” would suggest that we have a good government in Massachusetts.

                • You “spent countless hours in meetings” in a largish restaurant operation, yet you seem to draw no distinction between laying off employees and closing a store.

                  <

                  p>Perhaps my metaphor was unclear. Government does not have the option of shutting down a city or town. That’s what I meant by “shutting a store”.

                  <

                  p>You highlight examples of areas where the state is cutting back services and laying off employees. Suppose we stipulate that these cuts are bad (I don’t know, tracking budgets like this is a full-time job).

                  <

                  p>How do you propose to pay for them, given your complaints about taxes and your professed desire to cut them further? The state is looking at a three billion dollar shortfall.

                  <

                  p>You’d need to fill Fenway Park with a standing-room-only crowd of about 30,000 “$100,000+” staffers in order to offset that deficit. I simply don’t see how your numbers work.

                  <

                  p>You wrote:

                  I am not arguing that we don’t need government. We actually ask government to do some important things. We need a GOOD government to do them.

                  <

                  p>I’d like you to enumerate your view of the three MOST IMPORTANT THINGS you feel our government should do. For each of those areas, I’d like you to propose your view of what we should ask government to do during your term of office, and how you propose to fund them.

                  <

                  p>As a conversation-starter, I present my own top three. I voted for Governor Patrick because he claimed the same top three:

                  <

                  p>

                  1. Transportation infrastructure, especially rail/mbta
                  2. Education
                  3. Health care

                  <

                  p>I advocate raising taxes, and I’ve described the tax source I propose (a modest increase of the estate/gift tax on non-home wealth in excess of $20M/household). I also strongly support the Governor’s proposed gas tax increase — I think the gas tax should be increased by about $0.25/gallon, and I think all tolls in the state should be simultaneously removed (and ALL the toll-takers and their management laid off).

                  <

                  p>I’d like to hear your proposals, at a comparable level of detail.

                  <

                  p>

              • I agree that it’s a bad idea to never revisit programs. New programs especially should be monitored carefully to determine whether they are having the intended effect, and to identify unintended effects. From where I sit, though, it looks like the Govern Like A Business crowd wants to revisit every government program. And by “revisit” I mean cut funding for. They are apparently unfazed by the evidence that some of these programs return far more than they cost, and have always done so. Libraries do not generate revenues, so they become a target. Never mind that they contribute to an educated populace, which is an enormously valuable asset. Public parks likewise cost money, and are vulnerable to the business-minded. The attempts to privatize Social Security are a glaring example of the problem.

                <

                p>I think the government programs that could benefit from a business-style approach comprise a very small subset of the total, but business-minded politicians don’t limit their efforts to that subset. Again – the ability to make money, which is the hallmark of the successful businessman, has little or no relevance to government. The metrics used to evaluate business performance should not be applied to government. That is not to say that efficiency is not a desirable and important goal in choosing and implementing government programs. The problem is that the businessman-politician doesn’t measure secondary returns like an educated populace, or the secondary costs of something like privatizing Social Security.

      • And kudos for sticking around for a conversation.

        <

        p>

        You are factually incorrect about a lack of revenue causing our fiscal crisis. It is a spending crisis. State spending on core programs was $19.45 billion in FY 2007. In the first budget under Governor Patrick in FY 2008 it was $25.9 billion, a $6.5 billion/30% increase in one year.

        <

        p>First, I take exception to the idea that from year to year, you should “level fund” anything, government OR private sector businesses. Level funding anything, government or private, IS a cut. You must know as well as anyone, costs go up every year – prices for materials, wages if you want to keep pace with inflation (in most years, not lately), and especially, health care, which is killing public and private sectors alike (though it’s killing private sectors more quickly).

        <

        p>But there is a fundamental difference between the public and private – businesses have the flexibility to contract when the going gets rough. It hurts and they make less money when they do it, but they can do it. In the worst times, government is actually more strained trying to deliver services, because there are more vulnerable people needing the services, therefore contracting government is ludicrous, unless you want to make a compelling argument that it’s doing jobs and running services it shouldn’t.

        <

        p>That can only mean one of two things: Either you increase your spending to keep pace with both demand, and costs, or else you start cutting programs.

        <

        p>Funny, though, when it gets down to brass tacks and you ask a Republican what, exactly, they would cut…schools? homelessness services? the justice system or police? etc, they sputter and can’t answer. At least, not answer in enough of large terms to actually make a dent in the real budget. (Anyone can find a few line perhaps-superfluous items here and there that are, in real terms, peanuts compared to the budget as a whole.) They want to magically fund services while all the while stating we need to cut revenues.

        <

        p>And you failed to address the point KBush made, which is that overall, generally and in total, we have seen some serious cuts to revenues, between some of the corporate breaks, and previously, the loopholes, and the income tax rollback and other things (like the real world value of the gas tax which has not moved for almost 2 decades), over the last decade or more, while our costs went up, and we have ignored our infrastructure to the point where now, it’s going to cost way more to fix it up and replace aging bridges, buildings and the like. If we’d kept up maintenance all along we’d be better off, but unfortunately past administrations were short sighted.

        <

        p>Now, Romney hid some of these structural deficits, by raising fees. He then slashed local aid and Chapter 70, a devastating blow that we’re still trying to recover from.

        <

        p>What the state has had is a structural revenue problem, and what is happening right now is that this is exasperated by the temporary but deep revenue problems a downturn has, right at the time government is most needed. Your proposals will NOT address this.

        <

        p>

        I would eliminate the Bio-Tech Bailout bill.

        <

        p>I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but I assume it’s the bio-tech initiatives under Patrick. Investing and enticing whole industries is called creating jobs for Massachusetts workers. I would not be for cutting this initiative, unless someone could prove to me that they are failing. As far as I can see, the initiatives for industries (green, biotech, etc) are doing much of what they proposed to do. We need long term thinking, long term development of the next generation’s industries of importance, in order to maintain the gosh darn decent standard of living we enjoy. (Trust me, I’m from NH, I can see the difference between the two states quite clearly.)

        <

        p>

        I would eliminate the Film Tax Credit.

        <

        p>I’m actually convince-able on this point, since I’m not sure what good we’re getting out of it. Except that maybe without it, we get about the same amount of revenues, since it’s the enticements that bring the big film co’s here, however, I am not sure if we make out ahead on this one or not. I do know, however, that Lowell was used in two recent film shoots (“This Side of the Truth” and “The Fighter”) that it does do something to a community…a sense of pride, and quite a number of local businesses getting a piece of the pie, so I’m of two minds on this incentive. Still, cutting it would be peanuts. It won’t come anywhere near to solving anything about our budget. It’s not a structural solution.

        <

        p>

        I would enroll all Medicaid recipients in the Massachusetts Managed Care Program.

        <

        p>Not sure what you are talking about here, I can’t even find such a thing on Google, do you mean the Commonwealth Care, which is private insurance subsidized for low income citizens?  I’m not even sure if we are allowed to do such a thing, but that would be dumb. Medicaid receives federal funding and there are restrictions. Blow those, and you lose the funding.

        <

        p>

        I would give Cities and Towns the ability to negotiate their own health and pension benefits (Just like the Commonwealth has).

        I agree with this, I was just speaking to our city manager about this. There is already some flexibility with this regarding retired workers, forcing them to go onto Meidcare and use the state bennies as a supplement, saving the city money (though 90% of our local public retirees do it anyway, so it won’t be mind blowing money recovered there, really, but only make our budget more predictable for retiree liabilities).

        <

        p>Those are just some of my thoughts.

        • Don’t communities already have the ability to negotiate health care benefits with their workers? What do you mean by this?

          <

          p>I can agree with you on the film tax credit. It seems like a waste of money and I don’t hear too many people happy with it.  

          • The issue revolves around plan design and the ability to make changes in plan design without having to enter into collective bargaining negotiations. The easiest example of what this is a change in the copayment amount from $10 to $20 per office visit.  The Commonwealth does not need to negotiate this change with participants in the GIC while municipalities would have to negotiate and achieve agreement with each of its collective bargain units.

            <

            p>The Commonwealth has exempted itself from the requirements to negotiate changes in plan design while keeping the same requirement in place for the Commonwealth’s municipalities.  The Mass Municipal Association has supported a bill filed by Rep. Kulik (H. 2509) which would provide this same exemption to municipalities.

            <

            p>MMA estimates that this change could be worth $75 – $100 million annually for the municipalities, including over $12 million annually for Boston.

            <

            p>With the difficult financial decisions facing far too many of our municipalities, this bill asks that they be given the same flexibility and ability to make change as the Commonwealth has given itself. This is real money that could help many of our struggling communities and deserves serious consideration, in my opinion, passage.

            <

            p>MMA summary is here – http://www.mma.org/passplandes…

          • The Commonwealth’s GIC provides high quality health care at lower cost than most of Massachusetts’ cities and towns. Whereas the state moved all its employees (as well as certain other agencies) into the plan unilaterally, cities and towns are required to get the approval of 70% of their unionized public employees before making the switch.

            <

            p>This is one of the reasons that on 17 of the 351 cities and towns have been able to make the change.

            • How does that translate to “I would give Cities and Towns the ability to negotiate their own health and pension benefits (Just like the Commonwealth has).”?

              <

              p>How can you use the word “negotiate” there? Sounds like you’re looking to give cities and towns the ability to take health benefits out of collective bargaining so that cities and towns can change health care benefits without negotiating with unions. Why don’t you just come out and say that instead of using the word “negotiate” in your plank? Because what you’re proposing is the exact opposite of negotiating.

              <

              p>How does that translate to saving money in the state budget, by the way? And how does switching to a defined contribution pension system save money immediately?

              <

              p>Can you do your math to get to $1.5 billion again? I couldn’t make your numbers add up.

              • Yes. It is not a negotiation. Cities and towns should have the same power to set their health care coverage with their unions that the state does.

                <

                p>I was wrong to call it “negotiate” and you were right to call me on it. ConsEph has a great explanation above.

                <

                p>As to how it would save the State money, if cities and towns needed less money to balance their budgets then they would need less local aid.

                <

                p>As to the $1.5 billion in savings I’ll post it as part of the forum related to our next video…”It’s the spending stupid.”

          • Despite others’ insistence, communities currently have this ability.  What they don’t have, and some people want, is for these communities to unilaterally impel town employees to accept a benefit cut without entering into bargaining.  Basically, they want an okay to violate labor law.  Towns can certainly work with employees to go into the GIC through the bargaining process.

            • The state has that unilateral right. It has saved taxpayers millions of dollars. Are you suggesting that the state give up that power?

              <

              p>Also, As I said earlier, cities and towns only have the right to make the change if 70% of union employees agree. Not 51%. 70%!?!

              <

              p>I know this is off topic but I am just curious. Should President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi only have the ability to change health care with 70% of the vote or should they be able to change health care with 51% of the votes in Congress?

              <

              p>If Obama et al can change the rules on national health care with 51 votes why shouldn’t cities and towns in Massachusetts have the same ability?

              • Because a certain move could save money, it should trump established law?   If the 70% threshold is too high — and I agree — let’s change the law to reflect that.

                <

                p>I think 51% is a sensible level for health care reform as well as entering (and leaving) the GIC.  What do you think?

              • I appreciate your willingness to hold an extended conversation on likely unfriendly turf…I’ve been impressed.  That said, I would appreciate an answer to the question you brought up:

                <

                p>

                Should President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi only have the ability to change health care with 70% of the vote or should they be able to change health care with 51% of the votes in Congress?

                 

        • Lynne,

          <

          p>I am not suggesting we necessarily level fund. I think a good starting baseline would be inflation plus population growth.

          In the worst times, government is actually more strained trying to deliver services, because there are more vulnerable people needing the services, therefore contracting government is ludicrous, unless you want to make a compelling argument that it’s doing jobs and running services it shouldn’t.

          <

          p>The opposite of that argument would therefore be that in the best economic times there are less vulnerable people needing services and therefore government should shrink. Unfortunately, that never happens. And again, the $6 billion increase in the 2008 FY budget was before the effects of the economic downturn was felt.

          <

          p>The ~ $1 billion drop in projected tax revenues from FY2009 to FY2010 does not account for the estimated $3 billion structural shortfall for 2010.

          <

          p>Regarding the Bio Tech Initiative, I would argue that if we had a more transparent and consistent regulatory policy the state wouldn’t need to offer tax credits to companies to do what Kirth says above is the only thing a company wants to do anyway, ie make a profit. I also question the state’s ability to pick economic winners and losers and wonder why the state should be favoring one industry over another.

          <

          p>As for the film tax credit, while there is indeed some economic benefit to local businesses and perhaps community pride, the first question has to be, does the tax credit pay for itself. Is it a net economic benefit to the state and the citizens? The answer is clearly no. Most of the benefit goes to out of state production companies, many of whom merely sell the tax credit back to the state. If elected I would offer a bill to rescind the film tax credit and replace it with a tax credit to home and residential property owners who get energy audits and then upgrade their insulation and energy efficiency of their buildings.

          <

          p>This would reduce our carbon footprint by reducing energy needs and thereby lowering energy costs for individuals and families. The renovations and upgrades would be primarily done by local contractors thereby increasing employment in the devastated construction trades. A win-win-win.

          <

          p>As for enrolling Medicaid recipients in the state’s managed care program. (here is the link http://www.massresources.org/p… ) it is currently optional. If made mandatory for Medicaid and CHIP recipients, it is estimated it would save $75 million per year.

          <

          p>As I said above…

          All of the changes I outlined would save the taxpayers roughly $1.5 billion a year and not require a single cut to local aid, educational aid or a cut to safety net programs.

          <

          p>So as a Republican I think I got down to “brass tacks” and offered specific proposals don’t involve cutting vital programs.

          <

          p>Finally, as the video is about jobs, I think it is important to remember that from 1998 to 2007, again before the latest economic downturn, there was not a single net new private sector job created in Massachusetts. If we had simply matched the national average of 13% over the same period, there would have been roughly 400,000 more people employed. That would have generated a great deal of income, sales and other tax revenues for the state.

          • Finally, as the video is about jobs, I think it is important to remember that from 1998 to 2007, again before the latest economic downturn, there was not a single net new private sector job created in Massachusetts.

            <

            p>Wrongo.  There were lots of new jobs created.  There were also lots of existing jobs eliminated.  Perhaps you mean to say there was no net increase in jobs.  Of course, we don’t know the net change in salary distribution over that time, so even no net change in jobs could mean something good, mediocre, or awful.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>I wonder: did our population increase along with the national average?  In 1990 it was 6.016 million; the 2009 estimate is 6.349 million.  That’s a 5.5% increase.  Why on earth would we create 13% more jobs, unless of course we were putting kids and pensioners to work.  Surely you’re not advocating such things.

            • I am not wrongo as I said in my comment no NET new jobs.

              <

              p>As to your “point” about putting children and pensioners to work –

              <

              p>1) I am unfamiliar with the period of time when we had sero unemployment, and
              2) Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Perchance we would have seen higher population growth if we had greater employment opportunities.

              <

              p>The nationally, employment recovered from the 2000/2001 recession by the first quarter of 2004. Massachusetts has yet to do so.

              • I read for it twice, somehow missed it twice.  My mistake and apologies — you wrote what you meant.

                <

                p>1.  Zero unemployment isn’t a good state to be in either.  A little unemployment is essential.  How much is a little?  Well, full employment, a number that gets manipulated by economists from time to time.
                2.  A larger (employed) population does mean a bigger tax base — but it (not perchance) also means a bigger demand on government services.  It also assumes that the citizens of Massachusetts want population growth, a pretty big assumption in my opinion.  So, these 400,000 jobs: are they jobs which result in a net (!) increase in gov’t revenue or a net loss?  After all, there are plenty of terrible jobs where the person consumes more government than that person pays for with taxes despite working 40 hours a week.  Would 400,000 more of these people make the Commonwealth a better place?  That’s not so clear.

                <

                p>Banging on the drum of jobs is lame.  We need good jobs.  You haven’t differentiated.

                • Okay to someone who has a Masters degree and can only find work at McDonalds that would be a bad job. The same job to a 16 year old might seem like a good job.

                  <

                  p>From a philosophical perspective I defy anyone to define “good.”

                  <

                  p>That being said, if people want to focus only on good jobs then perhaps all “bad” jobs should be eliminated. Given that most gas stations or grocery stores can’t afford to pay $40,000 a year, should we close all gas stations and grocery stores?

                  <

                  p>If not, if “bad” jobs are allowed to continue then perhaps those same bad jobs should be allowed to increase. The work experience gained in a bad job might lead to some people graduating to “good” jobs.

                  <

                  p>Again. Just a thought.

          • At least the current Boston Business Journal has two promising articles about the bio-tech industry in our state. On about its ability to attract VC funding. The other, titled “Easterd ho”, page 32, about Massachusetts’ ability to lure executives from the West. (p. 32)

            <

            p>Generally, there is an advantage to trying to get a concentration of industries co-located. It attracts talent to the area. Even if competitors, companies in the same industry will need similar services and so ancillary businesses grow along side them.

            <

            p>Just randomly supporting businesses is not going to attract an industry.

      • First, let me add my voice to those who say: Welcome.  I disagree with many of your positions and initiatives, but I am very glad to see you here.  I think it displays an element of courage not common among politicians in general, on either side.  Well done you.

        <

        p>Just briefly in the matter of the Film Tax Credit:  There is some evidence that it is building a stable film industry in Massachusetts.  Consider that not every “film” is a Hollywood blockbuster; many are Discover Channel documentaries, Animal Planet specials, low budget items which are either filmed or (more often) produced here because we have a pool of talented people who can do the work film companies need.  Those jobs are relatively stable from year-to-year, and will add to the Massachusetts economy.  I might be willing to see some tinkering with it when it comes around again (it’s renewable in 3 more years), but while I was initially hostile, I have changed my mind a bit (Some of us do that here at BMG when faced with pesky facts, even if we don’t necessarily like the conclusion the facts give us).

        <

        p>(I am not in the film industry, but recently learned a bit about Powderhouse Productions located in my town of Somerville, so I admit at least that much interest-I’d like to see a local business do well).

        <

        p>The rest has been better covered by others.  Government cannot contract in a recession; often, they need to expand, because more people need the services only government can supply (because business is not supplying them with paychecks, as they would ordinarily do), so a rising (or really, flat) budget is not the evidence of Bad Management you claim.  Bio-Tech Bailout?  Help me understand what you’re talking about better; I may agree with you, as some biotech firms are large enough that they neither need or deserve any kind of tax break.  Health care for cities and towns?  Right there with you; I personally think they should all be in the GIC, and be done with it.  Yes, some people will lose some benefits and pay higher costs; everyone else is faced with the same problem, I don’t see why city and town employees are somehow exempt from that, sorry.  Converting the state pension fund has some merit; I’d be willing to consider it, but I’d like some details.

        <

        p>I live in the 2nd Middlesex, and so my opinion likely doesn’t affect you one bit.  But I still bid you welcome.

        • From what I’ve read, the cost of this credit is pretty steep ($75-100 million per year), and the state isn’t getting that many permanent jobs from it nor any tax revenue benefit from it. Anyone have any different perspectives on it?

          <

          p>The numbers I’ve seen quoted seem to include the cost of the salaries to the actors in the films, and that’s not a very good measure, because if Tom Cruise gets $10 million to shoot a film in Massachusetts, how much of that does he really spend here? An estimate I read said that 29% of the credit goes is for the salaries of people making more than $1 million per year.

          <

          p>This is an article from a group that opposes the credits. It’s pretty convincing.  

          • is a blatant giveaway. We give, yes give 25% of any in state expense of a film company. Expenses include salaries of stars,  teamsters or materials.

            <

            p>Just imagine if we applied this to our health sector, or our manufacturing sector.  Both would boom, of course both would break our budget.

            <

            p>People think it’s a good idea because it’s sort of cool. How about taking the money given to the film companies and not increasing the sale tax so we don’t kill the retail businesses on the NH border.

            <

            p>The film jobs are very temporary  and don’t pay full benefits.

            <

            p>Do I think we should do something special for films, yes exempt them from local sales taxes and if they don’t come such is life.

        • this “Hollywood East” scam, are you not?  The state of Michigan is being ripped off more than we are and the governor there is trying to get rid of the subsidy.Try this link, entitled “Race to the Bottom” http://www.chicagoreader.com/c…  As a South Shore resident I find it especially humorous that both Weymouth and Plymouth residents are falling for the movie studio cons; supposedly the Hollywood studios want to spend millions at both the old airbase in Weymouth and in Plymouth.  All they need is a little local support in order to get the necessary millions in bank loans.  Ah, yes.

        • Thanks Tamoroso.

          <

          p>I think I answered most of your questions in my response to Lynne above. I think the most important point is that while I agree that recessions to put a strain on government, that implies that government should shrink in boom times but never does.

          <

          p>When we have all the details on converting the pension system I’ll get you a link to it.

        • Government cannot contract in a recession; often, they need to expand, because more people need the services only government can supply (because business is not supplying them with paychecks, as they would ordinarily do)

          <

          p>What I forgot to mention is that Unemployment Compensation is actually not a Budget Item in Massachusetts. Therefore, the claim that our state budget must increase during a recession because business is not supplying them with a paycheck, at least as far as unemployment costs (I understand there are others such as MassHealth etc) is incorrect.

    • Democrats have completely controlled the Massachusetts government for the last three years.

      <

      p>They have created a huge structural deficit.

      <

      p>They have virtually eliminated the Stabilization Fund.

      <

      p>They have slashed funding for local aid.

      <

      p>They have slashed aid to the homeless, indigent elderly, veterans, mentally and physically challenged.

      <

      p>Can you tell me why having 45 Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature, working with conservative Democrats to end back room deals and closed door meetings would be a bad idea?

      • …what you bring to the table is you’re not a Democrat?  Not terribly compelling.

        <

        p>It’s worth mentioning that Deval Patrick also came to us from the private sector.

        <

        p>I’ve heard nothing that says why you’d do better than the current administration… let’s take one example:

        <

        p>

        I would overturn the Pacheco Laws that deny private companies the ability to bid for government contracts.

        <

        p>How do you do that as a State Rep?  

        • I would overturn the Pacheco Laws that deny private companies the ability to bid for government contracts.

          <

          p>Sponsored by Senators Pacheco and Joan Menard in response to the Bill Weld’s attempts to undercut public services.

          <

          p>The Pacheco-Menard Law requires that cost saving be proven (the State Auditor being the authority that approves privization contracts). No private company is “denied” the ability to bid for governemtncontracts under the law. It is required that a real cost savings be proven to the State Auditor prior to awarding a contract to a private vendor to take over public services.

          • I believe there is dollar limit on the contracts that private companies can bid on.

            <

            p>However the hoops to prove “real” cost savings are prohibitive. One of the requirements is too “prove” a minimum 10% cost saving.

            <

            p>Another hoop is that those savings must be proven based on the private company paying the same wage, health and pension benefits as the FTE (Full Time Equivalent) Public employee.

            <

            p>Given all the back room deals agreed to in Closed Door Meetings do you really think that the Auditors office will challenge the public employee unions when it comes to awarding these contracts?

        • Balanced government is better government. I am certainly not laying all of this at the feet of the Patrick administration. He has had little or no better luck sustaining his vetoes than his four Republican predecessors. Having a Republican Governor and a legislature controlled 90% by the Democrats is not balanced governor.

          <

          p>As far as the Pacheco Law, overturning it would involve the same thing that virtually every endeavor in a large organization, public or private. You make a proposal/offer a bill and debate it (not behind closed doors) and hopefully get 80 other Representatives and 21 Senators to vote for it.  

      • “They have slashed funding for local aid. “

        <

        p>On what planet?  Romney did that back in the day, and took plenty of credit for “balancing the budget” when he ran for president.  (Oh, and he also raised a butt-ton of taxes: here, have some facts (from a Mass Dems supported site, but all carefully documented).  Patrick has worked like a dog to make sure local aid was as level funded as he could, cutting other things instead.  Boo to you, sir.

        <

        p>

        “They have slashed aid to the homeless, indigent elderly, veterans, mentally and physically challenged. “

        <

        p>Sir, you really need to do better than that.  I doubt they enjoyed any of the cuts they made; cuts which were necessary only because we were all unwilling to pay higher taxes to preserve those things, and were unwilling to cut other things instead (consider civilian flaggers, or the Quinn Bill).

        <

        p>And with all due respect, sir, members of your party have not, in my experience, been champions of the indigent, the homeless, or the mentally and physically challenged, at least not in the matter of funding their needs in a humane way. (Have some more facts, this time about former governor Romney and state mental hospitals).  I lived through this nightmare as a physician in the emergency department of an urban hospital, where patients who needed those beds were stacking up like cordwood, receiving no services at all.  

        • As I have mentioned above, I have offered specific proposals that would save $1.5 billion without cutting local aid or safety net services. Many of these same proposals were offered as amendments by Republican legislators and they were routinely voted down on virtually party line votes.

          <

          p>As for paying higher taxes, the legislature has passed nearly $2 billion in tax increases in the last 2 years. If you think higher taxes are the answer, I would suggest you look to California and New York as cautionary tales.

          <

          p>Finally, as to your point about Gov. Romney, I offer a simple solution. If he ever runs for State Representative in the Eighth Suffolk district urge any friends who live here to vote against him.

  2. A lot of times the editors will welcome candidates to BMG when they post directly and either announce their candidacy or make an initial statement on their campaigns… when they are Democrats!

    <

    p>So as one of the few Republicans that calls himself a BMGer, let me singularly welcome you to BMG and ask that you defend your statements  and not be demoralized with critics, insults or difficult questions. They develop some good questions here but they don’t always line up with the people of MA (example… they thought Martha Coakley was going to win…)

    <

    p>Good luck!

    • There were folks that were hopeful, yes, but most were skeptical that she could pull it off since Brown had momentum in the last two weeks of the election.

      <

      p>Also, your existence here is evidence that wingnuts are tolerated, even if they are disruptive and don’t add any value to the discussions.

      • Almost no one here thought Coakley would win.

        <

        p>When, 2 days before the election? Are you saying after Martha won the primary for the Democrats, BMGers started saying she wouldn’t win? Go look back at the BMGer comments in December and early January. They surely wanted AND THOUGHT she would win… until the end when things started crumbling.

    • Actually the editors here have been very welcoming just as I was very clear that I was a Republican Candidate when I requested to post here.

      <

      p>I think Dave’s promoting this post to the front page is clear evidence of their fairness.

      <

      p>As for critics and tough questions, the Eighth Suffolk is comprised of Back Bay, Beacon Hill, The West End and five precincts in Cambridge. If I am not prepared for tough questions I might as well get out of the race now.

      <

      p>They have their moonbats and we have our wingnuts. Let’s call it even and those who want to work to get things done in the middle have plenty to do.

      • See you at the convention in Worcester! I’ll come introduce myself. I was glad David promoted this page too (after my comments were made).

        <

        p>PS Do we really have any wingnuts? 🙂

    • And no taunting either.

      <

      p>Mr. Marston has contributed to just the sort of discussion I had hoped we could have with conservatives.

      • Thanks KBusch. I guess people can taunt or insult me if they want. I simply won’t respond. I look forward to reasoned conversation. As I have said before, I am gratified by the reception I have received here.

        • There are about four BMGers who post negative comments (the taunting one is quite popular) whenever I post anything. I could post almost anything and I will get the obligatory “Stop taunting” blah blah blah type of thing from them. Read a few of my comments and then look for the same group who will try to drag down my comments.

          <

          p>You are doing a stellar job with your answers and again my suggestion is to not waver. They’ll complain if you use any “talking points” but don’t be surprised if you get talking points back.

          <

          p>Your remarks on GIC are spot on. Requiring a 70% vote frm the unions is outrageous. What people don’t understand is this is real money and almost universally the single budget buster on every municipal budget (ours too).

          <

          p>I read an article in the Globe today about “Runaway health costs are rocking municipal budgets”…

          <

          p>

          Elizabeth Debski spent eight years as Everett’s city planner, before losing her job in 2006 when a newly elected mayor installed his own team.

          But Debski did not leave City Hall empty-handed. In addition to her pension, Debski, at 42, walked away with city-subsidized health care insurance for life. If she lives into her 80s, as actuarial charts predict, taxpayers could pay more than $1 million in all for her family’s health care benefits.

          That’s not to say Debski manipulated the system. She simply took what she was owed under a municipal health care system whose generous benefits and colossal inefficiencies are crippling cities and towns across Massachusetts.

          …

          She could get insurance through her husband’s employer but doesn’t, for a simple reason: The municipal plan is far more generous and costs less.

          <

          p>This may seem like a simple idea but it is one my wife’s company had when she worked there. They offer insurance and if you decline, her company would give them a $2,000 check.. free and clear. When you consider how much money a company (or municipality) pays for coverage, a $2,000 check is a bargain.

          <

          p>Why can’t the state offer employees money ($2,000) for any employee who declines medical insurance if they can prove they receive it from another source (spouse…)?

  3. is to convince corporations like National Grid, Bank of America, Walmart, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and a host of other million/billion dollar profit mongers to lose their greedy grip on their exhorbitant profits so they might increase wages and lower prices.  This will flood the middle/working class with discretionary dollars to be spent locally which will create the need for more small businesses.

    <

    p>In today’s climate, it doesn’t matter how much you lower taxes, fees, and restriction on businesses in Massachusetts because if there are no paying customers, there will be no new businesses.  

    <

    p>When corporate America finally learns the importance of caring for the health of our economy and the people who drive it, instead of always trying to appeal to brokers on Wall Street, this economy will finally turn around.

    <

    p>Some day, our politicians will get this.  

      • What the hell does that mean?

        <

        p>Give me numbers.  Is a mining company with 1275 employees mall, medium, or large?  Is a shoe manufacturer with 640 employees small, medium, or large?  Is a restaurant with $6M in revenue small, medium, or large?  How about a restaurant with $8.5M in revenue?

        <

        p>Furthermore, is that 70% number nation wide or specific to the Commonwealth?  Do you expect that the number is the same in both cases?  Additionally, is job growth relevant or are jobs relevant?  After all, if there were 1M jobs in “large businesses” but growing at 300 jobs a year and there were 10,000 jobs in “small to medium sized businesses” but growing at 700 jobs a year then 70% of all private sector job growth would be coming from “small to medium sized businesses” but the vast majority of people would be employed at large businesses.  Also, you aren’t mentioning salaries.  Do small business jobs tend to be paid like waitresses or like tradesmen or like account executives?  What percent of “small and medium sized company” new jobs are paid at the living wage or above?  How about large companies?  It’s not about jobs — it’s about good jobs.

        <

        p>

        <

        p>Good sir, please give us a little precision, and feel free to cite a source when claiming a fact.

        • The Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov defines a business as small or medium sized if it has 500 employees or less.

          <

          p>The 70% number is nationwide.

          <

          p>When no net new jobs have been created in a decade, I think job growth is relevant.

          <

          p>Perhaps you are right. We may have created new good jobs that pay a living wage. Of course while you demand of me definitions and sources you do not define a “good” job or a “living” wage.

          <

          p>Perhaps the jobs we have lost are “bad” jobs that paid a “dying” wage.

          <

          p>

          In today’s climate, it doesn’t matter how much you lower taxes, fees, and restriction on businesses in Massachusetts because if there are no paying customers, there will be no new businesses.

           

          <

          p>Of course you are ignoring the point of my argument, I think because of what I read as your anti- business, anti-capitalism bias. You keep referring to the current economic environment while I was speaking to the fact that job growth has lagged in Massachusetts during both good and bad economic environments.

          • I am anti-greed and anti-extortion.  Capitalism will only work if there is demand for products.  Greed and extortion of middle/working class discretionary dollars by overcharging for basic needs is removing demand for products from the equation.
            Supply and demand won’t work without demand.  There is no need for new businesses because no one can afford to buy anything.  Corporations are going to eat their own dust pretty soon.

          • The Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov defines a business as small or medium sized if it has 500 employees or less.

            <

            p>Not really (show me).  They tend to refer to the small business administration (SBA) which uses this definition:

            <

            p>SBA small business definition

            <

            p>And that’s just it — while technically a business with 499 employees (or 749, 999, or 1499 in some industries, or under $750k or $4M or $7M or $17.5M or $12.5M or $33.5M or $20M or $14M or $29M or $23M or $10M or $9M or $27M or … in still other industries) counts as small, it’s a strange definition.  I wrote about it here.

            <

            p>The SBA considers a mining company with 475 employees and 10s (100s?) of millions in assets or the aircraft manufacturing company with 1480 employees and 10s (100s?) of millions in assets small businesses.

            <

            p>So yeah, I get it, most new jobs in small businesses according to the technical definition of small business, which doesn’t match a laypersons mental definition at all.  I mean come on, do you really think the business needs and strategies as effected by public policy between a mom&pop shop and a 1450 employee aircraft company have much to do with each other?

            <

            p>The brush “small business” is too broad, and I have no Earthly idea what “medium” sized is.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>The 70% nationwide — do you think that it’s different in MA?  I’m willing to accept the nationwide number, though I’d actually expect it to be higher in MA because I’d bet that older states have more small business retail than places with more new growth.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>

            When no net new jobs have been created in a decade, I think job growth is relevant.

            <

            p>It’s only relevant as part of a larger discussion.  It’s not important per se and it is not necessarily indicative of a problem.  You view no net job growth as a reason for low population growth.  I view low population growth as a good reason for small net growth in jobs.

            <

            p>Again, the quality of the jobs matters.  How has the median salary changed over time?  The 25th and 75th percentile?  After all, if we’re shedding jobs at the meat processing plant but gaining jobs in biomedical, then we’re likely coming out ahead even if there is no net job growth.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>

            Perhaps you are right. We may have created new good jobs that pay a living wage. Of course while you demand of me definitions and sources you do not define a “good” job or a “living” wage.

            <

            p>That’s a half a fair criticism (‘good’ not well defined; ‘living’ is).  I did’t define good.  I left it to you, deliberately, so as not to unfairly box you.  It’s obviously a fluid definition with plenty of exceptions and particulars, but in general it ought to:
            * pay a living wage
            * be workplace safe
            * maintain employee dignity and respect
            * have low turnover

            <

            p>While ‘good job’ doesn’t have a technical definition to my knowledge, living wage certainly does, both in the general economic sense and within the Commonwealth.  That you put quotes around “living” and deride the term suggests that you’re unfamiliar with it.  For someone who’s as much a private sector guy as you claim to be, that can only mean two things: (i) 100% of the jobs you work with are big paying, or (ii) I hope that those with the low paying jobs under your, ahem, jurisdiction haven’t been treated poorly.

            <

            p>

            Perhaps the jobs we have lost are “bad” jobs that paid a “dying” wage.

            <

            p>Over 5000 people died in fatal accidents at work in 2008, including an increase among those who are under 18 and those who work in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.  Those folks were paid a dying wage, and it may well have been tied to them not having a good job (see above, particularly safety and respect).

            <

            p>It’s precisely those small, medium, and large sized business managers who are indifferent to paying people enough to afford food, medicine and housing and about a workplace that’s safe for body and spirit who stimulate folks like me to demand more business regulations, not fewer.

      • and obviously you don’t have a clue what I just said.

        <

        p>So how we do create job growth in this private sector area when their is no demand for products outside of the necessities of food, heat, utilities, and health insurance.
        As soon the corporate oinkers from these categories tame their profits by lowering prices then the middle/working class will have more money to spend on discretionary items, thereby creating a demand for small businesses.

        <

        p>Do you get it now, or should I try to explain it again.

  4. I appreciate your candor and forthrightness in not only offering your video, but even more significantly in actually engaging in the exchanges that have followed.

    <

    p>I don’t vote in the Eighth Suffolk District, so I don’t have a dog in your race. Hence, whatever exchanges we have are more in the spirit of a candid and frank exchange of views.

    <

    p>I welcome your focus on jobs. I agree that the staggering impact of the economic collapse is a day-to-day reality for too many Massachusetts residents. I share your sense that our government can do more to address this crushing and immediate reality.

    <

    p>I disagree with your analysis of how government can best address this problem. I, too, have been in active in Massachusetts industry since I moved here in 1974.

    <

    p>My sense is that the GOP, together with populist Democrats, have been proposing and implementing measures aimed at “improving the business climate” for the nearly four decades that I’ve lived and worked here. Invariably, those measures involve lowering taxes, reducing regulations on businesses, and “analyzing” mandates.

    <

    p>Equally invariably, the effect of those efforts has been to put more money in the bank accounts of business owners — and have zero measurable effect in creating jobs or in improving the business climate.

    <

    p>I know of NO companies who, in response to a reduction in corporate taxes, create new job requisitions, fund new development efforts, or launch new products. Instead, they report increased profits to their shareholders or partners and say “thank you very much” to the elected officials who put those programs in place.

    <

    p>Successful businesses create jobs, products, and initiatives in response to perceived shifts and opportunities in their markets. Tax reductions almost never cause those shifts or create those opportunities.

    <

    p>Let me suggest some factors that do, however, have major impacts.

    <

    p>

    • Public transportation improvements: Areas around Davis Square, Porter Square, and Alewife are now hotbeds of high-tech startups as a direct result of the Red Line extension. Expanded parking facilities at the Rt128 Amtrak station resulted in a significant expansion of corporate facilities and industrial parks in the neighboring area.
    • Automobile traffic congestion: Jobs and companies blossomed around 128 and 495, cannibalizing downtown Boston and Cambridge neighborhoods, because workers simply can’t get to downtown companies. The Big Dig has made traffic worse, not better, on I93 north of the city. When employees can’t get to work in a particular community, their employers move companies to locations that employees can get to.
    • Research facilities: Massachusetts was an international center of industry leadership in hardware and software during the last three decades of the twentieth century, in no small part because universities like MIT, Harvard, Northeastern, Tufts, BC, and many many more attracted world-class scientists and researchers. It is no accident that Massachusetts is still an international leader in medicine and the life sciences, due in no small part to unique combination of world-class hospitals, medical research facilities, and neighboring universities.
    • Public education: For years, the Massachusetts public school system was a national showpiece. People who wanted their children to have a first-class education were drawn to Massachusetts because of our schools. That magnet is a huge factor in corporate siting decisions, especially in the knowledge and information industries.
    • Urban renewal and development: Kendall Square and Central Square in Cambridge are booming, in comparison to the mid-1970s, as a direct result of significant public investment. The Quincy Market area of downtown Boston was transformed by Kevin White’s courage in investing in an area that was a depressingly run-down industrial wasteland. Lowell was similarly reborn during the Paul Tsongas years; it is a tragedy that its new life was nipped in the bud by the short-sighted cutbacks in public funding that ended its renaissance. Lawrence could be similarly reborn if we had the will.

    <

    p>During the years when Massachusetts led the nation, these are the sorts of factors that created millions of jobs and billions of dollars in new revenue (and consumer spending).

    <

    p>When we began slashing taxes in the late seventies — accelerated by proposition 2 1/2 in 1982 — it was areas like these that suffered. Raytheon is a great example of a major employer who was given huge tax breaks — they left anyway.

    <

    p>In my view, the cutbacks you propose have already been done and have failed miserably. We have already cut taxes time and again, and the promised benefits have never materialized.

    <

    p>Instead, our highways are crumbling. Our bridges are falling down. Our public transportation is antiquated and unsafe. Our public schools are in terrible shape and getting worse. Our residents can’t afford health care, and can’t find providers in spite of constantly exploding insurance costs.

    <

    p>There is ample wealth in Massachusetts. I agree that that wealth is not concentrated in small businesses, and therefore I agree that we should not turn to small businesses to fund the massive investments needed to turn our economy around.

    <

    p>The answer, however, is not to further reduce the taxes and spending that have already been slashed to the bone. I suggest that, instead, the answer is to tax the wealth that is currently untouched and sitting in the bank accounts and assets of our wealthiest residents.

    <

    p>The vibrant twenty-first century economy that Massachusetts can create requires significant investments, especially in areas like public transportation, education, and health care that private industry cannot fund. The Massachusetts economy needs to be jumpstarted, it takes money to do that, and the money is currently being hoarded by our wealthiest residents.

    <

    p>My fundamental disagreement with your approach is that I view it as pessimistic rather than optimistic. You propose further cutbacks, rather than investing in a brighter future. Successful enterprises grow by increasing their revenues, rather than by slashing their costs.

    <

    p>That’s why I do not support the proposals you’ve offered so far.

    • Tom,

      <

      p>Great analysis and very good points.

      <

      p>I didn’t advocate cutting taxes. In the video I said we should stop raising taxes. In my comments above I proposed cost savings that didn’t slash safety net programs.

      <

      p>We don’t disagree that the Massachusetts economy needs to be jumpstarted. Where I think we may disagree is that you think that it can only be jumpstarted by taxing away wealth from those who possess it and have it invested and redistributed by the government. Government does not have a great track record in picking economic winners.

      <

      p>Massachusetts has one of the worst rated business climates in the country. We aren’t creating jobs. New companies are not moving into the state and existing companies are either leaving or moving significant portions of their operations out.

      <

      p>I am simply suggesting that we can do better.

        • Tax Institute has Massachusetts as 36 – it really all depends on how you weight the data.

          <

          p>http://www.taxfoundation.org/t…

          <

          p>I just recommend a firm start across the border in NH.  You cannot trust what this state will do. Inconsistent polices, tax rules and the high cost of living make if very hard to justify staring a business in the state.

          <

          p>While we welcome film companies – we certainly don’t welcome manufacturers.

          • Thank you for offering this link. I call your attention to the map published on the site you offer.

            <

            p>I’d like you to examine that map with and ask which regions currently lead the innovation economy that will fuel the America we all want in the 21st century. In particular, take a look at those yellow “top 10 states”, and ask what they currently contribute to the economic world we want to create.

            <

            p>How many new patents emerge from those yellow states? How many breakthrough drugs? How many life-changing technologies? How many “facebook”, “linked in”, “myspace”, or similar hot information technology startups were born in those yellow states?

            <

            p>If I wanted to live in Montana, Nevada, Utah, or South Dakota, I would. Here is a complimentary view of the main street of Havre, Montana:

            <

            p>Do you notice that the street is empty? Do you notice that the sidewalk is empty? What you can’t see in that lovely image is that those storefronts are blank, the businesses folded. Those lovely upper-story facades reveal empty spaces, filled with faded “for lease” and “for rent” signs.

            <

            p>I’ve walked the streets and neighborhoods of Havre, Montana in early summer. Have you? I’ve seen the block after block of rundown decaying once-beautiful homes of Havre, Montana. Have you? Is that your idea of one of the “top 10 states”?

            <

            p>I’m sorry, sir, but this map is a lie.

            <

            p>I do not want Massachusetts to be like Montana.

            • that NH is one of those “top ten” business-friendly states. That must be the explanation for the hordes of MA residents who make their daily commute northward, to their high-paying jobs in Manchester and Concord, while the southbound sides of the highways remain relatively empty in the morning. (Feel free to jump in here with an anecdote about your golfing buddy moving his company from NH to MA; that will be the exception that proves the rule.) After all, it would be foolish for workers from Tax-Free New Hampshire™ to go to work in MA, thus incurring state income taxes.

              <

              p>Clearly, the Tax Foundation’s assessment of business friendliness accurately reflects the thought processes of business leaders when siting their companies!

              • If I was starting a biotech company – I would site in Cambridge, a manufacturing company New Hampshire. While it’s nice to have a lot of companies filled with people with PHD’s, its not realistic. The rest of the world operates with staff who haven’t finished high school – or have limited college. A manufacturing environment offers better wages with better benefits for those with less academic skills. Don’t assume a state with 5M+ people are all going to have MS and PHD’s.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>

                <

                p>On some of the business friendly indices, exclusive of taxes is consistency, Massachusetts fails on this also – they state just changes it’s mind with respect to regulations and audits.

                <

                p>

                <

                p>

                <

                p>BTW, don’t draw gross generalities about business people and golf, I don’t play. I like the more liberal sports, cross country skiing and white mountain hikes. With the scott brown sticker on my 10 year old volvo (just kidding on the sticker).

                <

                p>

            • While Montana is not probably going to become an economic powerhouse look at #9 Washington State (AKA Microsoft) and a now a friend of mine business who moved from California #46.

              <

              p>Or a backend data warehouse that grew frustrated with California #46 and moved to Nevada #4

              <

              p>Neither study is some sort of holy grail. Massachusetts though needs to do better, and no it’s not going to be #1 but it should be in the top 1/2. Taxes alone are not going to immediately  run a business out of state – but couple taxes with a high cost of living and a business unfriendly administration and you eventually will.

              <

              p>BTW – lots of downtowns have problems, been through downtown Lawrence lately, or any of he the Massachusetts towns that border New Hampshire. Or anywhere in upstate New York #49.

              <

              p>

              • You title your comment “Cherry Picking Data”, and then offer MICROSOFT as an example of why Washington State is great? Yes, Washington State has Microsoft. So what. Yes, your friend moved his business from California to Washington State. So what.

                <

                p>Your map isn’t a map of “business climate”, it’s a map of states with low taxes. Here’s what the front page of your quoted site says about what they measured:

                The Tax Foundation’s annual State Business Tax Climate Index was designed to measure the “tax-friendliness” to business of each state’s tax system. The most competitive tax systems are typically found in states that raise sufficient tax revenue with economically neutral and simple tax systems. The least competitive are typically found in states with complex, multi-rate corporate and individual tax codes; above-average sales tax rates that exempt few business-to-business transactions; high state tax collections; and few institutional restraints on the level of taxation or spending.

                <

                p>I argue that “better business climate” has very little to do with business tax rate. You are arguing that the yellow states on your map have a lower tax rate. I agree.

                <

                p>Try this exercise. Look at the total dollar volume distribution of non-farm industry revenue in each yellow and blue state. Look at the net new job creation rate in non-farm industry for each yellow and blue state (or even better, look at cumulative net new worker compensation paid). If you like, lop off the top 5 and bottom 5 companies in each state to handle outliers like Microsoft (of course, you want have any companies left in Montana, South Dakata, and Wyoming).

                <

                p>Now compare actual performance for the “blue” and “yellow” states in your map. You assert that the yellow states have a “better business climate”. I suggest that the actual performance data fails to support that claim.

                <

                p>Cutting taxes pleases the handful of business owners who benefit. Our own experience here in Massachusetts, and the exercise you suggested with your own map nationwide, demonstrates that this DOES NOT improve business performance.

                <

                p>In my view, “better business climate” means “more business revenue created” and “more jobs created”. Cutting taxes fails to accomplish either.

                • “You title your comment “Cherry Picking Data”, and then offer MICROSOFT as an example of why Washington State is great? Yes, Washington State has Microsoft. So what. Yes, your friend moved his business from California to Washington State. So what.”

                  <

                  p>Because of the poor business climate in California. It’s not just money it’s the state’s general attitude towards business. Getting permits, cost of workment’s comp etc. forever changing regulations. Microsoft started out real small, you don’t allow business to get rooted here they will start somewhere else.

                  <

                  p>

                • Businesses in “the poor business climate in California” have run circles around the states you hold up as “the best” — not to mention Massachusetts. How many world-class companies are headquartered in New Hampshire?

                  <

                  p>Citing Microsoft as an example of why we should emulate Washington State (or Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming, and the rest) is like citing Dung Tran, Quang Dao, David Gehle, Chasity Rutjens, Alain Maboussou, Robert Stewart, Michael Terpstra, and Eric Zornes — winners of a record U.S. lottery prize — as examples of why playing the lottery is a winning financial management strategy.

                  <

                  p>I agree with you that “it’s not just money” — that’s the point. None of the things you harp on (taxes, permits, workman’s comp, regulations) have any substantive impact on creating successful and thriving businesses. If they did, then those yellow states would be where the business hotspots are, and those blue states would be trying to figure out how to do the same.

                  <

                  p>Massachusetts used to be one of those hotspots. We are now a bit player and fast becoming a stagnant backwater. The yellow states are worse.

                  <

                  p>That’s why I think your prescription is so misguided.

                • I think is a good example. Obviously Bill Gates started the company, not because of the high tech industry in the area but I assume because that’s where he is from.

                  <

                  p>The entire California High Tech belt is really an outgrowth of the founders of HP and Stanford.

                  <

                  p>MIT spawned, DEC , Polaroid, EG&G  and Bose.  Harvard,  Wang Labs. It was the personal chose of the founders to be located in the Boston Area – taxes were reasonable and the business climate positive (and they  probably needed Lewis and Clark to find New Hampshire).

                  <

                  p>But if you make life too miserable for companies it will push them out of the area. California has reached the threshold, so has New York. I don’t want Massachusetts to be next.

                  <

                  p>No we don’t have to the most favorable business climate, but we sure as hell don’t want to be 50.

                  <

                  p>

                • None of Digital, Polaroid, EG&G, Bose or Wang were located in Boston because of the local taxes or regulations. As you observed, most of those started here because MIT and Harvard are here. None of those companies folded because the taxes were too high or regulations too severe.

                  <

                  p>The phrase “business climate” is simply not synonymous with low taxes and laissez-faire local regulatory environment.

                  <

                  p>In the high-tech world, “business climate” means:

                  • Ability to raise venture funding
                  • Ability to find qualified staff
                  • Critical mass of corporate and technology infrastructure
                  • Etc., etc., etc.

                  <

                  p>In my nearly thirty years of doing startups, I’ve never yet heard a prospective investor say “No dice, sorry, but this deal is not investable because the taxes are too high and regulations too tough in your town.”

                  <

                  p>Here’s what I have heard:

                  • “It’s a great concept, but why Boston? Aren’t all the developers who know this technology in the Bay Area?”
                  • “We love the idea, but we like to work closely with the executive teams of our portfolio companies. Have you thought about Palo Alto?”
                  • “This deal doesn’t really fit into our fund’s investment strategy. You’re proposing a new software approach and a new business model. When you can show a product that works and demonstrate the success of your business model, let us know. Have you tried shopping this deal in the Bay Area?”

                  <

                  p>Facebook began in a Harvard dorm room. Its founders, by their own descriptions, wanted to stay in Boston. They landed in the Bay Area — and Massachusetts taxes had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

                  <

                  p>Yes, we need to fix our very broken Massachusetts business climate. Further gutting local government is NOT the right answer.

                • That speaks more to the conservatism of the Boston area VCs than anything else. There are three main tech centers in the this country: Silicon Valley, Boston, and Austin (not Seattle). Of the three, Boston VCs have a rep for being the least visionary.  They want another EMC, but most likely wouldn’t have funded them in the first place.  Which is why you end up working with Bay Area VCs, who want you to be in the Bay Area.

                  <

                  p>As you say, it has nothing to do with the tax climate or cost of living. CA is worse across the board.

                  <

                  p>Another interesting discussion is the Globe Business Section “kiss of death.” Boston just doesn’t do entrepreneur well.

                • The best way to improve the business climate of Massachusetts is to encourage new ways of funding businesses in Massachusetts. The venture capital model is badly broken, especially for internet-based “long-tail” startups. In particular, the classic approach — with its focus on an “exit strategy” — puts investors and company executives on opposites sides of an adversarial table. Actions that maximize a company’s market valuation are often in conflict with actions that maximize its sustainable profitability.

                  <

                  p>You’re dead-on when you characterize the Boston-area investment community as “conservative”. Mitt Romney and Bain come to mind.

                  <

                  p>The relentless focus on slashing taxes, regulation, and government exemplifies counter-productive government policy.

                • I’m in the 5 to 100 employee manufacturing world. You have your perspective, and given the potential returns of some of these firms taxes don’t make a huge difference. Hey, we agree.

                  <

                  p>The small firms in this state (and others) don’t have the huge profit margins and are typically funded out of their owners pocket.  They grow internally (maybe the wrong word) but aren’t funded by VC, but by their owners. Taxes make a difference for them. If they do borrow money, they have to pay it back and are typically personally on the hook for it.

                  <

                  p>For example, I’ve read an accounting study (which I have to find again) looking at an average size manufacturing firm 5M in gross revenue and applied expenses to 4 different states – NY/CT/MA and NH. The business lost money in NY, broke even in CT made a little bit of money in Massachusetts and was profitable in NH. So either the business moves or goes out of business, but I want the business to stay here.

                  <

                  p>Massachusetts IS an expensive state to do business in, and we aren’t gutting the state government. But the state government needs to be run somewhat efficiently and not go tax crazy.  The state doesn’t have it’s priorities correct and the pension system is going to bankrupt us all.

                  <

                  p>

      • When you write “Massachusetts has one of the worst rated business climates in the country”, I wonder if you can be more specific about what you mean — I’d like to be able to see the five or ten best-rated business climates, and the five or ten other worst-rated business climates.

        <

        p>Some years ago (in the eighties, as I recall), Fortune magazine began publishing its list of the “best places to live” in America. Pittsburgh, PA and Nashua, NH ranked in the top ten. With all due respect to residents of each, I lived in Pittsburgh during the early seventies while I went to school, and again for one year in 1982 when I joined a hot technology startup (that relocated to Massachusetts while I was there). I lived at the MA border, adjoining Nashua, for a decade. I knew Pittsburgh and I knew Nashua. However they did it, for the two data points that I knew, Fortune got it very wrong. The criteria used by Fortune were, rightly or wrongly, very different from my own, as evidenced by these two cites. I can think of dozens — probably even hundreds — of towns superior to each. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Portsmouth NH was and is a far better place to live than Nashua. As is Keene, Peterboro, and Milford. Manchester is very livable, far more so than Nashua. In fact, whether Fortune admits it or not, the only reason to chose Nashua over those others is if you work in Massachusetts and have to commute every day.

        <

        p>Even if we accept your observations, I still don’t see how your proposals differ in any substantive way from the GOP mantra we’ve heard for decades.

        <

        p>I’ve written elsewhere here that a relatively modest increase in the tax rate of inter-generational wealth transfers for residents whose non-home net worth exceeds twenty million dollars is more than enough to fund the infrastructure improvements needed to jumpstart our local economy.

        <

        p>Please reread that carefully. We’re talking about a modest increase in estate and gift taxes. The individuals we are discussing have non-home estates in excess of twenty million dollars. That’s non-home estates — we’re not talking land-poor individuals whose “wealth” is concentrated in artificially-inflated inherited real estate. Even in today’s climate, twenty million dollars is a lot to pass on. Many of the estates in question are ten or one hundred times that. Several (more than a dozen) are in excess of one billion dollars. It doesn’t take very many billion-dollar-plus estates, and it doesn’t take more than a few percentage points on those, to add up to a significant amount of new tax revenue. Nobody is going to lose homes, starve, or lose health care as a result of this much-needed increase in tax revenue. We’re talking about a handful of people, and we’re talking about a handful of people who are far more able to pay these needed tax increases than, for example, mom and pop liquor store owners on the MA/NH border. These wealthy individuals are far more able to pay than the army of unemployment recipients who, even though unemployed and struggling to keep homes for their families and health care for their children, still pay income taxes on their meager unemployment benefits.

        <

        p>Effective government does cost money. Somebody has to pay. In my view, fairness dictates that good tax policy relies relatively more on those who are most able to pay and relatively less on those who are least able to pay.

        <

        p>In summary, here’s what I think we need to enumerate:

        <

        p>

        • What benchmarks should we use to measure the Massachusetts business climate?
        • What realistic goals should we set for progress along those benchmarks?
        • What steps should the Massachusetts government take to jumpstart the Massachusetts economy, and how — specifically — does each proposed step connect to its stated goal?
        • Who is best able to fund the needed public spending and how do we most fairly ensure that they do so?
        • What private-sector factors drive new businesses away from Massachusetts and what public policies can change those factors?

  5. During the 1981 tax cuts of the Reagan Admin. we heard dropping the top marginal tax rate to 50% from 71% would stimulate the economy.

    <

    p>Today we stand at 35%, but yet we are still in a recession.  Property taxes are higher and state taxes are higher today because of the downfall of federal assistance to the states ,which trickled down to a higher tax burden by all the municipalities.

    <

    p>The fall of Federal assistance was directly due to the top marginl tax rate being cut.

    <

    p>If you want real economic growth here in the commonwealth we need to ensure good pay for employees. That would enhance and grow demand thus creating jobs.

    <

    p>Raise the top marginal taxes back up to 40%, increase federal assistance to the states and the state will increase assistance to the towns and cities.  At that point property taxes would hopefully go down, at least I would push for that.  That move would free up even more dollars into the private sector and create more jobs.

  7. Massachusetts ranks 1 in education which is a direct result in taxation investment in our public school system and state university system.

    <

    p>We rank 17th out of 50 in regards to business friendliness
    which is described below

    <

    p>Regulation and litigation are the bane of business. Sure, some of each is inevitable. But we graded the states on the perceived “friendliness” of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business.

    <

    p>Massachusetts ranks 26th out of 50 in regards to workforce which is decribed below

    <

    p>Many states point with great pride to the quality and availability of their workers, as well as government-sponsored programs to train them. We rated states based on the education level of their workforce, as well as the numbers of available workers. We also considered union membership. While organized labor contends that a union workforce is a quality workforce, that argument, more often than not, doesn’t resonate with business. We also looked at the relative success of each state’s worker training programs in placing their participants in jobs.

    <

    p>The implications of low taxation have a detrimental effect on the overall ranking.

    <

    p>Look at the overall ranking of Nevada
    47th overall but according to tax foundation they rank 4th in the country.

    <

    p>they are 49th for education Massachusetts is #1
    20th for business friendliness, Massachusetts is 17th

    <

    p>they are better than massachusetts in workforce 18th while Massachusetts is 26th

    <

    p>Nevada is 49th for economy massachusetts is 12th

    <

    p>A solid economy is good for business. So is a diverse economy, with access to the biggest players in a variety of industries. We looked at basic indicators of economic health and growth. We also gave credit to states based on the number of major corporations located there.

    <

    p>Taxation may be higher in Massachusetts, but it is an investment in our state.

  8. I don’t understand what spending has to do with it. People wanted all these things, universal health, special ed, etc. Please focus on growth, across the board growth that leads to higher wages and salaries, so we can afford the social spending.  

  9. Look at the ridiculous banter regarding what is and what isn’t a “good job.”   For someone with an MBA who has a mortgage, or children to feed, a job at McDonald’s may be the only thing preventing them from having their house foreclosed.   This intellectual blather with this Repub candidate misses the tenor of anger that exists within a majority of the voting public.   People are angry, scared and unsure as to whether they can provide themselves and their families a decent quality of life.   And here’s some of my fellow progressives lecturing on public policy as if in a classroom, when the reality is that public policies affect real people and real families and have real consequences.   Repub candidates like Marston can appeal to the vast majority of those who are scared and nervous about the economy and what it means to them and their families.   Easy soundbites, as Scott Brown proved, can sway a public to vote for a phony.   Your philosophical blather is going to talk the Dem party into defeat this November unless we can show the public that we’re creating jobs for them and their families.   Tsk tsking the Repubs while avoiding putting people to work — in jobs, any jobs that allow them to provide some financial betterment for themselves and their families — is a political strategy guaranteed to elect Republicans.   Stop the rhetoric and support the governor and Legislature in their job-creation initiatives.   Or get used to a new governor — and Repub supporters and ideologes throughout the executive branch and state agencies — and many more Repubs in our Legislature.

Archives