Under the state constitution, the Governor must propose a balanced budget in January (if it’s Governor Baker, the constitution extends the deadline a bit for an incoming Governor). For this reason, the Fiscal Affairs Division (FAD) of the Administration and Finance Department (ANF) prepares a preliminary budget in the last quarter of each year. That budget is largely complete now. With a $2 billion+ gap between revenues and spending, and a near depletion of the rainy day fund over the past four years, and assuming no more one time fixes such as the federal bailout funding, what is the Patrick administration’s proposed budget for next year? It’s a core issue of this election and a key difference between the candidates. I know Baker’s plan: cut spending to align with revenue and grow revenue by growing the economy, and no new taxes. What’s Patrick’s plan? I know that Governor Patrick is an honest man, which only makes his silence on his plan more troubling. Could he lack the political courage to tell voters what he plans to do in just 60 days if reelected? I believe the current FAD/ANF plan requires an increase of the state income tax to 6% to balance the budget. I predict that any such increase, in a Patrick administration, would be pitched as a “temporary tax increase” and rolled out simultaneously with a proposed constitutional amendment to create a progressive income tax in Massachusetts. And I predict that any progressive income tax proposal would propose to decrease the income tax for 60-70% of taxpayers below 6% (not coincidentally a majority of voters) to leverage approval in the 2012 state election. The Governor, Doug Rubin and others all read BMG. Tell me I’m wrong.
As far as your idea about a progressive income tax goes, I hope you’re right (though I have no idea if you are). Tax cut for most taxpayers; ask the really well-off to pay a bit more. That’s obviously the best, fairest solution that is most likely to stimulate the economy. People with less money spend much of their income, which helps businesses, etc. People with a lot of money tend to sock it away, which is nice for them and their families but does little to stimulate the economy. That’s yet another reason that a progressive income tax would be a good idea.
is there historical precedent for an incumbent governor in an election year going public with budget plans at this point in the cycle? Maybe there is – I’m just asking.
The Axe Plan by Baker lacks specifics that would make it credible. Baker says he will:
<
p>
The Baker Axe Plan lacks:
<
p>1) WHAT spending would he cut?
<
p>2) HOW would he grow revenue?
<
p>3) WHAT does his “no new taxes” pledge mean in terms of user fees, shrinking the fiscal “pie” by eliminating social programs or other governmental responsibilities,what handling of the so-called “tax expenditure budget” he is proposing in place of restructuring our current antiquated tax system which is fragile due to reliance on boom bust collections from taxes such as capital gains.
<
p>All Baker is doing with the Baker Axe Plan is throwing out the same old empty platitudes and calling those platitudes a “plan”. Of course you are right that the Executive Department of Administration and Finance is already hard at work on the FY 12 budget – you were involved in the process a number of years ago when you were Governor Romney’s chief legal counsel. I follow it myself. Unfortunately, not one of the so-called debates has asked concrete questions about this set of issues – but frankly, Charlie Baker isn’t giving anyone any specifics at all. I don’t notice you pushing Charlie to respond on this issue.
eliminate the Department of Waste?
Scott Leigh outlines some ideas that would work Patrick will never implement these reforms, he will raise taxes.
You’ve got to do better than that.
didn’t seem to mind the big dig mismanagement that overrode by BILLIONS. maybe we can call this payback. Charlie gives, and Charlie takes away.
Do you have any disclosures to make along with this post? Will you or are you considering an appointment by Mr. Baker should the voters elect him Governor?
<
p>I am curious about your thoughts on Question 3 and the impacts of the ballot question on the budget scenarios you are questioning above. I look forward to your reply.
Heartland. I am running for a seat in the House of Representatives. See http://www.danwinslow.com for my proposals and qualifications for office. I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative and I have the endorsements and record to back up that claim. I will not seek or accept any job within a Baker administration. On Question 3, I support a rollback of the sales tax to 5%. Since that option is not on the ballot and since I have zero confidence that this Legislature will roll back the tax, I will vote yes on 3 and then propose a rollback to 5% if elected. I am working on a new idea that I have floated in lieu of a rollback: allowing MA sales tax to be a deduction from MA property tax. Such an idea would need to include a hold harmless provision to replace property tax dollars with state local assistance, and it would need a cap to limit the size of deductions. But the idea seems sound and it would both solve the border town retail concerns as well as create incentive for consumer spending instate which in turn would help the state economy. Still working on details but will propose the idea in legislative format if it seems to work and if elected.
It seems clear enough that they are.
<
p>The surprise (to me) is that you, apparently, didn’t know about it.
<
p>Is there a BMG policy about maintaining multiple BMG identities?
Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side
The summer’s gone, and all the leaves are falling
‘Tis you, ’tis you must go and I must bide.
<
p>Would someone kindly clear up the confusion with the Winslow=amicus conundrum? I too thought only one login per individual was permitted. Is this a hoax?
<
p>Still looking for answers to my questions above and would appreciate it if the “real” Dan Winslow would stand up. And while we’re waiting Dan/amicus….how ’bout that Charlie Baker anyways?
This thread-starter is authored by “Dan Winslow”, a BMG identity created on 10-Apr-2008. This comment speaks in the first person (“I am running …”), and is signed “amicus”, a BMG identity created on 3-May-2006. Are “amicus” and “Dan Winslow” the same person with two BMG identities? Just wondering.
<
p>I’m quite certain that Governor Patrick is committed to growing tax revenue by growing the economy (he’s already has a rather impressive record in this regard, especially in comparison to his GOP predecessors) and to cutting unnecessary spending.
<
p>I actually have a great deal more insight into Governor Patrick’s proposals, thinking, and actions on both fronts than I see from Charlie Baker’s fusillade of distortions, hand-waving, sloganeering, and finger-pointing.
<
p>Let’s talk candidly about what happened to health insurance costs for Harvard Pilgrim subscribers on Charlie Baker’s watch, especially in RI.
<
p>If there is a “candid conversation” to be had, quite frankly I think that conversation should be about why the Massachusetts GOP is so relentlessly determined to destroy the quality of life that most of us hold dear — especially for those on the bottom of the economic food-chain that Charlie Baker has so profitably exploited for his own personal and corporate gain (like Mitt Romney before him).
“I will vote yes on 3 and then propose a rollback to 5% if elected.”
<
p>This is the same kind of “politics as usual” that does absolutely nothing to reinvigorate new ideas and stimulate new solutions to the problems we face in Massachusetts today.
<
p>To clarify political doubletalk, “Amicus” or “DanWinslow” will vote to rollback the sales tax to 3% then vote again to raise it back to 5%.
<
p>Furthermore, my opponent, “Amicus” or “DanWinslow”, will vote for the sales tax rollback, full-knowing that he’s taking money from the communities represented in the office for which he’s running. (Charlie Baker even opposes it.)
<
p>For clarification, the money that he’s dipping into goes directly to public safety, transportation, healthcare, and education.
<
p>Look, as a tax assessor, I understand we have to rollback the sales tax to 5-5.75%, a more sustainable rate so we don’t end up taking too much out of the communities.
<
p>There’s a commonsense choice in the State Representative race for the Ninth Norfolk District of Massachusetts.
<
p>No political doubletalk found here.
<
p>Vote me, Stanley J. Nacewicz for State Representative of the Ninth Norfolk District
<
p>www.ElectStan.com
Internet Explorer picked a really, really bad time to block me from posting, so please don’t think my lack of replies reflects any lack of interest to engage in civic discourse. Moving ahead to Tuesday’s election, I wanted to share today’s endorsement of my campaign by the Attleboro Sun Chronicle which, along the the Globe and the Herald, has endorsed my candidacy. The Chronicle’s endorsement included kind words for my opponent. It is a great example of much needed civility in politics; we don’t need to destroy our opponents, it’s enough to disagree on the issues and let the voters decide: http://www.thesunchronicle.com…
After noting the revenue shortfall and your concerns that Patrick hasn’t illustrated how he’ll realistically deal with it, you cop to being in favor of strangling revenue.
<
p>A bit rich for my taste.
Springfield saved $14 million to $18 million in just two years by joining the GIC, according to a new study by UMass-Boston’s Collins Center for Public Management and Harvard’s Rappaport Institute. A 2007 report by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation and the Boston Municipal Research Bureau estimated that if all municipalities joined the GIC, after 10 years the total annual savings could be as much as $2.5 billion. This simple safeguard would protect employees: local health-insurance plans would have to be at least as generous as those the GIC offers. from Scott Leigh Boston Globe 2009
… but nowhere near adequate to address the guy can claim with a straight face that addressing the “$2 billion+ gap between revenues and spending” is compatible by further shortfalling revenue.
but it fails because it requires nullifying and voiding existing contracts — you know, promises between two agents. Apparently, a deal is a deal unless you get to do the screwing.
<
p>I’m all for more towns joining on to the GIC — but they’ve got to get there with fair, above board negotiating, not by fiat.
…has struck me as a completely hypocritical position on behalf of Republicans like you and the rest of the Republican ticket. And because Democratic leadership probably has every intention of ignoring the “will of the voters” and either raising the sales tax to either 5% or 6.25%…you folks can get away with this hypocrisy.
<
p>What you folks are publicly saying (and admittedly the Dems are only whispering) is you have not respect for the will of the people and if we vote to lower the tax to 3%, you will ignore that and bring it back to 5%. Incredible.
<
p>Mr. Winslow, you may have far more pedigree than I, being a former Judge and Legal Counselor to the Gov and all that. But I have a far stronger democratic moral compass than you. I voted (absentee) against the sales tax roll back and if it is passed, I vehemently oppose the Legislature and Governor from changing the will of the people. You on the other hand will vote to lower the tax, and if elected to the legislature, will then vote against the will of the people (and yourself) and increase the tax. Mr. Winslow, I thought you were a reasonable person and could work with other reasonable people to help get us back on track. But your view of governing is as warped as the likes of Tom Petrolati.
amicus is indeed Dan Winslow.
Amicus may be the victim of an automatic finish when logging in?
<
p>IF Winslow is amicus, I’m even more impressed with his good ideas.
<
p>Of course, I DO feel like an idiot for twitting Dan Winslow on an Amicus post …
As to whether Amicus and Dan Winslow are one and the same, what I know – and when I first knew -it I will leave it for former Chief Legal Counsel Winslow to disclose (sorry if I disappoint).
<
p>I was, however, pleased to hear that Dan would not accept a job in a Baker administration (even if there were any chance, in my view, of Baker winning at this point) because it is a painful spectacle to watch when the appointee is smarter, kinder and more agile, more creative, and more intelligent than the governor who appointed him. I saw that over and over after Gov. Romney appointed Dan Winslow as his chief legal counsel.
<
p>The problem with having bushels of new ideas, though, is that not all of them are possible, and many of them have unintended consequences. Perhaps the saddest consequence of the Romney/Winslow administration is the reduction in court funding via the false promise from the idea of so-called retained revenue.
<
p>As some may recall, the funding for the Judicial Branch was cut by 20% by Romney in FY 03; the judicial branch never recovered because they were supposed to make the money back by squeezing the public (i.e. you and me) for more fees.
<
p>In fact, what was designed by John Adams to be a co-equal branch of government, and the bulwark of liberty became a mere supplicant. There has been a hiring freeze in the courts for four years now, the judiciary began to feel more and more like bill collectors and less and less like judges.
<
p>Some courts, however, remain stuck in an attitude of “don’t ask don’t tell” about determining indigence – because each year there are fewer employees to ask the questions and fill out the forms to determine if someone can pay filing fees or for their own attorney. Perhaps the only good result is the embrace of Limited Attorney Representation – also called “LAR” – see The LAR Order in Probate and Family Court.
<
p>Dan – the unintended consequences of your idea about property taxes would be dire. Trust me. Let me know if you want to have that conversation. What it would do to the rental market, for example, is not at all what you would have wanted to happen.
Like fixing a revenue shortfall by strangling revenue. I love it when deficit hawks become one dimensional only looking at the spending side of the equation.
<
p>Sorry, I need politicians that live in the real world.
the mastermind behind the “Lifestyle Analysis Factor” Test (aka, the LAF Test), which would require the state to peer very intensely into the lifestyles of some — but certainly not all — recipients of state public assistance. (Exluded from the LAF test are recipients of state assistance in the form of tax credits or deductions.)
<
p>BMG readers kicked this idea around a few months ago. The link is here. The consensus was that Winslow’s idea was a hellish hybrid of Ayn Rand and the Nanny State.
<
p>Among the questions posed by Mr. Winslow’s test is whether the household receives internet service. If the answer is yes, it requires the household the reimburse the state for the difference between the service being received and the cheapest possible service (is dial-up still around?). Just imagine the long-term savings to be achieved by depriving a household’s school-age children of high-speed internet, especially when you factor in the cost to the state of making and enforcing this determination?
<
p>So my question to the Governor, et al., is — when our poorest citizens are poorer than ever before and everyone agrees that state resources are extremely scarce — if you are taking Mr. Winslow up on his question about your plans for the FY 2012 budget, please don’t exclude an analysis of what it would cost the state to implement the LAF test.
We’re really worried about spending and too much government, so now is exactly the time we should increase spending on the government infrastructure of public assistance. Diminishing returns be damned.
championed by our US Senator Scott Brown when he was a state Senator…least we forget as I posted on BMG here.
Up early to prepare the day’s political theory seminar, but diverted by BMG, I encountered something worthy of bringing to class for discussion. To wit, this alarum: “And I predict that any progressive income tax proposal would propose to decrease the income tax for 60-70% of taxpayers below 6% (not coincidentally a majority of voters) to leverage approval in the 2012 state election.” O the perfidy of it! Imagine–scandalous, really–an elected official might try to shape tax policy so that it benefits the . . . majority. Surely in a democratic society we can’t allow that!
when you’re trying to get the suburban vote.
<
p>Not political at all. It’s OK If You’re A Republican, though.
<
p>
<
p>More on the Big Dig and GOP management here.
wasn’t making any money – and they had actually stopped taking tolls after rush hour years before.