Right now somebody is thinking of something worse
You know a lot of folk are pessimistic about our chances of winning public support for a balanced solution to our current budget crisis and are facing the new year like this delightful Dave Grandlund Larry King/Father Time cartoon:
Still when it come to economic health, we're doing better than most states according to the new report bhy the Mass Budget and Policy Center.
The years ahead will pose enormous fiscal and economic challenges for Massachusetts and for the nation. Policymakers and citizens engaged in policy debates will face very difficult choices. But as hard as the choices we face are, we in Massachusetts also have very significant advantages that can serve as the foundation of a strong and vibrant state economy as our national economy recovers.
In the face of a 1.5 Billion dollar structural deficit, how do we leverage our strenghs to make sure we don't undermine the public infrastuctures that educate our children, keep our water and air clean, our homes and families safe,our bridges and roads repaired, and help our business community to thrive.
We have an adult discussion of taxes that's what we do. We all work together to build public support for a balanced solution that includes new revenues. We've done it before and we can do it again.
Please join us for a special Insider Budget Briefing that will bring together a panel of heroes from key players in the successful of the 2001/2002 Revenue Campaign:
- Political Leadership: Former Senate President, Tom Birmingham
- Policy Experts: Former General Counsel to the Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration and Finance, Professor Peter D. Enrich
- Community Organizers: Former Executive Director of Neighbor to Neighbor, Harris Gruman
Our guests will discuss the wins and losses of that successful revenue effort as we examine our options in building a more balanced, stable, and adequate method of funding our state.
Please join us on Wednesday, January 19th from 3:30-5:30pm in the 2nd Floor Conference Room at SEIU 615 at 26 West Street, near the Boston Common [map].
Admission is $10, and will include a light supper and take-home materials. Please RSVP by Friday, January 14th to Carmen Arce-Bowen.
Crossposted at Public Events at ONE Massachusetts
He once gave us a talk on education funding – it was illuminating, to say the least! I’ll popularize this with some folks here in my town, maybe get a car pool going. Thanks for posting!
…has to include the end of the hack-progressive alliance. People won’t stand for the games hacks play, if you expect them to pay more taxes for services.
in that diary I quote an activist from San Francisco who got very tired of people stating that they could not support any expansion of city services to children because the city was so riddled with patronage and pay to play development that any new programs were doomed. So she came up with
<
p>
<
p>And I adopted it for my work forward. One Massachusetts, along with other “Government reform” organizations like Common Cause and Mass PIRG, fought hard for ethics reform two years ago and are pushing the transparency buttons at every opportunity we get.
<
p>I think we all know very well how important to eliminate abuses and abusers in the policy making process if we are ever to rebuild people’s confidence in their own government.
<
p>We just have to keep fighting for government reform, increased civic participation and adequate revenues for our public infrastructures.
<
p>All at the same time.
There is no negative consequence for hoarding capital in the current revenue structure, and no – or insufficient reward – for investments made and hiring.
If you own land, you pay property tax on it — so if you’re “hoarding” land which could be economically productive by building a factory, a home, a farm on it, then you’re paying to hoard.
<
p>If you own currency, you pay the cost of inflation when you hoard it. Inflation in 2009 was very slight, but generally it’s a few percent a year. If you stuff your wealth under your mattress, you lose a few percent a year in general.
<
p>
<
p>Most “hoarders” — either wealthy individuals or companies — aren’t holding free cash in a personal safe. They’ve got it deposited in a bank (allowing the bank to make loans) or they’ve got it in corporate bonds (lending money to companies to invest) or they’ve got it in government bonds (lending money to governments to allow them to build new infrastructure [state/local] or cut taxes [fed]).
<
p>Argue for a more progressive tax structure, sure. This idea that hoarding is even happening is silly; the idea that there’s no penalty for it is just plain wrong. It’s true that entities are saving more and spending less, but their assets aren’t stuffed under the mattress, they’re invested in low risk vehicles like bonds… and that means that they’ve loaned the money to another agency who is spending it.
economist commenting on taxing corporate savings. Newsweek had an article two weeks ago with no comment on taxing savings. There is some mention of the question of where the money might go:
It’s likely that taxing corporate savings would just create a shell game.
<
p>
the mantra of those who want as small a government as possible demand that government be perfectly efficient before we do anything new or different, or expand a program which does have multiplicative benefits.
<
p>It’s a game we can’t win. No organization is perfectly efficient, not even an organization of one wholly self-interested person.
<
p>Yes, let’s root out waste. Let’s combine duplicated efforts, let’s cut through unnecessary red tape, let’s treat civil servants fairly with wages and benefits. But let’s not fall into the trap that we can’t do anything positive with government until we file off every hangnail and trim or pluck every nose/ear/unibrow hair.
But I just don’t see it. Our present legislature has exactly zero credibility on “rooting out waste.” Indeed, the probation scandal has been greeted by legislators with something of a shrug. Every time some double-dipping state functionary surfaces, it is an “isolated incident” that shouldn’t be a big deal because it only amounts to a small fraction of the overall budget.
<
p>I’m just looking for some credibility on the savings front before someone asks for more money.
Taxes have historically taken 18% of the modern economy. Any attempt to raise rates to take a higher percentage of the economy have resulted in evasion, recession and other revenue killers.
<
p>The way to get more revenue is to encourage a growing economy.
Just like the how we raised taxes way above “18% of the modern economy” (whatever that means) right before this recession. Not to mention the abominably high tax rates of the 1920s.
<
p>Furthermore, simply looking at the countries with the highest taxation in terms of percentage of GDP, we see, in the top five alone, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, and Finland, all poverty-stricken wastelands.
That is the fallacy here. The wealth is sitting in accounts where “trades” are made, or consolidations are financed – and jobs are lost, productivity is not increased, and fewer widgets are needed. It IS hoarding as surely as if Old Grimbones crouched on gold in a cave.
So how is any company, individual, etc., hoarding, or more important, how is it damaging.
<
p>Even if the ‘hoarder’ is converting to gold and sticking it in his vault, he’s increasing the demand for gold and mining ventures.
<
p>If he’s investing in greenbacks, he’s stupid because he’s getting no return. Doubt that’s happening.
<
p>Stocks, bonds? That’s the same as investing or lending to business.
<
p>T-Bonds or bills. That’s lending to the government so isn’t that a good thing?
<
p>Can you articulate your “hoarding hurts us all” hypothesis?
I have been seeing this more and more. I think it to be entirely fallacious, but I believe that the argument is directed primarily to the financial sector.
<
p>The financial sector has been making some money, and has indeed been reluctant to lend it out. The hoarding argument is silly because the reluctance to lend is a direct result of previous over-lending. TARP notwithstanding, the financial sector is still sitting on a mountain of loans that, though presently performing, are precarious at best. Commercial real estate. State and local bonds. Foreign debt. They must hang onto cash to cover all of this risk– the failure to do so over the last decade led to the crisis in 2008.
<
p>What really exposes the fallacy is that the principal bogeyman of this recession, for liberals, is the evil Wall Street guy who gamed the system in order to get money out on the street as fast as possible. Punish them for their bad decisions, not the poor homeowner victimized by their overly agressive lending!
<
p>Now, we find that the bogeyman is again Mr. Wall Street banker, but this time because they aren’t being aggressive enough in getting money out on the street. Forget your existing risk! Take on more! But if it tanks, it will be your fault again!
<
p>One might reasonably conclude that the financial sector is simply a bogeyman, and the reasoning changes to fit circumstances.
As Paul Krugman has pointed out in the past, a serious underlying problem that we continue to ignore is that the solvency of the financial sector is still very much at risk. As you correctly observe, “the financial sector is still sitting on a mountain of loans that, though presently performing, are precarious at best.”
<
p>In my view, the “hoarding” isn’t so much a symptom of evil bogeymen on Wall Street as an as-yet unaddressed fundamental insolvency of the financial sector.
<
p>We may have ducked the first bullet in the initial bailout, but we most certainly have not solved this fundamental insolvency — a great many bullets remain chambered and ready to fire. Sadly, the solution probably entails nationalizing large portions of the financial sector.
<
p>This problem isn’t going to just go away, and the bailout did not solve it.
<
p>If a company keeps its money in a bank and the bank is not lending, then I can’t see punishing the company for that…
<
p>We tend to think of the banking industry pre-2008 as just a more muscular version of the banking industry we have now: as though our present banking populace is the same, just weaker. In fact, the industry we have now is a radically different industry, complete with a gigundish smoking crater where the really big players, the so-called ‘shadow banking system’ used to be. It’s gone. poof And all the money that used to flow freely is flowing much less freely, in part, because the banks that survived A) remain shell-shocked and are hoping fervently NOT to lose any more money[1]and 2) are trying to come to grips with new rules and regulations.
<
p>It is, to borrow an old cliche from the ’90s, a ‘paradigm shift’ of astounding scope and penetrating breadth.
<
p>Take, for example, the dependence on computers, most of which have to be reprogrammed to work efficiently in the new reality, can have the effect of compounding inefficiencies where before they streamlined efficient processing. That’s just one aspect of the shift that needs to be addressed.
<
p>This is not to excuse banks, but to indict them completely: yes, their stupidity and short sightedness got us into this mess and those same things are fairly well holding us back from getting out of this mess. But to simply call for “more lending” and/or “no more hoarding” is a misreading of the situation.
<
p>[1] The standard reply to banks fear of losing money is to cite ‘record profits’ and refuse to believe that such profits could evaporate even more quickly than they coalesced…
Is the SEIU renting out office space to make up for their Democratic party donations?
To make up for loss of dues revenue, since Governor Patrick is slicing their their membership base to bits?
Will they make an appearance at the State House on Jan. 12th at 11:00 AM in support of their PCA consumers? Who hire their union members?
If anyone could provide an answer, I would appreciate it.
I happen to know a lot about these issues. But I can’t really understand your questions or, more importantly, the assumptions behind your questions. I’ll take a shot anyway (below) but can you clarify your animosity?
<
p>1. Who do you mean by “the SEIU”? By far the most politically active SEIU local is 1199. Assuming you mean 1199, it is true that they rent office space in Dorchester. I don’t understand what you mean when you say “to make up for their Democratic party donations.” You think they should own office space? You understand that dues revenue cannot and is not ever used to make political contributions or run political ads, right?
<
p>2. Are you suggesting that “the SEIU” or 1199SEIU is now “broke” because the Governor is “slicing their membership base to bits”? I’m not sure what you are referring to here. The Governor has cut some state jobs but he has made no cuts (yet) to the PCA program which continues to grow. Meanwhile, the 25,000 PCAs make up the majority of the nearly 40,000 1199SEIU members in Massachusetts. At the same time, the local’s hospital membership continues to grow quickly (with new organizing underway at the six Caritas hospitals) while 1199’s few thousand nursing home membership has been relatively stable for many years. There’s been no “slicing to bits” by the Governor or anyone else, and 1199 membership (and, therefore, dues revenue) continues to grow.
<
p>3. Will they make an appearance at the State House on Jan. 12th at 11:00 AM in support of their PCA consumers? Who hire their union members? Of course. In fact, this event was originally planned and organized by 1199SEIU itself. It is a coalition event with many consumers and their advocates expected but you will see a lot of SIEU members and staff in attendance next week.
<
p>Overall, what’s your problem and with whom is your beef with here?
I am a Personal Care Attendant or PCA.
1. I mean “renting out”, or taking in a boarder on a more personal level. The SEIU 1199 is losing members due to Governor Patrick’s cutting of PCA hours in caring for clients.
1. a. Not good for families. They have to assume more of the burden of care for a loved one. Everybody needs a break sometime.
1. b. Not good for clients. Less care.
1. c. Not good for PCA’s. Less of a paycheck, if not loss.
1. d. Not good for MA DOR. Less payroll taxes collected.
1. e. Not good for SEIU 1199. Less workers, less dues-paying members.
Where would the union receive money to donaye to political campaigns if not from the members? Seroius question.
The SEIU 1199 operates behind a cloud of darkness regarding telling us members anything. They don’t tell much, if anything at all. But you can set your cell phone, by their promptness in collecting their dues.
2. Yes, a bit of exaggeration there, smile! Last year the governor eliminated the PCA hours of consumers with less than 16 hours.
3. Good to hear. But why didn’t I hear about it from them.
SEIU 1199 is not losing members. I’m nearly certain. Maybe in nursing homes. But the PCA program is growing and they keep announcing new victories at hospitals:
http://www.boston.com/business…
<
p>Again, the PCA program has not been cut. Due mostly to an impressive partnership between the politically influencal union and the impressively organized consumer community (see next week’s rally to prevent any cuts), this is in fact one of the only state program not to be cut in this recession. Any cuts would be truly terrible for the consumer and the PCA. They would be bad for the union and the public generally. For the reasons you detail.
<
p>SEIU 1199 and all labor unions are not legally allowed to spend any union dues on donations or direct expenditures for political campaigns. All of that is done through the union’s Political Action Committees (PACs), which are funded by purely voluntary donations. Mostly small contributions from the union members and staff.
Personal Care Attendants are NOT hospital or nursing home workers. We are independent contractors hired and fired by our consumers. The SEIU wormed its way in as the bargaining agent for all PCA’s. I’m not saying that is a bad thing. The 50% pay increase is nice.
One more little thing: The SEIU paid workers in Rochester NY to phone bank for Martha Coakley last January. Why not hire local people who could have used the money? Oh yeah, most of us with a brain were voting for Scott Brown. I just have absolutely no respect for anyone who tells me to vote for a party without a reason why.