I just came across John Walsh’s diary, “Political Risk,” from last month and it’s really resonating with me right now.
A lot of decisions are being made by the legislature and not all of them seem to be driven by the data. John Walsh aptly lays the case that legislators may open themselves up as much to their left flank, by not being ambitious enough, as they would from their right.
We live in a heavily Democratic state and, as John points out, not a single Democratic incumbent lost to a Republican last election cycle, while three Democratic incumbents lost to primary opponents.
Certainly, that should give a lot of legislators some food for thought, but what other misconceptions could be driving their decisions?
Well, here’s one: Studies show legislators consistently underestimate support for liberal positions in their own districts, even if they have a heavy attendance at district events and think they have a great handle on their constituents.
No doubt that helps explain why so many people on Beacon Hill are afraid of raising taxes, while polls show voters are supportive of Governor Patrick’s more ambitious $1.9 billion figure.
That’s not to say there aren’t important issues legislators should raise about the Governor’s plan, like a few of the governor’s proposed middle class tax deductions he wanted to eliminate, but the $1.9 billion figure itself shouldn’t really be one of them. In fact, adding as much as that $1.9 billion to our budget would only bring our taxes from 28th in the country to 18th. We’d still have lower taxes than Indiana!
Here’s another: Legislators should also think carefully about how their proposal will be spinned.
To their credit, they’ve gone far out of their way to limit what this revenue package would cost voters, with almost half of their $500 million essentially coming from ending corporate loopholes.
That’s a laudable goal and they deserve praise for trying to spare voters when there are other means to generate revenue. However, will voters get the memo?
The headlines aren’t about the mere 3 cent gas tax increase or $1 tobacco tax, both amounting to $275 million.
The headlines are more like ‘Legislative Leadership Proposes Raising $500 Million in Revenue,’ which reads an awful lot like “Beacon Hill Raises $500 million in new taxes!”
Unfortunately, the legislature will get no credit for sparing voters from that other $200+ million, just blame. If they try to spin it in any other way, even with truth on their side, they’ll have lost the war before it’s even started, such is the way campaign messaging works.
No doubt, any attempt to generate revenue is going to be fiercely contested in the state. More people support the Governor’s $2 billion figure than oppose, but there will be opposition to it in some circles, sometimes big.
But as John says in his diary, this isn’t 1990. This legislature will get as much opposition from its left as it does its right on transportation — but who puts who in office?
That’s what this all really boils down to: Roughly speaking, if 50% of constituents think leadership’s plan isn’t enough and the other 50% are against raising taxes one damn nickle, 100% are against leadership’s plan.
Where does that leave legislators if they support leadership’s not-enough plan? Between a rock and a hard place, with the only upside being facing the very same issues in another couple years, because they kicked the can down the road again.
Yet, there will be less opportunity then to create an enduring solution, whether from lack of having a supportive Governor, losing out on $600 million in federal funding, or from burning the raising-taxes bridge on a plan that even the conservative Massachusetts Taxpayer’s Foundation says is not enough.
We, as Democrats, need to do what’s right for Massachusetts, and have at least 600 million reasons to make sure what we do today is at least a little bolder, setting ourselves up for a brighter future.
But we also need to remember just who is voting for us — and who isn’t. If legislators aren’t thinking about the 50% of their constituents who want more, they better ask themselves how many of that 50% who don’t will vote for Democrats to begin with.
That’s exactly it. Dear Legislature: the folks who are bitterly complaining about you raising their taxes are going to complain about you raising their taxes whether you raise it 3 cents on the gas tax or whether you make our income tax more progressive. Won’t matter, they’ll be against it. Wouldn’t it be nicer to have the folks who actually want bridges and roads and the MBTA to work well on your side? Wouldn’t it be better to have the folks who are helped by a new Green Line Extension and a South Coast Rail and a better Red Line on your side?
Great post.
argument over whether any taxes should be raised. There are a number of legitimate questions about the amount of real progressiveness in the governor’s plan.
The Globe had a thoughtful editorial last month, which pointed out that the governor’s proposed reduction in the sales tax doesn’t really make up for the lack of progressiveness in raising the income tax by a full percent and eliminating key middle-class tax deductions.
I haven’t had a chance yet to look closely at the competing revenue plan put forth by House leaders, but I do think those leaders recognize there are political drawbacks to the governor’s plan in terms of its impact on middleclass taxpayers. Just because there is a large political constituency out there that will object to any new taxes doesn’t mean we should just ram through a less-than-truly-progressive revenue plan.
…have been very clear that the OBJECTIVE is:
1) Substantial revenue, adequate to our needs (restore cuts, reverse neglect, invest in future)
2) Raised in a progressive way / reduce overall regressivity of our tax code
3) To fund our *many* needs (ie, not just transportation, but education, human services, infrastructure, innovation investment)
The Governor’s plan was one way.
“An Act to Invest in Our Communities” is legislation ACTUALLY BEFORE THE CHAMBERS that’s another way (jebus, it had a hearing before the DOR just a week ago! I waited 4 hours to testify… As did experts and other advocates. NO ONE spoke in opposition. Republican paper tiger* Ryan Fattman sat thru all the testimony with nary a peep about “no new taxes.” Isnt that the place where revenue issues should be hammered out? Where’s the DOR’s influence on the Leadership’s bills?).
Both achieve these goals with different details.
Leadership might have gone with the Gov’s. They might have gone with Act to Invest. They might have done a jackalope hybrid of best parts of Gov’s grafted with Act to Invest. They might have come up with an altogether new and even awesomer way to progressively raise substantial new revenue for our many pressing needs.
But they didn’t. They served up this insulting half measure — quarter measure! — and make inane comments about not wanting to break the taxpayers’ backs.
Never mind that the wealthiest in MA have NOT been paying as much as the poorest.
Never mind that Massachusetts is BELOW AVERAGE in tax collection.
Never mind that voters have told them in a thousand ways that we want investment — via fair taxes — in the things that make our communities, our Commonwealth, great.
If legislature hates the Gov’s proposal — great! Let’s see a plan that ADDRESSES OUR NEEDS (theirs doesn’t) IN A BETTER WAY. Y’know, not with only a regressive tax.
There may very well be reasons to dislike the Gov’s proposal. But everyone in the legislature knows, despite their public cluck-clucking about how it’s problematic, that the Gov’s plan (and Act to Invest) WERE OPENING BIDS, to be negotiated and tinkered with.
Not liking the specific exemptions should lead to negotiating those exemptions out, hammering out better details.
Instead, they’re serving up a sugar-coated Satan sandwich and calling it apple pie.
I’m ranting, not at you, Dave from Hvad, but at the legislature. Now I’m going to go needle my networks to MAKE THOSE CALLS.
*h/t kevin l.
DOR… No. I meant “Revenue Cmte.”
From my piece:
So I am very concerned about some aspects of the governor’s plan, and the legislature had an important role in fixing that.
Perhaps I should have also included that I didn’t think the legislature had to pick the 1.9 billion figure. I’m a pretty pragmatic guy — I’m okay with a smaller amount. I never thought the leg would go for $1.9, but I think $1b would be doable.
As I’ve said elsewhere on BMG, there are a lot of things I’d like to see the leg do for transportation while we’re taking the opportunity now, but there’s only one thing it *needs* to do, which is ensure there’s funding for the Green Line Extension, since we’re legally on the hook. We can’t afford to lose federal matching funds, with $600 million at stake.
I also wrote an earlier comment about the Mass Taxpayer Foundation’s transportation plan and how it proposed raising $800 million in revenue, which is what they thought we needed to maintain our infrastructure. The MTF is fairly conservative and corporate-friendly, so if even they were okay with raising $800 million, the leg should at least match it.
There’s a lot of very progressive aspects to leadership’s plan. They should be commended with putting out a plan that *is* thoughtful and has good ideas, like indexing the gas tax to inflation and eliminating the transportation dept’s use of bonds to fund salaries to the tune of hundreds of millions a year (the latter fact should disgust us all). The leg also went out of its way to spare the pain of raising revenue from regular citizens, which is commendable.
The plan just isn’t big enough for our needs. This is one of those cases where a little more — another $200-300 million — will go a *long way,* at least getting to the conservative Mass-Taxpayer-Foundation estimate of what we’d need to basically maintain the status quo and fund legally mandated projects.
Going back to fenway’s Wisconsin Dreaming diary, I’m left wondering if what we are seeing is the product of having such a weak GOP in this state. As fenway notes, other states have pushed through heavily partisan legislation with much smaller majorities. I think the difference is that those majorities are more “pure”, for lack of a better word, whereas here we have people of a conservative bent who, if the Republican party had any life in it, would run under that banner. That might result in smaller legislative majorities, but at least they would be more Democratic, with a big D.
I’ll refer to a comment I posted on the other thread.
By the way, can we all agree it’s a quarter loaf, not half a loaf? It’s half of the transportation money sought, and none of the additional revenue for education, human services, etc. $500 million is a quarter of $1.9 billion, roughly speaking. And if they lose federal funding for the Green Line as a result of this disaster, it’s a wash. All the “blame” for “raising taxes” among that crowd, no net gain at all.
The “magically disappearing quarter loaf.”
…who is about the best, most dedicated and skilled canvasser for progressive candidates as I’ve known…
Call script (and legislator disposition reporting form): http://progma.us/choosegrowth
[can someone direct me to a reason/explanation why we can’t edit comments after posting?]
To Progressive MA for their scorecards, scripts, and links. This young organization has already ton us a huge favor by getting us off the BMG board and into our communities to actively fight for the policies we always talk about wanting and actually walk the walk to get them accomplished. And kudos to John Walsh for maintaining the fight for progressive values as State Chair, something far riskier than simply being neutral.
Ryan, and a number of commenters and people I’ve talked to otherwise, have expressed concerns about the governor’s proposal to eliminate important middle class tax breaks. I share those concerns, but I would like to see revenue increase by something close to the $1.9 billion he proposed.
Does anyone have any numbers about how much of the $1.9 billion would be lost if those deductions (child care, etc.) are maintained but the rest of the governor’s plan (changes in tax rates, etc.) went through?
but I saw a really nice table of the “value” of every single one of the deductions. I *think* it was on an executive branch website, and I saw it within a few days of when the Governor’s proposal hit the Globe. In fact, it might have even been a link from a Globe online piece, I really don’t remember.
I haven’t found the table, but I found a story saying the deductions together were about a billion. That would seem to be half the package, but the Gov’s guy said that was largely offset by doubling of the personal exemption and the significant proposed sales tax cut, so most people would break close to even until you got into higher income levels (say, over $100K). The higher the income, the more the increase.
Governor’s Revenue Proposal:
Eliminate 44 Personal Income Exemptions and Deductions
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
http://www.masstaxpayers.org | (617) 720-1000 3
a couple of examples……
Personal Income Tax Exemptions/Deductions
Deductions for Adoption Fees and Employer-Provided
Adoption Assistance
Taxpayers would no longer be permitted to deduct the
cost of adoption fees from income. In addition,
employees would have to include adoption expenses paid
by the employer in personal income.
$0.6 million $0.5 million 1,000+
Higher Education Related Deductions $86 million $73 million
Tuition Tax Deduction
Taxpayers would no longer be allowed a deduction for
tuition payments. Currently, the deduction is the amount
that exceeds 25 percent of adjusted gross income for
payments towards a two- or four-year degree for either
the tax filer or his/her dependent.
$43 million $36 million 65,000
Exemption of Scholarships and Fellowships
Recipients of scholarships and fellowships would no
longer be permitted to exclude the amount received for
tuition and fees from personal income.
$23 million $19 million 255,000
Personal Exemption for Students Aged 19 or Over
Taxpayers would no longer be allowed an exemption of
$1,000 for each dependent age 19 or older who is a fulltime student.
$10 million $8 million Not reported
Employer-Provided Education Assistance
Currently, employees may exempt up to $5,250 for
undergraduate or graduate education expenses
reimbursed by their employer. Eliminating this
exemption would require employees to report that
assistance as personal income.
$10 million $8 million Not reported
Exclusions/Deductions for Transit and Commuting $54 million $46 million
Exclusion from Gross Income of Parking, T-Pass and
Vanpool Fringe Benefits
Employees would no longer be able to exclude the value
of parking, MBTA passes, or vanpools provided by their
employer from personal income.
$46 million $39 million N
Perfect.
Look at AN ACT TO INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITIES.
I’ve seen it (I’m on the Progressive Mass. list) and support it. It doesn’t seem like legislative leadership is going this way. I’d support a plan that taking parts of this plan and the Governor’s. The main thing is to achieve the overall goals you outlined above.
They don’t seem to be going that way; they are going with stupid and irresponsible.
I just couldn’t decide this morning whether to write this post with a positive (hopeful) tone or a threatening negative one. But here goes:
Progressive Mass was provided with a list of 44 current reps who call themselves the Progressive Caucus. The list doesn’t include Mary Keefe, Aaron Vega or Ken Gordon who hadn’t yet joined. So 47 reps who if they have one thing in common, they should support new revenue and a fairer tax code. Indeed they did. A number of weeks back the caucus issued the following statement:
The Progressive Caucus is committed to a major increase in new revenues in the order of $2 billion beginning this year.
We suggest that the majority of these new funds come from an increased income tax rate, with sufficient personal exemptions to avoid impacting those who have the least ability to pay.
The new revenue should be targeted primarily toward transportation and education needs and initiatives
These individuals are going to be under tremendous pressure over the next few days to toe the line. Some of them have already defected. Ironically, it’s hard to imagine that, if they actually stood together, that the fears they have – about their committee assignments and their budget line items – would be visited on that many reps.
But we need you to call them and thank them for their bold stand, to tell them we appreciate their standing firm as progressives even when it’s hard, and that we’ll have their back if they continue to do so.
http://progma.us/choosegrowth
But we also have to watch what they actually do – and call them out for it. No excuses. We helped elect them and we can unelect them. No one is completely invulnerable.
share that list of reps in the “Progressive Caucus?”
We keep hearing how hard it is to cross leadership.
If all the members who SAY, privately, they want to do the right thing but “can’t” because of leadership instead actually took a stand on their positions, IT WOULDN’T BE HARD ANY MORE.
DEMOCRATS, PROGRESSIVES, PLEASE get out of the scared and defensive crouch.
Do the responsible thing, make the hard calls WHEN IT’S HARD. If you lose the vote you lose, but at least you lost standing for something!! We will remember the actions you take, here and now.
You wrote:
Please name names. Right now. So I can call them.
The gloves have to come off, today is the day.
Time to get serious.
And check out the names/emails at this link:
http://progma.us/bmgasked
Time to get dialing.
…Absence of support. What is “absence of support” in the context of elected officials? There are several ways to “not support” someone.
– Don’t defend their work in policy discussions at a bar or on the Interwebs
– Criticize their work in policy discussions at a bar or on the Interwebs
– Don’t vote for them
– Don’t volunteer for them
– Don’t donate money to them
– Donate money to their opponent
– Do all these things in a primary
– Do all these things in a general
– Find someone else to support
– Support someone else interested in their seat
Etc.
If “my support” is a positive value, then the absence of it can be interpreted as a negative (or neutral; depends on what you think of “my support”)
If I say “I will HAVE YOUR BACK IF YOU DO THE RIGHT THING,” what on earth is my position if you DON’T do the right thing? “And if you don’t do the right thing, you will also have the benefit of me not making any moves that are the opposite of ‘support'”?
All I’m saying is every declaration of support, by the binary nature of human cognition, carries with it the implication of non-support, which some may characterize as a threat, wherein “threat” is a negative value.
I just disagree. I love primaries, as a principle, because THAT’s where we get better Democrats. And when I see Democrats acting like this, I fraking want better Democrats.
Here are the members of the House progressive caucus, as far as we knew them as of just before the beginning of this legislative session:
Andrews, Denise 617-722-2460 — Denise.Andrews@mahouse.gov
Atkins, Cory 617-722-2692 — Cory.Atkins@mahouse.gov
Balser, Ruth 617-722-2396 — Ruth.Balser@mahouse.gov
Benson, Jennifer 617-722-2637 —Jennifer.Benson@mahouse.gov
Brodeur, Paul 617-722-2400 — Paul.Brodeur@mahouse.gov
Cabral, Antonio 617-722-2017 — Antonio.Cabral@mahouse.gov
Cariddi, Gailanne 617-722-2130 — Gailanne.Cariddi@mahouse.gov
Conroy, Thomas 617-722-2430 — Thomas.Conroy@mahouse.gov
Decker, Marjorie 617-722-2425 — Marjorie.Decker@mahouse.gov
Dykema, Carolyn 617-722-2210 — Carolyn.Dykema@mahouse.gov
Ehrlich, Lori 617-722-2014 — Lori.Ehrlich@mahouse.gov
Farley-Bouvier, Tricia 617-722-2240 — Tricia.Farley-Bouvier@mahouse.gov
Forry, Linda 617-722-2080 — Linda.DorcenaForry@mahouse.gov
Fox, Gloria 617-722-2810 — Gloria.Fox@mahouse.gov
Garballey, Sean 617-722-2090 — Sean.Garballey@mahouse.gov
Garlick, Denise — 617-722-2070 — Denise.Garlick@mahouse.gov
Hecht, Jonathan — 617-722-2140 — Jonathan.Hecht@mahouse.gov
Henriquez, Carlos — 617-722-2060 — Carlos.Henriquez@mahouse.gov
Hogan, Kate — 617-722-2637 — Kate.Hogan@mahouse.gov
Kaufman, Jay — 617-722-2320 — Jay.Kaufman@mahouse.gov
Khan, Kay — 617-722-2011 — Kay.Khan@mahouse.gov
Kulik, Stephen — 617-722-2380 — Stephen.Kulik@mahouse.gov
Lewis, Jason — 617-722-2017 — Jason.Lewis@mahouse.gov
Linsky, David — 617-722-2575 — David.Linsky@mahouse.gov
Mahoney, John — 617-722-2450 — John.Mahoney@mahouse.gov
Malia, Elizabeth — 617-722-2060 — Liz.Malia@mahouse.gov
Mark, Paul — 617-722-2210 — Paul.Mark@mahouse.gov
Michlewitz, Aaron — 617-722-2400 — Aaron.M.Michlewitz@mahouse.gov
O’Day, James — 617-722-2370 — James.O’Day@mahouse.gov
Peake, Sarah — 617-722-2015 — Sarah.Peake@mahouse.gov
Peisch, Alice — 617-722-2070 — Alice.Peisch@mahouse.gov
Provost, Denise — 617-722-2263 —Denise.Provost@mahouse.gov
Rushing, Byron — 617-722-2783 — Byron.Rushing@mahouse.gov
Sánchez, Jeffrey — 617-722-2130 —Jeffrey.sanchez@mahouse.gov
Sannicandro, Tom — 617-722-2013 — Tom.Sannicandro@mahouse.gov
Schmid, Paul — 617-722-2014 — Paul.Schmid@mahouse.gov
Scibak, John — 617-722-2240 — John.Scibak@mahouse.gov
Sciortino, Carl — 617-722-2013 — Carl.Sciortino@mahouse.gov
Smizik, Frank — 617-722-2676 — Frank.Smizik@mahouse.gov
Story, Ellen — 617-722-2012 — Ellen.Story@mahouse.gov
Sullivan, David — 617-722-2070 — David.Sullivan@mahouse.gov
Turner, Cleon — 617-722-2090 — Cleon.Turner@mahouse.gov
Walsh, Martin — 617-722-2020 — Martin.Walsh@mahouse.gov
To be quite frank, the State House is all a frenzy with updates and rumors about who’s where on what. And it’s changing all the time.
The best thing to do is call EVERYONE on this list. When you learn their position, share it here.
For you tweeps out there, here are the twitter handles for those members of the progressive caucus who have them (as far as we can tell).
@AaronMVega
@carlsciortino
@CarolynDykema
@deniseandrews
@denisegarlick
@Jeffrey_Sanchez
@ldforry
@MarjorieDecker
@RepBrodeur
@RepDaveRogers
@RepDavidLinsky
@RepJasonLewis
@RepJayKaufman
@RepJenBenson
@RepKay [Khan]
@RepKenGordon
@RepMichlewitz
@RepPaulMark
@RepTomConroy
@TSannicandro
#NoJWM
https://twitter.com/ProgressiveMass/ma-house-prog-caucus/members
Just posted all the names, but it is being held in moderation queue, perhaps because we tried to provide LINKS to all the emails for these members. Instead we’ll give you the names, and here’s ONE LINK that has their contact info all in one place:
http://progma.us/bmgasked
This is the list of the Progressive Caucus members, as of just before the session:
Andrews, Denise 617-722-2460
Atkins, Cory 617-722-2692
Balser, Ruth 617-722-2396
Benson, Jennifer 617-722-2637
Brodeur, Paul 617-722-2400
Cabral, Antonio 617-722-2017
Cariddi, Gailanne 617-722-2130
Conroy, Thomas 617-722-2430
Decker, Marjorie 617-722-2425
Dykema, Carolyn 617-722-2210
Ehrlich, Lori 617-722-2014
Farley-Bouvier, Tricia 617-722-2240
Forry, Linda 617-722-2080
Fox, Gloria 617-722-2810
Garballey, Sean 617-722-2090
Garlick, Denise 617-722-2070
Hecht, Jonathan 617-722-2140
Henriquez, Carlos 617-722-2060
Hogan, Kate 617-722-2637
Kaufman, Jay 617-722-2320
Khan, Kay 617-722-2011
Kulik, Stephen 617-722-2380
Lewis, Jason 617-722-2017
Linsky, David 617-722-2575
Mahoney, John 617-722-2450
Malia, Elizabeth 617-722-2060
Mark, Paul 617-722-2210
Michlewitz, Aaron 617-722-2400
O’Day, James 617-722-2370
Peake, Sarah 617-722-2015
Peisch, Alice 617-722-2070
Provost, Denise 617-722-2263
Rushing, Byron 617-722-2783
Sánchez, Jeffrey 617-722-2130
Sannicandro, Tom 617-722-2013
Schmid, Paul 617-722-2014
Scibak, John 617-722-2240
Sciortino, Carl 617-722-2013
Smizik, Frank 617-722-2676
Story, Ellen 617-722-2012
Sullivan, David 617-722-2070
Turner, Cleon 617-722-2090
Walsh, Martin 617-722-2020
To be quite frank, the State House is all a frenzy with updates and rumors about who’s where on what. And it’s changing all the time.
The best thing to do is call EVERYONE on this list. When you learn their position, share it here or over at our site.
BALSER: Aide said I’m the first person to actually ask if Rep is voting for/against the bill (!!! People, please! make some freaking calls!!)
GARBALLEY: says he will be fighting for vigorous amendments for significantly more revenue, and if he can’t get that, he will vote against. I let him know that progressives are behind him in that fight and we are watching and phonebanking other members.
NO POSITION YET (!!)
GARLICK (my rep)
MALIA
SANNICANDRO
NO ANSWER:
Decker
Kaufman
Rushing
Story
It’s almost 5PM… who can make a few calls? Crowd-source this thing, let’s go!
comments with more than 10 links or so are automatically held for an editor to review them as a spam-prevention measure. Thanks for your patience!