Most of the pieces of the FY 2014 budget are now in place. The House and Senate have approved a budget—parts of which may be vetoed by the Governor but the bulk of which will remain as the spending blueprint for the coming year.
Most prominent among the investments laid out in the budget is an effort to fix and repair our state’s transportation system, including roads, bridges, buses, and subways. As with a number of other initiatives in the Legislature’s budget, these fixes depend on funding from a separate revenue bill, which is currently awaiting the Governor’s signature.
Beyond transportation, the investments specified in the Legislature’s budget tend to be modest, and narrowly targeted. Some examples include:
- Roughly $100 million in additional funding for higher education, including UMass, state universities, and community colleges
- A variety of increases in public health programs that support family planning and protect consumers
Another area that would receive some targeted new funding is early education and care. In particular, the Legislature’s budget devotes $15 million to help clear a long wait list and ensure that young children have access to high-quality child care. The Governor’s January budget proposal would have spent nearly four times as much money on this effort, as part of a broader attempt to reverse some of the large cuts to early education and that followed the income tax cuts of 1998-2002. It is difficult to make broad investments that help families and ensure the long-term strength of our economy without raising the substantial new revenue that the Governor had proposed.
Our Budget Monitor describes the Legislature’s budget proposal in greater detail, showing how it would affect a variety of programs across the budget—from Health Care and Education to Youth Employment, the Environment, and beyond. Also included is an analysis of the revenue sources that will support these programs.
how this budget is paid for entirely by regressive taxation and that it was the Democrats who crafted and now promote this budget. I know you don’t want to hear it but if you want to know why the middle of the state is entirely red, I can tell you that is one of the biggest reasons why. The nonsense has to stop.
the folks between 128 and 495 don’t use transportation, don’t send their kids to public colleges, or aren’t engaged in family planning?
Sorry to be glib, and I ain’t saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to see the dots connected between the budget discussed above and the reddening of the middle of Mass. Your short comment doesn’t do it for me.
West of 495 isn’t Massachusetts. It’s Western MA of Connecticut. I forgot. So anyway, I’m not talking about East of 495. I’m talking about Western MA of Connecticut. Those who do not feel represented by anyone really, not the Democrats or the Republicans. Lower incomes, greater proportion of income taken in regressive taxes, qualify for no subsidies for anything but pay like crazy for basic needs. Always the go to place for new revenue. While most of my conclusion is based on talking with voters, I would say it is somewhat supported here where Markey lost the support that Warren’s populist message gained for the Democrats. I’m certain it has to do with the payroll tax holiday expiring seemingly minutes after Senator Warren and President Obama won last year. I’m certain it has to do with Governor Patrick’s budget proposal and then the bill that came out of the state house. People are sick of it. They may not support Republicans necessarily, just want to break away from what is currently in place. And currently, it’s all Democrats. Out of touch Democrats.
So yeah, you still live in Massachusetts, and those of us inside 495 or 128 pay for your roads, too. It’s a state. That’s how it works.
This is not hard to understand, I’m sorry.
We’re talking about regressive taxes. Where the gas tax for a person who earns $25,000 a year is much more burdensome than for someone who earns $100,000 a year. And I would say that those beautiful suburbs on the east side of 495 are filled with people earning a respectable income, probably far greater than $100,000. year. Of course those people would prefer and promote a gas tax or any other regressive tax. I totally get it!
I live in Newton. You probably think I’m a millionaire or something. But for three years running my wife and I have had a combined income of nowhere near $100,000. But a 3-cent tax on gas is 99 cents for 33 gallons. We don’t go through 33 gallons in a week. We can suck it up and find a way to pay that extra dollar every 10 days if it means the roads won’t fall apart. There is something absurd about someone from one of the most conservative regions of the state lecturing a bunch of people who support progressive taxation to the nth degree. If you want to know who made the funding bill bad, look at Bob DiLeo, and folks like Todd Smola and Reps. DiNatale and Fresolo. Or look at the people from Dracut and Wilmington with a “D” after their names who never vote for anything remotely progressive.
And the stupid payroll tax holiday was a gimmick, the only pittance of stimulus Obama could get after having failed to go big enough when he first took office. It was never going to last forever, nor should it. I believe the whole reason the GOP agreed to it was to muddy the waters and lend ammunition to the utterly false argument that Social Security is a drain on the general fund. The same thing — having more cash in the hands of citizens who would spend it — could have been accomplished with an income tax decrease for the same group. As it was, anyone under $400K kept the low Bush income tax rates at the end of 2012. What the hell do you want – a functioning government or Grover Norquist land?
The nickel and dime strategy. What’s a dollar here or a dollar there? You won’t even feel it. The truth is that a dollar here or there still reduces wealth for the middle working class and the poor. Especially when their paychecks have not risen and the cost of everything else keeps going up. What if a person is only saving $10/week toward their retirement, and now they can only save $9. a week toward retirement because of this new tax.
So let me get this straight for the 2014 election cycle: Progressive Democrats support regressive taxation as long as it’s done in a nickel and dime sort of way. On top of previous nickels and dimes, and the ones before that and so on and so forth.
Shorter version: Even if I can afford it, I don’t like it.
Boston gets a pretty view and the North Shore gets a shorter commute; everyone else pays.
Even shorter answer: no.
Let’s try it again. Progressive Democrats support PROGRESSIVE taxation. I’m all for leaving the struggling people of our state the hell alone. I’m hugely in favor of a progressive state income tax when we can get it, and I’d be all for taxing capital gains and dividend income as regular income for federal purposes and raising the federal rate for income over a certain threshold. It was the Conservadems who gave you the gas tax and cigarette tax without doing anything on the rest of the Governor’s package.
But cigarettes bring all sorts of costs borne by the state in terms of healthcare. And gasoline is a huge part of the problem with our environment. Maybe if it costs too much there will be even more investment in hybrid cars and alternative fuels.
You know what really will help the middle class and the poor? Strong labor rights, vigorous enforcement of same, investment in good jobs here, affordable quality higher education. So I’d ask you to stop the paranoid act that all the progressives are out to get people like you and have millions of “tricks” up their sleeves to do it. The people who’ve been out to destroy middle class America are called, though the word doesn’t fit anymore, “conservatives.”
You’re really starting to strike me as a troll, surfacing from time to time to claim to be progressive while arguing against any new revenue and promising to tell all your friends and neighbors about the nefarious plots the limousine lefties inside 128 have concocted to screw over the good people of Palmer and Ludlow.
they are too uppity for me and can’t seem to know what it is to get in the game and get their hands dirty. They look down on working and middle class people as victims who create their own problems. The tax burden is readily passed on to the working middle class and the poor because, well, while progressive Dems would prefer progressive taxation, they are too powerless to do anything about it. Since they need money to provide grants to wineries and other important voting blocks, they will tax the working middle class and the poor to do that. Go ahead and call me paranoid and/or a troll. I have never come here to win a popularity contest. I come here to give voice to people who have none. If you want to brush that off as paranoid, then by all means I will tell every single working middle class person I know just what you said, and that YOU are a progressive Democrat.
coming here and commenting only makes my blood boil. I don’t have to put myself through this you know. I can just come here and read all of the phony “progressive” talk and then still pass it on to people who need to know – voters who need to know what the truth is and not the superficial talking points. In a way, I am trying to tell all of you what you seem to be missing, in order for you to improve and become better Democrats. But you all only get angry that someone is stepping on your happy superficial stories and ineffective strategies. It’s not an either or situation. If you are not a progressive Dem than you must be a conservative. That is so childish and small. The world is much more complex than that. If you can’t consume and process valid opposing view points without calling someone a troll than you need to grow up into a more worldly person and escape from your protective bubble.
need to get out of your bubble. I don’t use the word troll often, but you’re proving the point. Now you’re going to tell everyone all about how I’m a progressive Democrat and a big meanie, so they should not vote for any more progressive Democrats. So now you’re going to tell everyone to vote for…whom? Republicans? Then you will be creating your own problems.
While you’re at it, don’t forget to call the “working middle class” people related to me. Call my dad who works at a nonprofit. My brother, the warehouse worker. My uncle, the home improvement contractor. My father-in-law, the union welder. My brother-in-law, who loads trucks on the night shift. Call my wife and my aunt and my cousins, the public school teachers. Call my uncle, the retired railroad guy. Call my cousin, the secretary for a construction company. My cousin, the truck driver. My cousin, the tree removal guy. Don’t leave out the old friends who have beers with me on Friday after spending the day working as a hospital orderly and a customer service call rep and a plumber’s apprentice. I’m sure they’ll all be happy to hear from you.
The program you cite (APR) exists to keep farmers farming who otherwise would be selling the land to build more Walmarts and Burger Kings. That has environmental benefits and keeps traffic down. It keeps our state beautiful. The whole program comes out to barely 1/10th of 1 percent of the state budget. Your share is about a dollar a year. It IS paranoid to assume all government spending is an elite plot to screw you just because you don’t buy the goat cheese one of the farms happens to sell.
about politics, and I’m sure they probably don’t even know what the difference is between regressive and progressive taxation. Certainly, they don’t come up to you and ask you to please raise their gas tax, or other regressive taxes. They are simply unaware, as are many.
Calling me paranoid for my opinion is sort of similar to the drunken old father who calls his wife and children names because they forgot to tow the patriarch’s fine tuned message. It’s emotionally abusive behavior and I certainly hope you don’t talk to your kids that way. Of course, if you do or have, your children have already learned to silence themselves in order to maintain peace in the family. It’s called co-dependency, and maybe it works for you in other relationships, but it’s not going to work on me.
I talk to my family about politics all the time. Now, though, I don’t talk to you.
n/t
Death by a thousand cuts(fees, fines, taxes)
Thank you for the comments on this thread, reminded me of the first debate between Obama and Romney, so one-sided and devestating to those who challenged you.
Realize, most here don’t give 2 shites about the working stiffs, those that have to drive to work every day. Dont be shocked if many here who support this gas tax, work from home most of the time, thus will not be impacted.
If you haven’t gotten the memo, it is “progressive” to layoff American workers, and hire people in poorer countries like Mexico…..just ask Kbusch.
someone who doesn’t care about getting things right.
Middle class income(2+ / 0-) View voters
Under general conditions, open trade policies do benefit everyone: more economic activity is a good thing. In the long run, protectionism tends to protect the wrong thing: we should be protecting our workforce from dislocations by nurturing new industries and providing a functional safety net.
What appears by every measure to have depressed middle class income has been the ever larger share the 1% (actually the 0.5%) skim off. This mostly results from regulatory capture.
kbusch @ Sun 27 Jan 3:30 PM
I don’t believe you understand what any of these words mean. So it’s ridiculous to debate any of this with you.
That argument won’t convince me anyway since I would have voted for NAFTA as well and I still think on balance it is best to have open borders. I actually believe this kind of freedom is progressive whereas protectionism is too selfish and more in line with conservatism because the latter strikes me as the equivalent of xenophobia.
christopher @ Wed 6 Feb 10:51 PM
Reply
Hey everyone, corporate America is being “progressive” when they outsource your job(0+ / 5-) View voters
To a third world country. Never knew Romney was just sharing the wealth when he outsourced jobs, what a big liberal Oh I can’t wait for all the positive views Christopher’s post will receive, come on people, who agrees with Christopher?
danfromwaltham @ Wed 6 Feb 11:08 PM
Reply
See Liveandletlive, you are correct, they don’t give a damn about these workers, just make them pay more in a gas tax.
I suffered from the famous view of the world from NY. As a not-often-driver who lives in Boston, my brain put 495 far further west than it actually is.
So, I rephrase my question:
Is it because the folks between 495 and 91 don’t use transportation, don’t send their kids to public colleges, or aren’t engaged in family planning?
Work with me. I was just trying to come up with a clever way to describe a large patch of MA with large roads, s’all. Bur seriously. Do those folks not want roads and bridges paved, not want to send their kids to (somewhat!) affordable higher education, not want to make sure that the wives and daughters in their lives have family planning options, and not want to be protected from flim flamers artists, con artists, scammers, and the like?
It’s because we could already afford those things if we didn’t do stuff like this:
Kosinski Farm, itself, is due to get $75,000 earmarked for its newest endeavor as it looks forward to constructing a winery.
More:
Here is a list of the grants to farms Gov. Deval Patrick announced on Friday.
Ridale Genetics, in Cummington, $50,000 for a hay and equipment barn;
Silverbrook Farm, in Dartmouth, $50,000 for greenhouses;
Farmer Dave’s, in Dracut, $50,000 for a packing and storage structure;
Chicoine Family Farm, in Easthampton, $50,000 for a farmstand and hay and equipment storage;
Fairview Orchards, in Groton, $75,000 for apple trees and drainage;
Mountain View Farm, in Lanesborough, $75,000 for a storage barn and farm stand;
Cervelli Farm, in Rochester, $100,000 for an equipment storage structure;
Thomas Farm, in Sunderland, $25,000 for a goat dairy barn addition;
Warner Farm, in Sunderland, $75,000 for retail expansion and a freezer;
Kosinski Farm, in Westfield, $75,000 for a value-added fruit winery, and,
North Country Harvest, in Westfield, $75,000 for a grain dryer and storage silo.
Western/Central Mass doesn’t use transportation (including roads!), doesn’t send their kids to public colleges, and doesn’t use birth control?
Really?
or did you just miss something.
that’s not at all what I said.
who can afford to drink specialty wines or goats milk/cheese. But, hey, lets tax the lower income groups so those with the most can have more! Why not, right? We will just say we need the money for crumbling roads and bridges.
You’re not a farmer?
I support and value farms. Unfortunately, they are becoming specialty stores instead of engines of growing affordable local foods. It would be far more useful to use public money to encourage expanded growing of a greater variety of vegetables that can go to market at a lower cost than if they were shipped in from other regions. Instead, these farms sell and/or distribute limited fresh produce, but plenty of expensive and specialty jams, wines, handmade soaps and the like. That is not useful for the common good of our state.
GOSPLAN should take some amendments.
do you mean by that.
that many of your comments — here and on other threads — make perfect sense in the context of a planned economy where all economic activity is subject to public regulation. With public central planning, we get farmers to focus on socially beneficial food; we can tax anyone at any rate we choose; we can cap incomes at the top. Wealthy people can’t move their businesses to Bangladesh, because they don’t own them anymore.
In a market economy, farmers are going to grow what proves profitable whatever that is. If they can grow more of, they can hire more people. They prosper. The economy prospers.
*
In addition to not being a farmer, you’re probably also not lactose intolerant. Otherwise the price of goat milk would be of more concern to you. There is, in addition, some evidence that those who consume a Mediterranean diet which features a fair bit of goat yogurt and other goat dairy products have better health outcomes. Don’t be hating on the goat dairies.
always talking about. Where profits mean everything and if people can’t eat good food that’s their tough luck. I thought for sure that the progressive Democrats were fighting against that philosophy, certainly not to the point of a complete socialist society, but to at least bring some balance back. So Democrats want business to move overseas to exploit low wage labor and evade taxes. Democrats are OK with the widening income inequality situation, and they certainly don’t want farmers to grow beneficial foods. Wow, that is news to me. Thank you for your honesty. Of course, yes, we should give tax dollars to support the lactose intolerant. Democrats have the biggest hearts. Of course, if your lactose intolerant and working class, we’ll still ship your job overseas, but here’s your goats milk. We created jobs with that goat’s milk.
Liberalism, as understood in the U.S., does not call for seizure of the means of production and the institution of central planning. If, in fact, you are not for the regulation of a market economy — the liberal position, but stand significantly to the left of that, it might make your statements — and ideas clearer — if you stated that outright.
*
The distinction between Republicans and Democrats on the economy is that Republican thinking (to the extent that they still do it) is that the economy on its own, without intervention, will right itself, that it needs little regulation. The Democratic position has always been that a significant social safety net and public expenditure on such things as education, public health, regulation, and infrastructure are necessary to get the most out of an essentially market economy. Liberals never propose the elimination of the market as the central, defining feature of the economy.
You are trying to label me a socialist/communist. I never said anything about central planning. I have only talked about using public money for the public good. I have talked about the extreme influence corporations have over government, and that they pursue legislation that benefits profit margins, often to the detriment of citizens. Now that you mention it, I see that the economy is rarely discussed on this site. It is sort of chilling to hear this truth about the liberal (progressive?) Dems, and it’s a shame that many of the Democratic candidates who run for office run on the populist message and then govern as plutocratic minions. This is very enlightening kbusch. So thank you for that.
You frequently express a desire for a command economy.
This was not among your brightest comments. Perhaps why it has earned a downrating.
economics. Yes, I think I’ve known that. I guess I’ve sort of been in denial. Hoping it wasn’t true. We are a plutocracy spiraling out of control, and the Democrats will accepts that because there is no middle ground and the only alternative is socialism or communism. There is no point in my promoting a Democrat ever again.
and overwhelmed by all of the honesty coming out here today.
that you support socialism or communism?
but I am also not a supporter of corporatocracy, which seems to be the governing preference of the liberal and progressive Democrats, as well, the Republicans.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
So here is the link explaining how corporations are now writing legislation.
I have learned so much today. Thank You!
😉
We pay a small fee every year for a 600 sq ft plot of land that we grow as we choose as long as it’s organic. When we have extra vegetables, we sell them at the farmer’s market and the money earned there goes back into the community garden account. In this way, we help others, we help ourselves, and we don’t need taxpayer dollars. We are self-sustaining. It’s a fabulous creation!. However, we did use a small government grant – a few thousand dollars – to cover start up costs. (I believe it came out the CPA funds, which are local tax dollars) Those were well used dollars that creates a sustainable return for the entire community year after year. It is a pleasure to participate in. Handing over $75,000 to build a winery that will benefit specialty wine drinkers only – not so much.
We always have more applicants than spaces available. Maybe we can expand one day.
when you are spreading the word, you will tell everyone that the progressive Democrats proposed something entirely different, and the more conservative Democrats in the General Court (including most of the ones from Central Mass.) were the ones who gave us this bill.
The gas tax, in Massachusetts and anywhere else, is not a “regressive tax” that is designed to generate revenue from the wealthy and non-wealthy at roughly similar rates per capita, like a sales tax would. No, it is a user fee- designed to re-cap revenue from the payer’s use of public assets.
Let me explain this as simply as I can. The way the gas tax is structured, the more you drive and put wear and tear of our roads and highways, which need to be maintained in a state of good repair, the more you pay. The less you drive on said roads and highways, the less you pay. The heavier your vehicle, and therefore the more wear and tear gives does to the road, the more you pay.
If you do not drive, you do not pay.
In summary, there is no sinister plan at work here to nickel-and-dime the good residents of Central Massachusetts or anywhere else. We, all of us, as residents of the Commonwealth, are being asked to chip to keep our roads maintained relative to the number of miles we drive, and fuel economy (size, weight) of our vehicle. You may have noticed that the current formula wasn’t quite covering the upkeep costs (potholes, bridge closures and such), hense the need change the formula so that everyone chips in a little bit more to solve the problem.
and incomplete.
but we are still in this mess. From the article linked above:
Big Dig payments have already sucked maintenance and repair money away from deteriorating roads and bridges across the state, forcing the state to float more highway bonds and to go even deeper into the hole.
Among other signs of financial trouble: The state is paying almost 80 percent of its highway workers with borrowed money; the crushing costs of debt have pushed the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which manages the Big Dig, to the brink of insolvency; and Massachusetts spends a higher percentage of its highway budget on debt than any other state.</em
Just so we have the whole story.
True cost of Big Dig exceeds $24 billion with interest, officials determine
Boston.com
I think the objection is that infrastructure benefits all and thus ought to be paid for by all. Even if you don’t drive alot you benefit from goods being delivered to market, often on roads, or others who commute to jobs the services of which you rely on. A sound infrastructure is a public good and a key contributer to a sound economy in so many ways.
The commenter has written before that, in fact, she drives a lot. That’s why she opposes an increase in the gas tax. Apparently the rest of us are just supposed to pay for it “somehow”.
The Governor’s proposed plan was more progressive than this monster. The Governor should veto this, and the lege should sustain that veto.
Local roads are largely funded by property tax. State roads aren’t entirely funded by gasoline tax. And, we pay fuel charges embedded in the products we buy. To suggest that those who don’t purchase gasoline directly from the pump don’t contribute to the roadways in America is incorrect. The more you use the roads directly (or indirectly!), the more you pay. This seems like a sensible position — user fee, but common good requires common funding, too.
…I prefer general taxation as the revenue source and have even fantasized about the same for our mass transit.
No reason why general taxation should kick in zillions for roads and not for mass transit, which is essential to a holistic transportation policy in any dense urban area.
Ah. Because those two Transportation Bond Bills that have not yet been fully expended weren’t REALLY trying?
You don’t get points for trying when bridges start collapsing as they are in other states.
.
of being blamed for raising the income tax, the third rail of MA revenue systems. That’s why they are trying to nickle and dime their way around it. They think that by getting a little bit here and a little bit there, the affected constituency won’t have the oomph to attack it the way a broad based income tax increase would.
Most of the lege wasn’t around at the time of the last tax raise vote.
So the “survivors” (as they think of themselves, as if they got through a war) tell long stories about angry voters and how they barely scraped to victory. They never mention how the election that cleaned up some Democrats after the last income tax raise occurred during the midterm of a less-than-popular president in a crap economy. So now the “new” reps and senators have had their heads filled with scary campfire stories by worn-out legislators who are still scarred from having to work for re-election for the only time in their recent memory. They vote no based on myths and legends, and the Commonwealth suffers.
Sure, you live to fight another day by running away from a battle…but that kinda implies that you’re willing to fight on another day. Some of these folks ran to…run another day.