Two weeks ago, Progressive Massachusetts released the results of its candidate surveys. The organization sent a questionnaire to the candidates for each of the four statewide races this year: Governor, Lt Governor, Attorney General, and Treasurer. The questionnaire covered jobs & the economy, education, health care, housing, and revenue & taxation.
Four out of the five Democrats responded: Don Berwick, Martha Coakley, Steve Grossman, and Juliette Kayyem. Joe Avellone did not.
When reading through the survey responses, I was caught by the number of hedges. The survey had many simple Yes or No questions to which candidates responded with neither a Yes nor a No.
Below, I’ve included all but one of the Yes/No questions for a side-by-side comparison. I left out the housing question because all of them agreed (“Yes”) and the bulk of that section consisted of written responses.
I’d recommend reading the full responses (See the above link) for the written portions, but the info below will give you a taste.
———————————————–
JOB GROWTH AND THE ECONOMY
All four candidates supported raising the minimum wage to at least $10.50/hour, indexing it automatically to yearly increases in inflation, and increasing the tipped wage to 60% of the minimum wage.
All four candidates opposed the bill currently being discussed in the legislature to pair an increase in the minimum wage with cuts to unemployment insurance.
All four candidates supported requiring businesses with more than 11 employees to provide earned, paid sick time to their employees.
A “Job Creation and Quality Standards Act” would require corporations that receive any kind of public benefits (grants, tax expenditures procurement contracts) to, in turn, pay a living wage ($15 per hour plus benefits) to full-time employees. Do you support such legislation?
Berwick: [BLANK] — “I am generally favorable toward this legislation, and would welcome further study. Over time, I believe we should continue to increase income security toward a living wage, but that is not a one-step process.”
Coakley: [BLANK] — “I support businesses paying their employees a living wage; at this point, our focus should be on raising the minimum wage for everyone in Massachusetts. Going forward, I will consider support for any proposal that will help us eliminate income inequality.”
Grossman: No
Kayyem: [BLANK]
Do you support legislation to foster and develop employee ownership of businesses in Massachusetts?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “I am supportive of this concept, and will review any proposed legislation when I am Governor.”
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support legislation that would encourage the formation of cooperatives and/or benefit corporations and the development of community banks?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “I am supportive of this concept, and will review any proposed legislation when I am Governor.”
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
—————————————————————-
EDUCATION
Do you support creating universal, free Pre-K, accessible to any resident of Massachusetts, integrated into the public school system?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: “I am steadfastly committed to providing access to high quality pre-k for every child in the Commonwealth. When it comes to pre-K, we should have two primary goals: 1) providing universal access and 2) ensuring a consistent level of quality across all pre-k programs.
We need to explore all available options to realize these two goals, including expanding the state voucher program to give the thousands of low-income children currently on waitlists the resources to enroll in high-quality pre-k, developing strategies to better assure the quality of private pre-k programs, and formally integrating pre-K into our public school system.”
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support a program that provides free, publicly funded higher education for every student who wants it?
Berwick: Yes — “I will implement a program based on best practices from around the nation that provides college counseling in high school and “last dollar” scholarships to college for low-income students who work hard and stay in school. Such a program would show low-income students that the promise of higher education is within their reach, provide them the skills and supports they need to succeed in a post-secondary environment, and then deliver on the promise to supply the resources that are not available elsewhere.”
Coakley: [BLANK] — “Cost should not be a prohibitive barrier for anyone who wants to go to college. I will encourage proposals about how we could significantly reduce the cost of higher education, or make it free even. I believe, right now, we need to focus on concrete ways of reducing costs, including bringing more transparency to high executive salaries at nonprofit colleges and universities, increasing funding for grants and other forms of student assistance, and pushing for federal action to further decrease the long-term costs of student loans. I also believe we should explore programs that provide loan forgiveness for public service.”
Grossman: No – “Despite its obvious merits, free higher education is not an attainable goal in the foreseeable future. I strongly support funding and policies to ensure that Massachusetts public colleges and universities are as widely affordable and accessible as possible.”
Kayyem: [BLANK] — “I support residents having access to affordable higher education. This includes linking high schools to higher education institutions to reduce the need for remedial classes.”
Do you support changes to the Chapter 70 Education formula, including the Foundation Budget, to incorporate proper state funding for ELL students, Special Education students, transportation costs, charter school reimbursements to sending schools, and class size reduction?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “I believe our first priority should be to increase funding for Chapter 70 (the overall pool of money that is distributed to schools and districts based on the formula). I also believe that we need to examine the funding formula, both to make it more transparent and to determine if it still adequately addresses the needs of schools. After all, the formula has not been updated in two decades even though, over that same time period, schools and districts have seen tremendous changes in student demographics, educational requirements, and best practices.
We must also work together with teachers, administrators, businesses, and the non-profit community to find other innovative solutions to improve our schools and give them more resources, including realignment of our spending priorities.”
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
—————————————————————-
HEALTH CARE
Do you support moving Massachusetts to Single Payer insurance?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: Not at this time.
Grossman: [BLANK] — “I am proud that our state is the national leader on health care reform. As governor, I would work to ensure the continued success of Massachusetts’ pioneering state level reform laws around access and cost, and their successful integration with the federal Affordable Care Act. Looking down the road a bit farther, yes, I do believe that a public option, or single payer system, could be part of the ultimate solution and I will be watching Vermont very closely. I have publicly put single payer on the table as a viable option to consider as governor.”
Kayyem: Yes
[At a recent candidate forum, Kayyem backed away from this, noting that she doesn’t think that single payer is a fight Democrats could win and, thus, wouldn’t actively push for it.]
What role might a Public Option play, in your view?
Berwick: It is time to move toward a single payer system in Massachusetts. The complexity of our health care payment system adds costs, uncertainties, and hassles for everyone – patients, families, doctors, and employers. I will work with the Legislature to assemble a Single Payer Advisory Panel to investigate and report back on whether and how Massachusetts should move towards a single payer option. I suspect that the Panel will find that single payer would be an attractive option, as it has been in numerous health systems that have better outcomes at far lower cost. I will also form a consortium of states interested in the option so that we can make progress and learn together.
Coakley: [BLANK]
Grossman: “I believe that a public option will be a viable option to consider as governor.”
Kayyem: [BLANK]
Do you support establishing a state panel of experts (such as the Affordable Care Act’s IPAB/“Independent Payment Advisory Board”) to recommend high-value and cost-effective services?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: Yes
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support prohibiting pharmaceutical companies from including direct-to-consumer drug advertising as tax-deductible expense?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “As Governor, I would review this.”
Grossman: [BLANK] — “We should explore either prohibiting or severely limiting these tax-deductible expenses.”
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support establishing a bulk prescription drug program that would provide lower cost prescription drugs for public employees?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: Yes
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support establishing this same program for all Massachusetts residents?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: Yes
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
—————————————————————-
REVENUE AND TAXATION
Do you support increasing income taxes on the wealthiest residents of Massachusetts?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “As our economic recovery continues, part of building an economy that works for everyone is analyzing the fairness of our tax code. It is unfair if those at the top are paying a lower effective tax rate than many of those at the bottom of the income ladder.
I am committed to examining our tax system and exploring all the options we have at our disposal to make it more progressive for everyone. What we cannot be doing is asking those at the bottom, who can least afford it, to be contributing more in taxes.”
Grossman: [BLANK] — “I would not rule out seeking additional revenues but I would also insist that any such revenue legislation be coupled with meaningful tax reform that holds harmless low and middle-income families through the use of expanded exemptions.”
Kayyem: [BLANK] — “I support having a progressive tax system where everyone pays their fair share.”
Do you support halting the automatic decrease in state tax when Massachusetts state revenues grow four quarters in a row?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: No
Grossman: [BLANK] — “I am deeply concerned that we have too many unfunded priorities and continuing to take hundreds of millions of dollars out of our revenue stream will undermine our ability to deal effectively with our critical priorities, however as governor, I would be required to implement the current law.”
Kayyem: [BLANK]
Do you support increasing the capital gains tax (with safeguards to protect seniors)?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “I am committed to examining our tax system and exploring all the options we have at our disposal to make it more progressive for everyone.”
Grossman: [BLANK] — “I strongly opposed the plan to take away protections from seniors in the FY 2014 budget. I strongly believe that short-term capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate than long-term gains, which are a form of economic stability.”
Kayyem: Yes
“An Act to Invest in Our Communities” was designed to raise significant revenue while making our tax code more progressive, but it has not passed the legislature. Would you support a renewed effort to pass this or similar legislation?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] — “Again, I believe we need to explore every proposal that would make our tax system more progressive, and fairer, for everyone in the Commonwealth.”
Grossman: [BLANK] –“I would not rule it out but I would also insist that any such revenue legislation be coupled with meaningful tax reform that holds harmless low and middle-income families through the use of expanded exemptions.”
Kayyem: [BLANK] –“As I have said publically I supported Governor Patrick’s legislative push and will continue to push similar initiatives. This act was not solely about increased revenue, but a call to invest in transportation, education, and other much needed services. I commit to fighting for these increases, whether through reformed tax code, public-private partnerships, or regional cooperation.”
Do you support eliminating or substantially reducing corporate tax breaks?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] –“Corporations should not be making massive profits while workers still struggle. We need to explore strategies that ensure that everyone pays their fair share in taxes.”
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support repealing or significantly reducing the Film Production Tax Credit?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] –“Again, we need to do a comprehensive review of our tax system to ensure that those at the top do not have unfair advantages, and that the burden is not increased on those in the middle, and at the bottom.”
Grossman: No
Kayyem: Yes
Do you support increasing corporate tax break transparency and clawback provisions?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: Yes
Grossman: Yes
Kayyem: Yes
Would you support a state constitutional amendment creating a Massachusetts progressive income tax?
Berwick: Yes
Coakley: [BLANK] –“I am committed to examining our tax system and exploring all the options we have at our disposal to make it more progressive for everyone. What we cannot be doing is asking those at the bottom, who can least afford it, to be contributing more in taxes.”
Grossman: [BLANK] –“I would not rule raising revenues but I would also insist that any such revenue legislation be coupled with meaningful tax reform that holds harmless low and middle-income families through the use of expanded exemptions.”
Kayyem: [BLANK] –“As I have said publically I supported Governor Patrick’s legislative push and will continue to push similar initiatives. This act was not solely about increased revenue, but a call to invest in transportation, education, and other much needed services. I commit to fighting for these increases, whether through reformed tax code, public-private partnerships, or regional cooperation.”
I certainly believe that everyone should have universal access to post secondary education and we need to provide subsidies / scholarships to those who can not afford it. But why should a middle class taxpayer making $75,000 help pay for a UMass Amherst education for someone from a family making $250,000 a year?
College aid should be needs based. I don’t think it is a progressive value to have middle class families pay for the college education of members of wealthier families.
K-12 education is free for everyone, so the same logic could certainly apply to college. This means state schools of course; private institutions are still going to charge what they will. Plus it’s generally more politically palatable to say everyone is eligible.
What is the average cost of educating elementary and post-secondary students…$10,000 to 15,000 a student. For Umass Amherst…just a guess, but I’m sure it’s in the $40,000. I think it is a very unwise use of limited resources for taxpayer to foot a $40,000 tab for a family making $500,000 a year. Let that family pay the full cost and we can apply that $40,000 somewhere else, like more social workers for DCF.
This approach embraces the true progressive tax approach we all advocate for…let’s pay for the college education for those who have the economic need, and have these that can afford it pay there own way.
Given that MA is prevented from having a progressive tax code, advocating for working class and middle income families to pay for the college education of the rich is a trickle up tax policy that makes no sense…unless you are rich.
Your main argument seems to be tied up with the current tax structure in the case. So then why not push for getting rid of the flat tax and replacing it with a progressive one? I know Berwick has said that, if governor, he would push for a repeal of the constitutional flat tax and its replacement with a progressive income tax.
What will Don do differently to get past the Constitutional hurdle? Since the ’70s we’ve tried about 4 times to get a progressive tax code embedded into the MA Constitution…failed each time by a lot. Until someone demonstrates they have a solution to this real issue, I’m dismissing it as empty campaign rhetoric.
It’s not empty rhetoric to have a vision.
California had free higher education for residents. Then they elected that actor as Governor.
…probably the best summary/explanation I have heard for origins of the modern GOP’s attitude toward education that I have seen.
BMG had a good back and forth on the cost of government a few weeks back. This discussion ties into it a bit. Public higher education will never be “free” regardless of whether or not anyone has to write a check, or take out a loan to go to a public college. The citizens of Massachusetts will pay for it, and the state’s higher education system is expensive. I have a hard time agreeing that it should be “free” to anyone who wants to go when we have a regressive flat-tax in this state. Perhaps, if we ever have a real debate in this state about what government really costs, we should build this issue into that discussion. I think that it would be great if public higher education were “free” but we have to pay for it somehow. I think in the current environment pogo’s point about having a “need-based financial aid system” is important.
The answers to these questions illustrate why I think Don Berwick is, far and away, the best of the Democratic candidates for governor.
Glenn Beck once called Don the “second most dangerous man in America”, with Obama in first place, I presume. That alone makes me want to vote for him – the correct answers as indicated above are a lot of icing on that particular cake!
The one about climate change in specific, or environmental issues in general
The lack of environmental/climate questions stood out to me, but I’m not sure if Progressive Massachusetts as an organization does much on those issues. There was a candidate forum on Friday on environmental issues, hosted by Next Step Living. You can read the transcript here: http://www.nextstepliving.com/sites/default/files/content/Transcript%20of%20Gubernatorial%20Candidates%20Forum%20on%20Clean%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.pdf.
but the environment shouldn’t be shoved as a special issue forum. It needs to have a place at the “general issues” table, every single time.
Massachusetts has some of the most backward criminal justice legislation in the nation. The only good thing you can say about it is that we don’t have the death penalty.
I would like to know how candidates feel about the recent SJC decision that life without parole for juveniles is unconstitutional. I strongly support that decision and am appalled by legislative attempts, led among others by Finegold, a candidate for Treasurer, to essentially undo that decision by requiring a minimum sentence of 35 years. I am against mandatory minimums in general, especially this one.
me to be the most politically polished. Not necessarily a good thing.
Ms. Coakley avoided any answer that would allow her performance to be measured. Like so many of her other policy “positions”, these seem crafted mostly towards leaving room to explain why whatever it was didn’t happen in some future exchange.
I’ve had enough of candidates who promise to “explore” the most critical issues that face us. I want our next governor to state — as Don Berwick does — that he or she
– Supports increasing income taxes on the wealthiest residents of Massachusetts
– Supports halting the automatic decrease in state tax when Massachusetts state revenues grow four quarters in a row
– Supports increasing the capital gains tax (with safeguards to protect seniors)
– Supports eliminating or substantially reducing corporate tax breaks
– Supports repealing or significantly reducing the Film Production Tax Credit
I think her responses to each of these questions is finely-polished and practiced political-speak for “No”.
Very much the answers of someone so intent on the general she’s ignoring the Democratic Party. Somebody unwilling to commit because that might upset the boat. In other words, pretty much what we saw last time she ran for statewide office.
The idea that complex public policy can be answered with a simple yes or no is faulty at its beginning. Ask a candidate if they support of oppose a policy in general and ask them to detail that policy – perhaps ask: corporate tax breaks are a current economic policy tool -do you support or oppose the concept and which tax breaks would you endorse or actively work to repeal? Pretending that there are one word answers to every policy question is absurd and is no measure of a candidate.
A candidate who is unwilling to express support for increasing the capital gains tax does not meet my criteria for “progressive”. The same is true for a candidate who is unwilling to support increasing income taxes for our wealthiest residents.
I found this questionnaire enormously helpful in spreading out the positions of a field of candidates who each claim to be “progressive”.
how hard it can to give immediate, straightforward answers to question. People often expect that the answers are already there like in an encyclopedia. They just need to ask you a question to find the page.
After one town meeting, I was once accused by a friend of giving her a political answer to question. The fact was, I didn’t know the answer. I didn’t want to misinform her but wanted to give her what information I had. I found out the correct answer and provided it minutes later.
But I learned a lesson about questions and answers.
I counted the number of times each candidate waffled on a question by not answering yes or no. Here is the scorecard and the rating:
20 Questions
Coakley: 15 (75%)
Grossman: 7 (35%)
Kayyem: 7 (35%)
Berwick: 2 (10%)
The clear waffle winner is Coakley, who waffled almost as much as all of the other candidates put together.
…as being a flip-flop. The more appropriate term would be nuance, which I distinctly recall Dems liking when Kerry ran against “the decider” in 2004.
It’s not nuanced when you avoid answering the question. For example, when there was a question about a constitutional amendment for a progressive income tax, Coakley said, “I am committed to examining our tax system…”.
Maybe waffle isn’t the right expression. Perhaps, “Evade” would be better.
So maybe she’s not quite ready to declare on a progressive income tax amendment. What’s wrong with that? Would you prefer for her to give a decisive yes or no that may not be entirely honest? In general I prefer explained answers to yesses and nos.
It’s not that nuanced answers are bad, it’s that opaque answers that clearly were written by consultants to avoid taking a firm stance are bad. And citing Kerry’s disastrous campaign doesn’t do you any favors. A yes or no on the war was required and id argue had he stuck with one or the other firmly he’d have just finished his second term.
Really liking what I have seen so far
I’ve seen a couple of comments pointing out important policy areas that were not covered in the questionnaire. My understanding is that, as a new organization, Progressive Mass. is focusing primarily on economic issues at this time, while pitching in to help other organizations focused on environmental, criminal justice, immigration, and other issues. The goal is to complement those organizations rather than duplicate their work.
As a result, this questionnaire is focused on Progressive Mass.’s Shared Prosperity Agenda. It is not intended to represent an exhaustive review of all the issues that are important.
but then don’t take a broad name like “Progressive Mass” and focus on a narrow portion of progressive issues. That’s my view.
the intent is to stay narrow for a long period of time, and even now people are engaged in issues beyond the economic focus.
What is it about law enforcement officials that makes it hard for them to move up the political ladder–Bellotti, Harshbarger, Coakley, Conley, Reilly? Is it hard to use that experience as a narrative for why you would be a good CEO? I think that Coakley is concerned about taking positions in the primary that will be hard to defend in the general election. That sometimes comes across as “inauthentic”–the cardinal sin of electoral politics. When I look at Kayyem’s experience, I have a hard time seeing how she’s ready to be Governor, although I liked her answers to the questionnaire. I liked Berwick’s answers as well. Berwick has more experience as a manager/CEO than I realized when he got into the race. I just can’t get my head around Grossman. Is he a true progressive? He certainly has management experience. I’m sooooooo undecided. If I had to vote tomorrow, I guess I’d vote for Berwick. If it’s Baker vs. Berwick in the general, which way does the health care experience cut with the general election voters? Does it take that issue out of play for Baker? Does it make it a referendum on single payer? Does that hurt Berwick with the general election electorate?
The Governor is the state’s Chief Executive, but that doesn’t mean a CEO will be a better Governor. Government is not a business, and attempts to run one like a business usually create widespread pain and hardship. SOME of a business head’s experience can be useful when running a government, but a lot of it is irrelevant at best.
I apologize if you are not using “CEO” to indicate a corporate executive, but ask that you find another term if you’re not.
As you say, “the governor is the state’s chief executive.” Management experience is an important consideration for me. It can certainly be in non-profit or government management; I never suggested otherwise. Frankly, I prefer that to private industry. I never said that government should be run like a private business but it still needs to be managed by a Chief Executive.
The Republicans keep pushing the notion that business success is a big indicator of a talent for governing. It isn’t. For businessmen who go into government, Patrick is a big exception, and Romney is closer to the norm. I also think an incompetent CEO is far more likely to skate by than an incompetent Governor.
And I’m not a Republican. You seem to be winning an argument that no one’s on the other side of. Patrick isn’t a “businessman;” he’s a lawyer with management experience in government (firm and DOJ) and industry (Coke). I guess I follow Christopher’s advice, and use SEM from now on.
I asked that if you did not endorse those ideas, that you find some other term than “CEO” for government executive. I don’t think people commonly use that term for that purpose. This is not quibbling, because I think you’re (apparently unconsciously) using a Republican dog-whistle.
From the Constitution: “There shall be a Supreme Executive Magistrate, who shall be styled, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and whose title shall be — His Excellency.”
on a bumper sticker: “Grossman for Supreme Executive Magistrate ’14”
…otherwise Governor is fine:)
I am not so sure about that approach. We just had a double term of Democrats in absolute control of all of the machinery of the government of the Commonwealth. How did they do? What did they do that they could not have done with an extant opposition party?
My question, both for the candidates and for the BMG community, is:
What do you see as the greatest achievements– the “legacy,” in narrative cliche– of the outgoing administration? Which of these are to be expanded or built on, and which are to be reversed?
There aren’t a lot of obvious things to put on the list, in my view. Not all are “policy” achievements. I don’t necessarily think that this is a knock against the Governor.
1) High on the achievement list, in my view, is that they are still there, at a point at which the previous few governors had checked out, officially or otherwise.
2) I would also place the navigation of the recession without truly running the ship of state onto the rocks. On the other hand, nearby states have managed to do this even with Republicans that exist in government, so maybe this is kind of like getting credit for the weather.
3) I guess it was important, from the Democratic Party Activist point of view, that all of the government agencies have been led for the last eight years by people who are less likely to be hostile to government, in general, than their predecessors. I am not sure exactly if or how this has made a big difference on the ground, but I would expect that there is a difference.
4.) The big education reform in 2010. Though I am a fan, I am not sure that many of the progressive set would agree with me.
5.) Casinos. Like it or not, it is on the list, and should probably be higher.
6.) ?? The huge tax hike to pay for infrastructure that became a large tax hike that may or may not be paying for infrastructure?
It would seem to me that a forced Monday morning quarterbacking of the outgoing administration is more enlightening than pie-in-the-sky lists like the above. You couldn’t get anywhere at all on a graduated income tax with absolute, unopposed control of the machinery of state government for eight years. Why waste candidate time on it?
I agree with almost every item of your list. Regarding item 5, I’m one who does NOT like it, and I’m disgusted that it happened on our watch.
Regarding item 6, I think the tax hike wasn’t nearly large enough, hit the wrong people too hard and left the right people untouched, and leaves the public transportation crisis completed unaddressed.
Our inability to provide sustainable funding for public transportation after holding both the corner office and the state house for two terms is an embarrassing and significant failure.
So long as we’re Monday-morning quarterbacking, I think it’s important to mention that some (perhaps many) of those “Democrats” in the House would be Republicans in most other states. Mr. DeLeo, in particular, is no friend of the working class, no friend of the poor, and no friend of progressive Democrats.
Color me cynical, but I think Casinos (your item 5) are here mostly because Mr. DeLeo has political connections in East Boston and Revere. I think the connections to the tracks and to slots were far more influential than any sort of rational analysis of revenue opportunities.
I completely agree with you about a graduated income tax. I note that the question, as phrased, was “Would you suppport …”. I’m very happy that Mr. Berwick answered an unqualified “Yes”. I think the question you pose is “Would you pursue …”, and I hope that Mr. Berwick’s answer would at least be more nuanced.
The governor and legislature could, if desired, significantly increase the capital gains tax (along with reasonable exclusions and exemptions), the estate/gift tax, and the restrictions on property taxes — all without requiring constitutional amendments, and all enabling Massachusetts to increase the tax revenue it needs by taxing only the very wealthy.
I think I agree that these casinos will prove to have been a pretty big mistake.
Good point on the phrasing of the question.
I find myself questioning the wisdom of the progressive tax code. I support progressive taxation in principle, but I am not sure how great it actually is in practice.
1. The graduated rates are one (among many) things that contributes to the devilishly complex tax codes. That complexity hides all sorts of malfeasance, in the forms of specific little giveaways to favored interests. What good is a progressive tax code if all of the fiddly little exemptions and deductions allow the wealthier taxpayer to avoid the higher rate anyway? You can’t even build support to fix that because everyone loves tax deductions, and hey the rate is already progressive, so what do you want, and your response is too complicated for a campaign.
2. I am concerned that the system is divisive, because it allows “allow me to vote on your tax rate, but not mine.” Speeches about how the government should do X,Y, and Z and needs more money to do those things strike me as more credible when those making that appeal will shoulder some of the burden that they urge on others.
3. The last few years has convinced me that our tax structure is more stable than a progressive structure. California derives a lot of its tax income from high-earners, through its progressive system. But in a downturn, those high earners ear a great deal less. If you have shifted a lot of the tax burded to a volatile sort of income, then tax revenue will be volatile. That is what happened in CA, as the recession demolished their finances. It isn’t so much the magic of moonbeams that has improved things lately, but the small recovery has led to more tax revenue at those high brackets. MA saw a tax revenue decline, but not so steep as in CA, and I am growing convinced that this was a blessing over the last 5 years.
A lot of what has happened in state governments during this recession has convinced me that Steve Forbes may have had a point: that the best tax IN PRACTICE might be flat, with large personal exemptions, and zero deductions.
In theory, I agree with the premise that those with more should bear more of the burden, but in practice it seems that the system that attempts to implement that theory causes as many problems as it solves.