Deval Ready To Tax and Spend
He hasn’t even taken office yet… yet I can already feel him reaching for my wallet…
Governor-elect Deval L. Patrick plans to ask the Legislature for $120 million to add 1,000 police officers and begin expanding full-day kindergarten across the state, and may call for additional state aid to help cities and towns eliminate school-activity fees.
[...]
… in an hour long interview on his back porch on this unusually warm November morning, Patrick made clear he was already deeply focused on how to transform his many campaign pledges into concrete results on Beacon Hill and how to continue fostering the civic energy generated by his candidacy.
Perhaps he should have deeply focus “on how to transform his many campaign pledges into concrete results,” during the campaign, because now we’re going to have to have to pay a big price for all of his promises and quid pro quos.
Higher taxes are coming. You can count on it.
Follow us on Twitter
Join us on Facebook
Matt Margolis is co-author (with Mark Noonan) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at The Buffalo Bean. Follow Matt on Twitter.
Did anyone else read this like I did? He’s asking the legislature for $120 million to add 1,000 police. In addition he will be asking the legislature for more money for the day care. And on top of that, more for eliminating school activity fees.
Our sales tax is going up. Guaranteed.
I can already hear the words: “We are behind the other states…”.
Can we soak the taxpayers and force them to flee the state? “Yes we can!”
Actually Tubby, the Mass Budget & Policy Center released a report recently saying exactly that.
http://www.massbudget.org/article.php?id=530
“The report finds that state and local taxes equaled 10.4% of personal income in the Commonwealth in FY04, ranking 32nd out of the 50 states and below the overall national level of 10.7%. Further, the report finds that the state’s “own-source revenue” (i.e. taxes, fees, and charges levied by the Commonwealth and its municipalities), as a share of personal income (the aggregate income of Massachusetts residents), ranked 43rd out of the 50 states.
Additionally, tax levels as a share of personal income have declined more in Massachusetts over the last two-and-a-half decades than in almost any other state. Between FY 1978 and FY 2004, state and local tax revenue as a share of personal income declined nearly 25% in the Commonwealth, the second largest decline over that time in the entire country.”
Funny how part of that is “to help cities and downs eliminate school-activity fees. Thats what people based in reality call *lower* taxes (fees *are* taxes by a different name).
Meanwhile, where’s the extra $7.8+ billion Healey was talking about. Hmmm, wow, could it has all been fantasy?
Its funny, ya know, that Healey also have 50 proposals (or 40-some) that also would have cost hundreds of millions, not to mention the $600+ million that her tax cuts would have cost.
What makes me think that if there was an article right now about the few hundred million in changes that Healey wanted to add, you would be praising her moves instead of criticizing her fiscally?
The hypocrisy is palpable.
The article also says:
> He also said he wants to have a more
> transparent state budget, so the public can
> easily see which line items are paying for
> what.
> “If it’s for a gazebo in town X, let’s say
> it’s for a gazebo in town X,” Patrick said.
Hmmm, wow, that’s really the closed door, backroom politics that Healey was also shouting about, huh? Have you found a way to make an Orwellian “open government is closed government” argument yet, or are you still waiting for the talking points on that one?
> “The idea of how we find regional efficiencies
> so the cost burden on cities and towns — and
> therefore the burden of property taxes — can
> be reduced is very much on my mind,” Patrick
> said.
Yup, there’s that tax raising again. Or, wait, I guess not.
> Asked what he thought was the biggest
> misconception about him, Patrick said, “the
> liberal thing.” He emphasized that he believes
> in fiscal restraint, and he recalled with
> excitement meetings with his “business
> Cabinet,” a group that advised him on the
> economy during the campaign.
You wanna know whats wrong with the Mass GOP, at least in part? (and I would argue nationally too). Its the throngs of ditto-head followers who don’t question the moves and instead act as megaphones for the party talking points, no matter how detached from reality.
Patrick ran a campaign of fiscal restraint, reduced tax burden, more police, open government, and a change of the culture on Beacon Hill.
And instead of drawing actual contrasts, Healey tried to use scare tactics of higher taxes (never once mentioned), weak on crime (never mentioned anything but wanting to add police to the street), and closed government (his outsider and grassroots status lead to great questions in that).
Just like Bush shouting about “Democrats love terrorists” didn’t do anything for the American people because they’ve seen how disasterous his policies have been, shouting “Deval loves taxes” falls on ears just as deafly, because people have heard him say just the opposite again and again.
You never believe the opponent when they try to characterize someone, you listen to what that candidate theselves says. Now, the opponent may bring up good points about why a) its a bad idea or b) it can’t work. But when a candidate says that the other wants to raise taxes, and the other say says hundred of times that he wants to lower them… the people are quite right to ignore the rhetoric and listen to each candidate on their own merits.
The fact that the bloggers of this board would not call out Healy on anything hurt her. If Mass Republicans, specifically those with megaphones like this blog, jumped right on board her spin and fear campaign (and continue to do so). Rather than saying, “ya know Kerry, this ‘Deval loves rapists’ stuff is a bit too far, the people aren’t going to buy it”, many of you jumped right on with “Free ‘em all Deval”, and helped drive – in your own little ways – the Healey campaign deeper into the gutter.
They never realized it was an awful tactic until it was too late. Had there been some intellectual honest and reasonable thinking from people like HubPolitics and the editorial board of the Herald, I dunno, maybe she would have begun running a decent campaign in time to win. Instead of where merely the sight of her revolted most residents of this state*
(* I do not say this lightly nor claim to have any statistics, but I will share this anecdote. I have a friend who lives in NH, in the Boston TV market. He’s moderate (never voted for Bush, but has voted for local Republicans). He saw a ton of the Healey ads. He didn’t know what party she was or what she stood for, he just knew that the ads revolted him and he wanted her to lose for running that kind of stuff repeatedly.)
Republicans have to learn to stop running against strawmen. When you learn to debate, and post, and talk about *actual* issues and *actually* differences, instead of trying to paint your opponent as a non-sensical caricature.
The sooner off that many of you realize that this is not who you’re running against – http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/the_tossup_stat.html
…the better off you’ll be.
Mr. Patrick has yet to comment on whether or not he’ll reverse the $425 million Romney 9C veto. He’s also yet to comment on the recent Legislature vote to go to dinner rather than vote on the Gay Marriage amendment.
Any bets? Is Govenor Patrick moot or mute?
The first tax that is going up is the hotel and meals tax, and not uniformly, each city and town will be allowed to set their own rate according to Deval. He already said that before the election. Let’s start the pool, guessing how much new spending is in his first budget, how much the sales tax will be, by the end of his term, how much the income tax will be by the end of his term, and how much the meals tax in Boston will be when Menino can contol it.
1 Billion in new spending year 1 budget. He just doesn’t have enough time to increase by more than this. hell he’s 12% of the way there.
Sales tax 6.5% by 2010
Income Tax 6.25% by 2010
Boston meals tax 8% within 1 month of being given the power to increase it.
fredct–
May I ask- does the ct stand for Connecticut? Are you a Massachusetts resident?
You said: “Republicans have to learn to stop running against strawmen.
Isn’t this discussion about raising taxes? Is it your position that Patrick will be able to do what he wants to do without raising taxes?
fred – sorry buddy Deval did mention increased taxes on the trail. Here’s the link to prove it.
EaBo Clipper: Here’s One, New Deval Tax, Expanded Meals Tax
Listening to Bay State Republicans whine about taxes is truly amazing.
The Republican-dominated government in DC has been taking your tax money for years and spending it on pork projects in Republican districts throughout Alaska, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, S. Carolina and other “welfare states” because the so-called “conservative” there won’t pay their own way.
For every dollar MA residents pay in federal taxes we get less than a dollar spent in-state. Yet when George W. Bush took your taxes and used them to outspend LBJ on discretionary spending, you acted as his cheerleaders.
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy…
Great link EaBo Clipper. Too bad no one was paying attention to what Deval was saying, as appears was the case with Fred.
Deval’s plan to add 1000 cops makes a lot of sense–gonna need ‘em after he starts letting all the Ben Laguers out of prison.
> May I ask- does the ct stand for Connecticut?
> Are you a Massachusetts resident?
Well, yes, kinda. And yes. C and T are also my middle and last initials, and I grew up in Ct, so I’ve used fredct for years. So yea, it does, in part, stand for Ct.
But yes, I’m a Mass resident ever since I graduated college – in Metrowest. Sorry for the confusion.
> Isn’t this discussion about raising taxes? Is
> it your position that Patrick will be able to
> do what he wants to do without raising taxes?
My ‘position’ is merely “lets see if he does what he said he would”. What he said in multiple debates is that while he has lots of ideas, he’s not going to implement them all at first – that we need to focus on growing the economy and making Massachusetts a more affordable place to live.
Lets see if that is a priority for him, like he said it would be, before following the talking points of assuming its not.
So my ‘position’ is that I believe Deval when he said he wants to do a variety of things, but that decreasing the tax burden for Mass residents is also very important.
> fred – sorry buddy Deval did mention increased
> taxes on the trail. Here’s the link to prove
> it.
Thanks for the link. I dunno. It seemed to me that he mentioned it *despite* the potential increase in taxes. Diversification of revenue stream doesn’t seem like a bad idea on the surface (assuming that total revenue is kept steady).
But I’ll tell ya what – I don’t understand why people are so afraid of their own town government. Sure, I understand – at the state or federal level, its a pretty big machine that its hard for a single person or even a few of them to make an impact.
But if your town selects to impose a meal tax without equivalent cuts in property tax revenue (or even at all if you’re just flat out opposed to the concept). Get a few friends together, go to a town board meeting and speak. If you can bring 5 people, you’ll probably be half the room.
Isn’t conservative economics (in addition to lower taxes) about shifting economic responsibility to more local forms of government? Where’s there’s more direct responsibility to the citizens and more understanding of what the local economy and citizens need? It seems to me that if a Republican proposed this, it would be seen as a refreshing change to those big government liberals, wouldn’t it?
I spoke once at a Board of Ed meeting (when there were probably 100 people there) – they were trying to change our scheduling in our high school, and I hated the new alternative (as did most of my friends). So I got up there and spoke. Following my lead, so did several other students. Low and behold, the board found a good compromise solution.
I don’t claim to be the sole factor behind it – far from it – but the people on your local town government are your neighbors and friends. The meetings are small and sparsely attended. And most citizens can probably find the time to even run for a position if they really wanted to.
So my ‘position’ on Patrick is not that I know the state budget in and out to know what he can and can’t do, but only lets see if he generally controls spending enough to keep the tax burden low, like he said his priority would be.
Every time Healey mentioned $8 billion dollars, Patrick said that his ideas were long term, and that all he planned at first was more police, a move to all-day kindergarten, and working to return aids to towns. Hmmm, that’s exactly what he’s doing. So lets see if he continues to do what he said. Is that so unreasonable?
fredct said: Is that so unreasonable?
Not at all- A very reasoned reply- thanks.
Wait and see is fine of course. The position that is being taken here is just the prediction that taxes are going up. To put a finer point on it, Deval Patrick is not necessarily the main focus of that. The Legislature wants to raise taxes and will squeeze Patrick to go along. In fact, that will provide him with some cover for going against what he indicated he wanted to do.
But the Legislature wants more money and Deval won’t stop them.
That’s my position re this matter.
> Not at all- A very reasoned reply- thanks.
Thank you
> The Legislature wants to raise taxes and will
> squeeze Patrick to go along. In fact, that
> will provide him with some cover for going
> against what he indicated he wanted to do.
If Patrick goes along, without some substantial fiscal crisis (like the Health Care bill being outrageously expensive), it will be a disappointment to many of us who voted for him under the explicit promise that he will stand up to the legislature on behalf of the people.
> But the Legislature wants more money and Deval
> won’t stop them.
> That’s my position re this matter.
A very reasoned reply
. It doesn’t seem to be at all what was said by Matt’s entry, of course, which seems to directly say that Deval will be the cause of it.
If Deval doesn’t stand up to the legislature if they make a cash grab, and doesn’t veto any income or sales tax increases (which doesn’t mean it couldn’t be overridden, but that should endanger legislative jobs), as well as not returning money to cities and down (pending, as I said, a massive need), then he will have been a disappointment to many of us who voted for him, and will have turned his back of the grassroots that made him governor.
I believe he is better than that. And nothing we’ve seen thusfar (a few modest proposals that he said were his immediate plans all along) seem to indicate otherwise.
More police officers and full day Kindergarten…. I am not a parent. Full day kindergarten, more money for Daycare is and should be my problem to pay for.
As for more police officers, I don’t live in Boston and shouldn’t the cities and towns pay for that, not every tax payer in the State.
Hang on people, it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride.
From Bill Clinton’s speech in Worcester the other week:
Republicans will have you believe that “If you elect Democrats, they’ll tax you into the poor house, and on the way you’ll meet a terrorist at every corner, and when you run away you’ll trip over an illegal immigrant.”
You guys have got to relax. I doubt many of you have much money to tax anyways and even if you do, most of the comments on this blog come off as whiny and almost hysterical.
I really want to see how he plans to eliminate school fees like bussing and sports.
If he plans to increase local aid to towns that charge these fees.. what are the other towns and cities going to say?
Will they rush out to add fees just to get the extra aid?
Or, will he have to bribe them to stop them from complaining?
Not to mention, any spending has to come from the legislature.. lets see a reps from towns town like Carlisle or Methuen choose to send money to other towns with nothing in it for themselves.
If Patrick wants to add 1000 police, he will be adding to the state’s pension problems. The defined benefits that police require will break the bank down the road. If he were a real reformer, he would find a way to take Lt. Gov. Healey’s idea about moving to a defined contribution plan for most of the 1,000 new hires. That would be innovative thinking and show that Governer Patrick is sincere even though the salaries would be a big hit on the budget.
Somehow I don’t think the new Governor will take my advice.
The school fee issue will resonate broadly with all parents with school-age children, no matter their ideology. While every town in the Commonwealth has its own culture and personality (some run by lib dems, some run by repubs, many run by both), most have something in common — they have all had to cope with Prop 2 1/2 for more than 25 years now. The elimination of sports and activity funding in public schools is not simply a product of the “tax and over-spend” mentality or the victim of the teachers’ union. It is hard and fast economics applied across the board.
As a conservative Republican, I am willing to give Deval the benefit of the doubt — but not for long. I’m frankly impressed with the guy, and I am very curious to discover whether his rhetoric will match his actions.
> But the Legislature wants more money and Deval
> won’t stop them.
> That’s my position re this matter.
Btw, one more thought… if anyone’s still reading this… If indeed Deval can’t stop them, how would Healey have done so? Anything she did would just be overridden.
Deval, with a significant win, and hopefully a more respectful working relationship with the legislature should hopefully be able to pull enough non-corrupt/non-crazy legislative democrats to be able to prevent a veto override much of the time. I mean, really, if you were a Beacon Hill democrat, would you want to be publically overriding a popular governor-elect who just won by over 20 points… in order to raise taxes?
Healey could yell and scream, but her combative relationship with the legislature would probably just give them joy in overriding her veto. And her dirty politics campaign would certainly put no democratic legislator in the mood to be helping her out.
Deval carries much more weight in the corner office. And I trust him to use it well fiscally. Lets see if he does.
“More police officers and full day Kindergarten…. I am not a parent. Full day kindergarten, more money for Daycare is and should be my problem to pay for.
As for more police officers, I don’t live in Boston and shouldn’t the cities and towns pay for that, not every tax payer in the State.
Hang on people, it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride.”
Allison–I’m assuming that you meant to write “is NOT my problem to pay for.” My standard answer to this kind of thing is this–I don’t drive a car, so can we please excise the portion of taxes that I’m paying that might go towards the Big Dig? Or road repair, for that matter, or toll collectors or stop signs? I haven’t committed any crimes, so should I really have to pay for police? I mean–I haven’t called 911 this year–can I get some kind of refund? No fires at my house–a few bucks back in my pocket, please. And hey–that whole Iraq thing. I was totally against it–can I have my cut of $2 billion a week back?
None of us like to see government waste, but do you have any notion of what it means to live in a civil society? It doesn’t mean that you get to take a cafeteria approach to what you will or won’t pay your fair portion of. Those kids whom you’re paying to educate are your neighbors, your future employees, business owners, soldiers–they’ll be paying your Social Security one day. And another reminder–there’s no special deductions for Liberals on the tax forms–we pay our share too. We just don’t make quite the same fuss about it.
Allison–I’m assuming that you meant to write “is NOT my problem to pay for.”
No- you misunderstand the point. Her point was that if she chose to have children, then she would accept the responsibilities and costs that come with that.
You want to include children in the list of things that society needs to share the costs for. She does not. I agree with her.
The question is one of defining the edge of Socialism.
So Tubby, again–I choose not to drive, therefore do I get my road money back? I choose not to litter, so can I get my cut for street sweepers too? If I choose not to read, do I have to pay for public libraries? Military hospitals? I mean heck–those soliders CHOSE to fight–why can’t they pay for their own rehab when their legs get blown off?
You call it “the edge of socialism”–I call it civilized society, and unless you’re living in a cave somewhere, you’re a full-blown member. Grow up and deal with it.
Sarah worte: Grow up and deal with it.
Goodbye.