Beacon Hill policymakers have long known that they must address the state’s underfunded, debt-ridden transportation system.
But with his big new tax-and-spending plan, Governor Patrick isn’t attempting just to fix transportation.
SCOT LEHIGH
Get unlimited access to Bruins cup coverage - Just 99¢
SCOT LEHIGH
Beacon Hill policymakers have long known that they must address the state’s underfunded, debt-ridden transportation system.
But with his big new tax-and-spending plan, Governor Patrick isn’t attempting just to fix transportation.
Comments
Education and transportation are cornerstones of a prosperous state and an increasing expense. Changing to a fairer taxation system is not a liberal daydream but a realistic approach to solving public needs. If your income is under $100,000 dollars a year you will pay less taxes for sure. Over that amount it depends on household spending on taxed goods since the sales tax would be 4.5% from its present 6.25%. This plan by the governor is a proposal for a positive sum game, i.e. everyone benefits. Cutting taxes uniformly has not been a recipe for moving the economic needle forward. Just because a vote occured umpteen times in the past rejecting a progressive system does not mean it fits present times. In fact it does not. When government does not step in when times are tough it prolongs the misery and people suffer unnecessarily. To build confidence in this direction of course also means spending wisely and cracking down on those who commit fraud or theft.
Spoken like a true liberal. Democrats tried five times to get a graduated income tax amendment adopted by referendum, enthusiastically supported by the Globe every time, and not only did it fail to pass, as Scot rightly pointed out, but if memory serves the margin of defeat got greater with every failed attempt. Some might think that the people have spoken unequivocally and unambiguously and that that was the end of it, but a true liberal knows better than the sovereign people themselves what is good for them and believes that a stealthy progressive tax structure crafted so as not to require amending the state constitution is a good, right and proper thing to do. The arrogance of that attitude is positively breathtaking. If you think a progressive state income tax is the way to go, put it on the ballot and state your case to the people. But you and Gov. Patrick don't want to do that because you don't think you'll win, which just demonstrates what you really think. What you really think is that the voters are too stupid and ignorant to be left to their own devices, they need to be ruled by elitists like yourselves.
OETKB: Unfortunately, your figures aren't right. I'm addressing that in a longer post below.
Good article - not sure about the rise in personal income - didn't the state representatives wages go down not up ?
We could have had Charlie Baker - sad - because I think spending on important things (that even liberals want) would have gone up and our taxes stayed the same.
The governor is faling into the predictable folly that has hurt so many other blue states-making it more expensive tax wise to live and do business in the bay state. Rather, he should follow the lead of the states that have been creating jobs and growing their populations and economies-lower tax rates. People are leaving California in droves for the greener pastures of Texas, Tenessee, North Carolina and others. It is a liberal pipe dream to believe taxes can be forever grown.
Look at the success Chris Christie has had in reversing the tax increasing ways of Jon Corzine. There are many other examples of this, but the trend is clear: To raise tax revenues, making the state a good place to live and do business is far more effective than squeezing the populace for more tax dollars.
Whatever happened to Jon Corzine after his financial company lost a few billion of other people's money and then went bankrupt? Is he in prison yet?
He should do a "cut hacks, cut thuggers, deport illegals" plan.... even just a few of each would be great for everyone!
"the better to indulge liberal daydreams"... great quote Scot.
Scot nails it...and there's a few more problems with the plan: Those who reply are missing the message. And Scot, if I'm off-base let me know...what you're saying is "stay the course in tough times" NOT "dive into complete and total austerity." Right?
Here's the problem. First, the middle class is just gaining traction, and Deval wants to start taxing more AND installing a gas tax that goes up incrementally. How do we finally get ahead? Oh, but we're doing it for our schools and transportation...two areas that we have been talking about improving the last generation. It's like stuffing money into a old car. I'd rather see a study as to why our education system fails instead off putting money into the same ol' same ol'
Who has the highest disposable income? Teens...Deval's plan answers the question, "How do I tax them too?" Who consumes the most candy and soda? Is that even constitutional? It's hidden under the guise of "I want to keep you healthy." Yea, right...Adults make healthy choices...or not...Kids? They're going to do what they want.
Instead of looking to leave a legacy, sometimes doing nothing is doing something.
With respect to their ability to eat candy and drink soda, teens are not a protected class under the Constitution. LOL!
Yes. I'm saying in tough times, we should do what clearly needs to be done, but not engage in a wish list of expensive projects and proposals. For example, the I-91 viaduct through Springfield has to be done. I think there is widespread agreement on that. It's unsafe. But unpopular as it is to bring up, do we really need communter rail to Fall River and New Bedford? Wouldn't better bus service be an acceptable -- and much cheaper -- option? And is it really necessary to rework the I-93/128 interchange? As someone who drives it with some frequency, I'd agree it causes annoying slowdowns, but right now, that seems like a luxury to me.
Further, as I've said in another column, there are cheaper ways to pursue the governor's education goals. For the life of me, I can't see why we should pay millions more for a longer middle school day for disadvantaged students when we could get it by raising the charter cap for essentially the same per pupil $$$ we pay for a shorter day in the traditional schools.
We certainly do need more revenue for transportation! Every time I take the Needham commuter rail, the tracks are so tilted I'm worried the train will tip over. And every bus I take during rush hour is packed to the gills, standing commuters pressed up against each other like sardines. The U.S. is one of the wealthiest countries in the world; in a first-class city like Boston we should have high-speed rail too. Raise my taxes, absolutely. I'm pleased to see that Governor Patrick has the courage to speak the truth to Boston, maybe because he's not worried about re-election.
The transportation system needs more revenue although the funding needs would be less if the Legislature hadn't sold out to the unions. T employees can retire with full health care benefits after 23 years of service and no restrictions on working after "retiring", i.e. they get to double dip (http://www.retirementplanblog.com/public-employee-plans-who-has-the-richest-retirement-plan-in-america-the-cta-or-the-mbta.html). Needless to say, the taxpayers paying for all this don't get that deal or anything like it. Included in Gov. Patrick's "transportation" package, however, are such budget-busting boondoggles as fixed rail service from Boston to New Beffa and Fall Rivah and train service from Pittsfield to NYC. The buses going between Boston and New Beffa or Fall Rivah are half empty today, and it'd be cheaper by far to give each commuter a limo and driver than to build out rail service and run it. Oh, and don't forget the extension of the green line. Now, I suspect that some of these boondoggle projects are only included in the package in order to be negotiated away as the governor and the legislature do the tax hike mambo, I've seen the dance before although not since Dukakis was ridden out of town on a rail. The Governor proposes taxing us back to the Stone Age, and then the Legislature says, "Don't worry, folks, we'll only tax you back to the Bronze Age."
Simple solution to commuter rail - pay what it costs - I think the "middle class" subsidy is at least 50%. If you give something away everybody wants it.
And yes the roads are "subsidized" by our gas tax. That's called paying for it.
I just got a cliche headache reading this column. I'll have to come back to it later after I've had coffee.
You are referring of course to the many cliche tax increases, not to the excellent rebutting of them as serious fiscal policy.
Guys,
A couple of points: On the tax stuff, you'd get a tax cut if you earn about $37,500 or less. Above that, most people would pay more. From $37,500 to $60,500, it would only be about $100 more; for those between $60,500 and $103,000, it would be about $400 more. Above that, the average would be $3,200 more.
We have gotten rid of "23 and out" at the MBTA, for which the governor and the legislature deserve credit, but I think it's fair to say that some of the other reforms that were supposed to be implemented are moving at glacial speed. For example, the T employees were supposed to join the GIC for their health insurance when their contracts expired. The carmen's -- by far the largest union -- contract expired in July of 2010. They still aren't in the GIC. Recall that that was one of the big saving in the transportation reform bill.
I realize times and priorities change, but I do think it is politically problematic of the governor to put this forward for another reason. He was specificially asked in the 2010 campaign whether he had a big, broad-based tax hike in mind. (I'm the one who asked, if memory serves.) He said no. Now, everyone knew the T and transportation in general had to be fixed, but really, if you want to revamp the tax code in such a big way, I do think you should let people know that when you run. And I agree with the poster who said, if you want a graduated income tax, do it the right way. I think that's a fair expectation, the more so sionce Patrick didn't allude to this at all in his re-election campaign.
I do not ride the T
I do not ride the T
This topic will be spilling a lot of digital ink in the coming months, but specifically I want to thank Scot for two things. First, he wrote a column that shows the many sides to this issue and balances against the politics. Second, he is engaging in a dialog with the posters that I haven't observed other columnists doing. You don't have to Agee or disagree with him, to appreciate the effort. Thanks for that.
I appreciate that note, SuperBob. Thanks.
Weren't the tolls on the Pike meant to be temporary to pay for construction?
This comment has been removed.
OT: Scot I assume you will be writing up a mea culpa on Benghazi after yesterday's testimony. Funny, no article in the Globe today
Strange world. The Benghazi review board reported "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels". They said this a few different ways throughout the report, failure in leadership starting at the top. Still, Hillary is celebrated on her way out the door like a conquering hero. She traveled more than any SOS!
Begolf: I think this is mostly something the Foxies tried to pump into a scandal before the election -- and that the Republicans senators who went along with it now can't find a graceful way to let go of. I remember some of you guys telling me it was going to be a bigger scandal than Watergate. I don't see that. It still seems to me what it seemed to be at the time: A horrible thing that we weren't well prepared for, but not a coverup or lying or any of the various and sundry other things the right-wing polemicists have decared it to be.
Since we're venturing off onto Benghazi I just would like someone to explain why the press hasn't hammered Obama over his statement in the second debate that he called it a terrorist attack on the 12th in the Rose Garden. Why then, was his UN Ambassador stating otherwise for the next two weeks. Off topic, I know, but it's snowing and I'm bored already.
The Foxies. Yes, and the Mathewsies who continued to push it as a result of a movie long after the fact. The Fox angle is pathetic.
Deval is all about big government and unions, both public and private sector. To make government more powerful, you need money, as in higher taxes. To get more money and not alienate the unions, you must tax business and "the rich." Increased taxes will likely irritate "the rich," but who cares? There aren't enough of "the rich" to make much difference in an election.
Mightn't this just be a negotiating tactic? Set the bar really high, Legislature agrees to some of it, the governor negotiates it higher, and we end up passing some but not all of what he proposed. If the governor came up with a less ambitious plan, it'd be more politically popular, sure, but that's not the endgoal.
See previous post referring to the tax hike mambo, as perfected by Michael Dukakis. Governor come up with an inflated tax plan that taxes the private sector back to the Stone Age and then the legislative leadership trims it around the edges and say "No worries, folks, we'll only tax you back to the Bronze Age." Taxes still go up a lot but the voters are supposed to say "Whew, we dodged a bullet." The voters only caught on in 1989-1990 because PeeWee kept coming back to the well but since we haven't seen this dodge since 1990 and we've apparently let our guard down, and since Deval Patrick is leaving town like an egg-sucking dog on the lam and can afford to let his liberal big government freak flag fly proudly, apparently it's time to bring back the Tax Hike Mambo.
Scot,
I disagree with your statement that state has done a decent job on fiscal management. There remain numeorus processes and sweetheart laws in place that benefit special interests at the expense of true fiscal discipline, good government and taxpayer support for more revenue. The governor easily glides past the many documented examples of bad government decisions that in my opinion undermine his position to ask for more money. I believe most taxpayers would give serious consideration to proposals for additional funding if there was a solid track record of respectful stewardship of the tax revenue already collected. Not a day seems to go by where there isn't a story in the media about some type of outright fraud or poor government oversight resulting in wasted taxpayer's money. The governor is an artful politican, but one lousy manager.
This comment has been removed.
Scot,
You fail to mention that Deval's poor management in selecting managers who are grossly incompetent. You failed to mention the crime lab scandals which is going to cost us close to a half a BILLION dollars, the poor oversight on pharmacy lab operations. His cavlaier attitiude on "leakage" of welfare fraud. He has stated repeatedly that fraud was anectdotal, now we are in the middle of the pack. They discovered over $25 million in fraud, that is just the surface, so over the course of his term we have watched well over 200 million wasted.
The last time I checked, Mike Dukakis said the big dig was only going to cost 1.5 billion. We are to believe his estimates? His lowering of the sales tax and raising income tax was simply a give the poor people a break, and the middle class pay more so his constitiuents don't suffer. His poor education record, public safety, and cost saving measures are laughable. He falls between Jane Swift and Mike Dukakis as the two worse governors in the last 100 years!!!
He won't answer about his failure to turn over public records about Tim Murry AND ABOUT HIS PERSONAL FINANCES. He gets a pss because of the obvious reason. Same reason liberals who wanted Bush tried as a war criminal for waterboarding, aren't saying boo about Obama killing people with drones!!!!
This comment has been removed.
Oh my word, perspective, perspective. I really don't see how you can blame the compounding scandal on him or the crime-lab scandal. Sometimes stuff just happens. I just don't understand why people can't see shades of gray. Everyone has to be a hero or a villain, the best or the worst. Patrick has done some good things and some not so good things. This is one I have seriously disagree with. But that doesn't mean he's a horrible governor.
This comment has been removed.
To me, there are three distinct components that can be used to measure a politician’s effectiveness: campaigning skills (getting the job), political skills (how they play the inside game) and being a manager (this measure being a major part of an executive branch role). As it pertains to the first two, Governor Patrick is one of the best. Not so much as a manager. Even The Boston Globe has run stories describing his lack of enthusiasm for the details of governing. This weakness in his skills portfolio negatively impacts our state’s overall financial health.
Scot,
Deville Deval has been one lousy governor but he has a silver tongue and is teflon coated, loved by the liberals. He has brought a new meaning to cronyism, no other person could get away with what he has done as governor.
Typical right winger. It would take a tome to record the lies told by Republicans and other right wingers on a national level, but one of their most successful lies is convincing Americans the US can't afford anything....except war.
Massachusetts is one of the richest states in the Union and the US is the largest and richest economy in the world. And the way Massachusetts will remain one of the richest states in the Union is to invest in its people and its infrastructure.
Right on, Governor Patrick. Thank goodness Massachusetts isn't being run like a red state.