Daily Updates: 12.6.10

Facebook:

• I'm feeling very mheh about the new facebook profile...
• (1 week would offset the entirety of this coming year's expected deficit.)
• Hmm. 10 weeks of war spending in Afghanistan ($2.8 billion a week) would pay for the entire Massachusetts state budget. Can anyone say, "misplaced priorities?"
• I don't get how adding a cartoon picture will help the children, but it sounds fun.

• AT&T shouldn't be sending me emails saying "Last chance to waterproof your iphone" when I don't even have an iPhone. Thanks for rubbing it in :P
• Well, it doesn't make up for Brown's pissing on the poor this Christmas, but he still gets a big thanks for now supporting repeal of DADT
• Dear Facebook, I'd really love it if you allowed users an easy-to-create way of making RSS feeds of their status updates and group feeds, etc. That can't be hard, and it's a great way to get people clicking on Facebook who aren't already doing it. Let's get it done!

Lots of tweets, too.

Further Stimulus

While I wouldn't bet against a second stimulus bill over the next few years, I think it's more likely that we'll get health care, education and infrastructure bills. Basically, more stimulus, but packaged with a different name and sold as direct solutions to individual lives, not just more jobs. Furthermore, look for plenty of the projects that never made it into the actual stimulus bill to get into the regular budget, a bill that can't be filibustered in the Senate.

Here's an Idea

Something's broken with the buses. The Globe notes that most of the buses in Boston's system fill less than a quarter of the bus, some as low as one or two students. Why drop or dramatically alter the busing scheme and spend half the $79 million (9% of the city's budget) on private tutors at schools that aren't performing up to par, increasing school days if need be? $40 million buys a lot of private, highly qualified tutors.

Considering some of these buses are shipping next to no students halfway across the city, that sounds like a way better way to both make sure kids are getting a quality education and making sure the city is spending money efficiently. Otherwise, there's layoffs and everyone loses, including those getting bused, as the bus system suddenly takes up 10-15% of the school budget because of the cuts.

I honestly doubt sending the kids across the city would dramatically improve the education they receive; the very fact that these kids are willing to go that far, and have parents willing to go through that extra mile, suggests that they're generally good students already. 'Bad schools' are schools that just lose more students - students that can't or won't do homework or study because of home life or don't have the tools to learn what they didn't learn whilst in class (everyone has their own pace). Finding ways to get at them, teach them what they need, preferably during school hours, is the way to salvation at schools. That's not going to come from a bus. It's going to come from more hours in school, with guided study sessions that include personal tutoring if need be, so students are learning what they need, when they need it.

The Stimulus Bill

The Bay State's getting at least $11 billion - and could be as much as $16 billion. The Globe has a neat graphic showing where the money will go in Massachusetts. It includes $1.3 billion in 'stabilization funds' to help offset next year's budget. The state faces a whole that's an additional billion larger than that, though.

Some random thoughts,

• The Republicans aren't faring well from their obstruction. Their critiques on the bill just don't add up. On the one hand, they say there isn't enough infrastructure spending. On the other, not enough tax cuts. Moreover, there's all too much spending. Huh? So they want a bill with more infrastructure spending, more tax cuts - and it should cost less? Like I said, insane it just doesn't add up.
• More on their complaints on 'spending.' The point of stimulus is to spend money, right? The point of this whole thing is to create jobs. Well, the Globe says the current bill will create nearly 95,000 in Massachusetts alone - when Massachusetts has roughly 240,000 unemployed. Not too shabby. What's the Republican Party's problem again?
  
• They are right in that there should be more infrastructure spending. It's pitifully low, actually. It makes me think that there will be an infrastructure bill worked on over the year, too. If not, shame on DC, because our roads and bridges are falling apart all the while our public transportation is falling behind the rest of the world.
  
• Put some of these tax cuts as infrastructure spending. Really, the tax cuts don't help that much. What really, really doesn't help, though, are the business tax cuts. That's $20+ billion right there that could be added to public transportation projects, which will, you know, help businesses.
• If the Republicans aren't going to vote for the bill anyway, definitely axe the bad business tax cuts that don't create jobs. Please!
• One more note: 60 Senate seats here we come.
  

Dear Governor Patrick,

Our state seems to be at a bit of an impasse. We have a massive budget problem and a Governor who isn't willing to raise taxes to close that gap. For decades now, both at the national and state level, whenever there's budget gaps, we've been cutting things to close them. We never get the core services that we slice back. They're just gone. Why? Because people on the fringe right, who are unfortunately effective at controlling the media's dialogue, have been successful in turning "tax" into a bad word.

What frustrates me, though, is that it wasn't a word you ran away from during the campaign - and that's a great part of why you were able to win a tough primary and competitive general election in landslides. Why, now, are you running away from it? As today's Globe story indicates, you're afraid to do what's necessary to avoid cuts to the bone in our budget. That's not acceptable -and it's not helping you win votes, either.

Instead of doing the right thing, winning and losing a few votes at the same time, you're getting the worst of both worlds: you're pissing off the mature adults out there who are willing to pay for services at the very same time that you're losing the few of the least-common-denominator votes out there who see you raising RMV fees and think this Michael Dukakis 2.0. Ignore those people - you're not going to win their votes anyway. Stop pursuing policies that try to have it both ways: increasing fees is exactly the same thing as a tax hike and it's dishonest to pretend anything different. Be honest and upfront. There are plenty of people, of all political stripes, who are waiting to support the governor that's actually going to do something to save their school and library. So far - and I mean no offense - you just haven't been that Governor, but you still have time to make it right.

We need to raise taxes - but do it the right way, not the dishonest Mitt Romney way. What you should be afraid of next election is in keeping your base happy. They got you there to begin with; they'll be the people who will get you reelected. But any member of the base who sees a school in their town close probably isn't going to vote for you - much less volunteer. Raising income taxes won't lose you votes in this crowd, it may just save them. So, while some of your measures were sensible - especially the bottle deposits - let's skip the increased fee hikes, excessive cuts and, most importantly, be honest with ourselves. Raising income taxes is the fairest, most transparent way possible to save this state. In 2006, we voted for change, not the Mitt Romney School of Governing. So please remember that the people of this Commonwealth don't expect miracles, just a Governor who is willing to level with them and engage with them to solve our common problems.

Yours Truly,
Ryan

P.S. I really don't want you to be a one-term governor, but if you keep following down this path, I fear you may be.

More on Raising Taxes (Give towns options!)

The Globe posted about Patrick's plans to cut another billion off the budget this year. I posted my thoughts yesterday: we can't just cut ourselves out of this mess. We live in one of the most expensive states in the country, yet pay taxes below the national average. Something's gotta give - and that's the income tax. There's a few more important points to make.

• First, there's a reason why mid-year cuts to local aid is so nefarious. I was going to post them, but Pablo did it for me. Suffice it to say, not only does it screw over students who are taking classes when their teachers are suddenly laid off, but mid-year cuts mean way more layoffs, because you can't cut through teacher attrition (retirements or people moving on), or through cutting textbooks and supplies, money long since spent. What would be maybe 2-3 layoffs at the beginning of the year, with the same spending cuts, become 5 or 6 layoffs midway through, because now you're paying for unemployment. It's the worst kind of policy, the incredibly stupid kind.
• It's not the state's only option. What ever happened to allowing a local option meals and hotel tax? The state can't cut local aid without giving cities and towns options. They continue to dump every problem on cities and towns and don't give them any of the tools to deal with them. If the state allowed a meals and hotel tax, many cities and towns wouldn't feel the state cuts at all. The state needs to grow up and at least do that much for cities and towns. A local option isn't that much to ask!
  
• Bottom line: We went through cutting $1.4 billion of painful midyear cuts a few months ago. We can't cut another billion on top of that. The damage is too great. Raising the income tax by .3% is a no brainer: it would only cost the average worker $126/year (42k x .003), or about $5.50 a paycheck, assuming 23 paychecks a year. That creates about $900 million in new revenue. Crisis averted.

The Budget Axe is Falling, Blunt

The Gov's going to cut 1,000 jobs from state government.

There's no lying about the economic situation: it's dire. Cuts are certainly necessary. But put Ryan's Take on the list of blogs that think the Governor especially, and state government in general, is going a little overboard with the cuts. As I said on BMG, there is no one solution to solving a crisis of this magnitude. State government must take a measured approach.

• Per Stomv, a five cent a gallon gas tax increase would clear 10% of this entire deficit ($150 million), at a cost of less than $60 per person, per year.
• Also per Stomv, the Massachusetts tax on alcohol is extremely low, 6x lower than the tax on cigarettes. A small increase to the alcohol tax would raise $50-90 million dollars.

Those two steps would take a big bite out of the deficit, without being burdensome on Massachusetts taxpayers. However, it won't get Massachusetts to the $1.4 billion it needs to reach the black. Luckily, there's already a few other measures on the table.

• The Governor's plan already calls for using $200 million of the $1.6 billion in rainy day funds. It hasn't rained like this since 1929, so using - but not abusing - rainy day funds is both necessary and proper.
• The Governor's also lucky that he closed the telephone poll loophole. Towns will eventually see that money, but not this year. That's nearly $200 million closer to the magic number.
• State agencies also volunteered approximately $250 million in cuts.

All told, both the small tax increases and the actions the governor has already planned would amount to somewhere between $850-900 million dollars. Cutting $600 million off the top of state government would be painful, but much better than cutting hundreds of millions more.

The Rainy Day Fund

The economy is raining, pouring and the whole state of Massachusetts is snoring. Instead of trying to solve our problems, the governor is going to cut, cut, cut. He could do that taking a nap. No thanks.

This is an obvious ploy to scare people into voting no on 1. If it weren't for the fact that these cuts will create wide-sweeping and irreversible damage to the state, I'd be all for the scare tactics. Yet, once a school's doors are closed, they're not opening again. So why force dozens of them to close now when there's another way?

We have rainy day funds for the bad economic times. That's what I've been told since I was a little kid. Well, it's raining. It's raining like it hasn't since 1929. We can't play games with the budget - these are human lives the governor is playing with - so it's time to start using liberally from the rainy day fund to get us by for the rest of this year. When projected revenue goes so far south just a 1/4 of the way into the fiscal year, that's when it's time to use rainy day funds to close the gap. Midyear cuts are horrible because so much of the money is already spent - the only place to cut is in jobs. Schools can't just buy less paper, because they've already purchased it months ago.

Let's be clear: if it's not okay to use rainy day funds this year, then it never will be. If we don't use these funds now, then there's no reason to have them to begin with. Use them or my vote will go to people who will lose them.

Budget Situation Bad

How bad? Well, let's look at Swampscott.

My hometown didn't even bother posting bonds for a 7.7 million dollar payment when the state, after agreeing to years ago, refused to pony up. So we had to take out a loan.

Worse yet, already facing a deficit of nearly $1.5 million dollars, our town administrator was told by Lt. Governor Murray to expect another $500,000 in cuts.

When asked what the state would do to allow towns to raise revenue, Murray essentially said, 'um, well, your unions could have passed GIC.' Thanks, guys! With an Oct. 1 deadline, that'll really help. The state has done almost nothing to help local towns on the GIC/health care front - less than 10 towns have chosen to participate in the program. Either the state should mandate it or shut up about it. However, it shouldn't keep pushing it as a reasonable measure when it's nearly impossible to get town unions on board. I'm as pro union as it gets, but at some point we have to worry about our kids more than our progressive principals.

There's no other help, either. While the state passed the ability for local communities to tax telephone polls, it's being held up in the courts. There was no word on trying to get the state legislature to pass a measure that would allow towns to vote to tax restaurants and hotels at 1 or 2%, which would raise hundreds of thousands or millions for most cities and towns. Swampscott, for example, would earn over $350,000 a year from a 2% meals tax.

Let the record be clear: just cutting aid and funding to get back in the black is completely irresponsible, even when facing Question 1 on the ballot. Our state cannot afford these cuts. If Patrick is playing games afraid to rock the vote before Nov 4., he needs to realize that this state will face a permanent and irreversible disaster to its public education system. Once schools shut their doors, they don't come back. Swampscott will now almost certainly close its second school in three years, with average class sizes rising to over 34, unless something drastic changes. We need solutions, not political games. Real lives are at stake here.

How to Get a Balanced Budget: Not With Casinos.

Cuts are looming in the state budget. Duh. Today's Globe, though, did have a particularly disturbing statement thrown in there:

Meanwhile, neither Patrick nor House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi was ruling out a return to the debate over licensing casinos, which Patrick has said could generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the state.

Why, on earth, does the Globe want to talk about casinos now? Or the Governor, for that matter:

Patrick acknowledged that some of his other long-term spending initiatives and campaign promises lingering from 2006 might have to be curtailed. And tellingly, he did not rule out reviving his casino gambling legislation to raise money. Patrick had projected licensing three casinos would generate at least $600 million in one-time fees and huge sums in ongoing gaming taxes.

Repeat after me: No state has ever balanced its budget with casinos. We have one of the most profitable lottery systems in the country - and we're still in the red. Our lottery system pulls in far more per capita than just about every state that already has casinos. Many casinos are on the verge of bankruptcy. Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are cutting staff and pausing on added construction. Twin Rivers, in Rhode Island, is threatening bankruptcy to force the state to give into its demands. The bottom line: If Massachusetts allows casinos, we don't own them, they own us. They'll rail, threaten and sweeten the pots of our politicians until they get whatever they want - if we let them in. The easy and prudent solution is to never let them in to begin with.

A question for the Globe: how would casino revenue balance our budget? For starters, the licensing procedures would take months, if not a year. We wouldn't have the cash in time to save this year's budget. However, even if we could miraculously get those licenses in on time and get full value for them in a rushed process, once those license funds are spent, that's it. What would we do for next year's budget? The one after that?

What would we do with declining revenue in state and local coffers as businesses go under from the weight of resort casinos? What would we do to account for the increased costs in this state for addiction services, prisons, police and infrastructure? How about decreased state lottery revenue - much of which goes directly to cities and towns across the state? Hence, we're not solving this current problem by adding casinos. In fact, casinos are only a distraction from solving our fiscal crisis, focusing politicians on the beeping and the flashing instead of problem solving.

A common tactic by casino interests is to come to the 'aid' of states when they're facing stiff fiscal constraints and are weak to the promise of money. However, that money is not real. Gambling profits are mainly a redistribution of wealth that goes from the people of this state to the corporate executives. Money is taken out of the pockets of this state's small businesses and into the pockets of a few shareholders. So they'll come in with a big flashy number, sucking in magnitudes more where no one is looking. At least with the state lottery, almost all the money goes to the state and people of the state, somewhat offsetting the damages done to the gambling addicts who we legally feed (and often create) their addiction.

There's never any good answer to being hundreds of millions in the hole. Making severe cuts to the budget has dangerous consequences - closing down health clinics, reducing funds going to communities and preventing crime-preventing programs from ever being initiated. Raising taxes is a tough political pill, especially when people are already struggling to get by. However, let the record be clear: casinos is not now, nor will it ever be, the answer to our fiscal woes. Not only are casinos a distraction from finding the right solutions, but with casinos, our problems will only get worse.

Finally, the Governor had this to say in the Globe article:

"We'll have to see," Patrick said, when asked whether he'll refile the proposal to license three resort casinos. "You know, it's a new legislative session coming up in January, and we're developing that agenda now."

All I can say is the Governor ought to solve the budget crisis first before he uses this opportunity as a 'shock' attempt into getting the state to legalize casinos. Such a tactic would be straight out of the Republican hand book, so I firmly expect that he won't employ it.

Sonia on LeftAhead!

Note: Sonia is the first in a series of candidates we're welcoming onto LeftAhead as the local election season heats up. If you're a candidate running for something and want to discuss the issues and the race with people who actually care, send me an email and we'll book you for one of our upcoming shows. We're looking forward to hearing (from) you.

Today, we had a very special guest, Sonia Chang-Diaz, on at LeftAhead. Lynne, Mike and I took up all kinds of issues during the podcast and asked Sonia for as many details as possible. Lots of tough questions and issue specifics were asked, and we got some pretty good answers.

Sonia is particularly thoughtful on the core issues facing urban areas such as education and housing; I also found what she had to say about taxes toward the end very refreshing. Lynne was at least slightly concerned about the new debt this state is taking on through the recently-passed (and soon to be signed) transportation bond bills. While Sonia hasn't made a cost-benefit analysis on the transportation bond bill yet, she also shares some of Lynne's worries. Here's a window to Sonia's soul re: tax philosophy.

I always look with a weary eye on taking on debt. How does our tax policy work? One thing we [at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center] always try to get out there and give people a good grounding on is the theories of fairness that are generally recognized when talking about tax policy... one of the theories is the 'use principal' - the idea that the people who use the goods should pay for them. Generally speaking... the use principal is not the fairest... I think it would strike people silly to structure a system that only the people who use a police system should pay for it... if you get mugged, you're charged a fee. That's not how the public system should work.

That's why generally the use principal is not one that should be our guiding principal when talking about taxes. But, the big exception to that ... is longterm infrastructural costs - for things like roads, bridges... that are going to be used over multiple generations in a state, where in no cases does it make sense to share costs across time and not just across the population that currently exists as a state.

Pretty nice drapes on that window, huh? If only the Republicans in D.C. got that principal on things like a certain war in a certain part of the country which is being bought and paid for by people my age (23) and younger, maybe the world would be a better place. Sometimes a bond bill makes sense - and I've actually come out in favor of Governor Patrick's bond bill, because in the long run doing these projects now will save money (and lives) over inflation in the long run. But we need more thinking on Sonia's line, as a whole, across the state and country. With that, she made for a very nice guest and I'm hoping people will listen.

Also: Included in the tags are all the issues we hit on the show.

Us vs. Them Attitudes

Every single city and town in this state is working on a shoe-string budget. For some reason I'll never quite understand, most people tend to view things through an us-vs.-them lens: 'Marblehead receives more Chapter 70 funding per capita than Swampscott, so let's raise some hell!' tends to be the general view in my town. Of course, the fact that Marblehead receives more funding than Swampscott isn't Swampscott's problem - it's the slap in the face that makes the problem worse. Unfortunately, as countless books discuss (such as What's the Matter with Kansas), it's easy to distract people from the real problems by alerting them to the fact that not everyone shares those problems. Many people may not be riled up if everyone's just as screwed over as they are, but that kind of attitude certainly doesn't make for smart governmental policy.

Of course, the problem extends way beyond school funding: I'm damn-near ready to trademark the sentence - "Pension reform is the new third rail of Massachusetts politics." Anyone else sick and tired about reading how teachers have it so well? Let me be the first to say, as the son of a teacher, their wonderful salaries (/sarcasm off) and benefits aren't all that they're cracked up to be.

Nor is eliminating public employee benefits and salaries the solution to our society's problems. First off, public employee pensions are fair. Massachusetts employees pay 11% of their salaries into pension funds and usually don't earn anywhere near as much as the private sector. Many public employees - the same ones who aren't anywhere near over payed - are also required to have more advanced degrees than private sector counterparts. Even the so-called worst offenders, the people who's pensions end up on the front page of the Boston Globe, have had to put in more than 20 years of service in the state to get them. If a few people are getting a sweet deal, that doesn't mean the pension system needs to be totally overhauled.

That's not to say the pension system is perfect and there isn't some room for reform, but the vitriol directed towards public employees is unsettling, and certainly the aims of many directing such vitriol goes way beyond what's fair and decent. I've yet to read a reasonable pension-reform post on BMG or article in the Boston Globe that proposes specific ideas on how to reform pensions so that there aren't the outliers that get more than they deserve, while also protecting the core middle and working class employees who have put 20+ years and 11%+ of their salaries into the system in return for those benefits. It's all about how some guy got such a sweet deal and it's so unfair and needs to stop, or it's about how public employees are hacks and don't deserve to be decently compensated. People clearly forget that public sector employees perform services that we all benefit from and thus deserve compensation on par with everyone else in society (lest we truly get what we pay for).

The bottom line is that lashing out against public sector employees may feel good, but it certainly isn't a solution to the problem: the erosion of the middle and working classes, or even our budget difficulties (pension reform would represent a fraction of a fraction of our budget deficit). Social Security alone isn't enough to cover the costs of living in today's society and most people aren't expert enough in planning for their future, or they simply don't have the funds necessary to make those plans. So, the problem is the lack of post-retirement security in the private sector, not Billy Bulger's cousins. The solution to the problem isn't tearing the middle and working class apart, it's actually addressing social security and the problems average citizens face when planning for their future. The solution, in essence, is in tackling the bigger issues.

Solving Fiscal Crisis the Right Way

Very interesting:

The impulse by some state leaders is to slash state spending, but that could be disastrous for the economy if multiple states lay off state workers and cut-off help to those in need just as private spending is falling.

In fact, the right kind of revenue increases may be just what is needed for economic recovery. As Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orzag, now the director of the Congressional Budget Office, have emphasized, budget cuts during a recession will usually hurt state economies far more than tax increases, since cuts come dollar-for-dollar out of the economy, while tax increases, especially if targeted at the wealthy, often "reduce saving rather than consumption, lessening its impact on the economy in the short run."

Read the whole thing, it's well worth it. Though, noticeably absent from that piece on on how best to deal with a budget shortfall is the creation of casinos. Gee, I wonder why?

Yo, Leg. We have a Deficit!

Usually, when there's a deficit, the government tries to do something about it. It would be nice if Beacon Hill got the memo. The first thing the leg should do is pass the Municipal Partnership Act, which would directly help cities and towns deal with whatever cuts could be facing them. It would also give them the additional funds they need to help firewall our schools and town services from the scary R word that's been floating around recently (Recession). Next, the state needs to end the unnecessary, unfair and improper tax loopholes that result in companies like Walmart actually costing this state more than we tax them. Then, unfortunately, the hard part begins - addressing health care affordability. However, it would be nice to know that at least we could come to the easy decisions fast, right? After all, the cities, towns and people of Massachusetts depend on it.

It's time to get on the phone to Beacon Hill and do something about it.

Talk About a Local Budget Crisis

Dartmouth, Ma has had to resort to shutting off their street lights to save money.

Town officials are pulling the plug on many of Dartmouth's streetlights to save money on electricity costs following last month's defeat of an $8.46 million Proposition 2½ override.

Select Board member Joseph Michaud said Monday the town spends $114,000 annually on streetlights and anticipates saving $85,000 by shutting off many of them over the next two weeks. Michael J. Gagne, the town's executive administrator, said the town has 1,700 streetlights, and between 1,100 and 1,200 will be turned off.

Turning off the lights is the latest in a series of economy measures Dartmouth is taking to deal with its budget crisis. The town has already closed the Gidley and Cushman elementary schools and last week sent out bills for the fee-based trash collection system it is implementing.

So, closing down two elementary schools and implementing a fee-based trash collection system hasn't eliminated the red in Dartmouth's budget. What else do they have to cut? Maybe they can go without a police force for a few weeks? And who needs a fire department, anyway?

Dartmouth may be alone in shutting off their street lights, but they're not alone in closing down schools, libraries and gutting town services. When will the state step in and help solve this state-wide epidemic? Yet, still DiMasi and Friends scoff at such measures of support as the Municipal Partnership Act.

A Worthy Read

Here's a little property tax 101 for people. It's about Dartmouth, but I think has enough relevance that anyone in Massachusetts should read it - and then ask what the resident/business split is in their town, if there is any.

One important thing to note about Dartmouth is there's a rather large business community in it, so people shouldn't doubt that those businesses have a tremendous influence on town leaders. It's no wonder that their tax rates haven't been increased beyond the rate of inflation, while private citizens in Dartmouth have seen a 60% increase over 10 years. Business "interests" - screwing over the general public in favor of their maximum profitability - is probably the number one enemy of the progressive movement because of their clout of Republicans and Democrats and leaders of any kind. I want businesses to do exceedingly well, but they have to pay their fair share - be it property taxes or whatever.

DiMasi's Telecom Connections

A reader sent me some interesting information that may just be relevant, considering DiMasi's staunch opposition to some of Patrick's budget plans. DiMasi has been very gung-ho in protecting the Telecomm industry from paying property taxes on the lines they own, something that cable companies already do. This money would go directly to towns and cities, which have been hit hardest in our state's budget woes. Here's the gist:

I think DiMasi's strong opposition to closing the loopholes stems from the fact that Mintz Levin and MLstrategies-affiliated attorneys have been among his greatest contributors in recent years. Mintz Levin is a law firm/lobbying firm that, according to opensecrets.com, counts the Telecommunications Industry as its largest client. If you research the matter, it's pretty easy to trace the money from the cable/telecom industry groups to Mintz Levin to DiMasi's campaign fund. A lot of Mintz Levin attorneys donated money to DiMasi without even disclosing their affiliation with the firm, which tells you something as well.

Why Is Deval Going to Win the Battle?

The Battle of the Bulge Budget has kicked into gear - Sal DiMasi and his powerful House allies versus Deval Patrick, with his people-powered army and veto powers. The other day, I said Deval Patrick had the upper hand. Mike didn't believe me, but I was right,

A day after the House released a spending plan that eliminates or scales back many of Governor Deval Patrick's banner budget proposals, a spokesman for the governor said the chief executive is willing to defend his budget priorities by exercising his veto power.

"The governor is prepared to wield his veto pen if need be," said Kyle Sullivan, press secretary to the governor.

It's a stand off, but Deval has an army of supporters... So I'll take my chances on the governor and his veto power.

Methinks Deval's Going to Win This Fight

Sometimes, things are just obvious. Deval Patrick's budget plan, at least in comparison to the House Ways and Means rainy-day robbing crap shoot, is the far superior plan. I guess that's what happens when a Governor actually spends a solid month behind closed doors, with his experts, to craft a budget. The result of that was an eminently intelligent, reasonable and fair budget - at least given the tough fiscal year this state faces. Deval Patrick managed to balance a billion + dollar deficit without raising taxes or robbing the rainy day fund. Sal DiMasi? Not so much...

The Globe's editorial staff made their opinions fairly clear.

THE HABITS of 16 years are hard to break, and so.... the Legislature ought to give greater consideration to [Governor Patrick's] ideas on how to make state government work better.

Let's hope Sal DiMasi gets the memo. To people who want to see most of Patrick's budget pass - who want unfair corporate tax loopholes closed - they need to be vocal. Call your State Rep and Senator and tell them to override the House Ways and Means Committee and tell them to tell Speaker DiMasi that he's wrong.

Yo, Sal: Step Away From the Purse Strings

The math ain't in your favor, buddy. Turn over the keys, Mr. Speaker, and give Team Deval a turn at the wheels on this one.

Massachusetts residents appear to favor Governor Deval Patrick's proposals for raising revenues to bridge the state budget gap and ease the property tax burden, with a small majority expressing support for closing what he described as corporate tax loopholes, and for giving communities the right to impose a local tax on meals and hotels, according to a new Globe poll.

Closing corporate tax loopholes seemed like a good idea to 56 percent of residents, despite arguments from the business community....

The fact is that an even larger majority of this state want to see improvements in schools - or heck, just the avoidance of all these property tax hikes and school closings (which sadly seems inevitable in Swampscott, my hometown, but that has as much to do with politics as money). Without repealing unfair, corporate tax loopholes and without allowing towns the option of having a very small meals and hotel tax, there's no way to even maintain the status quo in educational quality.

If the Speaker of the House blocks these extremely important - and fair - measures, the public would do well to remember just who is responsible for their kids never again going through the doors of their favorite school - because it was shut down for lack of funds. If parents are angry that their children's art and music programs got slashed to nothing, they should remember it was Sal DiMasi who was holding the state's purse strings. If high school students are pissed that sports and activities were cut - or that their fees were raised to even higher astronomical levels - they should know just who is to blame: the Speaker of our House, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's second most powerful politician. All of us would do well to remember that he answers to us and us alone, not Verizon.

So what is it going to be, Mr. Speaker? In the words of another big friend of Corporate America, "are you with us or against us?"