A Post Citizens United World: This week's podcast, with Jamie Eldridge

State Senator Jamie Eldridge has long been one of our favorite guests on LeftAhead, but it's been a while since we've last had him on and were very excited when he quickly agreed to jump on the show and talk about what's really become one of the the most important issues facing us today: how do we live in a post-Citizens United world?

It's a difficult topic to address. There's the drastic implications of the Citizens United decision itself, as well as the conservative/corporate-loving bent of our courts to deal with -- courts in which things could get worse before they get better.

There's also the power of the special interests who have ample money and resources available to thwart even that which can still be done in a post-Citizens United world today.

The game seems rigged against us, yet the question becomes are we going to sit here and take it?

There's a reason why many in the progressive left of this state admire and respect Jamie Eldridge above and beyond many others -- and what he has to say on this podcast reflects so many of them. He knows how to mix progressive with pragmatic, having a political style that speaks to our aspirations while not letting perfection become the enemy of the good. He understands the really important issues that are going on and has an almost Elizabeth-Warren-like ability to talk about them in ways that anyone can understand and get behind. Most importantly, though, he's not afraid to get behind the really difficult issues, the issues that require real courage and leadership to tackle -- and anything meant to realistically challenge the implications of a post-Citizens United world today falls under that category.

Senator Eldridge really speaks to the fact that you can run as a proud democrat, one who's not scared of their own core convictions, and win in districts that have little in common with Cambridge, Brookline, Amherst or Somerville -- not in spite of your beliefs, but because of them.

I strongly recommend listening in on the podcast -- it was the sort of show that flew by so quickly, I wished our format allowed us more time. Alas.

As always, you can get the show on LeftAhead, BlogTalkRadio.com/lefties, iTunes, or on the BlogTalkRadio audio player to the right.

Finally, as an announcement, we're having a special Thursday morning edition of LeftAhead tomorrow, featuring special guest Ayanna Pressley. It's probably been an election cycle since we've last had her on and the Boston City Council city-wide seat is very competitive this year, so it should be a good show.

Third Rail Politicking

If it's not pensions, it's nonprofit sector salary. The thing with third-rail politics isn't that there's never a point to the argument - in fact, there often is. Surely, some state pensions need to be fixed and there are nonprofit CEOs and executives being overpaid, especially in this economy. The problem, of course, is that there's all too much focus on these issues which, in the grand scheme of things, are rather petty when compared to the size and scope of our problems today.

Moreover, often times the people making these third-rail arguments are hurting their own cause - such as AmberPaw today, over at BMG. Amber argues that MSPCA is overpaying its employees by a lot. The news will surely cost a lot of donations to MSPCA over the course of this year - perhaps millions. The result? Even more people will be laid off, more clinics could be shuttered and, most important of all, more dogs and cats will be homeless and without anyone to care for them or find them permanent families. This is what it means to shoot your own leg.

All for an organization that applies over 90% of its funds directly toward caring for the dogs and cats, not administrative costs. In nonprofits, 90% is the gold standard - heck, 80% is considered good. It doesn't get much better than 90%. So, for this cause that's so important and already underfunded, it's going to get hit even worse, all because supporters were supplying an irrational amount of anger at salaries which are in fact middling for the industry and could have been dealt with in a way that wouldn't have hurt the pets (such as a few big donors signing a letter asking the top-paid employees take a 10-20% pay cut in this economy, to spare a few jobs from being laid off).

I'm Going to Buy a Sub Now

Best $5 I could spend?

Cool Green News

This is exactly what we need happening across the whole economy.

The city's largest property owner - spurred by high energy prices and rising demand from tenants - is seeking "green" certification for all of its office buildings, marking a major milestone in Mayor Thomas M. Menino's push to make Boston the nation's most environmentally friendly city.

Equity Office Properties Trust, which owns 20 structures in and around Boston, is outfitting its buildings with features ranging from energy-saving heating and cooling units to new bike racks as part of a multimillion-dollar effort to stamp its buildings with the green label.

"We're doing this from a social responsibility perspective, but it's also become necessary to maintain tenants," said Greg Shay, president of Boston operations for Equity Office. "It's gotten to the point where not taking action is somewhat foolish."

The important thing here is the fact that going green saves money in the medium-to-long run.

The company is still tallying total savings, but executives estimate they will save $1.5 million in electricity costs by 2012 on six buildings where upgrades are underway.

Massachusetts should begin to require everyone to go green, perhaps with a ten year phase in, getting energy-star furnaces and other things that will save money and energy very quickly. The carrot stick's already on the table - 0% loans to switch to energy star gas furnaces, replace old windows and add insulation, etc. up to $10k over 7 years, along with numerous rebates on all those products - now we need the sticks. Switching to that type of furnace from an oil furnace, over just a few years, will actually save a family money - especially with the 0% loan. So there's no excuses! It's time for the stick approach - the environment can't wait because we're too lazy to make the switch or just don't have the facts.

The Film Tax Credit Just Gets Better

and better and better. Obviously, I'm no big fan. Now, the whole thing gets even worse. Not only can films receive the tax credits corporate welfare payments, but so too will production companies filming commercials. Every time Sam Adams is advertised on TV now, Massachusetts is kicking in 25% of the costs to produce that ad.

The Globe doesn't paint a rosy picture.

In its high-profile bid to compete with Hollywood and New York as a film production hub, the state is doing more than subsidizing TV series and feature movies through tax credits and sales tax exemptions. It is also underwriting the cost of producing TV commercials in Massachusetts. The Department of Revenue said it has issued more than $2.1 million of tax credits for 37 ad-related productions - with eight more applications pending - since the state started offering incentives two years ago.

Furthermore, per my second link, readers will note that for every 3 dollars this measure will cost the State of Massachusetts, the Bay State will get around 1 dollar in new economic development. That kind of net sum loss would even get CEOs fired.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts just isn't Hollywood. Sure, we want to encourage economic growth and diversity, but that growth has to make sense: we can't be spending more money than we're earning. Massachusetts will no more become the next Hollywood as it will become the next center for corn growth. If we're going to give incentives for filming in Massachusetts, then those incentives should be realistic, revenue neutral and play to our strengths: certainly, there's a media niche Massachusetts can fill. Our history, economy and transportation systems make us an ideal site for many films; we should try to maximize our potential in that arena.

We obviously haven't done that yet, instead resorting to the worst kind of Corporate Welfare. Massachusetts needs to go back to the drawing board, figuring out ways to bring new growth to Massachusetts, without being seduced by the glitzy lights of Tinsel Town. We're not Hollywood or New York - we have the Hancock, not the Rockefeller. Playing to our strengths is key. At least, if law makers can't resist the Hollywood limelight, they need to create bills that make fiscal sense - something no worse than revenue neutral for the citizens of Massachusetts.

Let's Just Let Business Work for Free

Here we go again. Business threatens to leave town. Town gets on its knees and gives up the bank to keep business in town. Business doesn't even have to leave. Never mind the fact that there are other businesses out there to purchase the newly open space (read: new job growth), this particular business (JP Morgan) wasn't even threatening to leave Massachusetts!

The firm looked at moving to other states but ultimately decided to stay in Massachusetts largely for the quality of the workforce, executives said.

Of course, the Globe buried the money quote halfway through its article, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there. They wrote it. The JP Morgan people said it. It's the elephant in the room, but states and cities are all too willing to ignore it.

The ugly truth: Businesses are attracted to qualified workforces, not tax cuts. Of course, they're more than happy to take the tax cuts - to the extent they'll even threaten to leave - but corporations that require skilled workforces are going to go where the skill is at. That's just a fact. So, in a year when the city of Boston had to open up its piggy banks to the tune of $10 million to keep the schools afloat, the city is now going to hand over JP Morgan $2 million - just for the privilege of staying in the city. All that, and JP Morgan wasn't even threatening to leave the state - one of their high level people admitted as much in the Globe.

If JP Morgan is going to relocate its offices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, how many people think they'd actually leave the city of Boston? If they want a talented workforce, they're going to go where the most talent is - which is in Boston, because of its Universities and public transportation. Unfortunately, Mayor Mumbles Menino was duped again.

How many more times will cities and states fall for this? And when will politicians learn that job growth comes from new, small companies - not these mega corporations owned from afar. Shareholders of JP Morgan don't care about the city of Boston; Let's invest in the business owners who do. Those are the ones that'll stick around - because they live here and send their kids to school here.

It's difficult to worry about larger corporations, because they're going to do what they're going to do. Giving up the bank isn't a good strategy to deal with them, because half the time their threats are about as meaningful as pigs with wings. Kind of scary, but nonexistent. Meanwhile, if Boston would like to do something to help keep its major corporations here, why not institute policies that encourage what companies like JP Morgan truly want - policies that will keep a young, talented and highly educated workforce in the city. A better use of that $2 million would be on affordable housing, or making the T usable again. Let me know when the Mayor's office gets the Memo.

Tax Credit Nightmare

MassBudget created a brief the film tax credit bill just passed through the state. It doesn't look good. I'm not opposed to offering incentives to help bring companies into Massachusetts - but tax credits don't seem to be the way to go. First off, what normal citizen gets tax credits for anything? No one does. We get tax deductions. MassBudget explains the difference quite well in the link above, but suffice it to say a tax deduction just reduces the overall taxable income, while a credit is a government check sent right to Steven Spielberg. There's a few things that stink about that, but mainly this: the film industry can get tax credits even if they don't pay a dime in Massachusetts taxes. To be eligible for the tax credit, all film companies have to do is film part of a movie in Massachusetts and send the Commonwealth the bill for their time spent here - and, in these difficult economic times, we'll credit the film industry 25% of their total costs, without any guarantee of making even a fraction of the costs back. 25%, by the way, is way beyond what normal Massachusetts tax credits go for - others are far more reasonable, at around 3-5%.

None of this would be a big deal, of course, if this were going to be a net-positive for the state of Massachusetts - if we'd earn enough in new taxes to at least break even. We won't.

But could the tax credit pay for itself by increasing economic activity and associated state tax revenue? A recent report by the state Department of Revenue examined this possibility. The report estimated that the total tax revenue forgone in 2006 to 2008 would be 137.7 to 238.7 million. It then examined how much of this loss could be offset by new tax revenue. The findings... suggest that it is u nlikely that more than a small portion of the forgone revenue would be offset by new revenue. This analysis is consistent with other studies on film tax credits.

Again, this all stinks. This bill is going to cost this state tens of millions a year, without even keeping an industry inside Massachusetts. Outrageous. If we want to spend this kind of money to spur economic growth, can't we be more intelligent about it? More tax credits for local businesses would help new, often middle-class entrepreneurs deal with upfront costs and grow the economy in every region we want in Massachusetts. Those incentives could be set up for certain industries, as well, giving incentives not only for new startups, but also for new startups all across the state, naturally located for where they could do well.

If Beacon Hill wants Massachusetts to become a Little Hollywood - fine. But, my god, this kind of a tax credit isn't the way to do it. A tax deduction, on the other hand, makes sense for a number of reasons, even if it was up to 25% or more. First, we're not resorting to corporate welfare by giving a government handout to Hollywood, while we would never do anything so kind to the people struggling to get by in this state. Second, if a company actually wanted that 25% deduction - and I'm sure some out there would - then it would have to come to Massachusetts and build their studio here to get it. In other words, it would have to pay Massachusetts taxes.

Maybe if the times weren't so dire, we could afford to give free government handouts to large corporations that aren't even pretending they'll locate here. But, the fact of the matter is times haven't been worse, probably in the 23 years and 11 months I've been on this Earth. That doesn't mean we shut down our efforts to create economic growth and new opportunity - between the Life Sciences bill and the Renewable Energy bill, it's clear this state is making good on its promises to promote economic growth. The Film Tax bill is another decent idea to attracting a broader economy to Massachusetts - but we need permanent business, not just an extra film or two to do their shooting here, so they can write off their expenses and bill the good people of Massachusetts. If film studios are willing to locate serious assets here and pay taxes toward Massachusetts, and hire Massachusetts employees who will pay Massachusetts income taxes, then it's worth giving a tax break - but even then, not a massive giveaway.

Action Alert: Corporate Taxes Cut April 8th

The Coalition of Social Justice sent a very important email.

Next Tuesday (April 8), the House is expected to vote on a proposal that would close corporate tax loopholes and cut the corporate income tax rate by 25% - costing $466 million!

The Speaker of the House, of course, is billing this as a great compromise: he agreed to cut corporate tax loopholes, but his "compromise" is so generous to Big Business that their taxes will be slashed an amount no ordinary citizen would ever be so lucky to receive.

It gets even worse.

Meanwhile, 103,000 corporations pay the minimum corporate tax of $456...while the average Mass. family pays $2700 in taxes. The proportion of state and local taxes paid by corporations in Mass is way below average - 42nd in the country! This is not fair!

Amen! The economic times are so bad - and getting so desperate - that my hometown of Swampscott is about to cut all of the high school's technical education classes. This comes one year after they shut down the best elementary school in the district, which consistently performed in the top 10 schools on the Massachusetts MCAS and was one of the state's few Compass schools. But it's okay to cut corporate taxes now?

It's good to see the Speaker willing to compromise on Governor Patrick's best ideas, and propose a few good ones of his own - from life sciences to renewable energy - but this just isn't good enough. We, as a state, are facing a billion dollar hole next year - and none of the politicians seem willing to do the courageous thing and raise taxes, even by a tiny fraction. Something's gotta give and so far it looks like only the middle and working class is the one sacrificing. Not good enough.

Contact your legislators. Tell them to make sure corporations in Massachusetts pay their fair share - that's all, just their fair share. We have real problems now and cutting corporate taxes isn't the solution. Enough is enough.

What Were They Thinking?

PR nightmare.

Starbucks may say on its website that it is committed to "putting people before products," but that hasn't stopped a former barista at a Chestnut Hill store from accusing the coffee giant of shortchanging him of tips left by caffeine-craving customers.

In a class-action suit filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court, Hernan Matamoros says Starbucks routinely violated Massachusetts law by requiring baristas to share money left in tip jars with shift supervisors, who perform similar duties but typically earn more and have managerial responsibilities.

Placing the little cup by the register certainly opens a giant bag of worms - who should be getting the tips? Anyone who serves costumers or just non-managerial staff? And, with so many managers - many of whom barely scrape a living themselves - how are the distinctions supposed to be drawn? Most importantly, wouldn't most of these problems be solved if we, as a country, demanded a living wage?

I can say that there are far worse offenders than Starbucks - a distant cousin used to work in a coffee shop/bakery in Salem and didn't get any of the tips left at the register. At the end of the month, some of "tips" would be divied up and be given out as a bonus, but the rest went to the owners (I kid not). Needless to say, even though I found out about it when I was around 12, I haven't eaten or gone there since. Are tip jars a systemic problem? Are there laws not being enforced, or a need for new legislation?

Verizon's Woes

My gosh, even though they're taxed at a rate that would leave a deeply impoverished family jealous, Verizon just isn't raking in enough dough.

Verizon Communications Inc. is trying to shed requirements that the telecom giant give its competitors network access at reduced rates in Greater Boston and other markets on the Eastern Seaboard.... "The effect of granting these positions would be to usurp congressionally enacted statutes in a sweeping manner," US Representative Edward Markey said at an FCC oversight hearing last month. "I have great concerns about the effect on competition and consumers that these petitions pose."

So, let's tally this up. Even though cable companies have to pay property taxes on the lines they co-own, along with Verizon, the giant phone company doesn't. That would invade too steeply into their profit margin, so we can't let towns collect some fair property taxes - even though towns across the state are closing schools down and struggling to meet the bottom line. It's time to just say no to these huge corporations - they have too many breaks, while the rest of society struggles to get by. Enough is enough.

DiMasi's Corporate Welfare

How politicians can be so brazen, I don't know, but DiMasi calling Deval Patrick one to support corporate welfare is like a little kid with 15 cavities complaining his parents just never let him have candy after they refused him for the first time. In fact, DiMasi has become downright fat off his corporate friends - wielding his formidable power in a quest to keep Verizon's contribution to Massachusetts's tax base as close to 1% of their entire profits as possible. But it doesn't stop there...

"This investment in the public infrastructure is in line with a number of economic development projects approved by the Legislature in the past," said spokesman Kyle Sullivan. "This is about creating jobs and investing in our communities."

Last year, for instance, the Legislature approved $55 million in
infrastructure improvements around Fenway Park that will benefit the Red Sox and
other businesses and $16 million in ramps for a new YMCA project on the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

DiMasi also has been vehement in his opposition to Patrick's proposal to close so-called corporate tax loopholes, which the administration had characterized as $500 million in public giveaways.

Ah, hypocrisy. Really, Speaker DiMasi, this is just too easy. But, in the interest of being fair, I'll throw my Citizen's Journalist Cap on and weigh the situation.

Here's what we know: the project will, indeed, bring several hundred jobs. Most of the state's contributions were slated to be low-interest loans, not true giveaways. Certainly, there will be more taxable income after the project than before it. The project also promises to unite two parts of Boston, which could add to the community in ways immeasurable in dollars.

Here's what we don't know: if the project is worth a 56 million dollar contribution from the state and city of Boston, be it either loans or grants. If the project will be built to the same standards otherwise. If there are other, worthier projects out there.

Back to angry blogger mode: Corporate welfare is, sadly, sometimes a necessary evil. It should be used rarely and sparingly, but the project in and of itself seems interesting. If Speaker DiMasi wanted to hold hearings to judge whether or not this project is worth it, I'd support that. However, he's calling Patrick a supporter of corporate welfare when there's no one in the House more supportive of Corporations and business interests than Speaker DiMasi.

The Speaker, sadly enough, seems more interested in businesses making unreasonable profits than the citizens of Massachusetts, who pay among the highest property taxes in the country and are still struggling to keep their schools afloat. Schools across the state are being shut down in large part because of DiMasi's protection of Verizon and others, so for him to complain about corporate welfare is at the very least insane and asinine. Let's hope he realizes that, skips the demagoguery and looks at his own corporate welfare with the same interest as he has Governor Patrick.

What the Hell is This All About? Health Care (and Niki Tsongas)

Businesses aren't even paying their paltry $295 to avoid getting their employees health insurance.

Umm... what was the enforcement on this law? Please tell me there was some kind of enforcement. Why didn't the Globe include that aspect in their story? There's something wrong here that businesses aren't even willing to pay the $295, when people having to buy the state insurance may be paying that much every month, on lousy salaries to boot.

Oh, by the by, this is the system Niki Tsongas thinks is so great it should be brought to the national stage. Gee, whiz... isn't that special?

The more I think about it, the more I think this "universal" coverage - that isn't universal at all - needs to be scrapped and completely redone. I just don't see how anything but a single-payer system modeled after a county that actually does it right can tame this Health Care beast.

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.

Pensions Aren't the Problem

Mr. Glaeser, it's poor planning. If companies, in their prime, set aside enough money for pensions - it wouldn't have been a problem. They didn't foresee the rise of foreign competitors and therefore expected everything to remain the same. Unions aren't to blame, GM/Ford/Chrysler and hundreds of other companies are at fault. Many towns and cities lacked sufficient planning as well, not setting aside the necessary funding at the time and instead allowing surprise situations later on.

The fact remains that 401(k)s are dangerous and there's no guarantee companies will increase wages enough to compensate for the lack of pensions. In fact, everything that's happened over the past 20-30 years has proven they won't: wages in the private sector are near stagnant, not even really keeping up with inflation. Pensions are secure and have helped hundreds of millions live comfortably in their retirement. 401(k)s are a mixed bag in terms of savings; not that many people have enough money to adequately fund their retirement. If private companies aren't paying their employees enough to adequately fund their retirement, why will localities do so?

Most importantly, funding one's own retirement through decades of personal saving and investing assumes people have the expertise and frugality to both save and know how to save, when most people don't. Not everyone can be experts at stocks, the market or the safest sorts of investments. Pensions were something that any blue collar person could understand, all the while anyone with a good pension could live decently after retiring. It's funny that, after decades of proving how good they are for people, there are attacks from all over aimed at pensions. It's one of the last frontiers for conservatives and their efforts at destroying middle class America.

Update: I just have to explain my frustration. I'm sick and tired of intelligent people spending so much time examining an issue that they can't even see what's under their nose. Obviously, they think, since there have been so many perceived troubles with pensions lately there's actually a problem with pensions. If they just took a step outside of their box, maybe they'd be able to tell that pensions are only a symptom of the larger problem.

And don't misconstrue those words: there is a larger problem. Corporations haven't proven themselves nearly as efficient as people like to pretend they are, otherwise there would be no pension problems. The whole stock mentality has created a thirst for instant profits, which means companies like General Motors isn't exactly going to be very willing to save more money when they make these deals with unions - thinking the money will be there in the future when that wasn't certain. Companies can't plan for the long term when they're worried about stock holders today - and all those people care about are their instant or near-term profits. Why pay workers higher wages now, when corporations could create pensions and defer payment until retirement - thus increasing their supposed profitability now? Companies could have planned their employee pensions then, instead of getting themselves into trouble now, but they didn't. Workers shouldn't be held accountability for shoddy planning by their employers and lose their rights to have a solid pension. Mr. Glaeser could have written about these topics and actually contributed to the dialogue, but instead he chose to attack one of the few remaining assets many in the middle and working class enjoy.