We had Jen Benson on LeftAhead yesterday -- and it was a great show. She was exceptionally open, honest, detailed and willing to discuss the most pressing issues of the day. Don't miss it.
Remember, anyone can become a subscriber and download LeftAhead on Itunes, so they can listen to it on their commutes and not have to be affixed to the computer.
Showing posts with label infrastructure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infrastructure. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
DeLeo's Bad Idea
DeLeo's sharpening his sales-tax plan, but that doesn't make it a good one. Let's look at this from several different angles.
Needed revenue.
The MBTA alone has an over-$200 million dollar hole to climb out of. It can't cut its way out of that, or force it on T users. It can't be blamed for that debt, either: the very-large bulk of it occurred because the state forced the T to pay for aspects surrounding the Big Dig, instead of paying up using the general fund or an increase to the gas tax. Governor Patrick's gas tax plan solved this problem & added money desperately needed for our transportation system, one of the oldest and most worn out in the entire country. DeLeo's plan doesn't even seek to solve the problems, it only seeks to throw just enough money at the problems so DeLeo can throw the towel in and wash his hands of it. It's neither honest nor good policy.
Not a good tax.
Simply put, the sales tax is one of the least progressive taxes out there. It is far more painful to the middle and working classes than the wealthy. Why? Middle and working class people still need to buy many of the same sort of things. This means they're paying the same taxes for those things as anyone else, even those who make magnitudes more.
On top of that, in this poor economy why add a tax that hits those who are unemployed just as heavily as it does the employed? If you're unemployed, at least you're not getting hit off the head with income taxes. Why force the unemployed to pay more? And how does this help people want to go out and buy things -- ultimately necessary to end the recession?
Other, better options.
For starters, this doesn't generate the revenue we need as a state. We need more funds for public transportation and infrastructure. If DeLeo wants to go beyond increasing the gas tax and try to raise revenue to help offset the general fund's deficit, then maybe this is a good way to do it. But this shouldn't be seen as a be-all fix for our state. Moreover, why not just increase income taxes by about .1% - which would generate about the same level of funds? At least that way, it's not quite such a regressive tax. It's not going to hit those who are un or underemployed the hardest. And it allows those who earn more to pay more, as is customary throughout the developed world.
Some sales taxes can make decent policy -- roads are costly and there's few better ways to fund it than through the gas tax, which is a type of sales tax. Gas taxes also help people use public transit and nudge people to drive less, both things needed to help reduce Global Warming emissions. Furthermore, discretionary spending, at a modest rate, should be fair game for tax policy, as people don't need to spend their money on those things.
But these aren't things DeLeo's trying to do. There are better options for the state to take than DeLeo's plan -- both in terms of increasing revenue and lessening the impact on this state's most vulnerable. If DeLeo's going to be a Speaker for the people of this state who need it the most, he needs to get off his aversion to the gas and income tax and start acting like an adult. We need real solutions, not lame-o conservative tax policy.
Needed revenue.
The MBTA alone has an over-$200 million dollar hole to climb out of. It can't cut its way out of that, or force it on T users. It can't be blamed for that debt, either: the very-large bulk of it occurred because the state forced the T to pay for aspects surrounding the Big Dig, instead of paying up using the general fund or an increase to the gas tax. Governor Patrick's gas tax plan solved this problem & added money desperately needed for our transportation system, one of the oldest and most worn out in the entire country. DeLeo's plan doesn't even seek to solve the problems, it only seeks to throw just enough money at the problems so DeLeo can throw the towel in and wash his hands of it. It's neither honest nor good policy.
Not a good tax.
Simply put, the sales tax is one of the least progressive taxes out there. It is far more painful to the middle and working classes than the wealthy. Why? Middle and working class people still need to buy many of the same sort of things. This means they're paying the same taxes for those things as anyone else, even those who make magnitudes more.
On top of that, in this poor economy why add a tax that hits those who are unemployed just as heavily as it does the employed? If you're unemployed, at least you're not getting hit off the head with income taxes. Why force the unemployed to pay more? And how does this help people want to go out and buy things -- ultimately necessary to end the recession?
Other, better options.
For starters, this doesn't generate the revenue we need as a state. We need more funds for public transportation and infrastructure. If DeLeo wants to go beyond increasing the gas tax and try to raise revenue to help offset the general fund's deficit, then maybe this is a good way to do it. But this shouldn't be seen as a be-all fix for our state. Moreover, why not just increase income taxes by about .1% - which would generate about the same level of funds? At least that way, it's not quite such a regressive tax. It's not going to hit those who are un or underemployed the hardest. And it allows those who earn more to pay more, as is customary throughout the developed world.
Some sales taxes can make decent policy -- roads are costly and there's few better ways to fund it than through the gas tax, which is a type of sales tax. Gas taxes also help people use public transit and nudge people to drive less, both things needed to help reduce Global Warming emissions. Furthermore, discretionary spending, at a modest rate, should be fair game for tax policy, as people don't need to spend their money on those things.
But these aren't things DeLeo's trying to do. There are better options for the state to take than DeLeo's plan -- both in terms of increasing revenue and lessening the impact on this state's most vulnerable. If DeLeo's going to be a Speaker for the people of this state who need it the most, he needs to get off his aversion to the gas and income tax and start acting like an adult. We need real solutions, not lame-o conservative tax policy.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Time to Talk Revenue
One Massachusetts is trying to push the issue of revenue the best way possible -- through the grassroots. Deval Patrick and the state legislature have cut the budget this year, through midyear cuts, by over 3 billion dollars. This is on top of cuts that have taken place year after year after year. The result?
Don't you all see it? This state is facing crumbling roads and we can't manage to run a functioning subway system. Teachers are being laid off in every community. In fact, schools often can't even fund substitutes anymore -- forcing students of all classes into study halls when their teachers are absent. Health clinics are being cut. Parents are being forced to pay hundreds of dollars a season so their students can play sport or participate in extracurricular activities -- both things that are proven to help student performance.
Paul Levy made the interesting comment at BMG that we pay anyway. No matter what, we're going to pay. If we don't adequately fund our roads, we run over bad potholes that do hundreds of dollars of damage to our cars. My car, just last winter, ran over a bad pothole, which threw my car out of alignment. If we adequately funded our roads, maybe that wouldn't have happened? Studies have been done that have shown the average person pays hundreds a year to fix their vehicles because of our bad roads. A somewhat modest increase to the gas tax of 15-20 cents could actually save people hundreds a year. The state isn't providing enough funds for schools? We pay anyway -- in cuts to quality, added fees and interest payments on debt schools take on to fund new textbooks. Why pay for something once over when you can pay twice as much?
Some in the State Senate have clung to the utterly meaningless and distracting slogan, "reform before revenue." In reality, it's a do-nothing slogan, because the legislature -- unless we poke and prod them -- doesn't even have the appetite to reform. While it's true that we can't completely tax our way out of problems, we can't "reform" our way out of them, either. We don't need reform before revenue, we need reform and revenue. So, for sure, let's save money where we can, improve services through reform where we can -- but we also need to make sure that our system is adequately funded. If it's not, we'll pay anyway -- and it will probably be by magnitudes more.
Don't you all see it? This state is facing crumbling roads and we can't manage to run a functioning subway system. Teachers are being laid off in every community. In fact, schools often can't even fund substitutes anymore -- forcing students of all classes into study halls when their teachers are absent. Health clinics are being cut. Parents are being forced to pay hundreds of dollars a season so their students can play sport or participate in extracurricular activities -- both things that are proven to help student performance.
Paul Levy made the interesting comment at BMG that we pay anyway. No matter what, we're going to pay. If we don't adequately fund our roads, we run over bad potholes that do hundreds of dollars of damage to our cars. My car, just last winter, ran over a bad pothole, which threw my car out of alignment. If we adequately funded our roads, maybe that wouldn't have happened? Studies have been done that have shown the average person pays hundreds a year to fix their vehicles because of our bad roads. A somewhat modest increase to the gas tax of 15-20 cents could actually save people hundreds a year. The state isn't providing enough funds for schools? We pay anyway -- in cuts to quality, added fees and interest payments on debt schools take on to fund new textbooks. Why pay for something once over when you can pay twice as much?
Some in the State Senate have clung to the utterly meaningless and distracting slogan, "reform before revenue." In reality, it's a do-nothing slogan, because the legislature -- unless we poke and prod them -- doesn't even have the appetite to reform. While it's true that we can't completely tax our way out of problems, we can't "reform" our way out of them, either. We don't need reform before revenue, we need reform and revenue. So, for sure, let's save money where we can, improve services through reform where we can -- but we also need to make sure that our system is adequately funded. If it's not, we'll pay anyway -- and it will probably be by magnitudes more.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Permanent Way for Patrick to Deflect Questions
Don't cut local aide! See, that's easy.
Slightly harder part? Raise revenue. .3-.5% on the income tax should cover it, along with some sensible cuts and efficiencies. Heck, the Senate just came up with one.
Finally, to save money, don't wait to regulate health care. Do it now. Make a goal to put in place regulations that will save this state 10% on its health care premiums, even if that means limiting the health industry's profits, starting with the HMOs. That saves schools and saves wallets, money that will go right back into the economy to create jobs. Put some of the state's savings into UMASS Worcester to expand its size, as well as create scholarship opportunities. That will help shore up the shortage of doctors. There, we solved our structural deficit and improved health care at the same time.
Slightly harder part? Raise revenue. .3-.5% on the income tax should cover it, along with some sensible cuts and efficiencies. Heck, the Senate just came up with one.
Finally, to save money, don't wait to regulate health care. Do it now. Make a goal to put in place regulations that will save this state 10% on its health care premiums, even if that means limiting the health industry's profits, starting with the HMOs. That saves schools and saves wallets, money that will go right back into the economy to create jobs. Put some of the state's savings into UMASS Worcester to expand its size, as well as create scholarship opportunities. That will help shore up the shortage of doctors. There, we solved our structural deficit and improved health care at the same time.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pike Privatization: Still a Bad Idea
Maybe if we're super-duper lucky, privatizing the 11 service plazas on the Pike could bring in $300 million up front. Seems rosy, but let's go with it. After all, if Christy Mihos says it, it must be true.
However, we're currently getting 6.2 million/year from Gulf and 11.6 million/year from McDonald's - to say nothing of the many other restaurants and convenience shops paying millions more. So, we've got to be getting more than $20 million/year from these plaza. How much more? No idea, but it's a safe estimate. If we're getting around $30 million/year, it'll only take a decade to bring in the rosy $300 million we'd get up front to give the plazas up forever. If it's closer to $20 million, it'll take a few more years, but still the point remains: we'll be losing money and lose a key revenue source that helps pay for the Pike. Plus, we lose the ability to help set up the parameters in which those facilities are run - making sure there's no gas price gauging because of Gulf's monopoly, etc.
Taking all that into consideration, doesn't it make more sense to deal with the Big Dig debt and need for our roads and bridges in other ways - like an increased gas tax? Otherwise, sure we may be okay for a few years, but we'll be in a much worse situation once that $300 million is spent, without revenue sources that are key to our transportation infrastructure. Short term thinking leaves long term problems in government. Enough of that.
However, we're currently getting 6.2 million/year from Gulf and 11.6 million/year from McDonald's - to say nothing of the many other restaurants and convenience shops paying millions more. So, we've got to be getting more than $20 million/year from these plaza. How much more? No idea, but it's a safe estimate. If we're getting around $30 million/year, it'll only take a decade to bring in the rosy $300 million we'd get up front to give the plazas up forever. If it's closer to $20 million, it'll take a few more years, but still the point remains: we'll be losing money and lose a key revenue source that helps pay for the Pike. Plus, we lose the ability to help set up the parameters in which those facilities are run - making sure there's no gas price gauging because of Gulf's monopoly, etc.
Taking all that into consideration, doesn't it make more sense to deal with the Big Dig debt and need for our roads and bridges in other ways - like an increased gas tax? Otherwise, sure we may be okay for a few years, but we'll be in a much worse situation once that $300 million is spent, without revenue sources that are key to our transportation infrastructure. Short term thinking leaves long term problems in government. Enough of that.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Pike Privatization: Bad Idea All Around
Globe says go slow on pike privatization; I say go no where at all. Let's be honest: there's only two reasons why the government would want to privatize. First, they know whoever will buy it won't care about its employees, paying them less and probably reducing services by paying for as little on the roads as possible.
Second, and more important, it's a way to pass off the buck. $10 or $15 tunnel tolls? That's not the government's fault - it's those pesky people operating the tolls. Those dastardly people! Beacon Hill didn't intend for them to do that at all! Yeah, right. Oh - and when the roads are in crappy condition because private companies will be cutting all those costs? Not Beacon Hill's fault, either.
Let's get real. We need roads that work. That do what they're supposed to do. The people that tend to them should be paid well, or we risk having roads that are even in worse condition. Furthermore, since roads are a public good, we ought to have a public agency in charge of it so we have at least somewhere to go for redress when something's fracked up. A private agency is no better equipped to deal with roads than the government is; indeed, the Globe notes that there are plenty of obstacles that make running private toll companies less efficient than the government.
No, the solution isn't privatization of the roads. That's a deal we'll regret a few years from now for more than the rest of my life, and I'll be kicking around for another 60-70 years (with any luck, anyway). All for some upfront chump change? What is this, one of those cash-in commercials targeted toward law suit winners? We didn't get hit by a bus and we don't need to find the nearest ambulance chaser. That's no way to run our government.
Second, and more important, it's a way to pass off the buck. $10 or $15 tunnel tolls? That's not the government's fault - it's those pesky people operating the tolls. Those dastardly people! Beacon Hill didn't intend for them to do that at all! Yeah, right. Oh - and when the roads are in crappy condition because private companies will be cutting all those costs? Not Beacon Hill's fault, either.
Let's get real. We need roads that work. That do what they're supposed to do. The people that tend to them should be paid well, or we risk having roads that are even in worse condition. Furthermore, since roads are a public good, we ought to have a public agency in charge of it so we have at least somewhere to go for redress when something's fracked up. A private agency is no better equipped to deal with roads than the government is; indeed, the Globe notes that there are plenty of obstacles that make running private toll companies less efficient than the government.
No, the solution isn't privatization of the roads. That's a deal we'll regret a few years from now for more than the rest of my life, and I'll be kicking around for another 60-70 years (with any luck, anyway). All for some upfront chump change? What is this, one of those cash-in commercials targeted toward law suit winners? We didn't get hit by a bus and we don't need to find the nearest ambulance chaser. That's no way to run our government.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Bond Bill Expensive, But Worth It
Does Massachusetts desperately need its bridges and roads fixed? Yes. That's all there is to it.
Treasurer Cahill is right, of course, that the bond bill is extremely expensive - and that the state is taking on heavy debt to fix its problems. But these problems exist and can't keep getting put off. The debt was already there and mounting because we weren't taking proper care of our infrastructure - better to fix the bridge in need of repairs than watch it tumble and repair costs skyrocket.
Furthermore, Governor Patrick is absolutely right when he says that putting these problems off are only going to cost this state more money in the long run: the rate of inflation on construction far exceeds the general market.
Treasurer Cahill is right, of course, that the bond bill is extremely expensive - and that the state is taking on heavy debt to fix its problems. But these problems exist and can't keep getting put off. The debt was already there and mounting because we weren't taking proper care of our infrastructure - better to fix the bridge in need of repairs than watch it tumble and repair costs skyrocket.
Furthermore, Governor Patrick is absolutely right when he says that putting these problems off are only going to cost this state more money in the long run: the rate of inflation on construction far exceeds the general market.
The strategy makes sense, administration officials said, because the state will save money by putting construction out to bid sooner, before inflation drives the prices up. Administration officials suggest that the state would save $1.8 billion over 20 years, based on a 7 percent inflation rate.It all goes back to lessons from our mothers - and one thing I've learned from mine is that when something is needed, absolutely positively needed, you have to get it. I didn't have the money to go to college, but I needed the education. That's the only time it's really OK to bust out the state-issued credit card: when there's no other way to afford it, but the state desperately needs it. We may have more debt per capita than most states already, but we also have some of the worst bridges and roads across the country. They need to get fixed and that's all there is to it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Transportation Forum With Lt Gov Murray
Karen, from Natick, sent me an email about an upcoming forum with the Lt. Governor covering transportation matters, from our aging infrastructure to the concern over tolls. Since Murray is pretty much the point person on these matters in the administration, it's a great opportunity to learn more about what's really going on - and, just as important, have a say in what and how problems are addressed. Here's all the relevant information:
Metrowest Community Forum on TransportationWith Lt. Gov. Tim MurrayHosted by the Natick Democratic Town CommitteeWednesday, September 19, 20077:00-9:00pmMorse Institute Library, 14 E. Central St.Lebowitz Meeting Hall (downstairs)Natick
Friday, August 17, 2007
It's Time to Take Out a Second Mortgage
If anyone read today's big story in the Boston Globe, it isn't one that inspires a whole lot of confidence in a project few had confidence in anyway. Let's take a look at the major problems a review of the Big Dig project has revealed:
aging ancient infrastructure... and I don't see what choice we have other than to take a big gulp and spend the billions it takes to fix all this stuff. Sure, even my kids that won't exist for years may be paying for some of it, but I'm sure they'd rather a little debt than the scary alternatives.
- Warped plates (that hold the suspension cables in place) on the Zakim bridge. The state says it isn't a problem, the feds disagree. Anyone want a third opinion?
- The Ted Williams Tunnel's ceiling is still held up by epoxy, which can melt from extreme heat. The current national standard for tunnels is to withstand a fire coming from a truck, but not two trucks. Big Dig officials complain that a stricter standard should apply nationally, not just in Massachusetts. They're right, of course, but that won't help if two trucks collide and burn, heading for the airport.
- Mitt Romney's "stem-to-stern" review was rushed and can't be trusted. Gee, who'd a thought?
- Though this isn't exactly a part of the Big Dig, the ceilings in the Sumner tunnel is "decaying." Yikes.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Sunday Musings: How to Spend Tax Dollars, FISA, WaPo and More
I have a few things on my mind...
- How to spend tax dollars: set some clear proposals, announce it to the public, vet it and improve badly needed sectors of our state infrastructure and educational system. In other words, don't keep funding secret, don't use it as political capital and don't use it to improve your home's property values. I think we have something here...
- Too many Democrats caved again: FISA has been trashed and the President's almost-certainly illegal wire-tapping program (without warrants) has been given the full congressional approval. Way to go,
Blue DogsDINOs. - WaPo: Daily Kos readers are partisan hacks with no ideas. You know, because if you support Democrats, clearly you agree with all of them on everything... and clearly, elected democrats don't disagree on anything (well, okay, maybe that snark doesn't work as well with our Presidential candidates, who seem to agree on way too many things, but still!).
- Also, according to the same WaPo article, FireDogLake is a site about woman's issues. Huh? Have they ever, you know... read FDL?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
More on Infrastructure
Not only is Deval Patrick concerned about the revenue gap for maintaining our infrastructure, but I wake up to finding it as the Boston Globe's top story this morning. How refreshing: a relevant, fair story coming out of the Globe - and it's given proper respect on the front-page to boot.
Also, kudos to Governor Patrick for his new press releases to bloggers (as promised during his meeting with us in Boston last Saturday) - it's nice to actually be able to report on a story before the Globe! Woot, woot.
Enough of the glowing Patrick praise, he's going to earn his weight in gold if he can figure out the Bay State's way out of this mess. It's Sink or Swim, Governor... or should I say Sink and Swim, given the state of our state's bridges? Everyone knew our infrastructural needs were bad, but I don't think many had any idea they were this scary:
Yikes. I don't know what's scarier: the fact that one of the best ways to get around Boston in a car is falling into major disrepair - or the fact that the Department of Conservation and Recreation is in charge of Storrow Drive? Of course they don't have the expertise (or the money). Let's put it in the hands of some organization that does - there must be some kind of organization in Massachusetts that's in charge of keeping track of the highways, with lots of experts and personnel. Oh, yes, that's right - the Massachusetts Highway Department. Who'd a thought?
Fixing the Bay State's infrastructure is a must: everything depends on it, from jobs to entertainment. Yet, the revenue has to come from somewhere. The Massachusetts state gas tax is fairly low compared to other states in the region, but even a modest gas-tax increase would be difficult to pass. Furthermore, I'm not so sure it's the best solution anyway: there are lots of pros and cons (it's not a very progressive tax, but we need revenue for our state's roads and curbing mileage has environmental benefits). So what do readers think? How to we bridge this gap?
Also, kudos to Governor Patrick for his new press releases to bloggers (as promised during his meeting with us in Boston last Saturday) - it's nice to actually be able to report on a story before the Globe! Woot, woot.
Enough of the glowing Patrick praise, he's going to earn his weight in gold if he can figure out the Bay State's way out of this mess. It's Sink or Swim, Governor... or should I say Sink and Swim, given the state of our state's bridges? Everyone knew our infrastructural needs were bad, but I don't think many had any idea they were this scary:
The projected $15 billion to $19 billion shortfall over the next 20 years, up from prior estimates of $9.5 billion to $15.7 billion, is a conservative calculation, commission members said.
The Department of Conservation and Recreation does not have the money or expertise to maintain and fix Storrow Drive, Soldiers Field Road, Longfellow Bridge, and its other roads and bridges.
Yikes. I don't know what's scarier: the fact that one of the best ways to get around Boston in a car is falling into major disrepair - or the fact that the Department of Conservation and Recreation is in charge of Storrow Drive? Of course they don't have the expertise (or the money). Let's put it in the hands of some organization that does - there must be some kind of organization in Massachusetts that's in charge of keeping track of the highways, with lots of experts and personnel. Oh, yes, that's right - the Massachusetts Highway Department. Who'd a thought?
Fixing the Bay State's infrastructure is a must: everything depends on it, from jobs to entertainment. Yet, the revenue has to come from somewhere. The Massachusetts state gas tax is fairly low compared to other states in the region, but even a modest gas-tax increase would be difficult to pass. Furthermore, I'm not so sure it's the best solution anyway: there are lots of pros and cons (it's not a very progressive tax, but we need revenue for our state's roads and curbing mileage has environmental benefits). So what do readers think? How to we bridge this gap?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Governor Patrick: Let's Refocus on Infrastructure
It's no secret, our Commonwealth's infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Sadly, though, Massachusetts is not on track to right the course.
Here's the conclusions of a report coming from the Transportation Finance Commission:
People love to talk jobs, but what few will readily admit is that one of the things that attract businesses and help new ones grow and prosper is having a superb infrastructure. The Commonwealth's isn't perfect - and is in a state of decline - but if this state refocuses on it we can quickly leap back ahead of most of America. Let's not rest on our laurels, here, folks. The question is how do we pay for it. Yet, however we do it, it has to get done - the consequences of not seriously investing in our infrastructure could be disastrous.
Here's the conclusions of a report coming from the Transportation Finance Commission:
To his credit, Deval Patrick has actually been doing something about the situation,The report released today found a $15-$19 billion shortfall in funding for transportation over the next 20 years. “The condition of our roads, bridges, and transit systems are all in broad decline,” the report says. “Our transportation agencies do not have the resources to do their jobs properly.”
“What this bi-partisan panel found, after more than two years of investigation, is that there is a significant gap between the financial resources we have and the resources we need, just to keep the system in good working condition,” Secretary Cohen said.
Earlier this month, the Patrick Administration took a step to address the most immediate transportation needs, when the Governor filed a $1.47 billion bond bill that will re-start the pipeline of important bridge and highway projects that have been stalled for several years. The bill won swift approval by the Legislature.
People love to talk jobs, but what few will readily admit is that one of the things that attract businesses and help new ones grow and prosper is having a superb infrastructure. The Commonwealth's isn't perfect - and is in a state of decline - but if this state refocuses on it we can quickly leap back ahead of most of America. Let's not rest on our laurels, here, folks. The question is how do we pay for it. Yet, however we do it, it has to get done - the consequences of not seriously investing in our infrastructure could be disastrous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments