No Local Cuts: Raise Revenue

Good discussion over at BMG, but we should go much further than stating that Beacon Hill shouldn't cut local aid "smartly." It just shouldn't cut it at all. In fact, in these fiscal times, after so many damaging cuts in the recent past, Beacon Hill should raise local aid.

Of course, we're having a major budget disaster; that's not news. The money's got to come from somewhere. So, what are some smart, sensible measures to raise revenue, specifically for local aid? The obvious one is to bring back the income tax rate we had pre-Celluci, but that's still a tough political pill for some politicians to swallow at this point. So, what else?

Increase the tax on alcohol. Why? For starters, it's absurdly low - around 5% according to those on the BMG thread. We just raised the tax on cigarettes by a $1/pack, why not raise the tax on liquor a $1 for wine, a six pack or for a regular-sized bottle of hard liquor? After all, if local aid is cut, police and fire services will probably be hit the hardest. Alcohol-related problems, from accidents to people doing stupid things while drunk to medical emergencies or diseases, all cost the government - including local cities and towns - a great deal of money, probably measured in the hundreds of millions or billions.

Fewer cops on the road at night means more accidents caused by drunk drivers. Fewer fire departments and trucks means it'll take longer for EMTs to arrive on the scene, meaning more people will die or sustain longterm damage. All that means, in the end, cutting these services will probably cost people more money. A tax on alcohol in keeping with cigarettes is smart policy.

What else? A small local meals and hotel tax would do wonders for many cities and towns. At least three towns already struggling under unfair the unfair Chapter 70 formula, Swampscott, Dartmouth and Saugus, would stand to gain a great deal with a local option meals tax. Dartmouth, which has closed at least two schools in the past five years (probably more) would take in over a million dollars with a 2% meals tax - so would Saugus, a town that's faced massive layoffs and the loss of accreditation of its library (if it hasn't been outright closed by now). Swampscott would take in over $350,000, which would offset state cuts to Chapter 70, should they ultimately be necessary. Such a policy would open millions in new funding for most urban cities throughout the state, from Lynn to New Bedford to Worcester to Springfield.

Those are just two quick, easy and relatively painless ideas that make good policy sense and would help towns not only deal with the cuts the state's already made in the past, but also potentially expand upon their educational programs or help keep the streets safe. Beacon Hill can't keep cutting - we're at the marrow already. If the State House doesn't have the guts to raise revenue itself, it's got to get out of the way and give cities and towns the resources they need to do it themselves.

No, Mr. Cahill

More about standardized school designs. I've already analyzed his plan and found it lacking (though, with some good ideas). For starters, only half of this state's construction sites would be suitable for a standardized design. Secondly, the Treasurer is a) deciding what towns can and can't afford [Note to Cahill: that's up the the towns and democracy, isn't it?] and b) mandating what towns can do with their facilities, completely violating centuries of the spirit of Massachusetts and local control.

One caveat: in terms of academics, the schools Cahill would use as models have plenty of science labs and facilities that could host lectures or be used in a number of different ways. The schools are academically sound, which would ensure that many or even most towns would want to use all or part of these designs to save costs. However, there are others that wouldn't want to use the designs at all - we shouldn't make them. Also, the idea that towns wouldn't be allowed to add to the designs is ludicrious - using any part of them would save on some of the costs, so let's try to get as many towns involved as possible.

Here's the most contemptible thing Cahill has to say:

Cahill hopes the program will eliminate one-upmanship, which at times has prompted a spate of field houses, swimming pools, and other expensive perks.

"It's not just what the state can afford for these projects but what the towns can afford," Cahill said in an interview last week. "Standardization will take the envy factor out of the process."

That just reeks of know-it-all-ism. People don't like that. Are these towns really trying to 'one up' each other? Is that the only motivating factor Cahill can possibly think of? Is it at least conceivable that a majority of people in certain communities would want a community building that would have a field house or a pool? Is it not conceivable that these facilities serve a role for the entire community - a place where kids can learn how to swim or skate?

These things are expensive - and certainly not necessary - but since when was America about doing the bare minimum? America is about Democracy - let the towns decide. It's not as if one town building a field house would cost the rest of the state anything - the state only helps to reimburse expenditures deemed necessary - academic. The extra frills aren't covered.

Furthermore, while not every town needs a pool, a field house and hockey rink, we need at least some schools in every region to have one of them. We can't ship off our kids in busses for an hour every day in the winter, just so they can get to hockey practice. Every region will need a couple of each, so if a town wants to build one or two of those "extra perks," as the Treasurer put it, it may be completely necessary for the student athletes in the school. Let's not forget that student athletes perform better in school - and many sports are what keep students active and interested in learning, or even keeps them from otherwise dropping out.

So, let's go full steam ahead with the model school plans, but for heaven's sake let towns modify them or do something else if they're willing to cough up the dough. Let's not prevent communities that are willing to expand community resources from doing so, by creating keep-everyone-down policies. That's not what America's about, that's not even what equality is about, that's more like something out of the CCCP. No thanks.

Taxes Going in the "Right" Direction?

The Globe was on target with 90% of today's lead editorial on the fact that Massachusetts is 23rd in the country in taxes (certainly not "Taxxachusetts"), but they just lost me with this claim at the end,

The report shows the tax burden here declining steadily since 2005, when Massachusetts ranked 18th among the states....

In November, voters will be faced with a ballot question to eliminate the state income tax. The tax foundation's report shows Massachusetts moving in the right direction.

In what world is a scenario that's forcing school closures across the state and dozens of layoffs every year in municipalities big and small a good thing? The tax burden in Massachusetts is falling rapidly, but citizens across the state (if not at the Boston Globe) are quickly realizing that things aren't going in the "right" direction. There are severe repercussions when we can't even pay for the most basic of services. We're all suffering because of it.

I'm sick of the MSM continually propagating the Republican talking point that there are no good taxes. It's utterly absurd and a gross violation of the job the media is supposed to be doing.

"Long and Trusted Relationship." Ha!

From the State House News Report: Governor Patrick thankfully refused to support a bailout of the Wonderland Race Track - and their refusal to pay property taxes. Don't worry, though, Wonderland and Revere's Mayor have worked it all out...

In a statement, Wonderland executive Dick Dalton said, "We take full responsibility and have taken immediate action to arrange a payment plan to settle the arrears. We have spoken with Mayor [Joseph] Ambrosino and expressed our deep regrets for any inconvenience we have caused the City of Revere. The City of Revere has been a long and trusted partner and we value our continued relationship with the community.

There's a long and trusted relationship? What part of 'long and trusted' and 'relationship' is withholding more than $800,000 dollars? In long and trusted relationships, does one party take all the money and run? Or do they go years in which one party doesn't pay the legally required taxes to the other? How many layoffs did that $800,000 lead to in the city of Revere - how's that for long and trusted?

It's a relationship, all right, and certainly long - but trusted? Revere is the long and abused wife, who's just starting to work up the courage to leave. Certainly, this $800,000 fiasco will do wonders for the community - in convincing them that they don't need Wonderland Race Track and the hundred favors every year it'll need just to stay open. It's not good for the community one bit, not only are hundreds of dogs being injured there every year, but they can't even manage to pay their own taxes. It's time we put this dog industry out of its misery - and I thank the fine folks at Wonderland for making my case for me.

This is the Industry We're Protecting

The Dog Track industry is so profitable and important to the Massachusetts economy that Wonderland Race Track is about to be foreclosed on. And, no, this doesn't even have to do with the mortgage lending crisis... they owe the city of Revere more than $800,000 in back taxes!

REVERE - Revere city officials have begun foreclosure proceedings on Wonderland Greyhound Park for failure to pay $789,293 in taxes over the last two years.

Wonderland Park, the city's eighth biggest taxpayer and now the city's largest tax delinquent, also owes $16,673.70 in water and sewer bills, said George M. Anzuoni, Revere's director of finance. The figures were calculated through Aug. 1 and include interest and fees.

Don't worry, though. When you're a government-protected industry, you don't have to worry about silly things like not paying taxes.

The track has been delinquent since 2006, city officials said. But city councilors were surprised to learn last week that the track was able to obtain annual liquor and restaurant licenses, as well as a special permit for parking at a track-owned parking lot while delinquent on taxes. That is a violation of a local ordinance.

This is why we need to make sure the ballot question to end dog track racing passes. The lobby is too strong - and nervous about profits - to trust just to die off on its own, as one would think would be inevitable. They'll keep trying for other revenue streams to add to their tracks, like the even more nefarious slots, which in the end will only serve to keep these dogs down and promote their sufferring. Enough is enough.

HT David.

Town Meeting, Part Two

Here's to those gluttons for punishment who like to call themselves political junkies.

Swampscott's Town Meeting is worth reading about because it illustrates that good government, transparency and efficiency is on the rise. Last night's session saw Town Meeting approve, for the first time ever, a tax "Debt Exclusion," which is putting a question on the ballot to pay for certain projects on a one-year basis. It's not an override, because the town isn't paying debt - it's deciding to fix that roof, or build that new park in one year's time. It's a decision to avoid making our children pay for today's expenses. Best yet, it avoids paying for certain projects by creating capital expenditures - which is taking on a 10 year bonded loan that increases expenses, because of interest, and decreases transparency, because voters don't get to approve the debt.

So, here's to the voters of Swampscott - who will this year be given the chance to vote for a new fire truck, to replace the 1988 gem, by increasing taxes for one year only to pay for it, instead of paying for it with interest over the next ten. After the truck is paid for, taxes go back to normal and things move on. People like to know where their money is going and, thankfully, at the local level there's the ultimate potential for this kind of transparency and small d democracy. Let's hope more and more towns start to do this, because it's exactly the kind of creative thinking that could avoid some overrides to begin with.

Shut it Down

Not only has the Salem Power Plant killed three of its workers recently, but the cancer rates in the area are through the roof. I've long had my doubts that it's a coincidence. Furthermore, the plant is old, inefficient and highly polluting - all things that could be improved by shutting the sucker down. Of course, America needs energy and this region of the country is no different, but hopefully this will open up a chance to create more renewable energy - green-lighting projects like Cape Wind and others. Salem, of course, ought to get in the game and find out just where they can build several large wind turbines.

Finally, the mayor worries about losing tax dollars by shutting down the power plant. Here's both a good opportunity for the state to get involved, while also sitting back and taking a breather. The power plant is a huge waterfront property - whatever replaces it will also rake in high amounts of taxes. There's endless possibilities for high end, 1 bedroom condos and a second, even larger, Pickering-Wharf type establishment. Salem has quickly become a top tourist destination all year round, not just during the Halloween season, so why not push to maximize on that potential?

Now - here's where the state should jump in. No municipalities should be held hostage by the whims of large corporations operating up within them. Why not create a law that would cover at least a portion of a city or town's losses in property taxes if a fairly big company either shut down or moved, at least long enough to redevelop the area? Not only will it keep cities and towns fiscally sound, but it could blunt the ability for large businesses to hold communities hostage, essentially buying their own influence by squeezing a municipalities jugular. Anyone else think that a good idea?

Would Casinos Lead to Less Money for Towns?

In today's lead editorial, the Globe correctly notes that Patrick's casino plan doesn't meet his campaign promise of cutting "the property tax by reinvesting in cities and towns." While half of the money casinos would bring the state would go to property tax relief, that doesn't help cities and towns address rising costs, even while they forsake many demands. Countless cities and towns are closing schools, laying off employees and diminishing services: they have no choice.

Unfortunately, casinos are guaranteed to do two things that are a direct threat to the coffers of cities and towns. First, everyone and their mother admits the state lottery system will take a hit with the introduction of casinos. The only question is how big it'll be. What people may be forgetting is that a huge portion of state lottery money goes directly to cities and towns - isn't that why we have the state lottery to begin with? So, right off the bat, we're talking about cities and towns potentially losing tens of thousands a year in income they've relied on.

Secondly - and this is a bit more tricky - we know that between 30-70% of casino revenue isn't new revenue at all, it's just revenue redistributed from other sectors of the economy. It's no surprise that wallets are a net sum game - that fifty someone blew on the casino last night was fifty they won't be spending on their family at the local restaurant. Revenue that would be taxed and sent to the general fund is instead going to go into the casino fund, which won't go back to cities and towns. That's tens of thousands more that cities and towns are likely to lose.

Furthermore, no one knows just how much business casinos will kill with their shops, all-inclusive services, open bars, massive and cheap hotels, with gambling and entertainment to lure people in. However, as I've said a few times, Atlanta went from having over 200 restaurants, bars and clubs to having a little over 50 after they legalized casinos. A lot of businesses, especially in the vicinity of a casino, are going to get hit hard. That means people are going to lose jobs and businesses will go under. Again, the only question isn't whether or not it'll happen, but how many jobs and businesses are we talking about? Combined with lost tax revenue, lost jobs and businesses could be a devastation visited upon cities and towns across Massachusetts.

So, the question is "will casinos lead to less money for cities and towns?" It's an important question because there's no bigger problem Massachusetts is facing than their cities and towns, struggling to keep up decent services, even while constantly raising taxes. Sadly, no matter how anyone looks at it - especially given Governor Patrick's plan - the answer seems to be a resounding yes.

Does the State Not Care About Struggling Towns?

That's the only thing I can come up with after reading this article.

The Saugus Public Library is ineligible to receive grants from the state Board of Library Commissioners when the panel starts doling out money for this year. The library's temporary closing in June, due to severe budget problems, stripped the library of its state certification, a key requirement for eligibility. A library must be open a minimum of 50.4 hours per week to qualify. Although Saugus has met that requirement since Labor Day, the state considers operating hours for the last fiscal year, which ended June 30.

Okay, so here's some basic facts:

• Saugus was in the red for 5.2 million this year, yet managed to keep the library open 50.4 hours a week at this point - a major feat in and of itself.
• DiMasi blocked every attempt Deval Patrick made that would help Saugus, such as a local options meals tax for the dozens of lucrative restaurants in the town (it would mean millions for Saugus).
• Residents are acting as volunteer Janitors in the library, because they can't staff real ones.
• The state just rejected helping to keep that library afloat, by refusing to give it any grants.

How bad are things for the children of Saugus, who need a strong library system? With no accreditation, Saugus residents can't borrow books from other nearby libraries using the North Shore book-swap program. Melrose is 'helping' Saugus by offering memberships to their library for $200 per family, or $150 per person. So much for the idea that public libraries were, you know, public. Now they're good fundraising tools!

The only community that's offered Saugus residents free access to their library is the city of Lynn, but Saugus residents have to drive all the way to Downtown Lynn to get there. Few have taken that option. Something has to be done - and Saugus children can't wait for the solution to come from the town. Quite frankly, the town's too busy trying to figure out how to pay for employee health care. But that's not helping the town educate its populace, only direct action by the state to aid it in more ways will.

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.

Why Are Cities and Towns Struggling?

Much talk has been going on about the record rate voters are killing property tax overrides this year. David wrote about it at length today - and it's sparked some interesting comments. For some crazy reason, there are people who are blaming the voters. While I'd wish voters would see that most school budgets are trimmed to the bare bones already and vote yes, I understand exactly why so many people are voting no this year. The result is hundreds of layoffs throughout the state - and at least an half dozen school closings, with even more to follow next year. So, what's the big deal? Why are our cities and towns struggling so much? If we put it in perspective, maybe people will do something about it. While there are many reasons, there's one that's been more devastating than any: health insurance rates. It's the straw that's breaking Massachusetts's back.

If you pay attention, you'd know cities and towns struggle with dozens of expensive issues every year. The state isn't paying its fair share toward Special Education costs: when certain students require their own, private teacher it means less money and teachers for everyone else. Here's another problem: the state's formula. Suffice it to say, the Mystery Formula produces often arbitrary results. No one, outside of Beacon Hill halls, seems to know how it works - but the results are obvious. There are richer towns that receive more money per capita than poorer towns. My hometown, laying off more than 15 teachers and shutting down one of its elementary schools just to keep up, would probably be okay if it received the same aid, per capita, as Wellesley - who's median family income is tens of thousands more than where I live.

Still, though, doesn't everyone get the sense that all of these problems would be minor gripes we could work through - if it weren't for the fact that, on top of it all, cities and towns have to pay for their employees' health insurance costs? They have to pay those costs, which are rising upwards of 15% every year, despite the fact that they can't raise funds by more than 2.5%? Something's gotta give - and it isn't students who require special education funds, since that's an unfunded mandate towns have to provide.

There are lots of other problems too, but mostly the little kind that people can reasonably address. Heck, look at Dedham. They're so afraid of additional students entering their community because of affordable housing in the planning, they're considering giving a section of their town away to Boston. Maybe that's not the best solution, but it certainly shows that people can come up with creative ways to tackle local costs efficiently and effectively. Can't fund a teacher and an Althetic Director? Hire my Dad, a teacher and an AD at Lynnfield, who'll do both at about the same rate you'd find someone to do one or the other.

However, health insurance costs aren't a little problem that can be solved with a creative solution - at least at the local level. Certainly, cities and towns are trying. If all town employees got their insurance through the state, instead of the town, the rates would save municipalities thousands: subsequently, people are making efforts to do that. However, even if it were enough to save the Stonehams, Swampscotts and Dartmouths of the state this year, they'd be facing the same problems a year or two down the line. Cities and towns have to deal with rates rising 10-15% every year - which goes far beyond any creative solution. It goes far beyond trimming a few luxuries. Those kinds of expenses lead to a decline in the quality of education for everyone.

Everything comes down to the bottom line - the fact that, with the way we do health care in this country, we're at the mercy of private companies who are trying to maximize profits. They certainly don't care about public education costs - just look at how they treat their clients. It's all a profit to them. Consequently, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, yet dozens of other countries do a better job at actually giving care. Something seems amiss, yet nothing is being done about it. Maybe, if people can link their rising property taxes, health care expenses and declining quality of education their children receive, they'll actually stop trying to treat the symptoms of the problem and try to root out its cause.

Legislative Failure on Budget

The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center released its preliminary report yesterday and it doesn't look good - for the Massachusetts State Legislative Branch.

The budget released by the Conference Committee today appears to spend more, counting appropriations and transfers, than the amounts recommended by the House, the Senate, and Governor Patrick. While much of this spending is to finance vitally needed public services - additional police officers to protect public safety, investments in K-12 and higher education that restore funding which had been cut to pay for the state tax cuts of the 1990s, and funding for new immunizations for children - the budget fails to identify ongoing revenue sources to support this spending.

Following the budgets proposed by the House and the Senate, the Conference Committee draws heavily on reserves and one-time solutions to balance the budget - $609 million in one-time solutions in total. In addition, the budget appears to rely on significantly more Federal and other non-tax revenue than were identified in previous versions of the budget.

While the governor had proposed several reforms to the state corporate tax laws to reduce tax avoidance, these reforms were not adopted in the House or Senate version of the budget and therefore were not available to the Conference Committee.

The MBPC gets it - you don't spend money you don't have, at least in a year where we can afford to solve the budget. Governor Patrick laid out a completely balanced budget, without using one-time money, in a tough year. Next year promises to be even more difficult, as the housing market gets worse, while mortgage rates continue to climb and people continue to lose their homes from taking bad mortgages they couldn't afford. Those variable rates are going to have variable consequences: let's hope there aren't too many unlucky families in Massachusetts.
But, sadly, there are going to be a lot of them. And that's going to cost this state untold millions, all the while health insurance rates will continue to climb. Cities and towns are slowly going bankrupt, closing schools, libraries and laying off teachers just to get out of the red this year. Next year will be even worse, even for some of the towns that have already closed schools.

Now, we have a Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, and a Senate President, Therese Murray, who are willing to use more band-aids to slow a gaping wound. It isn't even going to solve this coming year's problems, never mind the future's. No, we need to address the real costs: rising health care, no diversity of raising revenue, and secret formulas no one can understand. Governor Patrick has started to address those issues, but he's being thwarted every day by the fine folks from Beacon Hill. It's time those fine folks listen to the advice of the MBPC and cut the unfair and illogical corporate tax loopholes.

Vennochi's Column on Taxes - Good Stuff

When Joan Vennochi is right, boy can she be right.

WHO HAS the power on Beacon Hill? The people who are losing libraries, teachers, and sports programs to deep municipal budget cuts? Or, the business community, which is ducking its responsibility to help close the fiscal gap?

Here's what the current budget battle seems to be coming down to: Governor Deval Patrick v. House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi....

Patrick may be breakfasting with chief executives and accepting political donations from them. But at least he's also telling them what they don't want to hear: Massachusetts tax laws need to be changed to ensure tax fairness.

It gets better from there, folks.

I have to leave to get to a wedding in a few minutes, so I can't spend a lot of time on this, but I had to post something about it. Go and read it. Make your friends read it, too. For someone who doesn't know anything about the Municipal Partnership Act or just can't seem to get in the frame of mind to care, it's a compelling piece.

Here's a Deval Event I Won't Miss

I got this in my email from the other day:

In town hall forums across the Commonwealth and here on Beacon Hill, I hear from many of you--from parents and homeowners, teachers and policemen, mayors and legislators--all of whom are concerned about rising property taxes and the financial strains on our cities and towns, our schools, roads, and public safety.

That's why we asked for your help in educating your community about the Municipal Partnership Act, a piece of legislation proposed as a first step in relieving over-reliance on the property tax, and why I'm asking you to join me and other members of the legislature at our Strengthening Our Communities event at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21st at the Grand Staircase outside my office in the State House.

Governor Patrick's campaign was about a lot of things, but one thing really stands out beyond all the rest: his focus on restructuring the way municipalities and the state coexist. Seeing as how the system is a complete, broken mess, we should all be glad he's putting this kind of focus and attention on the issue. If the only thing Governor Patrick got done in four years in office is the passage of the Municipal Partnership Act, his first term would be a resounding success. The bill is that important.

Yet, it's not flashy or a hot button, so it's incredibly hard to lobby for. The only way it can ever pass the likes of a Sal DiMasi House is through millions in this state knowing all about the Municipal Partnership Act. The only way to pass the bill is to get the same kind of grassroots energy to push it through the House as Patrick got to push him through the Democratic Primary.

Right now, the bill is sitting on the oven simmering, waiting to boil. We need to be the people who make it boil. Going to Patrick's June 21st event, right in the State House, could make for a great statement and help build the momentum to make Governor Patrick's biggest goal come to fruition.

I hope to see some of you there.

Deval at Dartmouth: Being the Governor We Elected

This quote pretty much sums up why I voted for the guy.

Michael J. Gagne, the town's executive administrator, said it marked the first time in his 27 years in local government that a governor came to Dartmouth to discuss local issues and answer questions.

Our Governor came to Dartmouth to spend some time with local elected leaders to discuss local problems. Imagine that? Before I read the entire article, I commented to my roommate, "Can you ever imagine Mitt Romney - or any Bay State Republican Governor - doing that?" Then, about ten seconds later, I laughed: according to Michael Gagne, the answer would be an authoritative NO!

We, the voters, elected Deval Patrick for two reasons: to actually show up and listen to what's going on, instead of just playing Mr. Governor and showing up for photo ops during disasters, and to come up with innovative ideas to actually - you know - solve problems (and use his bully pulpit to actually help pass them). That means a Governor has to stay in tune with the people and then actually do something about what they have to say.

Fortunately, at Dartmouth, Governor Patrick did both things. He's come to offer what help and services he can to a town struggling to pay the bills (and a relatively affluent one at that) and he just so happens to have an idea that could help the situation: his Municipal Partnership Act.

The plan includes several measures that are attractive to Dartmouth officials, including a 2 percent local meals tax option that would translate to $1.1 million in new revenue for the town.

Dartmouth is also eyeing an increase in the hotel and motel room tax and the removal of the 1915 telecommunications tax exemption.

But the governor said there are other components to his plan that would help Dartmouth and other communities.

They would be eligible to transfer their pension plans and group insurance programs into the state system under the governor's proposal.

Imagine that? A 2% tax - which would be optional for Dartmouth - could help the town raise upwards of $1.1 million dollars. For a town of a little more than 30,000 people, that's a lot of money. Most importantly, it's not an unfair tax: my dinner tonight at Texas Roadhouse would have cost 76 cents more - something even I can afford.

Sort of like a sappy commercial: for just 76 cents a day, little children in Dartmouth will get to go to school and continue to learn instruments and everything! Wow!

The Municipal Partnership Act clearly won't solve every problem, but it's step one in revamping Massachusetts for the 21st Century. If Governor Patrick's recent visit to Dartmouth is any indication, steps two and three will be right on their way as soon as the Municipal Partnership Act is passed.

Restaurants in Favor of Local Meals Tax

It seems as if even a lot of restaurants get it.

These taxes are optional. They're modest. They'd go directly to cities and towns.

Some cities and towns would benefit tremendously, some would only benefit a small amount. However, for the cities and towns that would benefit from such a bill, it's important we give them the means to raise revenue from some other source than property taxes - if they wish to. Just because not every town would benefit doesn't mean we don't pursue reform.

Furthermore, the anti-tax types need not worry: this is little d Democracy. If towns are worried a 1% tax would drive business away, they could always choose not to have that tax. But for towns like Saugus and Dartmouth, in dire fiscal straights, we need to give them as much latitude as possible so they can remain solvent and not end up in state receivership - and these are two towns that could benefit tremendously if they had access to the revenue of a small restaurant tax.

The Governor is Right: Change How We Fund Schools

I don't know the answer, but Governor Patrick is right. When it comes to school funding, the status quo is not working. When Swampscott gets the same Chapter 70 funding rate as Wellessly, where the median family income is $50,000 a year higher, something is very, very flawed. It's no wonder the elementary school I went to as a kid - one of the best in the state - is probably going to be shut down.

I don't know what the answer is. I doubt Governor Patrick knows the answer yet. However, we need to study this issue very, very closely - and hopefully quickly - to come up with a better solution.

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.