CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, September 9, 2006
CLT to Deval Patrick: Been
there, done that!
You'll never guess the hottest issue in this fall's
Democratic primary for governor of Massachusetts: income tax cuts. Two
of the three Democratic candidates in this bluest of blue states have
endorsed cutting the state flat-rate income tax to 5%....
The leading Republican candidate heading into the September 19 primary,
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, agrees. The lone dissenter is former
Clinton Administration U.S. Attorney Deval Patrick, who sounds like his
former Washington colleagues in claiming "we can't afford it." Voters
disagree. An August 27 Boston Globe poll found that 57% of Democratic
primary voters support the tax relief plan. This is the same electorate
that has given the nation Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
Perhaps liberal Northeasterners aren't as fond of high taxes as their
political leaders assert....
The pro-tax coalition has also found an unlikely ally in the state
Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, which insist the
government has unmet spending needs. "The big businesses lobby against
tax cuts here," says David Tuerck, director of the Beacon Hill
Institute, a local think-tank. "They much prefer to spend the money on
corporate welfare projects."
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, September 7, 2006
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Goodbye, Taxachusetts
And Deval Patrick? I wasn't impressed with him heading into
the debate, and I was even less impressed when it was over. Oh, he has the gift
of gab so many people have commented on, and he can deliver a speech with brio.
But is there any there there, or is it all ambition and wind? Patrick reminds me
of Bill Clinton: charming, talented, smooth-talking, and far more interested in
his own well-being than in that of the people whose votes he seeks.
At one point, Channel 7 reporter Andy Hiller bluntly asked Patrick if he wasn't
playing a "fiscal shell game." You've got a spending program for every
imaginable special interest, Hiller said, yet you claim you won't raise taxes to
pay for them. So what would you cut to raise the money? Patrick offered Stock
Answer No. 48 -- cut waste, fraud, and abuse.
Hiller was having none of that. "During this campaign," he wanted to know, "is
there anyone you've just said no to?"
Patrick didn't mention it, but he has said no to me -- me and the 1,541,770
other Massachusetts citizens who voted six years ago for our income tax rate to
be reduced, and who are waiting to this day for the law we passed to take
effect. Reilly, however insincerely, and Gabrieli, however convolutedly,
acknowledge the moral obligation incurred by that vote. Patrick simply brushes
it aside. That disdainful attitude, more than anything else, is why Michael
Dukakis left such a sour taste in the mouths of Massachusetts voters -- so sour
that no Democrat has been elected governor since he left. Put me down as one
voter who isn't itching to see that movie again.
The Boston Globe
Friday, September 8, 2006
The tall and short of it
By Jeff Jacoby
Patrick, meanwhile, unveiled a 30-second television spot
yesterday that aims to blunt the criticism he's taken for opposing an income-tax
rate rollback to 5 percent. In the ad, Patrick, addressing the camera in an
empty campaign office, says his opponents' "misleading, negative ads" have
muddied his position, which is that reducing the income tax rate -- at least for
now -- would only send local taxes higher.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, September 9, 2006
Reilly renews criticism of rival
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Our income tax rollback remains the hot-button issue
of the Democrats' campaign for governor, but it's hard keeping up with
the shifting sands beneath at least one candidate's dexterous feet --
those of Deval
Patrick. Apparently "the candidate of hope" is attempting to be
all things to all people, giving every voter in the upcoming primary
election something to "hope" for, even taxpayers and the voting majority
who mandated the tax be returned to 5 percent six long years ago.
There's Tom Reilly (roll it back immediately, or
until I get elected), Chris Gabrieli (roll it back gradually, if we ever
reach "perfect" conditions and don't move the goal post again,
for I know better than those stupid voters in 2000), and Deval Patrick
-- near as I can translate today (we might be able to get it back down
to 5 percent, whenever, someday perhaps; I'll see and tell you later,
maybe -- apparently can't rule it out if I'm gonna get myself elected).
Deval Patrick alleges that he's more concerned with
property taxes, that if the income tax is rolled back as the voters
demanded in 2000, then property taxes would increase. He'd rather
see more of the state's revenue going to the cities and towns to hold
down property tax rates -- after all, he knows much, much better
than those stupid voters -- a significant difference between him and
Gabrieli. Both of those flimsy excuses are
fallacies.
First, under CLT's Proposition 2½,
property taxes can increase no more than 2.5 percent a year over the
previous year's municipal levy, period. As assessments rise, the
tax rate is lowered. That rate of increase cannot exceed 2.5
percent -- unless voters choose to increase their burden through an
override. That's up to local voters to decide: taxpayers who
turn out to vote determine if they and their neighbors will pay more
than the protection Prop 2½ affords.
But perhaps even more important
a point which Patrick apparently doesn't comprehend is, giving more state
revenue directly to city and town politicians will solve nothing -- they
will merely squander it on "fixed costs" such as during negotiations
with unions: excessive pay raises, pension and health care
benefits, ad nausea. When they dig a deep enough hole, they'll be
back for more local overrides, higher property taxes.
Where was Deval during the
Roaring '90s -- with annual billion dollar state surpluses, but when the
Legislature nonetheless couldn't afford to keep its promise and roll back the
income tax rate? How'd he miss this predictable phenomena?
We've been there, done that, and this is where it got us -- skyrocketing
property taxes due primarily to overrides after explosive wasteful municipal
spending.
On Dec. 25, 1998 the Associated
Press reported ("Cities
and towns reporting high levels of free cash"):
With a booming economy and
increased aid from the state, Massachusetts cities and towns are in
better financial shape than they have been in years, local budget
statistics suggest.... The strong finances are reflected in a record
amount of "free cash" being reported by municipal governments to the
state Revenue Department.... As of the end of fiscal 1997, cities and
towns that report to the department - not all do - said they had
$397.9 million in free cash.... That was a record high, said Joseph
Chessey, deputy commissioner of the Division of Local Services for the
Revenue Department.
This report was followed on Feb.
16, 1999 by the Eagle-Tribune exposé ("Towns
rolling in cash"):
"Across the Merrimack Valley,
and statewide, cities and towns are sitting atop stashes of surplus
taxes.... It is a remarkable turnaround from the dark days of the
early 1990s, when the economy was sour and many towns were millions of
dollars in debt. ... These days, the state is pouring money into local
coffers at unprecedented rates, while local business growth and
housing construction -- not to mention tax increases approved by
voters -- pump in even more.... But it has raised a conundrum for some
town officials: What do you do with an embarrassment of riches?"
We taxpayers know the answer to
that "conundrum." I wonder how Deval Patrick missed it -- or
wasn't he around back then? When town officials have an "an
embarrassment of riches" they spend it, of course, squander it. They can always
come back and hit up the taxpayers for more -- as we've seen too often
-- threatening catastrophic cuts in essential municipal services if
voters refuse to bail out their past profligacy.
If Patrick instead proposed a
direct state tax credit for individual taxpayers to ease their property
tax burden (such as Proposition 2½ provides
for renters) -- bypassing town fathers and mothers completely -- it
might alleviate some of the homeowners' pain. Finally implementing
the voters' tax rollback would have the same effect. But giving
more state revenue directly to cities and towns to again squander isn't
even close to a solution for ballooning property taxes -- it is a recipe
for further disaster.
On the issue of taxes, Deval
Patrick doesn't have a clue. He's simply a knee-jerk liberal with
grandiloquent, worn-out ideas and more gimme programs that'll require
more of our money sooner or later. If he's ever elected, my
money's on sooner.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, September 7, 2006
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Goodbye, Taxachusetts
You'll never guess the hottest issue in this fall's Democratic primary
for governor of Massachusetts: income tax cuts. Two of the three
Democratic candidates in this bluest of blue states have endorsed
cutting the state flat-rate income tax to 5%. One of them, Democratic
Attorney General Tom Reilly, insists the tax cut would mean "real money
in people's pockets," and he pledges to be a "strong, unwavering voice
to stand up and hold the line on taxes."
The leading Republican candidate heading into the September 19 primary,
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, agrees. The lone dissenter is former
Clinton Administration U.S. Attorney Deval Patrick, who sounds like his
former Washington colleagues in claiming "we can't afford it." Voters
disagree. An August 27 Boston Globe poll found that 57% of Democratic
primary voters support the tax relief plan. This is the same electorate
that has given the nation Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.
Perhaps liberal Northeasterners aren't as fond of high taxes as their
political leaders assert. Earlier this year, the heavily Democratic
legislature in Rhode Island slid down the Laffer Curve by chopping its
top income tax rate nearly in half as part of a plan to lure departed
jobs and workers back to the state. Meanwhile, a property tax revolt is
brewing in New Jersey.
Despite the disparaging legend of "Taxachusetts" going back to the
Dukakis era, Bay State voters have often shown they like taxes about as
much as they do the New York Yankees. Though Democrats outnumber
Republicans five to one in the state, the last four governors have been
fiscally conservative and tax-cutting Republicans. In 2000, despite
heavy opposition from the Boston media and lobbyists, 59% of
Massachusetts voters approved a ballot initiative to cut the income tax
rate to 5%, from 5.85%.
This year's tax fight has erupted because the oligarchs in the
legislature have ignored the will of the electorate by freezing the rate
at 5.3%. Their excuse was that this was required in 2002 to make up for
falling tax revenue and would only be "temporary." But tax receipts have
climbed again since 2003 -- to $18.4 billion from $14 billion, a 31%
cash windfall.
The pro-tax coalition has also found an unlikely ally in the state
Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, which insist the
government has unmet spending needs. "The big businesses lobby against
tax cuts here," says David Tuerck, director of the Beacon Hill
Institute, a local think-tank. "They much prefer to spend the money on
corporate welfare projects." The Institute's new study estimates the tax
cut would create 8,000 new jobs and raise incomes by more than $450
million over the next four years.
Current Governor Mitt Romney says the state's $1 billion revenue surplus
more than justifies the tax cut. "We'll either spend that money or give
it back to the citizens," he says. "Those are our options." It says
something about the public mood that, even in the cradle of modern
liberalism, voters don't seem to trust politicians to spend the dollars
wisely and want more of their money back.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, September 8, 2006
The tall and short of it
By Jeff Jacoby
Was it my imagination, or did Attorney General Tom Reilly shrink a few
inches in the course of last night's debate? From his very first words
-- an attempted "gotcha" aimed at Chris Gabrieli, whose campaign
chairman he accused of an unfriendly leak to the press -- to his closing
remarks, in which he promised, all too believably, that "if you vote for
me, you know what you're getting," Reilly came across as the colorless
party hack from central casting. Tired, uninspired, quick to prattle
about "leadership" but unable to demonstrate any -- if ever a politician
embodied the Peter Principle, dwindling in stature as he rises to his
level of incompetence, Reilly is that politician.
Gabrieli, on the other hand, was the tallest man walking into the
Kennedy School forum -- and seemed to be standing even taller when he
walked out. His answers throughout were smart, focused, precise,
informed. When he spoke of "accountability" and "results" -- at times
last night, they seemed to be his favorite words -- it was with the air
of a man who knows what the words mean. Having made a fortune by
successfully investing the money entrusted to him by others, I think he
probably does.
I don't share most of Gabrieli's politics, but I like his intelligent,
earnest style. Channel 5 reporter Janet Wu challenged him on his
self-financed campaign, pointing out that he has spent more of his own
money trying to win the Corner Office -- $7.5 million, as of the last
reporting period -- than any gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts
history. "How do you convince voters," she asked, "that you're not
trying to buy your way into office?" Yes, Gabrieli agreed, he is pouring
his own money into the race -- not because the governorship is a job he
needs, but because in that job he can accomplish things for
Massachusetts that aren't being accomplished now. A traditional
politician's response? Perhaps. But coming from Gabrieli, the words
didn't sound trite or insincere.
And Deval Patrick? I wasn't impressed with him heading into the debate,
and I was even less impressed when it was over. Oh, he has the gift of
gab so many people have commented on, and he can deliver a speech with
brio. But is there any there there, or is it all ambition and wind?
Patrick reminds me of Bill Clinton: charming, talented, smooth-talking,
and far more interested in his own well-being than in that of the people
whose votes he seeks.
At one point, Channel 7 reporter Andy Hiller bluntly asked Patrick if he
wasn't playing a "fiscal shell game." You've got a spending program for
every imaginable special interest, Hiller said, yet you claim you won't
raise taxes to pay for them. So what would you cut to raise the money?
Patrick offered Stock Answer No. 48 -- cut waste, fraud, and abuse.
Hiller was having none of that. "During this campaign," he wanted to
know, "is there anyone you've just said no to?"
Patrick didn't mention it, but he has said no to me -- me and the
1,541,770 other Massachusetts citizens who voted six years ago for our
income tax rate to be reduced, and who are waiting to this day for the
law we passed to take effect. Reilly, however insincerely, and Gabrieli,
however convolutedly, acknowledge the moral obligation incurred by that
vote. Patrick simply brushes it aside. That disdainful attitude, more
than anything else, is why Michael Dukakis left such a sour taste in the
mouths of Massachusetts voters -- so sour that no Democrat has been
elected governor since he left. Put me down as one voter who isn't
itching to see that movie again.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, September 9, 2006
Reilly renews criticism of rival
Gabrieli repeats St. Fleur denial
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff
Contending that his attacks on his primary rivals are working, Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly yesterday stepped up his criticism of
Christopher F. Gabrieli, again accusing Gabrieli of leaking a background
report on a lawmaker who was briefly Reilly's running mate.
"I always knew that Chris Gabrieli was willing to spend anything to be
governor," Reilly said after a visit to a Roxbury elementary school,
where he watched a class on conflict resolution. "I never thought he was
willing to do anything to be governor."
Reilly added, "There are lines in politics and there are lines in life.
There are lines you don't go over in order to win an election, in order
to gain a political advantage. And that line -- Chris Gabrieli went way
over that line."
Reilly's remarks came as he defended his combative performance in a live
televised debate Thursday night, which some commentators and voters said
backfired by making him appear mean-spirited and desperate. His harsh
words for Gabrieli yesterday revived his main attack at the debate: That
Gabrieli allegedly gave confidential information to the Globe about
state Representative Marie St. Fleur. Reilly was forced to abandon St.
Fleur as a running mate early this year after the paper reported she had
been delinquent on taxes. The Globe reported Thursday that Reilly's
campaign had a report on St. Fleur's finances before his January
announcement that she was running for lieutenant governor on his ticket.
The Globe is not disclosing the source of the report.
Gabrieli, in an interview yesterday, again denied his campaign was
responsible for the leak.
"I know he's an experienced prosecutor. What does he have, a hunch?"
Gabrieli said.
Asked what evidence he had that Gabrieli or his campaign was
responsible, Reilly said yesterday, "It's common sense."
"Not a motto I would suggest for his campaign," Gabrieli responded after
laughing off that remark from Reilly.
Reilly yesterday also invoked his authority as attorney general to
protect people's privacy, appearing to leave the door open to
investigating the leak. "We'll see where this goes," Reilly said. "These
are private, confidential financial records, OK? And to leak them in an
effort to get at me and put them on the front pages of The Boston Globe
is wrong. It's just wrong."
When pressed, Reilly would not say whether he is contending that the
leak was illegal. "Whether it's illegal or not isn't the issue," he
said. "It's flat out wrong."
To Gabrieli, Reilly's performance meant he was effectively conceding the
primary race to him and the third Democrat on the Sept. 19 ballot, Deval
L. Patrick.
"I think it's clearly a race between the two of us," said Gabrieli, a
venture capitalist and founder of a nonprofit education group.
Patrick, a former assistant US attorney general for civil rights and
corporate executive, was asked yesterday whether he saw it that way,
too.
"I'm not going to count out anybody until the voters do," Patrick said
on the "Eagan & Braude" radio show on 96.9 FM Talk.
One senior Reilly adviser said that despite the negative press on
Reilly's debate performance, the campaign is "cautiously optimistic"
about the impact of the event. The adviser said the campaign set out
Thursday night to "demonstrate that Tom is a fighter."
"The idea was to set the tone early and to have the debate change the
dynamic of the race," said the adviser, who spoke on condition of
anonymity.
Asked whether his aggressive approach Thursday night was the best way to
win over voters less than two weeks from the primary, Reilly insisted it
highlighted important differences.
What voters "saw last night is a governor who will fight for them, stand
up for them, and somebody they can count on," said Reilly.
Before speaking to reporters yesterday, Reilly watched as fourth-graders
at the Tobin School got a lesson in how to avoid fights, bullying, and
conflict. Reilly asked the pupils what they had learned.
"You learn how to be more friendly to people ... and you get to solve
problems without fighting," one student said.
"That's wonderful," Reilly responded, smiling.
"You're the reason I'm running for governor," Reilly told the class a
few minutes later. "I'm going to fight for you every single day -- in a
nice way."
Patrick, meanwhile, unveiled a 30-second television spot yesterday that
aims to blunt the criticism he's taken for opposing an income-tax rate
rollback to 5 percent. In the ad, Patrick, addressing the camera in an
empty campaign office, says his opponents' "misleading, negative ads"
have muddied his position, which is that reducing the income tax rate --
at least for now -- would only send local taxes higher.
Return to top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|