This morning’s Boston Globe features an editorial in favor of Governor Patrick’s plan to levy a sales tax on soda and candy.
I disagree strongly with their rationale in favor of the tax.
The Globe editorial is centered around a belief that raising taxes is a good way to encourage social behavior; in this case, deterring children and obese adults from eating too much soda and candy. It suggests that reducing intake of soda and candy would have numerous health benefits, including possibly lowering the risk of cancer. The editorial also suggests optimistically that other, similar steps to reduce the consumption of unhealthy items could come in the future.
Even if all of the Globe’s facts and markers about nutrition are correct (I don’t argue with them here), I still think this tax is a bad idea. It’s the latest in a series of proposals on Beacon Hill that use arguments smacking of paternalism to justify taxes and spending that taxpayers can’t (and shouldn’t have to) afford. And that’s wrong.
First, state leaders wanted to raise the gas tax as a way to encourage conservation… and, of course, to help balance the state budget without making further spending cuts. Some wanted to raise the cigarette tax to discourage smoking… and to preserve spending that otherwise would have to be cut. Now, they want to take the first step in taxing foods on the basis of their nutritional value… supposedly as a way to encourage healthy eating, but also as a way to pay for health programs that we otherwise can’t afford.
These are all mixed messages for taxpayers, but in the end, the message is clear: government wants to tell people what to do, and it expects people to pay extra for it.
I believe government does a disservice to those it represents whenever it views taxes as anything more than the necessary price taxpayers need to pay for core government services and priorities. Using taxes as a way for government to exert itself over wholly-private decisions, like what people should eat, is just as bad as using taxes to pay for government spending that’s not essential to run our state.
What do you think? Is taxing people for their consumption of unhealthy foods a good idea, or is it just plain wrong? Please post a comment below and let me know your thoughts.
Showing posts with label Governor Patrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor Patrick. Show all posts
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/17/2010
Yesterday, all the major candidates in the race for Governor – except the Governor himself – actually agreed that the state sales tax should be rolled back.
As the Boston Herald points out today, the candidates had different views on what should happen afterwards. But there was consensus among them that the sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent needs to be undone.
Then, there is Governor Patrick. He not only thinks that the sales tax should remain at its current level until tax revenues pick up again, he also proposes additional tax increases on certain consumer products like candy bars this year.
Our elected officials need to remember something very important. Raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Instead of turning to taxpayers for more money when revenues plummet, government needs to learn to live within its means. The decisions might be difficult to make, but cutting back on the size and scope of government is the only way to solve our revenue problems, and the first place to start is to trim waste and inefficiency through comprehensive reforms.
The state budget process for Fiscal Year 2011 is well underway, and it will present a huge opportunity for our state to address some of these problems. Hopefully, there will be room for lots of creative solutions and solid ideas to reform state government. I know that’s what I will be looking for, and I will keep you informed of what happens throughout the process.
As the Boston Herald points out today, the candidates had different views on what should happen afterwards. But there was consensus among them that the sales tax increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent needs to be undone.
Then, there is Governor Patrick. He not only thinks that the sales tax should remain at its current level until tax revenues pick up again, he also proposes additional tax increases on certain consumer products like candy bars this year.
Our elected officials need to remember something very important. Raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Instead of turning to taxpayers for more money when revenues plummet, government needs to learn to live within its means. The decisions might be difficult to make, but cutting back on the size and scope of government is the only way to solve our revenue problems, and the first place to start is to trim waste and inefficiency through comprehensive reforms.
The state budget process for Fiscal Year 2011 is well underway, and it will present a huge opportunity for our state to address some of these problems. Hopefully, there will be room for lots of creative solutions and solid ideas to reform state government. I know that’s what I will be looking for, and I will keep you informed of what happens throughout the process.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/16/2010
Did you see the story in today’s Herald about open road tolling?
Supposedly, Governor Patrick is already looking to hire someone to implement the system along the Massachusetts Turnpike -- at a salary of $102,000 a year.
I find it disappointing that, of all the different ways Governor Patrick could try to make government more efficient, he is focusing on more efficient ways to collect money from people.
Open road tolling probably would save money in the long run by eliminating some of the infrastructure needed to collect tolls from motorists. So, on the surface at least, it looks like a worthwhile reform to explore. But you have to take a step back and think about the situation to understand what’s really going on here.
First of all, as the salary of the Governor’s proposed new “toll czar” indicates, implementing a new open road tolling system will cost money. Essentially, it’s going to cost us money to save money. Unfortunately, as I’ve pointed out before, that seems to be a common theme whenever Governor Patrick talks about reforming our state’s transportation system.
Second, the Patrick Administration says that open road tolling would be limited only to the Turnpike, where we already have toll collection in place. In other words, it would only replace existing, inefficient ways of collecting tolls; the state wouldn’t use the system to collect new tolls. Call me cynical, but are we really to believe that the state won’t expand the use of open road tolling technology to new roadways if it proves to be efficient and if we need additional money to pay for transportation?
This leads me to my third -- and most important -- point. This whole idea for open road tolling misses the mark because the focus should be on ELIMINATING the tolls, not on finding more ingenious and efficient ways of collecting them from motorists.
Someone needs to remind Governor Patrick that the most cost-effective toll system is no system at all. Coincidentally, that’s exactly the sort of system that was envisioned when the Turnpike was built. The Turnpike tolls were never meant to last forever, and it’s time for us to start finding ways to eliminate them once and for all.
What do you think about open road tolling? Please post a comment below.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/11/2010
There’s been lots of talk lately about the best way to stimulate our economy in Massachusetts and how to grow jobs here. As well there should be; this is the number one issue facing many Massachusetts residents these days.
I continue to believe that what we need to do is to make our state more competitive for businesses by lowering their costs of doing business here. And one of the best ways to do that is to make our tax system fair.
The other day, Governor Patrick proposed tax credits for small businesses and job creation in our state. These credits are worthwhile proposals but they seem like small steps forward in a much larger effort, especially when you consider recent hefty increases in the sales tax and corporate excise tax.
There is growing evidence that tax policy works to lure businesses here. For example, today’s Boston Globe has a story about a tax credit allotted to the film industry in 2005. The story says the tax credit has the potential to create a “small but robust film industry” here and to “support thousands of good-paying jobs.”
It’s particularly interesting that the study shows that Massachusetts has been more successful than other states that also offer tax credits because we have a better infrastructure and a more talented workforce in place for moviemakers to utilize. In other words, it suggests that the film industry was always willing to consider Massachusetts as a venue for its business because of what we have to offer, but the cost of doing business here was too high. Once we lowered the price, Massachusetts was able to compete with other states and to bring the business into the Bay State successfully.
As our economy lingers in recession, we should be looking for new ways to improve the business climate here in Massachusetts, and one of the first things we need to examine is our tax structure. Two leading candidates for reform are the sales tax and corporate excise taxes, both of which have undergone substantial recent increases.
Growing jobs in Massachusetts has to be Economic Priority Number One for our state, and tax policy is a great way to affect positive change.
What do you think? Do you support tax credits to lure businesses here? Please post a comment below.
I continue to believe that what we need to do is to make our state more competitive for businesses by lowering their costs of doing business here. And one of the best ways to do that is to make our tax system fair.
The other day, Governor Patrick proposed tax credits for small businesses and job creation in our state. These credits are worthwhile proposals but they seem like small steps forward in a much larger effort, especially when you consider recent hefty increases in the sales tax and corporate excise tax.
There is growing evidence that tax policy works to lure businesses here. For example, today’s Boston Globe has a story about a tax credit allotted to the film industry in 2005. The story says the tax credit has the potential to create a “small but robust film industry” here and to “support thousands of good-paying jobs.”
It’s particularly interesting that the study shows that Massachusetts has been more successful than other states that also offer tax credits because we have a better infrastructure and a more talented workforce in place for moviemakers to utilize. In other words, it suggests that the film industry was always willing to consider Massachusetts as a venue for its business because of what we have to offer, but the cost of doing business here was too high. Once we lowered the price, Massachusetts was able to compete with other states and to bring the business into the Bay State successfully.
As our economy lingers in recession, we should be looking for new ways to improve the business climate here in Massachusetts, and one of the first things we need to examine is our tax structure. Two leading candidates for reform are the sales tax and corporate excise taxes, both of which have undergone substantial recent increases.
Growing jobs in Massachusetts has to be Economic Priority Number One for our state, and tax policy is a great way to affect positive change.
What do you think? Do you support tax credits to lure businesses here? Please post a comment below.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/09/2010
There are two issues circulating around Beacon Hill today that I’m particularly focused on today.
The first is a $35 million bailout bill for the City of Lawrence that’s up for a public hearing today and scheduled for a House vote tomorrow.
There’s no question that the people of Lawrence are in a tough spot and they need help. But I don’t think the solution is to give more money to the same politicians who got the city into trouble in the first place. I think we need to be taking a more serious look at placing the city under receivership or a finance control board that would make the difficult decisions the city needs to get back on-track responsibly, and to make sure that state taxpayers ultimately won’t be on the hook to pay back any money the city receives in loans.
The other issue is a proposal by Governor Patrick to institute electronic toll collection systems along the Mass. Turnpike. Open-road tolling sounds attractive when you hear the Governor talk about the fact that it would dramatically reduce or eliminate toll collectors along the Turnpike and thereby save money. But, as the Boston Herald reports, the system would cost us $100 million to implement, and we can’t afford that – especially while we still have a bloated Turnpike and toll collection system in place.
And, at a more basic level, I wish the Governor would place more emphasis on eliminating tolls along the Turnpike (especially the Western Turnpike) instead of finding more efficient ways to collect them from drivers.
I’m interested to see what my colleagues think about these proposals. I’ll keep you updated on what I hear from them. But more importantly, I’d like to hear from you. What do you think about the Lawrence bailout bill or open-road tolling? Please post a comment to let me know.
The first is a $35 million bailout bill for the City of Lawrence that’s up for a public hearing today and scheduled for a House vote tomorrow.
There’s no question that the people of Lawrence are in a tough spot and they need help. But I don’t think the solution is to give more money to the same politicians who got the city into trouble in the first place. I think we need to be taking a more serious look at placing the city under receivership or a finance control board that would make the difficult decisions the city needs to get back on-track responsibly, and to make sure that state taxpayers ultimately won’t be on the hook to pay back any money the city receives in loans.
The other issue is a proposal by Governor Patrick to institute electronic toll collection systems along the Mass. Turnpike. Open-road tolling sounds attractive when you hear the Governor talk about the fact that it would dramatically reduce or eliminate toll collectors along the Turnpike and thereby save money. But, as the Boston Herald reports, the system would cost us $100 million to implement, and we can’t afford that – especially while we still have a bloated Turnpike and toll collection system in place.
And, at a more basic level, I wish the Governor would place more emphasis on eliminating tolls along the Turnpike (especially the Western Turnpike) instead of finding more efficient ways to collect them from drivers.
I’m interested to see what my colleagues think about these proposals. I’ll keep you updated on what I hear from them. But more importantly, I’d like to hear from you. What do you think about the Lawrence bailout bill or open-road tolling? Please post a comment to let me know.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/08/2010
Governor Patrick and Senate President Murray appear poised to offer a plan they say would help grow jobs here, according to a story in today’s Boston Globe.
Growing jobs in Massachusetts should be our state’s top priority. But you have to wonder… isn’t this plan a day late and a dollar short?
The plan under discussion would create a $50 million small business tax credit, it would make $25 million of small business loans available, it would freeze unemployment insurance rates, and it would merge together several state agencies that deal with small business issues.
I give this plan some credit because these ideas all seem worthwhile to consider. There’s no question that our state needs to do something to help job growth, particularly when it comes to the small businesses that serve as the lifeblood of our economy. And I am always happy to hear of proposals to merge responsibilities in state agencies as a reform that would save us money and increase efficiency.
But it’s also worth considering that these modest proposals come on the heels of other recent decisions that have put a stranglehold on businesses here. For example, we have levied hundreds of millions of dollars of additional corporate taxes from businesses here in recent years, increases that Governor Patrick proposed and the Legislature approved. The same goes for recent hikes in the sales tax, which makes it difficult for businesses to compete in the same way that it increases costs for individual consumers.
There is no question in my mind that these tax increases, along with other business-unfriendly policies, have forced businesses and their jobs out of Massachusetts. The latest plan from Governor Patrick, however good it might be, probably won’t be enough to get those jobs back here.
So, while I applaud these most recent efforts, I have to stop and wonder if these are really heartfelt efforts to grow jobs in Massachusetts, or if they’re just window dressing on an otherwise crucial problem our state is facing. I guess only time will tell.
What do you think? Would passing these proposals make Massachusetts friendly enough for businesses to grow jobs here, or is this plan just a glimmer of hope? Please post a comment below and let’s get a discussion going.
Growing jobs in Massachusetts should be our state’s top priority. But you have to wonder… isn’t this plan a day late and a dollar short?
The plan under discussion would create a $50 million small business tax credit, it would make $25 million of small business loans available, it would freeze unemployment insurance rates, and it would merge together several state agencies that deal with small business issues.
I give this plan some credit because these ideas all seem worthwhile to consider. There’s no question that our state needs to do something to help job growth, particularly when it comes to the small businesses that serve as the lifeblood of our economy. And I am always happy to hear of proposals to merge responsibilities in state agencies as a reform that would save us money and increase efficiency.
But it’s also worth considering that these modest proposals come on the heels of other recent decisions that have put a stranglehold on businesses here. For example, we have levied hundreds of millions of dollars of additional corporate taxes from businesses here in recent years, increases that Governor Patrick proposed and the Legislature approved. The same goes for recent hikes in the sales tax, which makes it difficult for businesses to compete in the same way that it increases costs for individual consumers.
There is no question in my mind that these tax increases, along with other business-unfriendly policies, have forced businesses and their jobs out of Massachusetts. The latest plan from Governor Patrick, however good it might be, probably won’t be enough to get those jobs back here.
So, while I applaud these most recent efforts, I have to stop and wonder if these are really heartfelt efforts to grow jobs in Massachusetts, or if they’re just window dressing on an otherwise crucial problem our state is facing. I guess only time will tell.
What do you think? Would passing these proposals make Massachusetts friendly enough for businesses to grow jobs here, or is this plan just a glimmer of hope? Please post a comment below and let’s get a discussion going.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/05/2010
My office received news yesterday that's relieving.
It appears the Glavin Center will not be sold by the state this year after all, despite fears that Governor Patrick was moving to expedite closure and disposition of the property.
Recent developments started when the Governor's FY2011 budget plan was released in late January. The document contained a provision to allow the state to expedite the sale of certain "surplus" properties, and the Glavin Center was listed as one of the targeted parcels.
The Governor's budget language came as a surprise because the parcel was supposed to be under a cost/benefit study by the Patrick Administration following negotiations I had with the Governor last year. As it turns out, following further investigation, the Division of Capital Asset Management has clarified that the Glavin Center was mistakenly included on the list of properties subject to expedited sale, and that it won't be sold in 2011 after all.
The long-term future of the Glavin Center remains uncertain, and I am continuing to work with the Patrick Administration to identify its best use and the best outcome for the patients who call the center home. I am firmly committed to the current use of the facility for residents. And I believe that any discussions about a different use must be done in an open, transparent and fair manner, with the highest regard for the residents who call Glavin their home. At least for now, the facility will remain open without the threat of an imminent sale.
It appears the Glavin Center will not be sold by the state this year after all, despite fears that Governor Patrick was moving to expedite closure and disposition of the property.
Recent developments started when the Governor's FY2011 budget plan was released in late January. The document contained a provision to allow the state to expedite the sale of certain "surplus" properties, and the Glavin Center was listed as one of the targeted parcels.
The Governor's budget language came as a surprise because the parcel was supposed to be under a cost/benefit study by the Patrick Administration following negotiations I had with the Governor last year. As it turns out, following further investigation, the Division of Capital Asset Management has clarified that the Glavin Center was mistakenly included on the list of properties subject to expedited sale, and that it won't be sold in 2011 after all.
The long-term future of the Glavin Center remains uncertain, and I am continuing to work with the Patrick Administration to identify its best use and the best outcome for the patients who call the center home. I am firmly committed to the current use of the facility for residents. And I believe that any discussions about a different use must be done in an open, transparent and fair manner, with the highest regard for the residents who call Glavin their home. At least for now, the facility will remain open without the threat of an imminent sale.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Thought of the Day - 02/04/2010
Have you been following the situation up in Lawrence?
The city is currently in dire fiscal straits. The budget is so far out-of-balance that city officials can’t figure out how bad the problem really is. And until they figure that out, the city can’t send out tax bills to residents, which is making the problem even worse.
City officials have turned to the state for a $35 million bailout. That bailout could be voted on soon. But there are two glaring problems with that plan.
First, Lawrence isn’t the only community in our state that’s experiencing financial trouble. But it is one of the few communities that has caused many of its own problems, and it’s currently the only one getting any form of preferential treatment. Aside from the fact that I’m no fan of bailouts, this just doesn’t seem fair to the 350 other municipalities in our state who are struggling just as much to make ends meet locally.
And second, the bill stops short of placing Lawrence into receivership. Past experiences in Chelsea and in Springfield show us that receivership is the best option when a city like Lawrence is unable to solve its own problems. Giving more money to the same local officials who can’t manage the money they already have won’t solve any problems. It’s time for new leadership to straighten things out and to get the city back on track. And it’s unfair for the current mayor of the city to hold onto that position (at a reported salary of $100,000 a year) and to also serve as the city’s state representative at the same time (at $60,000 a year).
I’ve sent a letter to state officials asking them to look deeper into the issue of receivership and to present their rationale for or against receivership to the House when a vote is scheduled. I know why the good people of Lawrence need assistance, but I’m curious to hear why my colleagues might think that local officials there deserve to be bailed out.
What do you think? Are you in favor of a bailout? Please post a comment below.
The city is currently in dire fiscal straits. The budget is so far out-of-balance that city officials can’t figure out how bad the problem really is. And until they figure that out, the city can’t send out tax bills to residents, which is making the problem even worse.
City officials have turned to the state for a $35 million bailout. That bailout could be voted on soon. But there are two glaring problems with that plan.
First, Lawrence isn’t the only community in our state that’s experiencing financial trouble. But it is one of the few communities that has caused many of its own problems, and it’s currently the only one getting any form of preferential treatment. Aside from the fact that I’m no fan of bailouts, this just doesn’t seem fair to the 350 other municipalities in our state who are struggling just as much to make ends meet locally.
And second, the bill stops short of placing Lawrence into receivership. Past experiences in Chelsea and in Springfield show us that receivership is the best option when a city like Lawrence is unable to solve its own problems. Giving more money to the same local officials who can’t manage the money they already have won’t solve any problems. It’s time for new leadership to straighten things out and to get the city back on track. And it’s unfair for the current mayor of the city to hold onto that position (at a reported salary of $100,000 a year) and to also serve as the city’s state representative at the same time (at $60,000 a year).
I’ve sent a letter to state officials asking them to look deeper into the issue of receivership and to present their rationale for or against receivership to the House when a vote is scheduled. I know why the good people of Lawrence need assistance, but I’m curious to hear why my colleagues might think that local officials there deserve to be bailed out.
What do you think? Are you in favor of a bailout? Please post a comment below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)