Question 1 pro/con
By adamg - 10/27/08 - 10:03 pm
What Would You Cut? - Budget simulation game from the Globe.
Pro:
- The Committee for Small Government
- BostonMaggie: Send Beacon Hill a message.
- Garrett3000: You deserve the money a lot more than a bunch of pols and their pals
- Jay Fitzgerald: Beacon Hill will never let the thing go through, but a yes vote could force them to make needed reforms
- Shirley Kressel: Why this liberal supports Question 1.
- Steve Forbes Maybe (Mass. pols)'ll wake up when you whack them with a 2-by-4.
- Barbara Anderson supports it.
Con:
- Vote No on Question 1 Committee.
- Gene Koo: We're all responsible to contribute to the costs of civilization. We’ll all pay the price if we don’t.
- Margalit: Renters would get hurt by Question 1.
- Chris Lovett looks at what a yes vote might mean.
- Matt O'Malley: Snow removal in New Hampshire sucks, do you want that here?
- Tim Jarrett: An idiotic response to crisis.
- Philip Matthews: The Definition of Fiscal Insanity.
- Paula Woolley: Vote no one One for the sake of our schools and city.
- Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce: Would devastate Mass. economy.
Comments
MBPC = Coalition for Our Communities
I pointed out in my blog that if you follow the money trail between the two organizations you notice the same people in both organizations in some capacity.
The MBPC received funding from:
Mass. Teachers Association
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts
SEIU Local 509
SEIU Local 1199
The Boston Teachers Union
Steve Grossman
Chris Gabrieli
Arnold Hiatt
Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation Of Massachusetts (Peter Meade)
All of the organizations and people listed above have actively opposed Question 1. They either donated to the Coalition for Our Communities or officially came out against Question 1.
Their donations to the Coalition
Mass. Teachers Association: $1,791,491.50
American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts:$108,087
SEIU Local 509: $104,603.82
SEIU Local 1199: $424,337.35
(Total SEIU Donations): $640,553.50
The Boston Teachers Union: $150,000
Massachusetts Building Trade Council(Richard Marlin sits on the MBPC Board): $13,290
Peter Meade (Blue Cross/Blue Shield): $1,000
Neighbor-to-Neighbor Massachusetts (John Maher sits on the MBPC Board): $32,410
This is shocking how?
This is shocking how?
People with the same political ideals support similar causes
I'm stunned by that revelation. So, every conservative cause = every other conservative cause, too? Becuase I think you'll find some donor overlap in conservative groups, too.
What is this meant to prove? Both are progressive organizations supported by other progressive organizations. I don't think the equal sign means what you think it does.
Yeah exactly
I support cutting government waste and increasing transparency in budgets and so forth.
But eliminating the income tax isn't the way to do it, since many of the things that are slated to be cut (such as our program's physical therapy budget...) aren't frivolous line items.
So yes, I'm among those people who support cutting government waste, but don't support abruptly eliminating the income tax without any plan to replace the 40% of the budget that would be eliminated.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
People tend to give money to
People tend to give money to things they believe in!
Someone call the presses!
So...
When a group funded by the Oil Industry publishes a report saying that Global Warming is natural you don't think they were influenced by their source of funding?
Activists =/= Industry
Pretty significant difference there.
Those are two different
Those are two different things entirely.
While were clearing the air one of their major staffers, Mathew Helman also happens to be a democratic activist and has campaigned and worked for campaigns in the past. Who cares.
The Globe
states:
The "budget game" is like a free ad on the Globe web site. I hope the Coalition is recording it as an in kind contribution.
Yep
The budget game is definitely meant to discourage people from voting for the income tax repeal. It is written in a pretty biased manner, and the whole game seems geared toward solely portraying the ills an income tax repeal would cause.
This has nothing to do with my personal stance on Question 1, incidentally; just thought I'd point the above out.
Reality has a liberal bias
Sorry, but if you're going to make statements like that, then you need to be able to quote exactly what is so biased here.
The game is very stark in its portrayal of the loss of income tax revenue. It doesn't even go into the reality that would be the increase in property and sales taxes in order to re-afford some of the items it allows you to cut. There's nothing in the methodology or introduction language that is biased. If you think it's biased because it tells you exactly what benefits you'll lose from the state as a result of needing to squeeze so much money out of the system, then sorry, but that's the exact reality of deciding that everyone shouldn't need pay income tax.
Point out the phrasing or text that you are claiming to be biased. Name the benefits to the state budget that would come from deleting the income tax. The game puts very realistic information and facts out there in an interesting way to show just what this hack-n-slash attempt to make "small government" would do to our expectations of state-funded services.
Hmmm ...
Does reality have a liberal bias, or is liberalism, as currently defined, have a reality bias?
I think it is the former, given Palin's latest sneering about "ridiculous earmarks funding genetic research on fruit flies" and the Bush administration's well known war on fact-based thinking in the intelligence community and the country's scientific infrastructure in general.
(Anybody who actually paid any attention in high school biology would know how fruit flies were the key the many of the fundamental discoveries about genetics.)
Anybody who actually paid
Anybody who actually paid attention to non-liberal sources would know that Palin's fruit fly remark was not anti- genetic research but specifically about a three quarter million dollar earmark for the olive growing industry in Mike Thompson's (D-CA) district.
Getting completely off-topic
Olives are the #2 cash crop in California. The money that was "sent to France" went to established USDA facilities *located* in those countries because they've been dealing with olive fruit flies for years and California has only started to see them since 1990 or so.
It was hardly a money-grab so much as it was steps to save our agricultural businesses in California via US Gov't research labs inside of the USDA.
US-Based Labs
One could say that the fruit flies are best left in France, because we all know that exotic species have been known to escape from laboratories and into new habitats.
Ah, yes
Our very own Trouvalot Honey!
Researching agricultural pests is bad?
Since when? Seems to me like a prefectly proper use of government money.
So then let it get funded by
So then let it get funded by the Dept. of Agriculture instead of by a tit-for-tat earmark for one guy's district.
Anybody who paid full attention ....
... would know that the supposed "watchdog" organization in this case that *decided* whose earmarks are *ridiculous* and whose earmarks are *necessary* is highly partisan and funded by the very industries and interests that it ficticiously purports to be watching ... such as the tobacco industry.
In other words, an earmark is a joke to the Citizens Against Government Waste (formerly headed by Alan Keyes) only if you don't send them a good punchline.
I know you're right
I agree the game predicts catastrophe if Question 1 is passed. Look at who is funding their studies and you'll see why they're predicting the end of the world.
The game assumes that everything will be across cut across the board instead of a deep inspection of all 500+ agencies in state government. The game does not mention waste at all. There is no mention of waste and corruption that could be cut.
The MPBC is not independent, they are in the pockets of the unions and the left. If they identified themselves as a liberal think tank I would have no problem with it.
Quick! To the Moonbat-phone!
Holy cow! You just blew the cover wide open on this! Get on the horn right away! Considering that this completely undermines their inclusion in the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative (an organization of 31 non-partisan state funding policy groups), it could bring the whole group down if they were to be found harboring commie pinko scum like the MPBC!
Who exactly funds your favorite "analysis" group, the Committee For Small Government? Funny, they don't list *any* donors for their "non-partisan, grass roots organization". The only names even given for this "non-partisan" group are two *very partisan* libertarians who repeatedly fail to gain office in MA.
Well, this is somewhat awkward...
...especially as I am in favor of continuing the personal income tax. If the personal income tax were suspended, vital funding streams - such as funding for the MBTA - might be significantly reduced, which would be disastrous.
But now I seem to be in the awkward position of attempting to defend a position I actually have no desire to defend.
Let's see. Upon a cursory examination, I think the game is factual as far as its claims go; however, being merely factual is not sufficient to be unbiased. (An easy example would be only presenting selected facts to lure people into drawing false conclusions.)
Firstly, the game only allows cuts in coarse, large chunks. It simply doesn't allow smaller cuts.
The game doesn't include scenarios on how money might be obtained from other sources to partially compensate for the loss of revenue from eliminating the income tax. It might be helpful to analyze how states without a personal income tax survive, because said states seem to be doing just fine. For example, I used to live in Dallas, Texas. The roads were excellent, government services were at least adequate, property prices were significantly lower than here in Massachusetts, and we had no personal income tax. DART and NTTA had enough money to expand rapidly, new roads and highways were being built on an ongoing basis, and existing roads were being well maintained as well.
The game doesn't acknowledge the phased implementation if Question 1 were to pass.
The game does not allow one to specify specific cuts within each area.
I could go on, but again, I really don't want to defend the supporters of Question 1, and I'm also a very busy person.
Q1
"Our state is hurting, we have no money for simple items like street repair, state aid to city and towns, and would reduce funding for vital local services like police, fire, and school department employees."
We do have money for street repair. In fact, my street is getting repaved in November.
We have "no money" for cities and towns? That's patently false.
And it would not reduce funding for vital local services, unless those services were cut in response to the lack of funding. Of course, there are other things to cut, so the current revenue allocated to those services could in fact be maintained 100%.
And no property taxes need to be raised, unless there are no other income alternatives (there are) and there are no cuts (there should be).
The claims by the anti-Q1 people are tantamount to fearmongering. It's rather lame...
Fearmonger vs. Fantasies
As with most efforts to slash government revenue, there is little detail about just what it is that will be cut. Its always "there's waste" or "other things will be cut".
If we're talking about crippling state revenue, which is the whole point of Q.1, there ought to be talk about just what cuts its supporters are advocating. None of this vague, "it'll all be fine" pandering. Details. What services will you cut? Balance the budget you want thrown out of balance. Its a perfectly fair question, and yet I never see a detailed answer.
Be specific
Name what "other things to cut" exist. That's the whole point of the budget game. They named all of the possibilities to be cut and just how much you can remove from them. If you're just going to spout off about all those "other things" out there without being able to back it up with any evidence, then just exactly who is mongering here?
Feel free to also name "other income alternatives", too. Be sure to explain how they won't affect the money I just got back from removing the income tax, since that would seem to be the point of not raising the property tax. So, I'm imagining these "other income alternatives" aren't from the taxpayers in some way.
The trouble with Question #1 is that by getting rid of the state
The trouble with Question #1 is that getting rid of the state income tax will
will result in cuts in various services to cities and towns throughout the Commonwealth; snow removal in winter, fire and police protection, maintenance and fixing of roads, etc., as necessary, not to mention the arts, education and healthcare. That's why I am voting NO on Question #1.
recently
Romney cut state and local aid to balance the budget and he recovered about 1/3 of the Commonwealth's deficit. As a result, real estate taxes increased substantially in every MA city and town so they could continue to fund their schools, essential services, infrastructure and other programs. Romney could claim he balanced the budget but homeowners know that their taxes weren't lowered, just shifted. And fewer MA citizens - property owners only - paid to fund this part of government.
State income tax is a government revenue stream that takes 5% of all wage earned in the Commonwealth, whether they live in the Commonwealth or commute from neighboring states. It is a flat tax and it is relatively low tax.
If you vote Yes on 1 and it passes, the state will have to take a machetti to services, towns and cities will be forced to raise property taxes and the tax burden will shift AGAIN, from wage earners to land owners (and renters) and away from the largest cross-section of beneficiaries of the MA economic engine, wage earners.
People living independently in their homes on fixed incomes will be impacted severely. Home owners will be impacted.
Not to mention that some
Not to mention that some cities and towns just dont have the ability to raise their income taxes anymore then where they are right now. Think of the places hard hit by foreclosures right now, now turn around and toss an extra 3,000 or more property tax on their backs and see how quickly we go from having a flow of foreclosures to a massive surge. Im thinking some cities and towns could start looking like Detroit if we take away almost 100 percent of local funding and put the burden on the local municipalities.
Would Yes on Q1 put the last
Would Yes on Q1 put the last nail the coffin of Mike Rush's $1 million dollar Charles River beach project on the Parkway?