Patrick to Supreme Court? Could the ultimate domino fall

Speculation has ramped up over the last couple of days that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens might announce later this spring that he is retiring from the court. Could this be Governor Patrick's ticket out? First, the Stevens news:

WASHINGTON - Justice John Paul Stevens, leader of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, said in an interview that he would decide in early April whether to retire at the end of this court term....

Interviewed March 8, Stevens said he would make up his mind in about a month.

The court's current term is scheduled to end in late June. Justices who are retiring typically announce the news near the end of a term so a successor can be seated by October.

Why Patrick? Lets go back in time to the Summer of 2007. As the presidential campaign was just starting to wind up, the SCOTUSblog took a look at possible Supreme Court nominees should a Democrat be elected president. Here is part of what they wrote:

Deval Patrick may prefer to run for a second term as Governor. More generally, though being named a Justice is obviously an extraordinary and profound honor, a nominee on the left is in all likelihood signing up for ten years of dissent on many of the most important issues of Court confronts....

My ultimate predictions? Kim Wardlaw (2009, for Souter), Deval Patrick (2010, for Stevens), and Elena Kagan (2011, for Ginsburg).

Well, the authors got their first prediction wrong, but they did list Sonia Sotomayor among the candidates for Souter's position. Many are touting Kagan for the position should Stevens retire, but the author has accounted for that by predicting that she will replace Justice Ginsberg.

So, what would this mean for the governor's race? Well, the timing really couldn't be better. Let's assume for a moment that President Obama doesn't announce his pick until mid-June. On June 15 he gets Patrick on the horn and makes him an offer he can't refuse: not only will he be the next Supreme Court justice, but he won't have to risk tarnishing his legacy with a lost election.

If Governor Patrick pulls more than 85% of the delegate votes at the State Democratic Convention on June 6, he will be the only Democratic nominee on the primary ballot. So, if the governor decides to stand down, the state committee would convene to nominate a replacement candidate. That would almost definitely be Lt. Governor Tim Murray. (If Grace Ross qualifies for the ballot as well, I do not know if procedure would allow for a replacement in the primaries, but a Murray sticker campaign could still defeat Ross).

So Murray gets to campaign all summer while Patrick finishes up his work at the state house. Because a new justice wouldn't be seated until August or so, Patrick can do the dirty work on this year's budget, which will undoubtedly be unpopular. After he signs the budget, he turns the keys to the governor's office to Murray, who can continue to campaign as the active governor while being able to put a little distance between himself and the unpopular decisions Patrick will have to make during the budget process.

I don't think anyone has polled a potential Murray-Baker-Cahill race instead of Patrick-Baker-Cahill, but I sense that Murray is a bit more popular than Patrick. Where the governor is currently holding a three- to eight-point lead in the polls, I'd guess Murray's lead would be more like eight- to twelve-points.

Really, what could be better for Massachusetts liberals? Deval Patrick gets to sit on the Supreme Court for the next 30 years and Tim Murray becomes a favorite to win the corner office.

RMV fee controversy is everyone's fault

Whenever a politician on Beacon Hill says that they didn't know about a fee hike like the Registry of Motor Vehicles' five-dollar charge to do business in person, the siren on my BS detector wails like a fleet of engines headed to a five-alarm blaze. The fact is, the state legislature is so powerful that a selectman in Montague needs to have a home-rule petition passed in order to sneeze at town meeting. So there is nothing more disingenuous than this:

Outraged state senators on both sides of the aisle today will push to overturn a “brutal” Registry of Motor Vehicles fee slapped on drivers who conduct some business in person instead of online after a Herald report revealed the cost hike.

“It doesn’t seem quite fair,” said Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth). “I assume the members might (vote to eliminate the $5 fee). We didn’t even know it had happened until we read it (in the Herald)...”

“I think the element of surprise is what angered people, and rightly so. I’m angry as well,” [Rep. Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee)] said. “Given the way this has been packaged, I would take a serious look at supporting a rollback.”

Baloney.

Oh, I have no doubt that Senator Murray, Representative Wagner, and others in the legislature didn't know it was coming. But there is a big difference between not knowing something is happening and not being told that it is going to happen. The legislature was told that this increase was coming. It's their own fault if they didn't pay attention.

State law is clear that the Secretary of Administration and Finance must inform the legislature at least 60 days before raising fees and hold a public hearing at least 30 days before raising fees. In the case of this particular fee, it appears that the notice was given more than one year in advance.

According to the Senate Journal of December 15, 2008, "A communication from the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (pursuant to Section 3B of Chapter 7 of the General Laws) giving notice of its intention to amend 801 CMR 4.02: Fees for Licenses, Permits, and Services to be Charged to State Agencies (received Thursday, December 11, 2008),— was placed on file."

On January 6, 2009, the House Journal reports that a communication "From the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (under the provisions of Section 3B Chapter 7 of the General Laws) submitting proposed amendments to 801 CMR 4.02 and 801 CMR 4.08" was "placed on file."

On February 17, 2009, the RMV announced a public hearing would be held March 16 to consider the proposed fee changes. The announcement included a link to the fee changes themselves. The $5.00 "Branch Transaction Administrative Fee" is clearly marked as a change.

The current list of fees posted at the Executive Office for Administration and Finance was amended on January 22, 2010 to include the new fee (see page 42).

The Senate was told, the House was told, a public hearing was held, no one raised a stink, so the revenue projections for the FY2010 budget were made including revenue from this fee. The House and Senate pass the budget, Governor Patrick signs it, and everyone is happy until the fee kicks in, consumers get outraged, and legislators pretend that if they had actually been informed of this despicable fee they would have stopped it.

Again, baloney.

But while legislators have no reason to be outraged, consumers do. The RMV absolutely misled consumers about this change, despite their protestations to the contrary. Back to the Herald:

The RMV has done little to raise awareness of the fee. It was mentioned on an obscure RMV blog posting on Saturday. An internal memo obtained by the Herald says there will not be a promotion of the fee.

“Customer advertising . . . will not include the administrative fee separately, but rather the stated renewal or duplicate fee will be listed as $5 greater,” wrote RMV officials in the memo.

Looking through the RMV's archives, it is clear that they had no intention of letting people know of the increase. There are a number of official releases that specifically promote online usage. While those would seem to be the perfect place to remind customers that using online services would save money because fees will rise in 2010, none mention the increase. In fact, the official fee schedule "revised February 2010" does not even list the fee, even though it was to go into effect March 1.

Obviously, they were trying to hide it. They had an entire year to tell everyone that they had better go online or they were going to be charged a fee. It should have been in every press release about web services, posted on the web site, noted in every mailing, and advertised prominently in each branch. Why didn't they?

Well, I think we all know the reason. The RMV has to balance out the savings they get from having people use the web with the fees they would generate by charging everyone who comes into the branches. Apparently there is more to gain by collecting the fees than there is by saving money through on-line transactions.

Well, today the governor responded by rescinding the fees. It was probably the best thing he could do given the situation. This isn't a bad fee. We should be encouraging our state agencies to be more efficient, and one of the ways to do that is to move people to online transactions.

We should also encourage our legislators to read the communications from the executive secretaries so they know what government is doing. That's why the communications are required. And we should encourage the RMV to be honest with consumers, and worry more about customer service than raising money.

Deval Patrick's lead may be bigger than you think

Friday, the Boston Herald screamed the headline "Poll says race is between Cahill & Baker." It's safe to say that a Herald reader that didn't get into the article would believe that Governor Deval Patrick was getting trounced, or at least was losing. Funny, that's not what the poll said:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s standing with voters is so weak that this year’s race for governor is shaping up as a contest between his two rivals, a new Suffolk University-7News poll shows.

“This race is really between Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which conducted the poll. “Whoever emerges between the Baker-Cahill race is likely to be the winner.”

As for Patrick, Paleologos said, “On paper, he leads.”

The governor’s grip on a precarious lead continues, with the incumbent Democrat taking 33 percent of the vote compared to Republican Baker’s 25 percent and Treasurer Timothy Cahill, running as an independent, close behind with 23 percent.

Green-Rainbow Party candidate Jill Stein trails with a distant 3 percent, and 16 percent are undecided, according to the survey of 500 likely voters.

Amazing. Governor Patrick holds a lead outside the margin of error, yet the "race is really between Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill." In the official Suffolk University press release touting the poll there is no suggestion that Patrick is losing, but there is this note on momentum:

Patrick (33 percent) still leads the tightening field, followed by Baker (25 percent), who edges out Independent candidate and State Treasurer Tim Cahill (23 percent). Green Party candidate Jill Stein has 3 percent, while 16 percent are undecided.  In a November, 2009 poll, Patrick led Cahill 36 percent to 26 percent, while Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim chief executive, was a distant third with only 15 percent.

Now, it looks to me like Patrick's and Cahill's standings haven't changed a bit (their three-point drops would be within the margin of error), but that Baker has picked up 10 points from undecided voters. I'm still not sure how that translates into a Patrick loss, but there you go.

I suppose seeing the incumbent governor at 33% could mean that he is toast. That is one way to look at it. But there are also a couple of other ways of looking at the Suffolk poll.

For instance, looking at the demographics of this poll, one thing stood out to me. According to the marginals posted on Suffolk's web site, the polling sample went 49-36 for Scott Brown in January's special election. That corresponds to a 57-42 advantage when you take out the 14% who did not vote or refused to answer. We know that Scott Brown actually won by a 52-47 advantage, so I wondered what would happen if I weighted the votes for governor based on a 52-47 margin among the 431 respondents who said they voted. (I did not re-weigh the votes of the other 69 respondents).

Here is how the poll looks based on a 52-47 Brown win:

Patrick -- 35
Baker -- 24
Cahill -- 22
Stein -- 3
Undecided -- 16

That changes the Patrick margin from +8 to +11. Not a huge change, but one that could cause a tabloid like the Herald to scream "Patrick cruising with double-digit lead" if it were inclined to ever say anything positive about the governor.

Another way one might choose to look at the poll is that while Patrick continues to do very well with Coakley voters, neither Cahill or Baker have broken through with Brown voters. Here are the numbers (no weighting):

Among Coakley voters:
Patrick -- 62
Cahill -- 15
Baker -- 7
Stein -- 4
Undecided -- 12

Among Brown voters:
Baker -- 42
Cahill -- 28
Patrick -- 11
Stein -- 2
Undecided -- 16

If Baker is going to match Patrick's base, he'll need somewhere around 57% of Brown voters to come even. He also cannot afford to give up Brown voters to Patrick (11%) at a higher rate than Patrick bleeds Coakley voters to Baker (7%).

Here is another way to look at it. Let's take Suffolk's numbers in this poll and compare them to the six previous polls in this race (there may be others, but I could only find seven):

Notice Suffolk's numbers. In their previous two polls, Patrick had his two best showings while Baker had his only two results under 20 percent. In other words, Baker may not have momentum at all; rather maybe the Suffolk poll has been out of sync in its previous iterations and is just now falling into line with the other surveys.

Sure, it would be great if Patrick were polling in the mid-40s, but he's not. Even so, no matter how you slice it, he is winning today just as he has been since the start of the campaign. If Cahill stays in the race and Patrick shores up the rest of Coakley's supporters, he will be reelected.

Praising Democrats not allowed

The race for Lew Evangelidis’ seat in the State House is heating up, with Holden Selectman Ken O’Brien running as a Democrat and fellow board member Kimberly Ferguson likely running as a Republican. But the debate really got started four weeks ago when O’Brien wrote a letter to the editor of The Landmark thanking Governor Deval Patrick for restoring transportation funds he had previously cut from the state budget.

Apparently, if there is one thing you can’t do in this district, it’s to publicly praise a Democrat, as the Landmark has received letters and guest columns for three straight weeks eviscerating O’Brien for daring to defend the Governor. The assault from the right culminated in a “Speak Out” column by Darin McCarthy which was peppered with myths, half-truths, and omissions. I think there were a couple of good points in there, but it was hard to get past the errors.

And because I just can’t let old news pass without a comment, I’d like to try to set the record straight. Here are excerpts of the letter:

Countless thanks to both Mark Ferguson and Elliott Lockwood, who both wrote articles in previous weeks (Jan. 14 and Jan. 21) bringing to light a letter by Holden Selectman Ken O’Brien (Jan. 7). In the letter Ken O’Brien went on a completely tactless, partisan rant praising our governor Deval Patrick for reversing his own decision to rob our transportation funds earlier this year.

Here is O'Brien's letter. Here again is McCarthy's letter. Which one is the "tactless, partisan rant?"

Yes, Ken, the vast Republican executive branch has been a widespread problem in Massachusetts for some time now. His letter proves to me how completely out of touch he is, how outright partisan of a town official he is and, more importantly, how absolutely stupid he thinks the taxpaying voters are.

I sense sarcasm. I wonder if Mr. McCarthy remembers that the executive branch was controlled by Republican governors from 1991-2007.

I guess being a partisan town official is a bad thing. Mr. McCarthy is probably surprised to see that Select Board Chair Kimberly Ferguson is running as a Republican. I imagine he will be writing another letter to the editor shortly decrying the partisanship of that town official. I also find it interesting that Mrs. Ferguson's husband wrote a letter earlier that was critical of Ken O'Brien. Nothing like softening up the opponent as your spouse is exploring a run for office.

What do you think of the fact that the Massachusetts Democratic Legislature, stating that such a critical seat should not be appointed by one person, reversed the succession law in 2004 so that then-Gov. Mitt Romney could not appoint a senator had John Kerry won the presidency? What do you think of the fact that the Democratic Legislature reversed that same decision in 2009 (at Ted Kennedy’s urging just prior to his passing) so that Deval Patrick could appoint an interim senator, in order to cast critical votes on Obama’s health care overhaul? By the way, how did that self-serving political move play out, Ken?

Should Martha Coakley have just been handed the senator’s seat without having to earn it?

I'm going to answer for myself here. The legislature should not change succession laws based on circumstance, they should change them based on what is right. They should not have changed the laws in 2004 or 2009 in response to specific events. However, the law as it is currently written is the best solution. The governor should appoint a temporary replacement so that the state's interests are protected, and the people can decide a replacement shortly thereafter. It would have been better to make that change in 2006 or 2008 or 2010 when there was no specific case in mind.

Of course, if McCarthy is implying by the tone of his questions that the law should not have been changed, then his answer to the question of whether or not Coakley should "have just been handed the senator’s seat without having to earn it?" must be a resounding yes. Based on the way the law was before 2004, whoever was appointed would have been handed the seat without having to earn it. In a climate where the appointee was a permanent replacement, Coakley may very well have been the pick.

How many more state senators and speakers (Marzilli, Wilkerson, and DiMasi) needed to be indicted by the federal government because she, as the state’s top law enforcement official, failed to prosecute some of them herself, Ken? I believe her arguments were mostly that she felt the federal government had better investigative tools and jurisdiction.

Oh no, here come the inaccuracies. Jim Marzilli was indicted by the Middlesex District Attorney's office because his alleged assault happened in Lowell. The AG's office would not have had jurisdiction. With Wilkerson and DiMasi, Coakley did explain that state law did not was not nearly as strong as federal law when dealing with public corruption. Thanks to Governor Patrick and the Democratic-led legislature (oh no, am I going to get a nasty letter now?), ethics reform was passed last summer. The tougher ethics rules make it harder to get away with corruption under Massachusetts law and make it easier for corrupt politicians to be prosecuted in state courts.

When Sal DiMasi was up for re-appointment, who in the state’s Legislature unanimously voted in his favor, only to see him step down under federal corruption allegations weeks later? I’ll give you a clue: there are 144 of them, out of 160.

Here is the rundown of the vote on January 7, 2009:

135 -- Sal DiMasi (D)
9 -- Brad Jones (R)
1 -- William Greene (D)
14 -- Present

Techinically, it wasn't unanimous in the Democratic caucus because there was one vote for Green and nine who voted present. However, if we use McCarthy's counting method and tally a "present" vote as an affirmation of DiMasi, then he must have been royally angered at Representative Lew Evangelidis because Big Lew also voted present, in an apparent--by McCarthy's logic--show of support of DiMasi.

What of Deval Patrick’s pick for transportation secretary, James Aloisi? What of the fact that while campaigning, Deval specifically used words that he was against the “Big Dig culture,” yet in appointing Aloisi as transportation secretary (the Friday before Christmas during a snowstorm), the taxpayers’ stocking full of coal was a stooge lawyer who helped write the law that saddled the Turnpike Authority with the Big Dig’s debt, and later he cashed in to the tune of $3 million in legal fees, working as an outside counsel. And the list goes on and on.

Aloisi did "help write the law." Who was he helping? Current Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker, who was then Secretary of Administration and Finance. From the Boston Globe:

And the decision to assign the project, and much of its debt, to the Turnpike Authority in two bills passed in 1995 and 1997, was also crafted during Baker’s time as a top finance man on Beacon Hill. In 1997, when critics were cautioning that the state was not setting aside enough money to pay for the Big Dig, he defended the turnpike plan as “the right mechanism for dealing with a situation that everyone admits is going to be challenging.’’....
Former House Transportation Committee chairman Joseph C. Sullivan, who led the panel when many financing decisions were made, said Baker had a heavy hand in the plan to assign Big Dig expenses to the Turnpike Authority.

“The primary author was the governor and, instrumental in that authorship, was Secretary Baker,’’ said Sullivan, a Democrat and now mayor of Braintree....

“It would be impossible to get that kind of a monster created without the [administration and finance] secretary, the governor, and the legislative leadership,’’ [Senator Mark Montigny] said. “It’s just too big of an undertaking.’’

If you're going to blame Aloisi for the Big Dig mess then you have to blame Baker, as they were working hand in hand to saddle the Turnpike Authority with billion of dollars in debt. I'd think having the guy who masterminded the whole scheme in the corner office is more dangerous than appointing his cohort to a bureaucratic position. But that is for voters this fall to decide.

Four more years? Was it also not a fact that Deval Patrick in 2006 campaigned that he would reduce property taxes in Massachusetts? How has that worked out for everyone?

Patrick campaigned on "property tax relief" not "property tax reduction," and you know what? He has delivered. In each of the first two years of Patrick budgets, property taxes have risen at a slower pace than any year since 1992. Of the 16 budgets filed during the years of Republicans, the last 15 caused property taxes in cities and towns to rise faster than they did in 2008 or 2009.

Under Romney, the average property tax bill rose 23.5% from 2003 (the last Swift/Celluci budget year) to 2007 (the last Romney budget year). Broken into two year blocks, property taxes rose 11.9% in 2004-05 and 10.4% in 2006-07. As a comparison, in 2008-09, property taxes have only risen 7.3%.

I understand that you have to get tax revenues from somewhere to prevent the impoverished state government from having to forego pay raises.

Yeah, all of those high pay, no work hacks like prison nurses and mental health workers don't deserve raises.

Sigh. Looks like it's going to be a rough and tumble summer.

Keller: Deval Patrick should quit before he wins again

Channel 4 political editor, crank, and Deval Patrick-hater Jon Keller came up with a real doozy earlier this week in relation to a new Rasmussen poll showing the Governor with a big lead in his re-election race. How does Keller think Patrick should respond to the news that he’s on his way to reelection? Quit!

If Gov. Deval Patrick were to win re-election despite half the electorate wanting him out and only 14% admitting to a very favorable view of him - as this poll suggests would happen if the election were held today - what would re-election be worth? How would he function as a weak, widely-disliked lame duck, dealing with a hostile legislature? Why would he want to be in such a position? And how can he argue that it's in the best interests of the state to suffer through four years of that?

Seriously? The governor is so far ahead that he should quit, saving us the pain of four more years of Deval (despite the fact that we appear to be voting him back into office)? That might be the most ridiculous thing I’m going to read in the 12 months leading up to the election. Definitely the leader in the clubhouse.

Why does Keller fear that Patrick will win? Looking more closely at the numbers, it’s hard to see how Patrick loses. The scenario where Tim Cahill’s candidacy would hand Patrick another term appears to be coming true. Here are the numbers:

With Christy Mihos as the Republican nominee:
Deval Patrick (D) -- 34%
Christy Mihos (R) -- 23%
Tim Cahill (I) -- 23%
Not sure -- 19%

With Charlie Baker as the Republican nominee:
Deval Patrick (D) -- 34%
Charlie Baker (R) -- 24%
Tim Cahill (I) -- 23%
Not sure -- 19%

Patrick currently holds at least a 10-point lead. In a best-case scenario for a challenger (assuming these numbers hold as a minimum—a dicey assumption 12 months out), the third place finisher would end up with at least 23%, meaning it would only take 39% of the vote to win. To get to 39%, Patrick could lose the “Not Sure” voters by as much as 3-1 to whomever finishes second and still be victorious (39-38-23).

In a scenario where the two challengers split the undecided vote evenly, Patrick could still win even if he picked up no votes from that group (34-33-33).

In other words, Patrick only loses a race with three strong candidates under a scenario where the economy gets so much worse over the next 12 months that Patrick loses the support he has.

And while it is certainly possible that things will get worse, there is a pretty good chance that the economy is starting to turn around. If that happens—even a little—then the only way Patrick loses is if Cahill drops out or if Patrick suffers some sort of scandal that isn’t even on the radar at this time.

Keller is smart enough to figure this out—he knows that unless things get even worse, the only way Patrick loses is if he quits.

Of course, Keller fails to mention the obvious. A Republican who wins with only 35% of the vote will also be a “weak, widely-disliked lame duck, dealing with a hostile legislature.” If Cahill were to win, the same would apply. So why not ask one of them to quit, Jon?

GOP at it again, blame Patrick for Romney's "wheels for welfare" program

I begrudgingly have to give state Republicans credit...they have been doing a great job manufacturing outrage over programs that began under a governor they supported. A couple of months ago, they tried to blame Deval Patrick for Mitt Romney's attempt to collect sales tax on New Hampshire businesses. Now they are going after the governor for another program started during the Romney administration:

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work....

The program, which started in 2006, distributes cars donated by non-profit charities such as Good News Garage, a Lutheran charity, which also does the repair work on the car and bills the state.

Kehoe defended the program, saying the state breaks even by cutting welfare payments to the family - about $6,000 a year.

“If you look at the overall picture, this helps make sure people aren’t staying on cash assistance. It’s a relatively short payment for a long-term benefit,” Kehoe said.

First, the Boston Herald also incorrectly (or misleadingly) calls it Patrick's program, although a follow-up today does mention that the program began under Romney (the Herald also claims the program began in 2006, but reports from the Department of Transitional Assistance show that it began in 2003). Beyond that, this seems like the perfect Republican program. It hits the following big time Republican positions:

1. The Good News Garage is a Lutheran charity, which means that this is a faith-based program, long a favorite cause of social-conservative Republicans who want more government money to go to churches.

2. It reduces direct cash aid to welfare recipients.

3. It helps move people off welfare and into work.

It was such a good Republican program that none of the Republicans in the State House were interested in killing it during the time that the Romney government funded and administered the program. I wonder what changed.

(And before someone replies that opinions have changed because of the economic crisis, remember that when the Romney administration program started in 2003, the state was also facing a billion-dollar deficit).

So, because of their blind opposition to the current governor, State House Republicans are going to try to kill a plan that moves people off welfare and into jobs, lowers welfare payments, and helps keep a faith-based program afloat.

That's not leadership, that's obstructionism. It's also all Massachusetts Republicans have to offer.

Update: Here is a memo dated May 22, 2006, with Mitt Romney's name on the masthead, outlining the program.

Tags: Massachusetts Republican State House Deval Patrick

House budget part 3: When vote trading may be the right thing

Third in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle.

When the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night--bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%--Speaker Robert DeLeo was forced to scramble to put together 107 votes in an effort to build a majority large enough to override Governor Patrick’s threatened veto. Rep. Dennis Rosa of Leominster told the Telegram & Gazette the House leadership was working hard to get votes changed:

Freshman Rep. Dennis A. Rosa, D-Leominster, said he was asked to back the speaker’s tax plan repeatedly throughout the day, but held his ground to vote against it.

“My arm got twisted two or three times yesterday, but politely twisted,” he said. “It was fine with me. They made me a sales pitch and I made my case that I had to represent my district and stand up for my people,” Mr. Rosa said.

“Leadership wasn’t happy with it but I think they understand my decision.”

In my two earlier posts I was critical of Worcester Rep. Vincent Pedone for changing his vote for what appear to be less-than courageous reasons. But would it be different if a representative changed his vote in return for a project or funding that was vital to his community?

For instance, take the situation that may have faced Rep. Harold Naughton of Clinton. (And I want to make it clear here that this is a completely hypothetical situation. Not only do I not know if Naughton changed his vote from No to Yes, I don’t have any idea why he would have made a change if he did. I’m presenting this just for the sake of argument.) When the budget was first released a couple of weeks ago, Clinton was looking at taking a significant hit in local aid. Not only was the town facing the 32% cut in local aid that all cities and town are facing, but Clinton also faced the loss of an additional $500,000 in aid, as explained by the Times and Courier:

Half that cut comes via the elimination of an annual state payment of $500,000 to operate the wastewater treatment plant on High Street, Town Administrator Michael Ward said Tuesday. State Rep. Harold Naughton Jr., D-Clinton, vowed to fight the cut.

“I feel that’s not just a statutory obligation, but a moral obligation of the commonwealth,” Naughton said. “This will be my priority. Every resource that I have [will be brought] to the fight.”

The payment enables the town to pay its $500,000 annual bill to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, which operates the sewer plant and the Wachusett Reservoir. Naughton said the payment is intended as compensation for the state taking Clinton land to build the reservoir in the 1890s and 1900s....

The article goes on to suggest that Naughton had not yet committed to raising the sales tax:

“I think we’ll see some proposals for taxes,” Naughton said. “I think you’ll see debate on a raise in the sales tax, I think you’ll see us return to debate on the statewide meals and hotel tax...I still need to listen to some debate and be convinced one way or the other.”

So in our scenario, we know that there is something that Naughton is willing to “use every resource” to fight for, and that he had not publicly committed to voting for a sales tax. Fast forward to Monday. In the Democratic caucus, Naughton does not commit to being one of the 81 yes votes Speaker DeLeo needs to pass the bill. Suddenly, the Governor’s letter hits everyone’s e-mail box and DeLeo starts to scramble to pick up an additional 26 votes to ensure a veto-proof majority.

If DeLeo heads down to Naughton’s office or pulls him aside on the floor of the house and asks “what will it take to get you to join us on the sales tax?” the answer is… “Put the $500,000 for the MWRA treatment plant back into the budget and I’ll vote with you.”

Again, I’ve made the DeLeo-Naughton scenario up in my head, so it may not have happened that way. But if it did, would that be reason enough to change a vote? Is raising the sales tax worth the additional $500,000 in local aid for Clinton?

I don’t know. I expect that this is one of the toughest parts of being a state rep or senator: how do you balance what you think is best for the state against what you think is best for your district? I hoped that Naughton would vote against the sales tax, but perhaps he had reasons other than tax philosophy to do so.

Or maybe he didn’t. Either way, it will be interesting to see if Clinton ends up with the $500,000 after all, and how much more Naughton will have to fight to get it.

Tags: Massachusetts Clinton Harold Naughton Leominster Dennis Rosa State House Budget Deval Patrick

House Budget part 2: The Governor wins by losing

Second in a series of thoughts on this week’s budget battle.

When the Massachusetts House ignored my advice and passed a sales-tax increase Monday night--bumping the rate from 5% to 6.25%--they did so over Governor Patrick’s threat of a veto. While Governor Patrick lost the vote—-the house approved the proposal by a bare veto-proof margin—-he is likely to have won the public relations battle. In the end, that might be more important than the vote on the tax increase itself.

Despite his threat, the governor is not going to veto this plan. If he were truly committed to vetoing the sales tax hike, he would have waited until after it passed to make that known. The Telegram & Gazette makes that clear:

There were just over 81 votes in support after a caucus Monday morning.

It was only after the governor said he may veto the tax hike if the House failed to adopt numerous controversial reforms that House leaders interrupted their session and spent the next 10 hours converting enough Democrats to line up with the House speaker in a show of strength against the governor’s threat.

When it was clear Mr. DeLeo had more than the 107 votes for the tax hike, House leaders proceeded with the vote. But there were many holdouts. In the end 14 Central Massachusetts House members voted for the sales tax and 11 voted against it. There were just over 81 votes in support after a caucus Monday morning.

The governor had to know that the House was nowhere close to having the votes to override his veto early in the day. Had he kept his mouth shut, he could have vetoed (or issued his threat) after the measure had passed.

He also had to know that he would come out of this fight smelling like a rose. Patrick can claim that he tried to stand up for the people of the Commonwealth in opposing a broad-based tax increase and that the only reason the increase went through was because Legislature dislikes him so personally that it was unwilling to put personal politics aside in an effort to stick it to him.

An example of a rep who may have at least partly changed his vote due to frustration with the governor’s politics is Worcester’s Vincent Pedone, who we have quoted before:

Rep. Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester, who along with Rep. John J. Binienda, D-Worcester, panned the sales tax idea last week, came around to join the speaker’s tax hike proposal Monday night. He said the governor’s “surprise letter” on Monday created “a much different dynamic” on the vote….

He said House members also took the governor’s action as a move against them for political gain. He argued the House has acted on four of five reform packages, even though the governor claims they do not go far enough.

“Sending the letter is not leadership,” Mr. Pedone said, also criticizing a video of the governor on his Web page urging supporters to contact legislators and demand more reforms. “It’s pure pandering to the public,” Mr. Pedone said.

So Rep. Pedone and potentially 25 other members changed there vote from no to yes because the governor publicly threatened to ratify their no vote and veto the bill? It appears that some members may be so petty that they would change their vote because a governor they do not like publicly supported their position. That’s just backwards.

(And sending the letter to the members of the legislature—-and the media-—as well as circulating a video message urging citizens to call their reps to lobby for the governor’s position is both leadership and pandering. There are a lot of us who wish the governor had been doing more of this sort of leading...he seems too often to be content to roll out policy ideas and hope that people instinctively embrace them, instead of advocating and campaigning for them.)

Of course, as I said above the sales tax hike will likely become law one way or the other. When the house and senate versions of the bill go to conference, you’re likely to see a final bill that includes the senate’s stronger reform measures merged with the house sales tax plan. And the governor will sit behind the big desk as he signs the measure, and take credit for holding the legislature’s feet to the fire on the issue of reform.

Or the governor may go all the way and strike the sales tax hike from the final bill, fully knowing that his veto will be overridden, and burnishing his improbable reputation as someone who is trying to put the breaks on the Legislature’s taxes.

Next: When vote trading might be a good thing

Tags: Massachusetts Worcester Vincent Pedone State House Budget Deval Patrick

House should reject broad sales tax increase

After all of the discussion all spring about whether or not Massachusetts should raise the gas tax or the meals tax or the hotel tax or a “sin tax,” the legislature unveiled a proposal today to raise the sales tax by 1.25 points to 6.25%. From the AP, via the Telegram & Gazette:

The move would raise the sales tax to 6.25 percent from 5 percent and generate an extra $900 million a year in revenues at a time when the state is struggling with plunging revenues, rising unemployment and a deteriorating transportation infrastructure.

The plan — a copy of which was given to The Associated Press — rejects any other tax increases, including proposals to raise the state income tax rate or apply the sales tax to a range of services that currently are exempt from it.

It also rejects Gov. Deval Patrick's proposals to add 18 cents to the state's current 23.5 cents per gallon gas tax, expand the sales tax to include alcohol, candy and soda, and allow local communities to increase taxes on restaurant meals and hotel rooms.

There was talk last week that such a proposal was in the works, but the details were just leaked last night. Call me a cynic, but I wonder if the sales tax increase was House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s plan all along. For weeks, the state has been debating a handful of proposals put forward by Governor Patrick, none of which included an across-the-board sales tax hike. The governor has been getting hammered. So DeLeo sits back and lets the guv take all of the heat, then unveils his proposal the day before it is going to be voted on, ensuring that it does not face the same level of public debate and scrutiny that Patrick’s plans have been subjected.

I realize that this is the most pie-in-the sky, naïve thing I’ll ever write on this blog, but the legislature should ensure that all amendments are filed 48 or 72 hours before they are to be debated so that the public has the ability to comment. A whole lotta good it’s going to do anyone who might oppose this or any other plan when your state rep isn’t going to be around to get your comment because he or she is in session debating the bill or amendment the same day it is being filed.

While I wouldn’t have proposed exactly the same set of measures that Governor Patrick has, I believe that a revenue plan similar to the governor’s is a better plan than the across-the-board Sales tax hike. My plan would look like this:

1. Allow cities and towns the local option of raising the meals tax by up to three points, with all of the revenues to be returned to the city or town in which the tax was levied.
   
   
2. In lieu of a gas tax, expand the current sales tax to include gasoline. At a current price of $2.00 gallon, the sales tax on gas would be 7.9 cents (taxed on $1.58, which is the price of gas minus existing taxes). All of the revenues from the sales tax on gas would be earmarked for transportation.
   
   
3. Expand the current sales tax to include all alcohol sales, as well as food and beverages that are packaged for immediate consumption. This is different than the sugar tax in the sense that a two-liter bottle of soda or a box of cookies that you bring home from the grocery would not be taxed, but the 20-oz soda and package of Ho-Hos you pick up at the convenience store would be taxed. This is the same system they use in Rhode Island and it makes all of the sense in the world: if you are buying groceries you don’t get taxed, if you’re buying something to eat immediately you do get taxed, just as you would if you bought food for immediate consumption at a restaurant. I wrote about this a couple of months ago. This part of the plan also differs from the governor in the sense that this revenue would not be earmarked for health care, but would instead go to the general fund.

My plan would increase revenues in the areas the governor has diagnosed, would help pay for transportation debt, and would increase funding to those local communities who wish to participate in the local option meals tax. But it would not raise the tax rate, so sales taxes on big-ticket items such as televisions, automobiles, building supplies, etc. would not increase. It would also give cover to those representatives who are afraid that voting for a string of tax changes would look bad on their record (a ridiculous thought if I’ve ever heard one, but apparently it is real).

Of course, by the time this post is published the legislature may have already passed the 6.25% plan, since there isn’t any real opportunity for the public to weigh in. The good news is that Governor Patrick is apparently going to veto any sales tax hike.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Sales Tax Meal Tax State House

Good to be the Governor

Awwww! Isn't that just the cutest thing. It doesn't matter how tough things get, when you're the governor you can just go out and find some bears to cuddle with and at least for a moment everything must feel better.

(The bears don't seem to mind, either. Of course, they don't have to worry about paying higher gas taxes...)

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Bears

Motorists will not go to NH to avoid gas tax

Before anyone falls for another round of "Massachusetts consumers will flee to New Hampshire because of our taxes," please do just a little research. When focusing on Governor Patrick's proposed 19 cent per gallon increase, understand that gas in Massachusetts will not be 19 cents more expensive than in the Granite State if the New Hampshire legislature has its way. From the Manchester Union Leader (via MSNBC):

A gasoline tax bill won a bipartisan 14-3 vote for passage in the Public Works and Highways Committee last week.

The bill, raising the tax five cents per gallon in each of the next three years, moves to the full House next.

Get that? New Hampshire is looking to add 15 cents to its gas tax. Raise your hand if you've heard about that in any story about the impact of an increase in the Massachusetts gas tax. Again, the lesson should be to never listen to anyone who worries more about New Hampshire than Massachusetts. They are not being honest with you.

And if the commonwealth would adopt my plan, our gas tax would increase less than New Hampshire's.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick New Hampshire Gas Tax

Mitt Romney's NH tax grab

A couple of weeks ago, reports surfaced that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue was trying to collect taxes on purchases that Massachusetts residences made at Town Fair Tire stores in New Hampshire. The backlash was predictable. It was also warranted. Simple fairness suggests to me that it is a bad idea to collect taxes for purchases made in another state; and I'm sure that if this case went to the Supreme Court it would be ruled a violation of the commerce clause.

But because the story surfaced during a rollout of other tax proposals, there was an assumption in some quarters that this was some sort of Deval Patrick scheme to chase people across the border for their taxes. For instance, this post at the most prominent Republican blog in the state:

Governor Deval Patrick's (D-MA) Administration has ordered Town Fair Tire a Connecticut company with 5 stores in NH and 25 stores in Massachusetts to collect Massachusetts sales tax on Massachusetts residents purchases in New Hampshire....

If I were Governor John Lynch I'd be getting the National Guard ready. Governor Patrick has just declared war on your retail economy.

The post quotes from a Boston Globe article detailing the issue. Being the curious sort, I decided to read the article for myself. Buried in there was this point, which seems to be lost on Republican critics (emphasis mine):

The Town Fair Tire legal battle dates back to 2003, when the Massachusetts Department of Revenue audited the three New Hampshire stores Town Fair Tire operated at the time, after receiving evidence that Bay State residents were driving up to buy tires and having them installed at the chain's shops....

Following the audit, Massachusetts authorities assessed the company about $108,947 in tax, penalties, and interest related to the sales.

Lest we forget, Mitt Romney was the governor of the commonwealth in 2003. Mitt Romney's Department of Revenue came up with the plan. It was part of Romney's effort to raise fees and squeeze out other drops of revenue so that he could boast that he did not raise "taxes" in order to balance the budget.

Deval Patrick's administration should publically announce that they are stoppping the effort to collect cross-border taxes. Democrats need to tell the truth about this policy. Something like this:

Mitt Romney's Republican policy of collecting Massachuetts sales tax in New Hampshire shows the lengths Republicans will go to be dishonest about our state's fiscal needs. Instead of having an honest dialogue about our need to raise revenues and pay the Big Dig debts left by 16 years of Republican governors, Romney Republicans in the legislature would rather raid New Hampshire businesses. We should work together to solve our funding crisis instead of resorting to the Romney Republican tax raids.

One other thing...the next time Mitt Romney runs for president, he should be asked over and over again from Keene to Laconia why he wanted to impose a Massachusetts sales tax on New Hampshire businesses.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Sales Tax Mitt Romney New Hampshire

Move all the chips to the middle of the table...and leave them there

One more note on the Governor's tax plans (unfortunately, I'm sure this won't be the last)...the plan to place transponder chips in inspection stickers in an effort to tax Massachusetts drivers by the mile is ripe for abuse. It should be rejected out of hand by the Legislature. From the AP, via the Telegram & Gazette:

BOSTON — The vision of Gov. Deval L. Patrick using a computer to monitor the grocery-store trips of Massachusetts residents has touched off a wave of protest against the idea of using GPS chips to charge drivers for the mileage they put on state roads.

“It’s outrageous, it’s kind of Orwellian, Big Brotherish,” said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, who drafted legislation last week to prohibit the practice. “You’d need a whole new department of cronies just to keep track of it.”

The article goes on to explain that in a test of the technology in Oregon “the receiver was not linked to a map, the DOT had no idea where the miles were driven — only that they were on Oregon roads.”

Leaving aside for a minute that Scott Brown proves why he is a classically inept Massachusetts Republican by taking a legitimate point about privacy concerns and stomping all over it with some irrelevance about cronies and bureaucracy, he’s right to oppose it. Just because the system isn’t currently used to track a driver’s movements doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be used that way. What’s to keep some governor or law enforcement type in the future from linking the information to a mapping system? The problem with this type of technology isn’t necessarily they way it will be used when it is rolled out, but the way it could be abused somewhere down the road. Hopefully, the chip ends up going nowhere.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Gas Tax

Gov. Patrick misses the mark with toll, gas tax proposals

While I have been generally in favor of some of Governor Patrick’s proposals to raise revenues—increases in the meals tax and a repeal of sales tax exemptions on “junk food” as examples—the proposals he has rolled out over the last few months to deal with the crisis in transportation funding have missed the mark.

In December, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority looked to double tolls. Last week, Patrick floated a plan that could increase gas taxes by as much as 29 cents per gallon. Another proposal calls for taxing drivers based on the miles that are recorded using transponder chips. All are bad ideas. While we do need to find a way to pay for our roads and bridges—and the debts incurred by our transportation agencies—an increase in gas taxes this steep would just kill folks who live outside of our urban centers.

The solution is to combine a modest increase in the gas tax with a modest increase in tolls, and to deal with mass transit funding in a different way.

(I realize that some of you think all taxes are bad ideas, but we have a responsibility to pay for our debts. Have our transportation agencies been spending out of control? Probably. Feel free to blame the governors who oversaw the increase in debt (including Romney, Swift, Cellucci and Weld), your state representatives and senators, the agencies themselves…whomever. But regardless of whose fault it is, we still need to pay for it.)

Unfortunately, it looks like the governor is casting about looking for a plan. Here are some of the details of his latest proposal from the AP, via the Boston Globe:

BOSTON—Gov. Deval Patrick is considering asking the Legislature to raise the Massachusetts gasoline tax by 27 cents per gallon as part of a comprehensive package aimed at solving lingering state transportation problems, The Associated Press learned Monday.

Such an increase would stave off a doubling of Massachusetts Turnpike tolls planned for this spring, and finance a wholesale change in the way state runs its transportation system, but leave it with the highest gasoline tax in the nation at 50.5 cents. And the plan calls for increasing that tax annually, based on the Consumer Price Index, starting Jan. 1, 2011....

The plan calls for the state's Highway Division to receive $325 million, or 12.5 cents, of the added 27 cents-per-gallon gas tax. The MBTA would receive $286 million, or 11 cents, while the regional transit authorities would receive $39 million, or 1.5 cents.

The article goes on to quote an administration official explaining that the tax hike isn’t really that much, since the average driver would only pay an additional $120 or so per year. Of course if you live away from the city and have a pair of commuters in the family, as we do, you’re looking at more like $400 per year.

That is probably the biggest problem with this or other transportation taxes in a state like Massachusetts that is so evenly divided between urban, suburban, exurban, and rural populations: there is really no fair and equitable way to levy them. People in an around the city howled when the Turnpike authority proposed doubling the tolls inside 128 and on the harbor tunnels. Why should they have to carry the burden of the Big Dig debt when folks north and south of the city use the Central Artery and don’t have to pay a thing?

So now the governor comes out with a proposal that will hike the gas tax so that the tolls in and around the city can come down and mass transit can receive additional funds. Does that mean it’s my turn to complain? I almost never use the Pike or the tunnels (unless I’m heading to the airport) and I don’t have either commuter rail or a regional transit authority serving my town. Why should my gas bill go up 15% so all of those Lexus drivers from Metrowest can have their tolls taken down and some Birkenstock-wearing elitist from Cambridge can ride the train without a fare increase?

(I’m way overstating the argument for effect; I’m not that into class warfare.)

The answer is to avoid either all-or-nothing approach and cobble together a plan that will modestly raise gas taxes—which haven’t increased in 18 years—while charging drivers for the wear and tear they put on the turnpike and in the tunnels without killing them with draconian toll increases.

Looking at the figures cited above, a one cent increase in the gas tax is worth about $26 million in revenue (i.e. 1.5 cents of the proposed increase would provide $39 million for regional transit). So a 27 cent increase would bring in approximately $702 million in revenue annually. Let’s reduce the gas tax to a reasonable level:

• 11 cents of that ($286 million total) is earmarked for the MBTA and while they need the money, ringing up the gas bill of millions of people who have no need to use the T isn’t the way to pay for it. So now we are down to 16 cents a gallon increase.
  
  
• If we increase tolls modestly on the turnpike and in the tunnels we could bring in another $52 million to offset the money marked for the Highway Department (see below), lowering the total increase to 14 cents.
  
  
• Because regional transit authorities are largely dependent on the use of the highways (as opposed to the MBTA which has a significant rail component) I’m going to leave that money in. I’m also going to leave in the two cents a gallon that is not broken down in the AP story.

So I’ve cut the gas tax increase nearly in half, from 27 cents a gallon to 14. This will require an increase in tolls, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. First, the people using the road are generally the ones paying for it (although I realize that by rolling the Big Dig into the Turnpike Authority—thank you Bill Weld!—we ended up saddling turnpike users with the extra debt). Secondly, robust tolls keep the traffic somewhat manageable and encourage some drivers to use mass transit—trends that could be dramatically reversed if the roadway were free or so inexpensive that it was cheaper than the alternatives. The key is to find the tipping point and keep the tolls in that range.

Here is my toll proposal:

1. An across the board toll increase of 30%, rounded to the nearest quarter.
   
   
2. Tunnel tolls would increase from $3.50 to $4.50.
   
   
3. Remove all tolls on the Mass Pike west of Exit 14/15 in Weston, with the exception of the inbound tolls at the New York border and the inbound tolls at I-84 in Sturbridge. Set the rate of these at 30% higher than current inbound trip to Weston. (New tolls would be $3.50 at the New York Border and $2.25 at Sturbridge).
   
   
4. Remove outbound tolls on the Mass Pike at Allston and at 128. To offset the change, the eastbound tolls in Allston would be increased to $3.25 (double the current rate + 30% toll increase).
   
   
5. Charge a flat inbound toll at Exit 14/15 of $3.25., equal again to double the current rate +30% from 128 to the Pike.

And here is how my toll proposal compares to the Governor’s:

Roadway/Toll            Current              Governor’s Proposal   The Harris Plan
Ted Williams Tunnel     $3.50 (inbound)      $7.00 (inbound)       $4.50 (inbound)
Sumner Tunnel           $3.50 (inbound)      $7.00 (inbound)       $4.50 (inbound)
Mass Pike/Allston       $2.50 (round trip)   $4.00 (round trip)    $3.25 (inbound only)
Mass Pike/Weston        $2.50 (round trip)   $4.00 (round trip)    $3.25 (inbound only)
Mass Pike/Stockbridge   $5.40 (round trip)   $0.00*                $3.50 (inbound only)
Mass Pike/Sturbridge    $3.40 (round trip)   $0.00*                $2.25 (inbound only)

*One version of the governor's plan includes undefined tolls for these interchanges.

A compromise plan that includes both a modest toll increase and a modest gas tax increase is the only way to equitably share the burden. Even so, this plan does not address the deficit at the MBTA and does not take into account other revenue streams and efficiencies that should be explored before increasing taxes and tolls. Perhaps a dedicated push to reduce costs could lessen this burden.

In any event, if the governor continues to offer up trial balloons at the far ends of the funding spectrum (high taxes or high tolls) instead of leading with an equitable compromise plan, the legislature should take responsibility and cobble together a plan that spreads the burden equally.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Mass Pike Gas Tax

Hysterical tax opponents are lying to you -- part 2: "junk food" tax

Since Governor Patrick proposed giving cities and towns the option to raise meals and hotel taxes as well as tax increases on the sale of “junk food” and alcohol, you can hardly pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV news without coming across some hysterical legislator, business owner, or consumer crying that the increases will force people to go to another town or state to do their business.

Do not listen to them. With almost no exception they are either monumentally stupid or lying to you.

Last week, I looked at the crazy argument that someone might run for the town or state border if a local-option meals tax were allowed. In this installment, I will discuss opposition to the governor's proposal to extend the 5% sales tax to soda, candy and other "junk" foods, and what I consider a better model for the governor's proposal.

As with any proposal to raise revenues, every conservative and commercial special interest from Great Barrington to Newburyport howled about the draconian impact that adding four cents to the price of a candy bar and seven cents to a bottle of Pepsi would have on consumers and businesses. To hear them discuss the proposal, the difference between the ability of ordinary joes to pay their bills and a life of despair and destitution is found in those 11 cents. From the Sentinel and Enterprise:

State Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, chairman of Senate Ways and Means, said he had some concerns that the new taxes would drive consumers over the border to New Hampshire. He also said he expected to see more cuts and less reserve money used....

Republicans blasted the tax proposals as a "nickel and dime" approach to balancing the budget when there are others areas that could be cut.

Rep. Robert Hargraves, [R]-Groton, said the candy, soda-and-alcohol tax will drive people over the border to shop.

"My mom-and-pop stores have one foot on a banana peel and another in the bath tub. That's a precarious situation to be in," Hargraves said.

For once, can we just have a sensible discussion. Nobody, nobody, NOBODY, is going to cross the border for a Snickers and a Coke. It is not going to happen. And if it does happen, that says more for the sorry state of education in whatever border town a moron who would drive to New Hampshire to save 11 cents comes from than it does about this tax policy.

(And can we please just forget about New Hampshire for a minute? I don't give a damn what New Hampshire does, we need to do what is best for Massachusetts. I get tired of the couple hundred thousand people (if that) who live in New Hampshire border towns driving the discussion for the rest of us. I get it. New Hampshire has no sales tax. There is a hell of a lot more that New Hampshire doesn't have. You don't hear the same discussions about Connecticut or New York or Rhode Island because they are all more expensive than Massachusetts when it comes to sales taxes, meals taxes, and yes, junk food taxes.)

The Boston Herald was characteristically thoughtful in their coverage:

The governor, who wants to see the measure go into effect by April 1, rebuffed suggestions that the tax intruded on personal choice.

“I think dedicating those funds to nutrition and wellness services is a wise decision,” Patrick said, adding other states have passed the tax. Both New Jersey and New York have a 6 to 7.5 percent sales tax on candy and soda....

Business groups say the tax will hurt the Bay State economy.

“We think it’s a totally unfair thing to do and it hurts companies like NECCO,” said Larry Graham, president of the National Confectioners Association.

The famous NECCO wafers and Sky Bars are made in Cambridge.

Taxes are like, "totally unfair!" Your sleeve of NECCO wafers will now cost you 93 cents instead of 89 cents! Don't let the man "intrude on your personal choice!" Power to the people!

The Globe had an unintentionally (I think) hilarious take on reaction to the proposal:

Governor Deval Patrick's plan to tax candy and sodas is worrying store operators, who say it will further reduce sales at a time of economic decline, when even children have become price-sensitive and are cutting back.

"Kids are going to stop drinking sodas," said Pinto Patel, a clerk at the Brighton convenience store Palace Spa. "Their parents don't give them a lot of money."

Because of a recent increase in candy prices, he said, children are already "looking for the cheap stuff."

I wonder if Mr. Patel realizes that he is making the governor's point. As the Globe story points out, the Patrick administration is looking at lower usage of soda, candy, etc. as a byproduct of the proposal. If kids actually stop drinking soda, he would consider it a big victory:

"Evidence-supported data has shown that each of these products serve more as a detriment than a benefit on the health and well-being of an individual," the Patrick administration wrote in support of the budget proposal. "Removing the tax exemption for the purchase of sweetened soda and candy is a critical first step in discouraging the consumption of these empty calories."

I think the governor is hoping for a result that he's not going to get. Removing the sales tax exemption on these items will not have any effect on consumption, just like it will not drive people over the border. In any event, the grocery lobby wants you to know that it is on the side of consumers like you and me:

"This is not the economy to be raising taxes on consumers," said Chris Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which represents grocery store operators. "People's budgets are stretched to the maximum right now. They're buying down and only buying strict essentials. The last thing they need is another hit on them."

Does this Mr. Flynn--or for that matter a spokesman for any trade organization--actually pay any attention to what he is saying? If people are only buying strict essentials then they have already cut soda and candy out of their budgets, so they are not going to be taking another hit.

(As another aside, can someone tell me why we become so outraged over the idea that the 20 oz. bottle of Sprite you get at Cumberland Farms will cost you $1.56 instead of $1.49, but we express no outrage that the soda companies are charging you something in the neighborhood of five times the price of gas for what essentially is sugar water? Come on, people! If there is one ripoff in America that is it. And I say that as someone who gets ripped off buying Diet Coke at least as much as anyone else.)

But as is the governor's wont, his proposal is too clever and too nuanced and too targeted. For instance, candy is taxed, but cookies, donuts, and other pastries are not. Lemonade would be taxed, but orange juice would not. A bottle of diet soda with no calories or fat would be taxed, but a tub of ice cream or a bag of Doritos would not. A far more sensible idea would be to model the proposal after Rhode Island's tax structure:

Individual prepackaged or factory-sealed bags or packages of chips, popcorn, nuts, trail mix, crackers, cookies, snack cakes, or other snack foods sold by food or convenience stores are not considered prepared foods and are not subject to the 1% local tax. However, packages of these items of five (5) ounces or less continue to be subject to the 7% state sales taxes as food for immediate consumption.

Chilled bottles or containers of fruit juices/drinks, milk, soda, water, iced coffee/tea, etc. are subject to the local as well as the 7% state sales tax when sold in containers or bottles of 24 ounces or less.

In Rhode Island, the sales tax on food roughly mirrors the meals tax in the sense "food for immediate consumption" is taxed the same way by the state whether it is purchased in a restaurant or in a convenience store. It doesn't matter what type of food it is, it matters whether or not the food is generally meant to be eaten right away or in an individual size. That makes altogether more sense to me than it does to single out certain types of food based on how healthy or not they are. The governor should replace his current proposal with one that makes more sense.

And the hysterical tax opponents should trade in their sugary caffeinated soda for some tax-free warm milk and relax.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Sales Tax Meal Tax

Hysterical tax opponents are lying to you -- part 1: meals tax

Since Governor Patrick proposed giving cities and towns the option to raise meals and hotel taxes as well as tax increases on the sale of “junk food” and alcohol, you can hardly pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV news without coming across some hysterical legislator, business owner, or consumer crying that the increases will force people to go to another town or state to do their business.

Do not listen to them. With almost no exception they are either monumentally stupid or lying to you.

(The one exception would be those who are entirely opposed to taxes as a matter of ideology. I would suggest those folks are lying to themselves.)

I’m going to break down each of the three proposed tax increases in a series of blog posts over the next few days. First, let’s take a look into a bleak future where towns are pitted one against another because of their different tax philosophies. (Note, I have already discussed local option taxes once before).

There will be a Texas Roadhouse steakhouse opening in Leominster next month. There is already one open in Worcester. Let’s say that Michelle and I want a nice evening out and decide that’s where we want to go (we could do a lot better, I know. Just play along). The restaurant in Leominster is six miles from our home. The franchise in Worcester is 18 miles away. Both are a reasonable drive for a night out.

But wait! Leominster has decided to impose the dreaded local meals tax while the Worcester City Council has decided that they will lose so much business by raising meals taxes by 1% that the city will actually lose revenue. Maybe I should go out to dinner in Worcester to save money!

While Michelle gets ready to go, I decide to do the math. I assume that a gallon of gas costs $1.75 and that the average car gets 25 mpg (of course, your mileage may vary), for a cost of 7 cents per mile. Based on that, I can calculate the maximum distance I could drive and still save money on my meal. I’m not going to take into account what my time may be worth or assume any depreciation or maintenance cost…just the cost of gas.

If I go to Worcester, I will use $1.68 more in gas (24 miles round trip) than I would if I dine in Leominster. So the only way I will actually spend less in Worcester is if our dinner costs us more than $168.00. I don’t think I could have $168.00 worth of food and fun at Texas Roadhouse, and if I did I’d need a cab ride or an ambulance home and that would make the trip even more expensive.

Are you starting to see why opposition to the local option meals tax on the basis that it will drive diners out of town is rooted in pure stupidity? Anyone who tells you that the local meals tax will hurt business in one town and drive diners to another is lying to you (And if they dare suggest that it might drive diners out of state—where Connecticut already has a 6% meals tax, Rhode Island and New Hampshire 8%, and Vermont 9%—they don’t deserve your time).

Here is a chart showing the maximum distance one can drive and still save money under different cost scenarios. Refer to it the next time some hysterical official tells you your town will go to hell in a handbasket if it passes the meals tax.(I’m assuming the Governor’s proposed state meal tax of 6%, compared with the 7% meal tax in a town that also levies the local-option tax.)



There may be a lot of economic factors that will keep people from going out to eat or that may influence where someone goes for a meal, but the local option tax is not one of them. In an effort to give cities and towns more control over their own budgets, it should be passed by the legislature.

Next: The tax on “junk food.”

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Sales Tax Meal Tax

Don't get around much, anymore

Looks like what passes for right-wing punditry in Massachusetts has decided to close the cocoon a few days early. One of the top Republican blogs in the state had this gem earlier today:

Governor Deval Patrick delivered his State of the State address last night. Much like President-elect Barack Obama, his address was one of hope, but lacking in substance.

The disheartened Republicans must not get around much, anymore. How else to explain that they missed the detailed, substantive stimulus proposal unveiled in Washington yesterday. Not that I expect reality to encroach on conservative commentary...

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Barack Obama Republican

"Love that dirty water...oh, Greenfield, you're my home"

Just doesn't quite have the same ring to it, does it? And as great a singer as he is, James Taylor might not have had as much success had "the turnpike been covered from Stockbridge to Greenfield" (because the Turnpike doesn't go to Greenfield, for one). But looking at the map of Deval Patrick's town hall meetings this summer, someone in the Governor's office must have the idea that the seat of power in the Commonwealth is along the Mohawk Trail.

Here is the list of town hall and cabinet meetings across the state:

Town Hall Meeting Schedule:
Tuesday, July 8th: Salem
Thursday, July 10th: Hull
Wednesday, July 16th: Amesbury
Thursday, July 17th: Holyoke
Monday, July 21st: Milton
Wednesday, July 23rd: Webster
Tuesday, July 29th: Rehoboth
Wednesday, July 30th: Athol
Monday, August 4th: Great Barrington
Monday, August 11th: Hyannis
Saturday, August 23rd: Boston

Governor's Cabinet Meeting Schedule:
Thursday, July 17th: Amherst
Tuesday, July 22nd: Lowell
Tuesday, July 29th: New Bedford
Wednesday, July 30th: Worcester

And here is the map from the governor's web site; I've labeled the pins in the map based on the list of meeting places:

We got a pin out there in Greenfield and no pin marking the Boston event. Can only mean one thing...the state capitol must be moving west! Now that Boston is west of Worcester, maybe we can finally put to rest the belief Bostonians hold that everything west of 495 might as well be in California.

Tags: Deval Patrick Massachusetts

The myth of the good governor

A Telegram & Gazette letter writer criticized Deval Patrick last week for having national aspirations, suggesting:

I hope it is now apparent to everyone that the reason why he is stumping so hard for Barack Obama, and the reason why he is never in the state, is because he wants out of Massachusetts and to be part of Mr. Obama’s Cabinet.

The news today that Patrick made an "iron-clad" promise not to serve in an Obama cabinet has taken a little steam out of my discussion of this letter (not to mention rendering the writer very wrong). But, the author ends the letter with an incredibly illogical argument:

Massachusetts has a long line of governors leaving for other offices (William Weld, Paul Cellucci, Mitt Romney). Let’s rid ourselves of this deceitful politician. In the future, let’s consider true, homegrown politicians who have our best interests in mind.

First, how should we "rid ourselves" of Deval Patrick? Impeachment? Has he actually done anything to warrant removal, or is harboring imaginary national aspirations enough to warrant removal? And wouldn't it logically follow that the best way to rid ourselves of Patrick would be to have him leave for Obama's cabinet? So the writer wants to be rid of Patrick, but he doesn't want Patrick to leave. I'm getting dizzy.

Second, while Massachusetts does have a long history of governors leaving for other offices--although I'm not sure Mitt Romney should be included since he actually finished his term, while the other two governors on this list did not. But let's accept that Romney should be included because he clearly had national aspirations while he was in the corner office. Mentioning Paul Cellucci is also curious since he, as a lifelong resident of Hudson, is about as homegrown as any politician could be.

In any event, it looks like the criteria for being a good governor are to be homegrown and not to seek or accept work in Washington.

The mythical good governor that the author mentions has rarely existed in Massachusetts. Looking back at the last 100 years, most of the commonwealth's governors have either sought or accepted positions in Washington and a few were not born in Massachusetts. Of the 29 governors elected since 1906, 10 of them were both "homegrown" and did not seek or accept higher office during or shortly after their terms:

Ed King, 1979-83
Frank Sargent, 1969-75
Endicott Peabody, 1963-65 (although he did run for the Democratic Vice Presidential nomination in 1972)
Robert Bradford, 1947-49
Charles Hurley, 1937-39
Joseph Ely, 1931-36
Frank Allen, 1929-31
Alvan Fuller, 1925-29
Channing Cox, 1921-25
Ebenezer Draper, 1909-11

Notice something about the length of these governors' terms? They are all very short. In fact, of the 10, only three (Ely, Allen, Cox) were reelected. The other seven were all voted out of office after just one term (Sargent was acting governor for two years before being elected in his own right in 1970).

History suggests that homegrown governors without ambition are so poor that their constituents reject them after a short time.

Rather than seeing ambition as a bad thing, the voters of Massachusetts by and large have noticed leaders when they've seen them despite--or because of--their national ambitions. This tradition of serving both the state and the country goes all the way back to John Hancock, who was elected the first governor of the commonwealth in 1780 and resigned in 1785. Later that summer, he served in congress under the Articles of Confederation and was elected president in November.

Perhaps the people of the commonwealth would have been better off if John Hancock had remained in Massachusetts and kept the state's best interests in mind.

The evidence does not suggest that these homegrown governors are successful, despite their lack of national ambition and the implied focus on "our best interests." And the evidence also doesn't support the claim that Patrick is leaving office before the end of his term. I wouldn't be surprised if Patrick is looking to a bigger stage in the future--I think he will run for reelection in 2010, leave the statehouse after his second term (assuming he is reelected) and then running for president in 2016--but he's not now. And the incentive to be successful will ensure that he attempts to accomplish what he sets out to, since failure would doom any chance of him ascending to national prominence.

(Information on Massachusetts governors from wikipedia and mass.gov).

Tags: Deval Patrick Governor Massachusetts

Governor Patrick goes too far on casino bill

I haven't completely decided whether or not I think casino gambling in Massachusetts is a great idea. I tend to think that opening one or more casinos would probably be in the state's best interest--that the rewards would outweigh the risks--but it's possible that someone might talk me out of it.

But regardless of my soft support for the concept of casinos, I cannot support Governor Patrick's version of the bill. The part of the bill that puts me over the edge--and the part that should worry both gamblers and non-gamblers alike--is this little tidbit the Globe uncovered earlier this week:

Even as Governor Deval Patrick seeks to license three resort casinos in Massachusetts, he hopes to clamp down on the explosion in Internet gambling by making it illegal for state residents to place a bet on line. He has proposed jail terms of up to two years and $25,000 fines for violators.

The provision, buried deep in Patrick's bill to allow three casinos to the state, puts the governor at odds with a fellow Democrat: US Representative Barney Frank, the sponsor of federal legislation to license and regulate online gambling nationally. Yesterday Frank strongly criticized the governor's plan to punish online gamers while inviting casino operators to set up shop.

"Why is gambling in a casino OK and gambling on the Internet is not?" Frank said. "He's making a big mistake. He's giving opponents an argument against him."

He's also giving his supporters an argument against him. Many of the folks who would support the opening of casinos in the state also gamble online. I play poker online. Not a ton, but I have an account with a poker site and play five-dollar games and tournaments every once in a while. I'll be damned if I'm going to be fined or sent to jail because I want to play cards online.

But more than just the selfish argument that I don't want one of my forms of entertainment taken away, I don't want the government making those decisions for me. Congressman Frank is right. It is hypocritical and invasive for the state to decide that any behavior is OK if it is done in a state-sponsored venue, but illegal in the privacy of my own home. It would be like allowing smoking only in government buildings or state-sponsored smoke houses, but not in one's residence.

Patrick's proposal has led me and others like Harvey Silvergate to wonder if the governor's form of "liberalism" leaves "liberty" out of the equation:

Far from taking a pro-liberty position, it appears that Patrick’s support for casino development in this state is premised entirely on the real or imagined economic benefits – and specifically the taxes and other revenue the state would be pocketing, at least at the start, from introducing casinos....

This kind of unprincipled pragmatism – which rejects the necessity of certain liberties, like the liberty to engage in private gambling even in the shadow of glitzy, state-sponsored public gambling – gives the committed civil libertarian pause about how extensive Governor Patrick’s commitment to freedom is.

Governor Patrick should remove the online gambling prohibition from his casino proposal. Failing that, the legislature should either reject the proposal altogether, or pass their own version of a casino bill which protects individual liberties.

Tags: Massachusetts Deval Patrick Casino Internet Gambling