Is [Deval] Patrick a tax-and-spend liberal? That’s not my impression. But the notion that he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature might go on a spending spree and then have to find a way to pay for it is not unreasonable.
You [Patrick] need to make it clear that you won’t raise taxes. You need to take the pledge.
His [Patrick’s] repeated assertion that he has “no plan to raise taxes” is a classic example of keeping your options open.
Joan Vennochi, the Boston Globe, Jan. 11:
Patrick attributes the hedging [on property-tax relief and 1,000 new police officers] to tighter than expected budget considerations. However, the fiscal writing was on the wall, not to mention the front page of this newspaper, long before he won election last November.
“The budget right now is very precariously balanced,” Noah Berger, executive director of the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a liberal think tank, warned in an article published on Sept. 16. “Any proposal to cut taxes or increase spending should acknowledge that they’ll likely require other tradeoffs.”
Two senior Patrick officials said that the administration is looking seriously at a wide range of corporate tax changes to help close what is now projected to be a $1.3 billion budget gap for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1. One of the officials said that the tax changes could raise between $350 million and $400 million annually.
Governor Deval Patrick’s plan to help cities and towns ran into immediate resistance in the Legislature yesterday, with the House speaker characterizing portions of it as “absolutely” tantamount to raising taxes and cautioning that it would not benefit all communities equally.
It’s difficult to grasp how new local taxes could possibly translate into local tax relief. The most we can say about Gov. Deval Patrick’s package of municipal reforms released yesterday is that we won’t be shocked when property taxes don’t exactly plummet next year.
Kerry Healey must be wishing she’d actually run for governor instead of doing whatever the heck it was she thought she was doing last fall.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Anonymous
Hold on Sir,Why not look at at it from this corner:Healy must be glad she doesn’t have to play footsie with the deficit situation in light of their pink glasses scenario and and even dicier cut-taxes slogans that they would have never been able to jam through and would have still been left with a big hole in the budget. What would SHE have done with deficit? That’s what I want to know.Neither candidate choices were overwhelmingly great, and no governor, dem or repub would have the power to force any tax or revenue change without the legislature going along. So the tax issue is really moot.Voters wanted to send a message. Taxes had little to do with it.If they had taxes in mind they would have punished a dem candidate for the ‘sins’ of a dem legislature withholding the 5% income rate cut. They didn’t.The honeymoon is definitely over but what’s most disappointing is the gov has no presence. He is no where to be seen and seems to be hiding. He is not out in public and advocating or defending in front of the camera and is not story #1 on the eveneing news. A horrible rape case is. Rightfully. But the gov has to come out of his shell and (seem to) ‘take charge’ as opposed to written press releases and decisions.N.
Anonymous
I can hardly wait for the budget – smells like Christmas Morning to to me!
Rick in Duxbury
The day that the sleazy SEIU attack ads started last summer, (and were not disavowed by the Dem candidates), the handwriting was on the wall. Who could have guessed we would be depending on the legislature for fiscal sanity?
Don
Surprise! A Democrat is going to raise taxes. Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear. . . .
Stella
Worrisome indeed is the news of hiring, at $72,000 annually, an appointments secretary for Mrs. Patrick. This is an inauspicious beginning for a much anticipated administration.All the drivel spouted from Washington – Wall St. about “healthy” economy requires a prudent Gov, Guv.
Scott Allen Miller
In the Democratic Lexicon a decrease in the rate of growth = a cut. SO yes, for Democrats local meals taxes could lead to property tax cuts because property taxes wouldn’t go up as fast.Or the towns and cities would keep the status quo of overspending on increased salaries, benefits, and pensions for public employees.Just think of how many school textbooks could be bought from the meals taxes derived from a new McDonalds or Starbucks in your neighborhood! Together We Can!