taxes
What Did We Vote For?
Lessons Learned from Question 1
One week ago, voters across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts voted overwhelmingly to preserve our schools and youth programs. They voted to safeguard our emergency and safety structures. They voted to protect our elderly parents and our sick neighbors.
Our neighbors voted against Question 1 - the repeal of our state income tax - in the face of a national economic downturn, while our country and state faced job losses, and amid a presidential campaign that witnessed both parties promising tax cuts to the middle class.
They voted 'no' because voters understand the direct connection between the health of our communities and the revenues that we use to support their public structures.
We all saw community activists working in a network across the state, having conversations with voters in neighborhood action groups, chambers of commerce, public and private employee unions, local town hall meetings, and nonprofit membership meetings. We began to learn what messages worked and what messages didn't work in different communities.
The ONE Massachusetts Network is about to begin a statewide debriefing project to learn more from our communities and organizational members:
Which public structures do you rely and place value on, and where do those structures need improvement?
What sort of changes need to be made to restore your faith that an increase in taxes would be spent wisely and collected fairly?
ONE Massachusetts' job is not to craft the content of a tax reform package, but to help our network of statewide and community-based organizations to develop a membership education program around tax and budget policy, and to empower them to participate in the upcoming public debate by declaring that their communities understand the need for additional revenues - as long as they are fairly collected and effectively used.
[Continued: Next Steps & Insider Budget Briefing Special Guests!]
Local government dilemma
The challenge for local officials is to bring this point home, adjust their governmental systems accordingly, and survive the inevitable wrath of the voters. Pay more taxes or get less services - it's that simple.
It is no secret what the voters want. They want more services and lower taxes.
Someone needs to tell them that ain't happening.
Welcome to the New Gilded Age and the Big Lie
According to John Kerry, at a speech given in Hudson at the Middlesex-Worcester Dem Alliance Brunch today:
In 1980, the top 1% in income took home 8% of the total income in the US.
In 2005-2006 the top 1% took home 23% of the total income in the US!
This goes along with today's Globe, which states that income in Belmont increased 43.3 % between 2001and 2006 - but income in Lawrence declined. The average income in Harvard increased 31.3% to $169, 370.00, the average income in Lexington also saw a double-digit increase to $157,388 - while Burlington, Billerica barely increased their average of $57-67,000.00 - and the average income of about $20,000.00 in Lawrence declined. Here's the full story with graphs.
Tax cut mania has benefitted the rich, who are getting richer. Tax cuts have not benefitted those at or near the poverty line, nor most of the folk earning $40,000-$70,000 or thereabouts.
Crossposted at BlueMassGroup
A good example of everybody working together on fiscally responsible solutions
So says Doug Rubin of the Governor's office in the 3-11-08 Boston Globe. We wish that had been the headline instead of "House OK's Big Tax Hikes."
Actually we merged Doug's quote with the Speaker's.
"The members of the House have rolled up their sleeves, tackled difficult issues head-on, and provided common sense, fiscally responsible solutions to our budget challenges,"
There's a story behind the story of who rolled up their sleeves and helped to broker the compromise. Any story tellers out there?
Things are Coming to a Head...
Toward transparency
Lawrence leaders want local input before building next budget
By Jill Harmacinski
Staff Writer
LAWRENCE — What will it be: New sidewalks, better snow plowing or cheaper water and sewer rates?
The mayor and City Council want to know what folks want from the next city budget. Tomorrow night, residents and businesspeople can tell them during an open forum at the senior center.
This is an important step for Lawrence and a good indicator of how sincere the elected officials are in running a transparent and participatory budgeting process. It’s a good example for other cities, not to mention the state Legislature. Imagine a process like this held in regional centers around the state that gave people to power to weigh in on the state budget with the knowledge that their hopes and concerns would be heard.
The challenge we face
Andover selectman incumbent faces challenge from newcomer
By Crystal Bozek and Courtney Paquette
Staff WritersANDOVER — She has been on the Board of Selectmen for close to eight years, but Tuesday Mary Lyman will face her first challenger for her seat.
Lyman faces off against Peter Cotch, a local attorney, who said he is not satisfied with the way Andover has been run, saying officials have spent too much, leading to large budget shortfalls. Lyman, on the other hand, contends elected officials have tried their best, but are up against a wall as health insurance and energy costs continue to rise.
Cotch is running on a platform of opposition to any new taxes — whether they come in the form of a tax override or the Community Preservation Act.
This news clip from the Eagle Tribune could be from any town in Massachusetts. More than 40 years of
anti-government messaging have convinced many a learned soul that if there’s a
problem with their town, it’s the fault of the local officials – the townfolk
who have stepped up to serve as local government. Of course this ignores the
reality that 10 years of tax cuts in Massachusetts
have resulted in deep cuts to the local aid and Chapter 70 education funds
cities and towns have long relied on. And, as Lyman points out, it ignores the
reality of rising costs of fuel and health insurance.
The Goverment We want and How We Pay for It
Scott Van Vooris in Wednesday's Herald suggests that the demise of the casino bill will spark a budget brawl..........a new era of tough financial choices, painful cuts and bickering over lost opportunities or .......
Maybe a statewide community conversation about the kind of government we want and how we pay for it. If not gambling revenues what?
No deal, no money
Casinos’ demise to spark budget brawl
By Scott Van Voorhis | Wednesday, March 19, 2008 The likely demise of Gov. Deval Patrick's casino plan will usher in a new era on Beacon Hill of tough financial choices, painful cuts and bickering over lost opportunities, some lawmakers warn...................
ONE Massachusetts at UMASS Dartmouth
ONE Massachusetts came to UMass Dartmouth at the invitation of Former Mayor Ed Lambert now Director of UMass Dartmouth Urban Intiative and Craig Dutra from the South Coast Community Foundation. Click on the "Read more" button to read the money quote from Elenor Gagnon.
“Somewhere along the line,” Lambert said, “we lost faith in the government. People are disconnected from local issues.”
Local officials, business leaders and agency heads were given suggestions to improve the public perception of government — like talking about goals instead of funding or taxes, connecting services and programs to how they can create a better quality of life and making sure taxpayers understand where their money goes.
It is important that citizens understand what is going on in their local government, he added. Many town issues, like Proposition 2 1/2 overrides, “require all of us to be more intelligent and knowledgeable,” Lambert said.