As a nation we used to respect elected officials who had passion, intelligence and oratory skills; some of us still honor those who do.
It is unlikely however, and I say this with great sadness, that many of the current US Senators, including the pair from Massachusetts, could hold a match to Mr. Sanders' vision and light.
It's time to raise the bar and support those who have a clear and progressive vision for this country.
NO COMPROMISE.
Showing posts with label taxation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxation. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Buy-in or Being Bought?
Buy-in or Being Bought?
Local Aid to cities and towns to provide essential services including: public safety, education, infrastructure, and sanitation in the communities and neighborhoods where we live, was a compelling platform of the Patrick Administration’s campaign. Cities and towns have been starved of needed financial resources with Proposition 2 ½ placing a ceiling on raising local revenues, while escalating health care, pension and utility costs along with insufficient state and federal aid have converged to squeeze municipal government. The results have been reductions in the quality and quantity of services available to taxpayers at home.
The Patrick Administration has proposed three class III casinos in the Commonwealth to be sited in three regions; metro Boston, southeastern and central/western Massachusetts. A portion of the gambling revenues has been proposed in their plan to provide a tax break to property owners. Andrea Estes reported in The Globe the following headline: “Homeowners could get casino payout, Patrick bill to share windfall via tax cut” http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/10/homeowners_could_get_casino_payout/
“Homeowners whose taxes equal 2.5 to 4.99 percent of their income would receive a $150 credit; homeowners who spend 5 to 7.49 percent of their income would receive $225; those who pay 7.5 to 9.99 percent of their annual income for taxes would get $300; and homeowners who pay 10 percent or more on property taxes would get $375.”
The average taxpayer may be lured into supporting this proposal on face-value without considering the negative impacts to our communities. In fact, homeowners who overstretched their budgets through buying homes that are costlier than they could afford may be rewarded for imprudent planning. While elderly residents (like my parents) on fixed incomes who have been hit with Proposition 2 ½ overrides several times in the past few years will not have lost services restored through the proposed tax credit. Nor will they see an end to the property tax increases in the town (Winchester) where they have lived for nearly sixty years. One of the most likely results of the ill conceived Patrick Plan will be to further increase tensions on the local level to recover the “pay-off” to property owners by the Administration’s gaming proceeds by municipalities to fund essential services. That is another losing proposition given the unwillingness of the public to override 2 ½ in order to fund schools, police, fire, sanitation and infrastructure. In close to eight years of local public service, I have not seen a worse scenario for towns and cities.
The Patrick Plan to include a property tax “break” is literally a step to “buy-in” support for casinos. The average taxpayer, busy and burdened with job, family and personal interests however, bemoans the state of public education and her/his local roads. The “windfall” that Ms. Estes describes does not begin to cover the fees that families face sending children to public schools. Fees often include buses/transportation, sports, parking, extracurricular activities and supplies. Offering tax credits to promote support for egregious public policy is not a new strategy.
The Administration fails to address the needed increases in Chapter 70 education funding, special education and foster students’ costs, as well as other Local Aid issues that are paramount in providing safe and sustainable improvements in our communities. The Administration does not increase Chapter 90 (local road and bridge) funding although the plan intends to address some transportation issues. The moving figure of $200 million dollars dedicated to transportation and infrastructure in the casino plan needs to be examined in context. Road re-construction and repair currently costs about $1 million per mile. In the rural community of Monson (45 sq. miles) with 106 miles of town maintained roads over 76% of the roads were determined to be in poor condition by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. If 78 million were spent to upgrade Monson’s infrastructure approximately 122 million would be left for the rest of the Commonwealth. These funds are not even a drop in the bucket...not even close! How will the projects be prioritized? Will a comprehensive needs analysis be enacted or will the projects get meted out by powerful Boston legislators? How will the environment of proposed casino sites in rural and suburban areas be mitigated? Forest and farmlands have become endangered species in the Commonwealth. The legacies of large-scale developments rarely have a happy ending for the resources upon which our lives depend
Geoff Beckwith, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association that represents cities and towns was cited as stating, "This money is not local aid," he said. "We all know that property taxes are a major problem in Massachusetts. We believe the best way is to provide revenue sharing and local aid to cities and towns to reduce the reliance on the property tax."
Education is left out as transportation benefits. Municipalities are left out as certain property owners receive a nominal tax credit. The casino proposal fails to address Local Aid.
The Patrick Administration seeks support for expanded casino gambling despite prolific economic arguments questioning gaming as net positive economic development. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission, created by Congress (1999), spent two years investigating gambling as an economic generator. "The central issue is whether the net increases in income and well-being are worth the acknowledged social costs for gambling. . . . The commission has concluded that it is currently impossible to obtain even a rough approximation of a true cost- benefit calculation concerning the economic impact of legalized gambling."
The 1999 Congressional commission agreed on the need for a moratorium on expanded gambling. Dealer wins, we lose.
Local Aid to cities and towns to provide essential services including: public safety, education, infrastructure, and sanitation in the communities and neighborhoods where we live, was a compelling platform of the Patrick Administration’s campaign. Cities and towns have been starved of needed financial resources with Proposition 2 ½ placing a ceiling on raising local revenues, while escalating health care, pension and utility costs along with insufficient state and federal aid have converged to squeeze municipal government. The results have been reductions in the quality and quantity of services available to taxpayers at home.
The Patrick Administration has proposed three class III casinos in the Commonwealth to be sited in three regions; metro Boston, southeastern and central/western Massachusetts. A portion of the gambling revenues has been proposed in their plan to provide a tax break to property owners. Andrea Estes reported in The Globe the following headline: “Homeowners could get casino payout, Patrick bill to share windfall via tax cut” http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/10/homeowners_could_get_casino_payout/
“Homeowners whose taxes equal 2.5 to 4.99 percent of their income would receive a $150 credit; homeowners who spend 5 to 7.49 percent of their income would receive $225; those who pay 7.5 to 9.99 percent of their annual income for taxes would get $300; and homeowners who pay 10 percent or more on property taxes would get $375.”
The average taxpayer may be lured into supporting this proposal on face-value without considering the negative impacts to our communities. In fact, homeowners who overstretched their budgets through buying homes that are costlier than they could afford may be rewarded for imprudent planning. While elderly residents (like my parents) on fixed incomes who have been hit with Proposition 2 ½ overrides several times in the past few years will not have lost services restored through the proposed tax credit. Nor will they see an end to the property tax increases in the town (Winchester) where they have lived for nearly sixty years. One of the most likely results of the ill conceived Patrick Plan will be to further increase tensions on the local level to recover the “pay-off” to property owners by the Administration’s gaming proceeds by municipalities to fund essential services. That is another losing proposition given the unwillingness of the public to override 2 ½ in order to fund schools, police, fire, sanitation and infrastructure. In close to eight years of local public service, I have not seen a worse scenario for towns and cities.
The Patrick Plan to include a property tax “break” is literally a step to “buy-in” support for casinos. The average taxpayer, busy and burdened with job, family and personal interests however, bemoans the state of public education and her/his local roads. The “windfall” that Ms. Estes describes does not begin to cover the fees that families face sending children to public schools. Fees often include buses/transportation, sports, parking, extracurricular activities and supplies. Offering tax credits to promote support for egregious public policy is not a new strategy.
The Administration fails to address the needed increases in Chapter 70 education funding, special education and foster students’ costs, as well as other Local Aid issues that are paramount in providing safe and sustainable improvements in our communities. The Administration does not increase Chapter 90 (local road and bridge) funding although the plan intends to address some transportation issues. The moving figure of $200 million dollars dedicated to transportation and infrastructure in the casino plan needs to be examined in context. Road re-construction and repair currently costs about $1 million per mile. In the rural community of Monson (45 sq. miles) with 106 miles of town maintained roads over 76% of the roads were determined to be in poor condition by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. If 78 million were spent to upgrade Monson’s infrastructure approximately 122 million would be left for the rest of the Commonwealth. These funds are not even a drop in the bucket...not even close! How will the projects be prioritized? Will a comprehensive needs analysis be enacted or will the projects get meted out by powerful Boston legislators? How will the environment of proposed casino sites in rural and suburban areas be mitigated? Forest and farmlands have become endangered species in the Commonwealth. The legacies of large-scale developments rarely have a happy ending for the resources upon which our lives depend
Geoff Beckwith, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association that represents cities and towns was cited as stating, "This money is not local aid," he said. "We all know that property taxes are a major problem in Massachusetts. We believe the best way is to provide revenue sharing and local aid to cities and towns to reduce the reliance on the property tax."
Education is left out as transportation benefits. Municipalities are left out as certain property owners receive a nominal tax credit. The casino proposal fails to address Local Aid.
The Patrick Administration seeks support for expanded casino gambling despite prolific economic arguments questioning gaming as net positive economic development. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission, created by Congress (1999), spent two years investigating gambling as an economic generator. "The central issue is whether the net increases in income and well-being are worth the acknowledged social costs for gambling. . . . The commission has concluded that it is currently impossible to obtain even a rough approximation of a true cost- benefit calculation concerning the economic impact of legalized gambling."
The 1999 Congressional commission agreed on the need for a moratorium on expanded gambling. Dealer wins, we lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
