It's official: Life sciences bill now a pork-fest.

Biotech pork fest as fodder for repealing the income tax (0.00 / 0)

This is so incredibly short sighted, these pigs at the trough are doing the work of the repeal the income tax group for them.  

If that initiative passes, it will be because voters are so completely fed up with overrides and talk of fiscal crisis in the face of undisciplined, out of control, inexcusable spending like this.

Kevin

---

by: Pundit Review-Kevin @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 14:41:14 PM CDT

Why shouldn't the bill include expanding life sciences in public education? (6.00 / 1)

Our state's public higher education system has lots of room for improvement (and I'm being very generous here). I'm an alum from class of '89 at UMass Boston CPCS and a PT Faculty at UMass Boston's Nursing Program.  Yes, UMass needs support but there's more to the state's public education system than only UMass, isn't there?

If the state's $1Bil Life Sciences bill can include monies targeted to remedy the state's woeful condition of science education at its centers of higher learning, then why not? Don't we need to educate professionals from ALL PARTS OF THE STATE to lead this statewide industry into the future?  Not all students can have the privilege of attending UMass Amherst's Commonwealth College, much less Hahvahd or MIT, for heavens sake!!

There might be pork in the bill, for sure, but to pick on public education in western MA seems to be misplacing the criticism...

---

by: AnnEM @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 15:30:03 PM CDT

Nobody suggests that it shouldn't (0.00 / 0)

but the question is, should the lege be earmarking $50 million to build a science center at the College of Liberal Arts, which doesn't even have graduate degrees in science?  Couldn't that $50 million have stronger returns for life sciences if spent at a place that actually, you know, does life science?

Spending money on public education in Western MA doesn't necessarily mean spending money wisely on public ed in Western MA.  It sure looks like they blew it here.

---

by: stomv @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:48:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point taken (0.00 / 0)

It would be useful if Bosley or his office had a statement that could be posted here that spells out the (convincing?) rationale for this earmark...

---

by: AnnEM @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 20:53:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's just to market it as $1B (5.00 / 1)

I hope what they are doing is taking things out of the general budget and putting them in this, so that they can announce to the world "look, we are spending a Billion dollars, come to Massachusetts", with out actually spending a billion dollars.    Like, would we be building those buildings anyway?  Upgrading that sewer?  If so, then including them in this is pretty smart, just as long as the Globe doesn't blow the lid off the whole thing by saying it's not really a Billion dollars for biotech.  They have to play along and let us spend it on the sate where it is needed, and just call it spending on Life Science.  (Delete this post after reading)

---

by: they @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 17:27:05 PM CDT

Let's dissimulate.. (0.00 / 0)

Who needs good government, openess, honesty, character, who cares about those qualities? Let's pander. Maybe we can get the 4th estate to help us fool others and hide the truth.

We're getting just what we deserve. The legislature has shown its disdain for the voters in the past and they've learned there are no consequences.  

---

by: lodger @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:15:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Working Together (6.00 / 1)

The administration has been working closely with the House and Senate on the life science legislation, and we are pleased with the progress on this important initiative.  While the Globe story focused on the issue of earmarks, it is important to note that both the House and Senate versions follow the same broad outline as the Governor's legislation.  This legislation is still being worked on, and I believe that the latest version is in a better place than was potrayed in the newspaper today.  

Kudos to both chairs - Rep. Dan Bosley and Sen. Jack Hart - for working closely with the administration to address some of the concerns that have been raised and to produce a final bill that we are confident will fulfill the goals outlined by the Governor when he introduced the initiative last year.

One last point.  It is easy to focus on the "problems" with certain bills, but it is also important to remember that the Governor is working closely with the Legislature not only on life science legislation, but also clean energy, oceans and various bond bills that will help spur job growth and economic development in the Commonwealth.  There is a very positive story to be told about the collaboration on long-term investment initiatives by the Governor and legislative leadership.

---

by: Doug Rubin @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 21:54:43 PM CDT

It is easy to focus on the "problems" with certain bills, (0.00 / 0)

especially for armchair policy wonks and advocates who failed to get their special interest earmarked.    

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:23:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the condescension, Judy. (0.00 / 0)

So we should leave it to the "real wonks"? The ones who get paid? Judy, people come to the media, and indeed this site, to get informed. And no one here would claim to have perfect information about anything. But guess what? We probably have better information here than 90% of the public. We know what we know, and that's what we have to react to. "Armchair wonks"? We're citizens absorbing information and making what judgments we can.

BTW, the university presidents are the folks who have a lot riding on this, and to my mind have the clearest claim to being able to actually provide a real public benefit to this law. They don't like it anymore. Why not?

I'd still like to hear why MCLA is the best place for a $50 million life sciences center, in detail. I don't hear that coming from you, Judy. But nice potshot anyway.

---
Blue Mass. Group
Call Scott Brown's office at (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543 to support a cap on carbon emissions: 350ppm by 2050
My Twitter feed

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 14:21:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good business? (0.00 / 0)

I'd still like to hear why MCLA is the best place for a $50 million life sciences center, in detail.

Lotta incest going on there, when you consider that of the Trustees of MCLA, at least three of them, Richard C. Lamb, Stephen Crowe, Matthew C. Harris serve as Directors or officers with 'Mountain One Financial Partners'.

BTW, Mountain One is the big bank holding company out in western mass, where coincidently, Mr. Bosley is the Chairman of the Board.

Bringin' the pork home baby!  

---

by: gary @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 15:11:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Armchair wonksI (0.00 / 0)

"Armchair wonks"? We're citizens absorbing information and making what judgments we can.

Sorry about the crack about armchair wonks. Really. Certainly not targeted to this community, nobody appreciates the power of the opinion leaders writing on this site more than I.  

I'm still brain damaged from the explosions coming from the crossfire of various interests trying to get a piece of this bill. And I think the Governor has done a pretty good job of pulling this one out of the fire. Burned around the edges maybe, but not done yet, either.  

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 04:47:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I just read through Gov. Patrick's proposal (6.00 / 1)

and this bill is another poor tax policy proposal, even before the legislature gets its hands on it.  The bill erodes the Sales & Use tax base, the Personal Income tax base, AND the Corporate Excise tax base.  The credit created is refundable at 100% and doesn't seem to have an individual cap or an aggregate cap.  The state of MA will not only allow both people and companies to wipe out their entire tax obligations, but MA will subsidize their projects no matter how much any individual spends or how many projects claim the credit.  With no aggregate cap or individual cap its very difficult to actually predict how much the tax base will be eroded, but it could potentially be huge.

Making the credit 100% refundable means that even if the project never becomes profitable, the company will still be able to take advantage of the state subsidization.  Making the credit non-refundable and allowing a long carryforward period would ensure that MA will only be subsidizing projects that actually become profitable at some point.  I understand that the credit will not be particularly useful to a start-up company with expenses far exceeding income in the early years, but why should the state be in the business of subsidizing never-profitable life science companies when a non-refundable long carryforward credit would ensure that MA only subsidizes eventually-profitable companies.

And defininig life sciences as "advanced and applied sciences, including but not limited to, regenerative medicine, biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and medical devices" is not the kind of tight definition that will restrict the program to only the types of projects that are originally intended.  What are advanced and applied sciences?  Is this an understood term in the industry or academic arenas?  Why is the list non-exhaustive?  Why not create an exhaustive list to ensure that the program will be limited to the intended companies?  What are medical devices?  Seems like there is a lot of wiggle room in that definition.  What are biopharmaceuticals?  Are they different from regular pharmaceuticals?  While Sen. President Murray is coming down hard on pharmaceutical companies to keep health care costs down for the citizens of MA, why is MA proposing to subsidize non-profitable biopharmaceutical companies at the same time?

And this is all before the legislature even begins to earmark the newly created "Life Sciences Investment Fund."  Poor tax policy combined with a new fund for the lawmakers to play with.  I think we need more obstruction from Speaker DiMasi on this one too.

---

by: Power Wheels @ Tue May 20, 2008 at 22:08:50 PM CDT

Thank you, PW! (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Rubin, the favour of a reply?

---

by: AnnEM @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 21:00:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Make this a post ... (0.00 / 0)

and I will front-page.

BTW, there was an article in Commonwealth mag that dealt with some of these issues vis-a-vis the film industry and others. (And another article from a member of the corporate tax committee -- also interesting.)

---
Blue Mass. Group
Call Scott Brown's office at (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543 to support a cap on carbon emissions: 350ppm by 2050
My Twitter feed

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Governor - get your line-item veto pen ready (0.00 / 0)

So this is the price of getting your bill through.  Have to weigh whether its a price worth paying or not.  I'd say, facilitate getting the bill to your desk and then strip out the earmarks (or amend the bill and send it back to the legislature) if they are still there.  I'd like to think you can also corral the Senate President to get her conferees to fight these things.  But at the end of the day, you need the bill to get to your desk, first and foremost, earmarks or no earmarks.  

So I wouldn't go ballistic about the earmarks yet - but maybe just send a coded message.  The bill has yet to be reconciled in conference committee at this point so you don't have to comment beyond saying something like:

I'm pleased the legislature is making good progress on the legislation (even if its not true).  We need to get a Bill to my desk soon to ensure we can maintain our global leadership in the life sciences.  I am not in a position to comment on the specifics of the bill now as I don't know what its final form will look like.  I do however hope that the integrity of the measure is preserved and that it ensures that scientists and experts in the field are the ones making the critical decisions about where and how we make our life sciences investments.  We cannot afford to let politics dictate the use of this essential funding.

If the leg wants to override any line-item vetos to keep their special treats they can depending on the timing - given the scratch-your-back mentality in that place.  

But, when you make the vetos it would be worth attaching a very public plea to let scientists and experts in the field make the decisions outside the influence of politics.  And, timing could play your way.  If the Bill is sent to you late in the session, close to adjournment, you can sign it after the legislature is gone and it is not very likely they would come back in during an election season and reconvene formally (suspending the rules)to override you.

My sense is the Bill can be cleansed of these unfortunate amendments.

---

by: lanugo @ Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:12 AM CDT