Can we have some honesty on question #1.

State revenue and state expenditure (0.00 / 0)

As I've commented before, this question is often reduced by the proponents to some very simple narratives. That has a direct appeal to voters who want to indulge in a peculiar combination of wishful thinking and conspiracy thinking.

We've also elected governor after governor who has vowed to eliminate waste. I suspect that most of the waste that would have a material impact on the budget has been eliminated -- with a single exception.

I can believe that significant gains can be made by a reorganization of the civil service, but I haven't ambled across any plans as to how to accomplish that. Reflecting, I think such a reorganization is difficult to construct on a policy level alone. The politics could easily be toxic even with the best policy. So that's a very, very difficult thing to do. It would require a very skilled politician to accomplish that.

Many of the things done by state government are very good things to do. No doubt cows benefited ancient Hindus so muach as to earn reverence. Education, highways, public safety, criminal justice, and the like may not be quite at the level of Sacred Cows but many of us certainly do not want those services to go away.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 16:06:27 PM CDT

I would still be concerned. (0.00 / 0)

Obviously, less of a cut will put fewer things in danger, but whenever a cut is proposed, my first question is what spending will be cut.  This is true regardless of how much of a cut or what kind is proposed, whether it's income, sales tax holiday, or turnpike tolls, etc.  I doubt highly that there is revenue lying around not being used, though I'm open to suggestions to spend more efficiently.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 17:39:01 PM CDT

we couldn't afford (6.00 / 1)

Paul Celluci's cut. We don't have enough money to pay for services as is - and we've cut services, including important ones (such as for the blind or at the RMV) by a lot as is.

I'm not opposed to an overhaul on the way we pay taxes in Massachusetts. We could substitute tolls for a small increase to the gas tax, which would still keep us under most N.E. states. We could enact a constitutional amendment allowing for progressive taxation, which would allow us to lower taxes for those who can't afford the status quo - perhaps even getting us off this property tax burden that's killing a lot of families (including mine).

There's a lot we could do, a lot that would help the overwhelming majority of families, putting more money in their pockets to spend for the few who may be hurt, thus ensuring they earn a little more or there's more opportunity to start up a successful business, etc. This constant race to the bottom, though, has been a killer on this state. It's forced dozens of schools to be closed, tens of thousands of jobs to be cut and risks quite literally everything we have going for this state. If you want to live in a crappy state with lower taxes, there's 49 other states to choose from.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 17:57:07 PM CDT

far fewer (0.00 / 0)

If you want to live in a crappy state with lower taxes, there's 49 other states to choose from.

Untrue, as you probably know.

It's hard to make a list of what states have "lower taxes" vs. "higher taxes" because each individual pays different kinds and rates of taxes based on their circumstances, income, and habits.  A frugal spendthrift, for example, would benefit more by moving to a state with lower income taxes and very high sales taxes because she doesn't spend most of what she earns and doesn't pay much in sales tax, but that tradeoff may be a bad one for a low income unskilled worker who needs to spend most of his income.

However you measure it, though, by any reasonable measure Massachusetts is somewhere in the middle of the tax level order.  Whoever you are, if you want to move somewhere with less taxes, you probably have some states to choose from, but far fewer than 49.

---

by: Cos @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:42:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tell you what Ryan--since you're being so magnamonous with other peoples money---how about picking up the tab for my taxes. It's called "redistribution of wealth" (1.50 / 2)

You can work a few extra jobs---I can't any longer. I suppose the option would be to pass out cyanide pills for everyone over 60---kinda like a reverse abortion of sorts. Just terminating the irritating problem and extra mouths to feed.

---

by: MCRD @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 22:37:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

typical comment (6.00 / 1)

you seldom get involved in a discussion on the issues, contenting yourself with throwing grenades from the sidelines. From my experience you add absolutely nothing to this web site. Come back with some real arguments for your point of view, and you'll be treated with respect.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:37:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What would get me to support a tax cut? (5.75 / 4)

 Of course people who spend government money don't want to staunch the flow of government money.  Doesn't mean that I am going to believe them.

An honest assessment of the cuts proposed in question 1 would help there.  If Carla Howell were willing to tell me where to make up $12 billin, I would listen.  Instead we hear "not my problem".  Where is the waste that every person in state government -- outsiders such as Bill Weld, Mitt Romney, and Deval Patrick as well as insiders like Sal DiMasi and Richard Tisei -- have all kept hidden?

If McCain thinks that huge loss of revenue from slashing income taxes for millionaires can be offset by attacking dunk 'em dink 'em earmarks, he is fooling himself.  (Not to mention the fact that no president could never stop that process through anything short of a budget veto.)

Johnd, if you can tell me how to make up $1.2 billion, I'll be happy to entertain a 10% cut in the income tax.


~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:21:50 PM CDT

Sab - one tiny example. (0.00 / 0)

When Patrick was elected, he established a new office in Wahington DC.  Costs @ $500m/yr.  I was AMAZED that services to the blind were cut and that office was untouched in the 9-c cuts - he could restore ALL that funding, and have enough left over to hire a lobbyist!

We could eliminate the state pension system for everyone not currently vested, and switch state employees to social security.  We could offer cash buyouts in the form of annuities to eliminate the existing pension system for those who are vested.  A huge future liability eliminated.

Stuff like that.

There are ways to do this.  But I'm afraid the administration is choosing the ole 'school-override tactic' - eliminate sports teams and art, make the cuts as painful as possible, and when they finally give you that override, use the new money to give administrators raises.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 23:41:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suspect the Wahington office (6.00 / 1)

more than pays for itself with federal spending here in Massachusetts, assuming you didn't mean $500m[illion]/yr.
"Stuff like that" probably doesn't come close to adding up to the revenue gap that will be created if this passes.

---

by: Marc Davidson @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 12:44:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are off by $499,500,000. (0.00 / 0)

The Commonwealth's Washington, DC office costs $500k/year, not $500m.

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 18:32:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, it was a typo, and I cannot correct it. Have fun. (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 18:56:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do'nt need chapter and verse... (0.00 / 0)

...but labeling an investment in federal pull as "waste", and saying that 4% of the proposed revenue lost will be augmented by "stuff like that".  Doesn't convince me.

If any tax-cutters can come up with a list that shows, oh, $400 million of waste, we can talk.  I think excusing one-third of a proposed revenue slash isn't too high a bar for any enterprising conservative.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 18:45:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My opinion, and Carla Howell's (5.75 / 4)

IMO, the current state income tax is too low so I would definitely oppose any attempt to cut it further.  I would therefore obviously oppose a question calling for a smaller cut.

However, if there were a question calling for a more "digestible" cut, the debate could be different.  We could talk about what taxation level is appropriate and why, but without the alarm raised by such a drastic cut as the question that's actually on the ballot.  This isn't hypocrisy, it's reality: A drastic cut is legitimately much more alarming than a small cut.

Cutting income taxes by 10% would be going to 4.77% from the current 5%, which I'm not sure is "digestible" - it looks like a big cut to me.  But obviously not as big as question 1.  But what if the question were to move the income tax to 5%?  That could be a more reasonable debate, though as I said above I'd still oppose it.

As for Carla Howell... let's forget Carla Howell for a moment because she's too "ideologically pure" (aka "crazy", IMO), and discuss Barbara Anderson and Citizens for Limited Taxation, whose work Howell is following up on.  Remember, they already had a question on the ballot to reduce the income tax to 5% and it passed.  In their view, the fact that that hasn't happened means that putting a smaller cut on the ballot is pointless because the legislature will repeal it as soon as it passed anyway, so they just want to make a big political point and use that to hammer the legislature into at least making the cut the earlier question called for.

What actually happened, though, is that the legislature did obey the letter and the spirit of the previous question: Income tax was then 5.9% and it called for a gradual decrease, which did indeed happen.  The question also allowed the legislature to stop the decrease if the economy got unexpectedly bad, which is exactly what happened a few years ago.  By then the income tax rate had gone down to 5.3% and the legislature stopped it there.

Now, they still think the legislature should move to 5% because that's what the people want, but what they forget is that that's what the people wanted, past tense.  Massachusetts voted, and what we voted for did get implemented.  It stopped short for good reason, without violating the ballot question, and there's no reason to assume that people still want it now!.  In fact, I think people don't.

So there you go.

---

by: Cos @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:38:23 PM CDT

As long as there is waste and abuse (0.00 / 0)

a significant number of the electorate will call for revenue cuts.  It's not that the revenue cut effects the changes that are desired, but it is the only direct leverage that the people have.

It's laws that allow this from today's Globe that raise the ire of the taxpayers.

It was about 3 a.m. in the Theatre District when Boston police Officer William I. Griffiths wrenched his back during a struggle with a gun-wielding drug suspect who fired a bullet that zipped past the officer's head. The injuries he said he suffered during the July 2001 arrest, a herniated disc and traumatic stress, were so disabling that Griffiths decided he could not return to the force.

But rather than applying for a disability pension, Griffiths went another route. He went to City Hall and Beacon Hill and persuaded local and state elected leaders to back a special state law granting him a much larger pension - 100 percent of his salary, tax free - than most disabled retirees receive.

The windfall added nearly $20,000 to his pension this year, which will total $2 million more over the course of his expected lifetime, all with no formal medical scrutiny required.

And this is only one of many such handouts that have been acquired over time.

---

by: JoeS @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:51:25 PM CDT

I never understood this (6.00 / 1)

If you advocate cutting tax, then why not choose the 5% sales tax?

We get a federal tax exemption for the state income tax, but the income that we need to cover the 5% sales tax is double taxed -- once by the federal income tax, then the sales tax itself. Therefore, we would be sending more money to Washington (= more $ outflow from Massachusetts), and the effective tax cut would be less.

Cutting the sales tax instead would bring the end of NH malls just across the border (= more retail jobs in MA).

Just a thought ...

---

by: ncelik @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:52:23 PM CDT

I think that's a very good idea (0.00 / 0)

I'd support that if we raised the income tax to offset the differences in state income - and you're right, it probably would increase business (and thus jobs) in this state, as well as help people with low income that still have to buy the same necessities in life as the wealthy.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 19:19:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

With any luck---Brack Obama gets elected--doubles the capital gains tax--and as a consequence the "wealthy pull out every dime they have and crashes the entire economy" (3.50 / 2)

That way---there will be no wealthy. We will all be poor and freezing in the dark and everyone will be that much better off.  "If that guy over there in the corner has tents cents more in his pocket than I do---then I want it---he has no more intrinsic right to it than anyone else."
Whatever you have for possessions---I am equally entitled to ---you will always be "wealthier than I" and I will choose what I take from you---I'm not asking for a handout--I'm taking what I want--and I will have the government standing right behind me.

---

by: MCRD @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 22:46:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

my gosh (6.00 / 4)

do you have to be such a drama queen?

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 23:01:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, won't the same work for jobs? (0.00 / 0)

What you say is true for sales ... cut the sales tax, stimulate sales.  You don't have to go to zero, just some sort of reduction.

The same applies to the tax on labor, i.e., the income tax.  Tax something (like labor) and you get less of it.  Want to INCREASE tax revenues (all other things held constant)?  DECREASE income taxes.

Here's some good evidence that this is true.  Since CT instituted an income tax in August of 1991, not much good has happened to the state in terms of economic, population, or income growth.  This is a state which dominated the insurance and defense industries, both of which grew tremendously between 1991 and today.  Pfizer relocates its 8,000 person global research center to Groton.  Casinos proliferate.  Yet Connecticut stagnates.  

Yes, it's per capital income is among the nation's highest but that's attributable to the billionaire hedge fund managers in Greenwich and Stanford.  Drive through Bridgeport, Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, Willamantic -- they're dead zones.

Let's create jobs in MA.  Vote Yes On 1.

---

by: bostonshepherd @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 19:56:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

double taxation (0.00 / 0)

Back in the 1960s, state sales taxes were a deduction from federal income tax nationwide. This was helpful, but comparitive small change.  There was a handy table to estimate your sales tax in each state that had one, depending on your gross income. You could always take more if you could prove it.

For the big bucks, in MA (I have no idea about other states) the Federal income tax was an adjustment to gross income!!!  When that ended, a huge double taxation kicked in: state tax on all the money you earned to pay off the Feds.  So MA pulled in taxes on hundreds or thousands of additional dollars per household. The first year of the change, people were reeling, thinking they'd get their customary refund and winding up owing.  It took an extra iteration to calculate, but was well worth it.  Now with computer tax programs it would be a snap.

Bring back the old rule!

---

by: perry41 @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 21:50:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you're proposing that fed income taxes be deductible from MA income taxes (6.00 / 1)

In Oregon a capped amount of Fed income taxes can be deducted from state income taxes. There is a ballot question this year to eliminate that cap and allow a full deduction for Fed income tax from state income tax. But due to the high progressivity of the Fed income tax, that would result in a significantly higher deduction for high income taxpayers. Liberal/Progressive groups are highly opposed to that ballot question. What you're proposing would result in very regressive taxation in MA due to the flat 5.3 percent state rate and the highly progressive federal rate.

---

by: Power Wheels @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 15:32:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"which is funding so many sacred cows of government spending" (6.00 / 1)

I'm curious as to which sacred cows you are referring.  Would that be funding for full day kindergarten for 5 year olds?  Would it be state funding for special education costs?  Or maybe one of those sacred cows would be the METCO program, the oldest voluntary desegregation educational program in the United States.  

Each of those "sacred cows" received cuts in funding in the latest set of cuts by the Patrick administration.  And if the state has to cut further in January or February, we fully expect Chapter 70 (state aid to education) and local aid to cities and towns to be cut significantly resulting in substantial layoffs throughout all cities and towns in Massachusetts.  Those kind of job layoffs will really stimulate the economy don't you think?

---

by: Jim Gosger @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 18:57:59 PM CDT

I admit there is great waste in state government. (6.00 / 1)

Having worked in a couple state agencies and seen the "Assistant to the Assistant" and other management jobs, I go by a rule of thumb that 50% of tax money is wasted.  However, Question 1 has nothing to do with waste.  Were the funds for a state agency to diminish, the agency will get rid of worker bees before cronies.  We've seen that before.  

Question 1 is about moving the tax burden to the middle class.

The Massachusetts income tax is one rate for income and another for capital gains.  Unlike the Federal system that is graduated but has many exceptions to the tax, the Massachusetts tax has few exemptions and hurts all the way up for the wealthy.  Would you want 5.9% of $50,000 or 5.9% of $500,000?  

Taxes would still be collected, no matter what the source.
Would the Beacon Hill Bandits cut government and turn their relatives and cronies out on the street?  I doubt it. Look at New Hampshire.  Property taxes out of control.  Hidden taxes on just about everything.  Who pays?  The middle class that  always pays.  I'll pay my $2,400 yearly real estate taxes rather than the equivalent $12,000 in New Hampshire, thank you.  

This is just another ploy to put the tax burden to the middle class.

---

by: Justin Tyme @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 19:03:11 PM CDT

Liberal Supports Question (0.00 / 0)

Liberal Supports Question 1

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 20:24:54 PM CDT

Oh I love (0.00 / 0)

people who come into another thread to pimp their own post. No discussion, nothing else to add, just pimping. Classy.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 07:06:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is too big... (0.00 / 0)

It is too big for a comment so I made it a post. Conserving space for others.  

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:16:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Meh... (6.00 / 2)

(Fair questions, I think.  The ballot question to reduce the income tax from 5.95% to 5% was, in effect, a 16% reduction in the income tax.  We saw how that went. - promoted by David)

Whether or not you agree with either the efficacy or the dynamics of our present political and policy infrastructure, we are a Republic.  In general, I distrust any attempts at an end run on this principle including initiative petitions.    Efforts at reform ought to be directed at... well... actual reform instead of some vague notional 'popular' substitution.   Especially when our constitution readily forbids 'specific appropriation of money from the treasury' by initiative petition...  (and yes, this means I don't think this abomination ought to have been certified as a ballot initiative, but I realize there is some dispute on that point.  But then again, initiative petitions (i.e. 'popular' initiatives) where never part of the original Mass State Constitution... I think if John Adams could have foreseen how 'popular' opinion was so readily manufactured and molded he'd have explicitly forbidden it...  ).

But the point is that I think it is wholly legitimate for the elected to govern and thus am in complete agreement with 'how that went'...  

Let's stop the hyperbole and answer something honestly. Question #1 is for the repeal of the MA State income tax. The opponents are stating adamantly that this will destroy the infrastructure of the State and lead to use cuts to school, healthcare, police and firefighter budgets... sky will definitely fall.
But, what if question #1 instead declared a 10% cut in State income taxes. My feeling is the opponents would be yelling the same things they are now. I think the opponents simply do not want ANY cut in the state spigot which is funding so many sacred cows of government spending.

Republic: Representative democracy;  A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Honestly, this is the form we've chosen.  Legislation, in a republic, is the job of those we elect to legislate.  If you don't like that...  Well, I'm sorry, but you can't change it.   In our republic the only legitimate means of abolishing the state income tax (or even just lowering it) is via elected office: you want to abolition it, then you need to get elected, form coalitions and push abolition of an income tax as part of your platform.  Anything else, frankly, is corruption.    

That's not to say that ballot initiatives are wholly useless.  They can be indicators of underlying grievance.... as is the case, I believe, with Question #3 and is an issue with which most citizens are not familiar.    However, in the instance of Question #1,  I'm fairly certain the grievance is only thinly and dimly felt by most, and most deeply felt by a few.   Blanket repeal of the income tax  would only upend this: benefit for the few and deeply felt pain for most others.   Sounds like a passive-aggressive oligarchy to me..

And, lastly,  I'm not sure the best way of getting rid of sacred cows is to nuke the entire farm... just saying.  

---

"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer....   Bonus: Job Openings!!"

--Stephen Colbert

---

by: petr @ Fri Oct 24, 2008 at 22:26:40 PM CDT

Show me the money (6.00 / 4)

I MIGHT be more inclined to support these things if the tax cutters could actually show me all these billions and billions of dollars in "waste, fraud, and abuse".

Where is it? How much is it? 16 years of Republican governors couldn't find it. Where is it?

Show me the money!

All I ever get are "we all know it's there. Everybody knows it". Wink Wink You betcha!

Onus is on you to prove your case that 40% of the state budget is "waste, fraud, and abuse".

I've worked for big companies. I can pull out examples of stupid spending. Or, how about a few hundred grand on "sales meetings" or "planning retreats". AIG anyone? Lehmann Brothers?

Free Market Solution to Every Problem!!

Yeah, there are spending cuts and stupid spending to eliminate. But until you can show me you can cut 40% of the budget and not do great harm, I am filing this with Weapons of Mass Destruction. You betcha!

Democrats protest war. Republicans protest healthcare.  

---

by: MedfieldBlueBob @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 08:46:39 AM CDT

Agree with last comment (0.00 / 0)

For Carla Howell it is simply an article of faith that 40 percent of the state budget is wasted.  No one has evern come up with a remotely convincing way to cut 40 percent of the state budget without devasting many essential services.

---

by: Historian @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

27% (6.00 / 1)

This will only cut 27% of total state spending.  

"The prediction here is that RMG will peter out in a couple of months." - Adam Reilly, 2/28/2007

---

by: Garrett Quinn @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Real honesty (6.00 / 1)

would be something like this:

"Lend us your outrage over [your grievance here], and vote for Question 1! That'll show those SOBs.

"Then, when the Legislature responds (maybe by making cuts you don't want, probably by reinstating the income tax that is not actually what you are so upset about anyway), we can be outraged all over again. Whee!"

So the answer to your question

Can we have some honesty on Question 1

is:

No.

---

by: Trickle up @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 09:58:21 AM CDT

Note how corporate/government interests (0.00 / 0)

are pouring money into the vote no on question 1, their fat cat CEO type bailout packages are on the line don't you know.  Money,Satan, same thing.  Gave up long ago on the idea of government doing anything to benefit me.

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 13:50:35 PM CDT

So many good points... (6.00 / 1)

I think it is fair to say that the majority of supporters of Question #1 don't "really" want to eliminate the State Income tax, they want to send a message. I am a firm supporter of question #1, but only for that reason. I know they would never eliminate the income tax but passage would give me the "warm feeling" that a message would be sent to our law makers.

I common thread of the opponents of question #1 are "show me where the waste is". It is true that Republican governors have not cut this waste out but I'd propose that this doesn't mean there is no waste. Much of government waste is insidiously hidden under very noble shelters. As much as I want spending to be severely cut, I'll also agree that some functions of state government are severely "underfunded". But answering this question can be similar to answering what the problem is in the current financial crisis... or as George Bush would say "it's a hard job...".

I don't have a copy of the State budget but even if I did I'm sure it is written in such a way that you could never find the waste. Unless it was your job and obviously the people we send to Beacon Hill are not doing this job. The sickness which seems to infect every honest person who takes the oath of office there can turn even a benevolent "Mr Smith" into the next Sal Dimasi.

Last week the Gov announced the selling a the state airplane. A wonderful first step. So for anyone who said last year's budget had no fat in it, I guess they were wrong. The airplane sale (and the annual upkeep and storage) will not save the state 10% or anywhere close. I know this. The best people to tell of waste in the system would be people in the system, but that would not be practical. I would assume every single state employee, if compelled, would suggest how thousands and millions of dollars could be saved since they see it first hand.

Pension reform would be a great start. Sick day and vacation carryover limits (2 -3 weeks) similar to the private sector would drastically reduce our liability. The governor has been pushing his "volunteer" program for each state employee to volunteer one day a month. That 1 day equates to 1/20 of a workers time or 5%. He seems comfortable with us losing 5% of state workers time on the job for them to volunteer so things can't be that tight.

Sorry if I'm coping out by saying I don't have the time/details to expose a 10% budget saving but I feel quite comfortable saying it is there (no winking). Cronyism, patronage, nepotism are annoying distractions and will only add up to small savings, but they are a start as well. I would like for starters to know whether the Washington office really does bring as much money to the State as some have offered. Don't we have a bunch of Congressmen who's job it is to get that money vs. hiring our own "lobbyists" for drinking parties for Washington insiders?

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 16:45:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why not ask for more transparency instead? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 22:14:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A good suggestion, but will they do it. (0.00 / 0)

What a great way for the average citizen to see where all the money goes. The State Auditor should as a standard procedure take the state budget and "translate" it into a form which "Joe the plumber" could see where the money is spent. They should also make this web based tool include exactly where the money comes from. An interactive balance sheet showing the ins and outs but in terms which would not require a CPA to read.

In addition it would be highly constructive to have a "whistle blower" program which not only protects state workers from retribution but also offers a reward (10%) to anyone cost saving measure. If they don't want to go that route, maybe just a "suggestion box" for workers (and regular citizens to suggest savings).

Baker/Tisei in 2010... Charlie Baker on why people "have been" leaving MA, "It's not the weather here, it's the climate"

---

by: JohnD @ Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]