Massachusetts Is No Picnic

Casinos balked (0.00 / 0)

at the chance to do business here?

Er...where'd you get that one Bob? They're still spending hunderds of thousands trying to get it done.

---

by: wavemaker @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:09:44 AM CDT

Simple (0.00 / 0)

What are they spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on? Protection money from the Mass Legislature? In Massachusetts, it obviously doesn't matter what the people want. If the casinos thought they could come here and not be soaked (which is precisely why Deval & Co. want them), they'd be here by now.

---

by: BobParks @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:39:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bob, if they could "be here" (0.00 / 0)

without a special act of the legislature, they would be.

The Wamps will have their "bingo parlor" soon enough, but the lack of gambling here isn't about business environment, it's about the unwillingness of the Dems in power to give them the legal authority to operate.

Actually, let's put it a different way.

It's about Sal's desire to protect the rackets that operate in his district.

---

by: wavemaker @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Casinos are just a small part (0.00 / 0)

of the point I was making.

In order for more "meaningful" jobs to be created and/or lured to Massachusetts, we need a total change of attitude.

With the present make-up of Beacon Hill, we all know that ain't gonna happen at the ballot box this November. But should I get the opportunity to put my economic plan in place in the 2nd Franklin, it will be a glaring example of how things could be statewide IF NOT FOR DEMOCRATS.

If more people see how things could be and the only thing between prosperity and unemployment is a stubborn incumbent...?

---

by: BobParks @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with your principal point -- (0.00 / 0)

I was only pointing out that casinos really didn't belong in it.

---

by: wavemaker @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 13:38:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

By bringing up casinos, your whole post in undermined... (0.00 / 0)

First, what casino "balked at the chance to relocate here"?  They were pushing each other out of the way to get Sal to let them in.  (Good point WM)

Then you say they were paying "protection" money so they could come into MA.  A good choice of words, because the histroy of the casino industry is deeply rooted in organize crime.  But today it's a more honorable position and EVERYWHERE they go they buy lobbists and influencers to get what they want.  Name me a place where the casino industry did not buy influence...please.

Then when WM politely points out that your wrong, you sheepishly say it was a small part of your agruement...when in fact it is the ONLY EXAMPLE you cited to bloster your arguement.  Lame.  

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 18:25:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Show some intellectual honesty... (5.00 / 1)

...with regards to why businesses rank CA, MI, NY and MA at the bottom end of favorable business climate--it's the overall high cost of labor and land (for both the businesses and their employees buying homes) in these states.  And the cost of labor in MA is more driven by the educated high tech/health care/University industries that dominate our economy.  The closing of the loopholes (for a small percentage of businesses) is a drop in the bucket, compared to factors like land and labor costs.  The only way MA could improve its place on this survey is for our land values to plunge considerably more and for all of us to take a huge pay cut.  That would definitely make MA more attractive for investment.  I know you'll go on and on about the health care law, but really, do we want the kind of jobs that can not provide a living wage for people to pay $1,500 a month rents and do not require employees to get on MassHealth because the wages are low?  Do want to recruit businesses that complain about closing loopholes that are not available in most states?  No, we want industries-like Biotech-that offer high paying wages and benefits.  The admittedly high cost of doing business in this state (again, land and labor costs) are a result of the success of our economy and we need to attract "higher end" industries.  (Although there are exceptions and see below for that.)

And I chuckled when I read about your "economic plan" which is nothing but going to Washington DC and asking for a hand out.  Not exactly an innovative conservative plan.

Let me give you some free advice which you will be to arrogant to take, simply because it's coming from me.  Your district is very fertile ground for new business growth--particularly manufacturing, because the land and labor costs are, comparatively speaking, cheap for MA (as is W. MA, the South Coast and parts of Merrimack Valley).  So while it would be nice for your district to be declared an economic empowerment zone (but I have a feeling the area is to small in population to get that), you should advocate pitching the R & D companies inside the 128 belt and get them to invest their manufacturing in your district--you can offer them cheap land and labor, PLUS it's a drive away--not a plane ride--from headquarters.  Although you'd need to improve Route 2 and I don't know how that plays in your district.

BTW Bob, what happened to you NECN appearance last week?    

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 18:15:43 PM CDT

Intellectual Honesty (0.00 / 0)

It's amusing being told I need show "intellectual honesty" by someone who's never met me, hiding behind an alias.

You can pick apart and criticize my plan all you want. I can also be a do-nothing incumbent with no ideas and no desire to try anything, including approaching the federal government for a tax break (which you can call a "hand out" all you want).

And if our area is such fertile land, why haven't corporations come out here to date? Again, my response is that there is no economic incentive to move from one business-hostile area in MA to another.

And a segment of my NECN appearance is on my campaign site.

---

by: BobParks @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Land then labor (0.00 / 0)

Your district is very fertile ground for new business growth--particularly manufacturing, because the land and labor costs are, comparatively speaking, cheap for MA (as is W. MA, the South Coast and parts of Merrimack Valley).

 

Land then labor, not, labor then land.

Land is expensive because high population density of any large city causes higher demand for land.  Expensive land means expensive labor.  

Add to those negatives i) restrictive land use regulation PLUS ii) high payroll costs (i.e. worker comp and unemployment) PLUS iii)high real estate tax PLUS iv) high corporate income tax PLUS v) high insurance costs PLUS vi) high energy costs caused by taxes and climate.

That's why business in Mass and all of New England is generally heading south and west.

Throwing money at selected industries is just a crap shoot.  Who knows if Solar or Bio is the next big thing, and even if, do you really want Politicians making stockmarket bets with your money?  

Government probably can't affect the cost of land, nor should it.  But, government does have direct control over land restriction, and taxes.  

---

by: gary @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now that is an honest discussion... (0.00 / 0)

...unlike Park's which takes a simpleton's approach to things.  

But your reservations about Gov investing in various indutries is not born out from history.  Almost since the founding of this country gov has done just that...betting on the building of canals and roads to foster commerence, giving tax incentives to energy companies since John D. Rockerfeller's time, investing in the moon program that spun off huge benefits in the computer and air space idustries (and let's not forget velcro!).  If we began taxing gas an extra 5 cents a gallon after the first "oil schock" in 1973/4 and added a nickel every few years since then and invested in in R & D and subsides for alternative energy development--we'd be in far better shape today.  Besides we've been subsidizing the oil indutry all along--most notably the billions of dollars every year since about 1978 to protect the shipping lanes around the Persian Gulf to protect the oil tankers.  Given the long and established history of governemnt dollars to sput private industry (the land grants of the 1800's are another in a long line of examples) I wonder if your against certain investments by factions within our system that you are idealogy opposed to that bother you--like the Democrats supporting Solar?

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 15:59:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Subsidies should be (0.00 / 0)

As the general rule, subsidies are porked bad policies.

But first, look at the oil subsidies.  Many politician decry them without telling you what they are:
1-tax deductions for depletion;
2-tax credits for r&d;
3-construction of highways and roads used significantly (not exclusively) by oil service;
4-low royalty rates for public land;
5-construction bonds that pay tax exempt interest and therefore bear lower interest costs.

To point out the obvious, many of those subsidies (1,2,5) are available to many industries, but oil is the evil company du jour.  Consider the vast subsidies also available for farming, insurance, non-oil extractive industries, housing.  Without bothering to look it up, I'm sure the subsidies for insurance/financial far exceed those to oil.

My position:  lower the corporate rate and eliminate all industry preference, irrespective of industry.  This should be a state and federal policy.

Mr. Patrick's bet on Solar could very well be on its way to a complete bust.  Evergreen Solar, since announcing its move to Devons has dropped in share value by 50%; the governor betting on thin film voltaics and Evergreen may be moving too slowly to capitalize on that technology.  We'll see, but why must I pay for his stock market naivette.  

If we began taxing gas an extra 5 cents a gallon after the first "oil schock" in 1973/4 and added a nickel every few years since then and invested in in R & D and subsides for alternative energy development--we'd be in far better shape today.

Complete speculation.  For example, when Carter was in office, his synfuel corp was funding excavation of oil shale on the western slope of the Rockies.  Regan pulled the synfuel plug and oil shale died.  In hindsight, it was (and is) simply another high carbon product that we DON'T need, yet then, government was subsidizing.  Synfuel Corp was funding coal liquifaction in Western PA.  That too, fortunately died when Synfuel shuttered the doors.  

Besides, why do you believe we're in bad shape? i) because the price of inflation adjusted gas is approximately that of 1970s ii) because alternative energies are now responding to the high costs iii) because there's a recession, which hasn't registered significant unemployment, OR is it because the media is telling you that things are bad.

BTW, paying tax dollars to protect the Persian gulf is an oil subsidy? That's a stretch. I suppose you'd say using the US Navy in WWII to protect Transatlantic Ocean Liners was subsidizing the entertainment industry.

---

by: gary @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 08:07:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So why doesn't alternative energy get the same subsides as oil? (0.00 / 0)

For example, the business solar tax credit is expiring on Jan 1.  

In general you have a point about ending all tax incentives and lowering the overall corporate tax rate--making it revenue neutral.  But as a liberal, I do believe in some level of "social engineering" using the tax code (with sunset provisions that forces review).  

And if we "engineered" our energy policies 35 years ago, the "mess" we would not be a year to enrich other economies...many of whom don't like us.  Sure we'd "waste" some money on things that didn't pan out, just as the space program had some expensive (and deadly) errors...but the end result was US leadership (and jobs) in aerospace and microcomputer industries that drove growth for decades.  

As far as your critique on Patrick and Evergreen, I don't think you have all the facts and your overstating it (and missing the real problem).  First off, this is not tax money underwriting solar and wind (I'm referring to the Commonwealth Solar / MTC programs) but the 5, 1/1000 of a penny per kilo watt hour fee most of us pay for electricity.  Anyone can get a subsidy of about $2 per watt of installed solar (or up to ABOUT $5 a watt if your house is worth below 300 to 400 hundred grand--depending on where you live--and if your income is below $75,000.  All things you opposed, I know, but those are the facts.)  Now anyone gets these subsides (if qualified)...then if you buy solar products "made in Mass" you get another twenty-five cents a watt extra.  Not bad, but not a lot compared to the base of 2 bucks and up to 5 bucks a watt subsides.  

These products include Evergreen and Schott solar panels and Solaleteria (spelling) and Comstat inverters.  So it's not just Evergreen products and the "made in Mass" subsidy is small compared to the overall subsidy.

The problem with the "made in Mass" is the limited supply of Evergreen and Schott panels--only a few dealers have them...so you best bet is to buy a Mass made inverter.  

I'm an arm chair investor and a poor one at that (I learned to let the pros handle my stuff) so I'm no expert on Evergreen stock.  But I do know they have orders for all their factory capabilities (including the just opened one at Devens) through about 2012!!!  The problem with the stock appears to be they can't control costs (in rushing a new factory on line to handle all the orders) and aren't meeting wall street expectations.

One problem with the Evergreen made in Mass incentive and the $60 million we gave to build infrastructure around their Devens plant is that most of Evergreen's supply of solar panel's are being sold to Germany--just like most solar products are going.  But we got the jobs and I have no idea if we got the better end of the deal.

Which brings the whole subject back around.  Germany has been subsidizing Solar like crazy and one result (aside from less reliance to foreign oil) is that German companies (like Schott) are leaders in the Solar industry--we're like # 5 in solar biz.  As a result, Germany is a big winner in the new economy being formed around energy alternatives that may drive growth this century.

Like I said, the US government since the founding of the nation has been actively involved with "placing bets" to grow the economy...why should it be any different today?
 

---

by: Festus Garvey @ Thu Aug 14, 2008 at 21:10:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]