Deval/Dems Raid "Rainy Day" Fund

Deval and other Dem Governors looking for bailout next... (0.00 / 0)

So, who's up for a $1T bailout of blue states?

"There is a need for the federal government to step in to bolster the social safety net," (Massachusetts Governor Deval) Patrick (D) said. "We’re really talking about a bridge from where we are and where we think the economy will be in two years."

Together we can... bankrupt the state.

Senior Contributing Editor and Hall Monitor, The Minority Report
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com

---

by: docj @ Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 18:39:47 PM CST

Check the weather (5.00 / 1)

I think you might call these "rainy days."

---

by: Wirklichkeit @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:37:55 AM CST

Revenues are going up (0.00 / 0)

Revenues are going up over 5%.  If the Dems showed any fiscal discipline this would not be necessary.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 13:40:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are...or... are projected (4.00 / 2)

We shall see how the revenue stream plays out in the coming year, shan't we.

---

by: Wirklichkeit @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 16:42:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (5.00 / 1)

I could write it this way instead:

Even with 2009 revenues projected to be up over 5%, Deval plans to raid the rainy day fund by over $250 million.

If revenues are up 5% he will raid the rainy day fund anyway because the Dems refuse to control spending.  If revenues are up by less than 5% or go down he will raid it even more.

My main point was that his choice to raid the rainy day fund for spending was not due to a lack of revenue but rather a desire for more uncontrolled spending.

"the Federal deficit is about ethics and morality, and it is, by far, the biggest problem we face. It weakens the country and exerts a creeping, negative influence on everything we do." - Charlie Baker.  HT:  Brent041

---

by: Mike "DD4RP" Rossettie @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 16:53:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Deval Patrick were smart he would............... (0.00 / 0)

Plan on state revenues in 2009 being down by 10% with no revenue at all being had from capital gains.  That would be the responsible thing to do.  Let's see what kind of a budget the Democrats pass.  Hopefully they do the fiscally prudent thing.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:10:26 PM CST

Ah... (0.00 / 0)

to have the budget and line-item veto powers....

"The best part will be the arrest of all the biotech workers....."  --JH

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:39:15 AM CST

Threes (4.00 / 1)

Go figure.  All bad news happens in threes.  Look at the down legs of a Bear market:  three dips.

Write-offs of a company.  First write off is never enough.  The second is almost enough and the third time the CEO just says F*** it and writes off everything and the kitchen sink.

Same with this Administration.  The first 9c cuts, despite the rhetoric, was nothing.  Elimination of increases, borrowing from the pension plan.  Nothing really, mainly because the reduction in actually Y-T-D revenues was still an increase over '08 fiscal.

Now here we are with the next wave of 9C cuts. These will have to be real because now, the revenue for remainder of fiscal 09 actually looks to be lower than 08.  But with the rule of 3s, it still won't be enough.

Wait for the 3rd wave, assuming the recession lingers.  That's where Patrick will either sink in a morass of debt or else channel his inner-Romney, and make some bona fide cuts:

Prediction '09:
1: new gas tax = 3 cents
2: new fees
3: 5% cut to local aid

---

by: gary @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:10:11 AM CST

Maybe the Dems will come forward......... (4.00 / 1)

and ask for a 'temporary' increase in the income tax to 6% that they promise would be lowered once the economy starts gearing up again......uhhmmmmm Never mind.....:) heeheehee.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:29:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

3 cents?! (0.00 / 0)

Surely you jest. I'm seriously guessing 25 cents. BUT THATS NOT ALL!

I'm also going to guess theyre going to push for at least three of these:
-Internet Sales Tax
-Local Meals Tax (SCAM)
-Higher Sales Tax
-Countless other ways to up the costs of living (taxing businesses and utilities)
-New Fees
-AND of course a cut in local aid

He describes himself as "to the left of Barack Obama'' on social issues and is frustrated that more folks don't appreciate that. - Yvonne Abraham on Charlie Baker, The Boston Globe

---

by: South Shore Republican @ Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 10:40:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the deal on the "local meals tax." (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I don't even know if it's constitutional, considering the issues surrounding sales and income taxes that have to be at rates that are "uniform throughout" the Commonwealth, meaning that if one municipality issues a local tax in this form, the other 350 have to do it at the same rate.  Having said that, I don't have a big problem with this legislation.

Many pundits on this weblog (including me) often lament the fact that cities and towns are rather limited in their abilities to do, well, pretty much anything.  They must navigate through the minefield of Commonwealth mandates in areas such as education (where the Commonwealth says that cities and towns must spend a certain amount of money on schools, regardless of whether or not it is going to good use), they need the General Court to enact changes to their charters, towns need the Attorney General to approve of their bylaws, and they must continue to rely on the generosity of the Commonwealth to balance their budgets.  These conditions occur despite the enactment of the Home Rule Amendment in 1966.

It is true that the government which governs best governs least.  It is also true that the government which governs best is the government which is closest to the people.  Therefore, we should support granting more autonomy to municipalities and allow them to craft their own policies without the Commonwealth breathing down their necks.

All this legislation would do (as far as I know; any trap doors?) is grant cities and towns the power to adopt a meals tax within their boundaries if they were to choose to do so.  That's why they call it "local option."  That does not mean that municipalities would have to adopt it.  Say, for example, a place like Marlborough, the frequent example cited on this weblog.  The City of Marlborough has balanced budgets for an extended period of time and doesn't need additional taxes or revenue streams, so obviously they would not enact such a local tax, especially since there is very little political support for it.

SSR, I would love to know why you think that it would be a scam.  I am certain that you have legitimate gripes, but I want you to ask yourself something: would you prefer that your town raise its own money for projects and initiatives or rely on the black hole of the Commonwealth?

Eric Gittleman
Boston Ward 21 Republican Committee (Allston, Brighton, Fenway/Kenmore)

My views do not necessarily reflect those of the Ward 21 Republican Committee, the Boston Republican City Committee, or any officers or members thereof.

---

by: Gittle @ Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 09:01:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]