Psuedo Wisdom Gone Viral?

Much has been made of late of remarks made by Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren at a recent Andover house party. In case you somehow missed it, click HERE for a link to her original comments. The comments have, so we've been told, are in the process of going viral which is meant to indicate popularity and, perhaps, great veracity. Frankly, the whole thing seems to smack of grasping at straws, but if I were a newbie candidate who decided that the U.S. Senate seat might be an appropriate goal for one's initial try at elective office, I might encourage that thinking too. Especially given that incumbent, Scott Brown, may well be unbeatable. At the same time, we realize anything is possible here in the land of the Moon Bat.

There's much truth in Ms. Warren's statement. But if government stuck to what it does fairly well—roads, police, fire and the courts; enforcing contracts that help businesses interact with their customers and other businesses—the federal government wouldn't need to spend over $3.5 trillion a year, as it now does. And of course it's state and local governments—and not Washington—that primarily fund police, fire and education, so it's a bit strange to ask the rich to pay their fair share of federal income taxes because they enjoy police protection.

He continues by citing a more basic reason for the widespread resistance to increased taxes:

Much government spending supports activities that are ineffective or even harmful to the economy, often helping the politically powerful at the expense of the rest of us. Wouldn't it be great for the federal government to stop federal export subsidies, propping up financial institutions, meddling in the education system, and trying to engineer the entire health system from the top down? If the feds stopped all that, Ms. Warren would have a stronger point. We could all feel some gratitude for government's role in helping us live better lives. All of us, rich and poor, would look at government differently.

Say what you want, but we are getting tired of this assault on "the rich", whoever they may be, and their refusal to pay their "fair share" of taxes, whatever that might be. Somehow, We don't think the high earners are refusing to support maintaining roads and paying the cops a fair wage.

Give Roberts' ARTICLE a read and let's try to put some balance back in this discussion.

Meals Tax, Here We Go Again

Two years ago, the Plymouth Town Meeting passed an increase in the local Meals Tax from 6.25% to 7% by a three-vote margin. "It's a tiny amount" we were told, 38 cents on a $50 restaurant tab. "It will take some of the pressure off real estate taxes" we were told as the revenues from the increase would be added to the general fund, but without any way of tracking its effect. Days after the vote, signatures were being gathered and the question was subsequently put to the voters who voted four to one against the measure. Increasing taxes, never popular, seemed like a real bad idea in the face of a looming recession.

And now we have a new proposal to increase the local Meals Tax from 6.25% to 7%, which will come before upcoming Town Meeting on October 24th. Aside from the fact that the recession of two years ago is either still with us, or preparing an encore, what is different this time?

Sponsored by Advisory and Finance Committee member Michael Hanlon, the current proposal has two main differences; First of all, the revenues generated by the tax are to be earmarked exclusively to three specific uses. 25% of the money will go to funding the Plymouth 400th anniversary celebration in 2020, the 1820 Courthouse Renovation, and improvements to historical Burial Hill. The fourth 25% would be "up for grabs" among the three. The second major difference is a "sunset" provision that would end the tax in 2021 unless continued by Town Meeting. Okaaaay!

So let's get this straight. The voters overwhelmingly defeated the proposal that at least would have had the possibility of the money flowing to ongoing Town operations, like maintaining the streets, for example. And now, they are expected to approve the same measure for three vague uses. The 400th anniversary is at least eight years out and while it presently lacks a specific funding source, it also seems to lack specific programs and events. The 1820 Court House, unfortunately, is emerging as a massive money pit. This project could become a case study in the pitfalls of redeveloping an historic building by a well-meaning public sector, unequipped to deal with the high risks of real estate development. And here again, the plans for this project have yet to advance beyond the "concept" stage. And Burial Hill? When did this become a priority requiring multi-millions of dollars of public monies?

Yes, multi-millions. Appearing before his own committee last Wednesday, Hanlon estimated that the tax increase would generate $500,000 a year, which would imply nearly $5 million by the time the sunset provision kicks in. But according to today's Boston Globe, Plymouth Finance Director, Lynne Barrett, sees it generating nearly $1 million a year. Take your pick, but these amounts are a long way from the innocuous sounding 38cents. Especially for a Town that needs to mete out monies for basic services like road repairs and other DPW projects.

This tax is a bad idea for a host of reasons, but foremost is the fact that it provides an end run to the normal budgetary process which makes the hard decisions on how to spend the Town's limited funds. Projects like those being earmarked for the Meals Tax increase proceeds should be held to the same standards of evaluation that apply to most other budgetary items. Frankly, it comes as a surprise that a member of the very Committee that vets the Town's expenditures is the one calling for this end run.

Also appearing at the Committee meeting the other night was Chris Fava who lead the repeal process two years ago. Chris did an excellent job of delivering the message that those opposing this tax have not gone away and in all likelihood, would bring the question back to the people if passed by the Town meeting. Committee members bristling at an implied threat of the cost of a special election are missing the point. There is no appetite for raising the Meals tax.