What will the GOP response be to the State of the State

Mass GOP should follow Scott Brown's leadership (0.00 / 0)

In one of his last votes, Scott Brown voted in favor of raising the federal income tax rate.

So, the Mass GOP should follow Brown's leadership and vote in favor of raising the state income tax rate also.

---

by: BlueWatch @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:03:57 AM UTC

They're two different taxes for two different governments (0.00 / 0)

Massachusetts is required to balance its budget, so without a tax increase the state will have to cut spending.

Without a balanced budget requirement on the Federal level, no one has offered serious spending cuts, so the only alternative is to raise taxes or to eventually turn into Greece.

Anyway, what specific vote are you talking about?

---

by: Couves @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:42:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reform before revenue! (0.00 / 0)

Mr. Watch -

I think that since the Democrats are going to make this happen no matter what, our position should be that long-overdue refoms in the areas that Governor Patrick has addressed should be implemented at the same time as the tax increases. That would be win-win.

For instance, Pioneer has many wonderful proposals that we should use. (Jim Stergios on transportation here.)

With health spending increasing at the rate that it is (just having crossed the 50% mark) tax increases will be all we see without reforms. So lets see what we can do to at least improve how government works.

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No thanks, Deval; don't want to "invest" or "contribute" more (5.00 / 2)

Citizens for Limited Taxation
News Release
January 16, 2013  after "state of the state" address  

Nice to hear we've had "11 billion in savings" -
Where is it?
Tax burden is still 4th highest per capita in the nation, so we taxpayers haven't seen it.
Nice to see sales tax cut:  Those who've avoided the sales tax altogether using the Internet or driving north over the border will now need to find a way to avoid the income tax increase.  Drive to New Hampshire and stay there?  Put more money into our tax-free retirement accounts?  Lose our jobs as economy gets hit with higher income taxes?
Didn't the voters order the income tax rate rolled back to 5% in 2000?  Don't think that means they want the rate to be 6.25percent.  So no thanks, governor: don't want to "invest" more in a corrupt, wasteful, unaccountable, mismanaged commonwealth.  Fix it first.

---

by: Barbara Anderson @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 02:22:52 AM UTC

I'm not a lawyer... (0.00 / 0)

but this kind of looks like the Governor is proposing that we ban magazines larger than seven rounds:

SECTION 6. Said section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 57-62, the words "a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994." and inserting in place thereof the following words:- containing more than seven rounds of ammunition; or (iii) obtained after the effective date of this act and capable of accepting, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition.

http://www.mass.gov/governor/l...

---

by: Couves @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:26:29 AM UTC

Private sector innovation (0.00 / 0)

I would like to see our leadership get up off the mat and talk about the private sector and all they can contribute to our problems in education, infrastructure development, and transportation. I don't mean to the exclusion of government action, as the government does have a role to play in these areas. But we must return to the notion that perhaps the government does not have to do as much as Governor Patrick thinks it does.

For instance, in education, all - and I mean all - of the best ideas and institutions are coming from the private sector. That's where the focus should be - enabling home schools, private schools, and the new online schools (and supporting materials) to flourish.

If our leaders cannot find the words to articulate these kinds of ideas, then they should stop caucusing as Republicans.  

---

by: edfactor @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:43:08 AM UTC

The State GOP should (5.00 / 1)

attack one of the largest drivers of inflated government spending and repeal the higher-then-national prevailing wage law and project labor agreements. The Beacon Hill Institute has done a study showing these inflated wage rates raise construction costs by 22%. Think of the $1 billion that the Governor wants to spend on infrastructure and realize that that number could be reduced by 22% ($220,000,000) by simply repealing Prevailing Wage. And that is just at the state level. Now factor in all the municipal project spending in 351 towns and cities. That's serious money and could be serious savings.

While we're at it, lets make Massachusetts a right-to-work state and watch business and job growth take off.

(I can dream, right?)

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld

---

by: TLCWeld @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 14:26:23 PM UTC

Massachusetts Taxpayers soundly defeated prevailing wage repeal (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps you missed the voters resounding rejection of repealing prevailing wage requirements in the 1988 Question 2 balllot initaitive. 350 of Massachusetts 351 cities and towns voted against repeal, which went down to defeat by a 58 to 42% statewide margin.

Repeal of Prevailing Wage only targets workers' hourly wage rates. Profits for contractors, developers, banks, suppliers and all other interested participants are let untouched. No surprise that the Republican Party would only target workers paychecks - well actually I am surprised given how middle class voters continue to abandon the GOP based on the Party's concerns for protecting the wealthy.

And let's debunk the prevailing wage increases cost myth. This from the national Economic Policy Institute:

Average labor costs, including benefits and payroll taxes, are roughly one-quarter of construction costs. Thus, even if a prevailing wage regulation raised wages by 10%, the impact on contract costs would be less than 2.5%. Thus, even if there is an increase in contract costs it is likely to be small-to the point of being undetectable

And:

Some recent studies have expanded the analysis of prevailing wage regulations to determine whether they have indirect costs or benefits for the economy and society. These studies have found that prevailing wage laws can enhance state tax revenues, industry income, and non-wage benefits for workers; lower future maintenance and repair costs; reduce occupational injuries and fatalities; and increase the pool of skilled construction workers-to the benefit of both the public and the construction industry.

At this point in the evolution of the literature on the effect of prevailing wage regulations on government contract costs, the weight of the evidence is strongly on the side that there is no adverse impact. Almost all of the studies that have found otherwise use hypothetical models that fail to empirically address the question at hand. Moreover, the studies that have incorporated the full benefits of higher wages in public construction suggest that there are, in fact, substantial, calculable, positive benefits of prevailing wage laws.

http://www.epi.org/publication...

---

by: Striker57 @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 15:05:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so what? (5.00 / 1)

We also soundly passed the rollback of the tax rate to 5%...

If you can ignore the vote on one issue, you can ignore them all.

You have a better chance of seeing Jesus at the supermarket though.

"Don't let me get away with it. Check me out. Don't be the sucker generation." -Ronald Reagan

www.inBrockton.com

---

by: BrocktonDave @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 16:26:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

since I was 18 and living in Live Free or Die NH at the time, yes, I was unaware that 22 years ago(!) this vote took place.

Union-set prevailing wages AND benefits must be used according to the law, not just wages. With one of the highest costs for health insurance in the nation that surely adds to the bottom line.

Massachusetts also uses a prevailing wage rate higher than the one for MA set by the Fed BLS. So even if we used the rate calculated by the Federal government we would save money. Why does MA use a higher rate than the one calculated by the BLS? I think we all know the answer to that question.

G.O.P. Growth. Opportunity. Prosperity. For all Americans.

Karl (TLC)Weld

---

by: TLCWeld @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 16:58:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure if a nearly 25 year old result still stands. (0.00 / 0)

An entire Generation has passed.  In 1988, we had $4 Trillion in Debt, about 51% of GNP.  Now we have $16 Trillion, 117% of GNP.  That's not including State or Municipal Debts.  So the luxury of setting artificial wage rates, that, according to the Beacon Hill  Institute adds a 17% premium to the cost of public projects, is no longer affordable.

The purpose, as I suspect you know, of the prevailing wage law (a misnomer name if ever there was one) is to set an artificial, non-market rate so that Union wage rates can be more competitive, and give more public projects to Union shops, who comprise less than 10% of construction workers, stopping the vast majority of the very workers you spoke of from gainful employment.

The Prevailing wage law has nothing to do with "helping workers pay checks" but is another patronage gift by the Democrat Party to a part of their coalition. It's part of the same Spoils system that has been the hallmark of the Democrat Party since the time of Andrew Jackson.

Follow me on Twitter?  Sure, why not.  www.twitter.com/paulferro

---

by: Paul R. Ferro @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 17:02:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was born in 1987 (0.00 / 0)

Molon Labe

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 19:53:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just another union guy... (5.00 / 1)

...who resents the people who own the business and take the risk.

Lemme ask you this...

If you were to build a house....or do any renovation, etc...  would YOU hire a union company who paid union/prevailing wage rates?

The answer of course is a resounding NO.  Why?  Because you simply can't afford it.

You see...Striker57, Inc. has to keep an eye on the bottom line.  You know that wage rates for a union carpenter (though they vary by region in MA) are about $37.00/hr plus about $25-$30/hr in benefits.  If you had to pay that kind of dough, your 2,500 square foot colonial would cost about 3-4 times what it could be built for using non union labor.  (Don't forget that you have to use union plumbers, painters, electricians, laborers, etc... as well).

If Striker57, Inc. did THAT, you'd have no profits (yes Striker...that's what you call YOUR money after you pay taxes and your bills...profit, same as Bank of America).

You assert that:

Profits for contractors, developers, banks, suppliers and all other interested participants are let untouched.

So...it's ok that Striker57, Inc. maximizes IT'S profit by hiring the company with the best deal, but not the state?  When you hire a plumber to fix your toilet, are you concerned what the profit of the plumbing supply house is?

I'm sure when you shop, you always look for the best deal. right?  You use Amazon, eBay, Drugstore.com and the like, right?  Why?  Because they are cheaper.  However, your beloved prevailing wage law passed because of scare tactics from the union regarding "out of state competition". I bet you don't worry about that when you drive to New Hampshire for your washer and dryer, right?

The unions ginned the public up in fear that jobs would be lost, there may be a lower standard of living for workers and their families and a possible (GASP)increase in contractor profit.  In reality...it was all about protecting the UNION.

Remember this:  The contractor took a risk opening up his own company with his own (or borrowed) money.  He risks everything.  As does the bank; the developer and the supplier, who also risked everything to open up a business.  

What risk do YOU have as a union worker?  YOU don't have to market yourself (the BA does that); you don't have to negotiate with owners to get work; you don't have to risk your own money to stock a supply house; you don't have to risk your own money by lending it out to people for homes, cars, businesses, development.  

You show up to work, do a job for an extremely high wage that someone else would GLADLY do for less.  Ah, but when he does, you show up with the 8' inflatable rat and protest his willingness to work for less than you.

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 13:27:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

still nothing? (0.00 / 0)

By now they must have had a response right?  

---

by: plymouth99 @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 17:43:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We should bring out the children.... (0.00 / 1)

Get a group of kids together and ask them to cry because their moms and dads are going to pay more in taxes for a stagnant bloated state government.  Tell them they can't have vacation this year and no new clothes or food, because a state worker with full pension, benefits and a lifetime of health insurance needs a raise.  

It works for Obama!

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 17:08:56 PM UTC