A simmering pot

Taken from an article in today's Standard Times covering the governor's trip to the area and addressing his proposed tax increases for his "creative" budget:

Patrick said that under his new tax proposals, which call for doubling the personal income tax deduction and eliminating dozens of exemptions, "60 percent of wage earners would actually see their taxes go down. Those of us who do a little bit better will contribute more because we all have a stake in the future. ... We have a stake, each of us, in our neighbors' dreams and struggles as well as our own."

This type of mind boggling logic is what gets me to a slow boil.

If each of us have a stake in this matter, how is it that 60% of us are actually going to pay less?  I will by into the warped logic that certain stake holders should get a pass from an increase.  But lessen there obligation?

You aren't simply asking the 40% to pay more for their own taxes more because they earn more.  You are asking them to pay first for a tax break for the 60% and then to pick up the entire tab for the extra money.

Hey but fear not, you have to be single and earn $50K or more to feel the pinch, $60K or more for a family.  If you are doing that you are rich right? Either that your you have a management position in government.

With the issuance of the "Cherry Sheet" the governor's proposed aid package to local communities comes into focus.  The blanks have been filled in a bit as to some components.  At first blush, it looks like a good start at an improvement over last years initial cherry sheet, and the final package.  

That look last only so long as you solely look at the total on the first page. 

Every state rep. and official will tell you Fairhaven aid is up $227,895. Carve out the state and county charges assessed on the second page (over $440K worth, an increase of $59,417 equal to 15.55% higher than last years charges), the net aid package is actually $168,424.

Still better than a sharp stick in the eye, until your realize it is based on a proposed budget that needs a $1.2 billion dollar package of new taxes and fees, and approval of use of over $500 million dollars of one time money. So the extra right now is ink on a page only, and I am willing to bet a portion of it, if not all of it is disappearing ink at that.

There is only one reason the state plays this game of "hey look what I am giving" but omits the "look what I am taking from you" when they announce the figures.  Let's face it, an increase of $227K gross sounds much better than an a net increase of $168.

As I said before, I can buy into more money for transportation, so long as there is a binding commitment worked out to actually spend that money on the infrastructure going forward.  If you have lived in the Commonwealth long enough, you will have a long memory of numerous taxes and fee hikes needed to do things, put in place to do them and then only to divert the money to other purposes.

As far as the education component.  There are two hard realities.  The first, whether people like to hear it or not dumping money into the higher education system in this Commonwealth so every single person who wants to go to college can, is absolutely nuts.  

Don't even get me started on the student debt crisis.  You want to talk debt, when I do the adjustments for inflation, when I got done with just undergraduate, my debt load was more than the average for today's recent graduates.  The crisis comes down to jobs to repay the debt.

You graduate 20,000 journalism majors when the job market will support only 10,000 guess what?  You have 10,000 with no jobs and 15,000 who are starting at a depressed salary because of then availability glut (substitute just about any profession/degree you want by the way).

Just how many liberal arts majors is this economy able to support, not to mention the gluts in other areas?

Like it or not supply and demand applies to the job market.  

If I need to further explain the realities behind this to you, than doing so isn't ever going to change your mind. 

The second reality.  Local education aid.

As proposed for Fairhaven the next fiscal year is a gross total of $7,372,435.  For FY 2009 it was $7,689,987.  There is absolutely no rational point to creating "new" programs which aren't going to be sustained in the first place, at the continuing expense of the decimation of the educational system over the past 4 years.

In case you are wondering, local aid proposed for next year, gross local aid, is just a hair under $800,000 less than in FY 2009.  Using the net aid, it is just shy of the $1 million mark.

I can't speak for anyone else, but give Fairhaven back the million dollars for FY 2014, we will handle the problems plaguing us very well thank you. 

Want to take care of what ails the Commonwealth?  Do some tax adjustments if you feel so compelled, but put an absolute freeze for at least two years on any new spending programs or initiatives. Catch up to the base line of several years ago.

It really could be that simple.

A "Your View" segment in today's paper is from the individual involved in the Cushman Park easement fiasco.  I state once again, get an article on the Special Town Meeting warrant and address the matter.  Let Town Meeting make it clear to everyone exactly what it is Town Meeting wants at this point.  

Received a telephone call from a reporter yesterday looking for my take on the proposal to revamp the fin com.  I am withholding any formal judgment until I see the formal proposal.  As I have noted previously, I may have personal preferences as to size, but in the end it is a TM decision, as it should be.  I can understand the rational behind the DOR recommendation, some of which I agree with, some I don't.

But I also understand that my personal preferences may not be what is in the best interest of the town in the short or long term.  I understand that people are comfortable with the present arrangement.  I understand that despite perceived and probable efficiency and benefits, the same may not outweigh the benefits to a more robust and representative committee, and the confidence level the same provides.  

Make no mistake, a 13 member committee can be cumbersome, will run into situation of prolonged vacancies and attendance issues. Present methods of appointment have drawbacks also.  In the end one has to actively seek to determine whether a change would result in any substantial and significant benefit.

Again keep in mind, be it a committee of 7, 9, 11, or 13, or even 8; be it comprised of "professionally" qualified; be it appointed or elected; a committee is only as good and effective as the work put into it by the people who sit.  

Before I decide to support or oppose formally, I leave it to the collective wisdom of our selectmen to formulate their proposal.  

As of right now though any proposal with appointments to the Fin Com by the Selectmen, or any other board or committee will definitely not be supported.  Not even some hybrid appointment mechanism.  I am fully aware that some communities do that.  I am fully aware that this also becomes a personal preference in the very end.

But I absolutely prefer a recommending body to be as independent as possible from the entity that does most of the proposals.  I will always accept the collective wisdom of Town Meeting.  If the comments on the street are any indication of what is going on in the thought process of the involved 

There should be absolutely no toying with the idea of any such arrangement.  

Another thing, get the number 8 out of your heads, please.  Even the DOR rep. who has personal dealings in his own town with fin com, and which as an 8 member committee, thought is was a terrible set-up.  Whatever rationale there may be for even numbered committees I don't know, and quite frankly I can't piece together a reasonable argument.

Looks like we are going to get an active cable advisory committee.  Still not sure what its revised function will be.  Here is something it should be though:  figure out a budget plan to ensure, every single meeting required to be posted is at least taped for viewing.  You don't have to crowd the access channel with every single meeting (although one who can understand the contract might be able to figure out just how you can in fact expand utilization of the available space and channels).  Do the on-line route.

But get them all taped.  From the selectmen to the board of health to the retirement board to the council on age, commission on discrimination, commissioners of trust funds to the board of assessors.

Enough of stirring that pot ...

Meeting rooms.   The banquet room might not be of sufficient size to hold a meeting for everyone who wants to show up to address the existing turbines, however for everyone going to a meeting to address the siting by-law, if all those who attended where there for that specific purpose with no intent to hi-jack a meeting, I bet you would end up with empty seats if the people to attend where there for the specific purpose of the siting by-law.

But I will acknowledge there are issues with meeting rooms.  Offices should not be used for public meetings.  I don't care who you are or what your purpose is.

No board or committee should be able to escape the public scrutiny by meeting in small offices or during the normal workday for most people.

But hey, just another personal preference.

that's it for today.  Enjoy the weekend and be safe.