Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Taxes are too high, says the Boston Globe. Ted Kennedy's head explodes.

Who wrote this editorial in the Globe - William F. Buckley? Recently the citizens of Middleborough, Massachusetts voted to allow a casino to help out the struggling city. In a one-of-a-kind editorial, the Boston Globe says they did it because taxes are too steep:

Whatever its implications for the state as a whole, last week's 2-to-1 vote by Middleborough residents to approve a planned casino there reflects deep-rooted dissatisfaction with rising residential property taxes. The fear that voters in this rural town of 22,000 would be asked to pay escalating taxes or risk losing key municipal services easily outweighed concern about how a casino might change the character of the town.
Hey, it worked on the Simpsons, right? When you don't want to pay taxes or cut spending, it's time to bring in the progressive slots and crap tables.

Traditionally, municipal decision-making in Massachusetts has been slow and methodical. By requiring that even the smallest zoning changes be subject to lengthy public processes, town officials could control growth. On Saturday, Middleborough voters turned this tradition on its head. It took just three months from the time that financial backers of the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe bought 120 acres of woodlands to the inking of a deal that is expected to bring up to $11 million annually to the town treasury. Opponents believe that the billionaire casino developers dictated the outcome by dictating the pace. But proponents say that the usual methods of trying to attract business to Middleborough have failed. For proof, they note that a meager $3.5 million of the town's $64 million operating budget comes from commercial taxes. It was time, says town Selectman Adam Bond, to act with "business speed."
Too bad Middleborough couldn't make such concessions to businesses unattached to organized crime.

State aid to cities and towns has been erratic for decades. During recessions, local communities bear deep cuts. The burden to make up the difference falls heavily on residential homeowners in the state, who saw their taxes jump by more than $900 from 2000-2005 alone. In Middleborough, the average homeowner pays about $3,200 yearly in property taxes, according to the town assessor. Annual trash fees eat up more than $200. That's real money for people in Middleborough. And the increases aren't even enough to offset the need to charge high fees for school athletics, cut back library hours, send pink slips to dozens of teachers, pare down elderly services, and close a fire station.

There is no surprise, therefore, and no shame in the fact that Middleborough residents grabbed a lifeline.
So the town became overextended without building up its business base. Too bad the Globe couldn't muster up more disapprobation for Middleborough's fiscal irresponsibility than it does for legalized gambling.

Cities and towns would be foolish, however, to think that casinos will solve all of their fiscal problems. Even if the state approves casino gambling and distributes a significant share of slot revenues in the form of local aid, the pressure will keep building on local budgets. Payroll costs drive most of the financial pressure on municipalities. Middleborough, like many towns, has not done enough to control these costs, especially in the area of healthcare premiums. And the Legislature won't even summon the courage to allow communities to raise their own revenues through local option taxes on meals. The more predictable the revenue stream, the less the urge to gamble.
And what, pray tell, would force Middleborough to confront its long-term public costs now that they're expecting millions in casino contributions? The answer is not casinos or more government handouts, but a tax structure that values businesses that provides jobs instead of driving them away. According to a 2006 CNN/Money poll, Massachusetts ranks 43rd in friendliness to small business. (For extra credit, see if you can spot a trend between the top ten and bottom ten on this list.)

5 comments:

Brian said...

Clearly, George Bush's tax cuts for the rich are killing small business and the war in Iraq is forcing small businesses to close down due to Hailburton taking all the government's money.

(If this were any university, I would have gotten an A+ for that answer)

Anonymous said...

(For extra credit, see if you can spot a trend between the top ten and bottom ten on this list.)

That two-thirds of the top ten states are some of America's dankest sh**holes, and therefore need to do anything they can to get someone-- anyone-- to move there?

And the opposite goes for the bottom ten?

JorgXMcKie said...

Close, a guess. The top ten have decent Americans living there and the bottom ten have 'progressives' living in them.

The bottom ten also have 'cities' that are true sh**holes PLUS very high taxes.

Anonymous said...

Ha, how sad. Translation: Heartland values, not property values!

P.S. You get what you pay for.

JorgXMcKie said...

I'd rather live in the Heartland in a $100,000 house (or even less) since they can be very nice, than in S.F., LA, or NYC in a $1,000,000 condo and have to be surrounded by all those Lefties whining about how awful the country is. Hey, moving is always an option.
(Of course, a $1,000,000 property there might not only be a craphole, but you might have Algore or Michael Moore for a neighbor, which would truly suck.)