Senator Davis calling Democrats to Action

George: Bingo.

I swear. sometimes I wonder what the heck I am doing on this site or involved in politics in this state.It takes a 2/3s vote in the Legislature to accomplish a constitiutional revision.Even if we win big, we will not have a 2/3s vote on the republican side. We will need some democrats to get it done. If Baldacci is willing to lend support, we will get the necessary democrat support to pull this off.Your right, a 10% cap is useless. I don't know what he is telling you, but that is not what he has said to me.The cap should be tied to personal income growth averaged over a five year period. It should apply to all levels of government.It is reasonable, it will work and we will begin to see tax reduction.Why is it that Republicans can't simply say, hey, this is our criteria and if you agree with it, we would be glad to work with you?The reason. Everybody wants credit. To heck with credit, lets get a spending cap that works and end this foolishness.If we had this cap since 1994, our budget would be 4.7 billion instead of 5.5 billionI thought what we wanted was to cut government. I am not so arrogant to say, Give me the credit
I just want it done

quote:Originally posted by Ray Richardson:
What you apparently fail to realize is the democrats have an absolute majority in Augusta.If Baldacci is willing to work with Bruno and Davis for a Constitutional spending cap, we should welcome it.Isn't that what Republicans have said they wanted?

It's taken a long, long time for the Ds to drive the state this far into the abyss. The air is thick with tax revolt, the Ds are in disarray. The Governor has sold everything that's not nailed down and cleaned out every larder twice. Meanwhile, his compatriots hunger for more, morE, moRE, mORE, MORE! And he's looking that one big compromise to bring Republicans back into the fold, so every D candidate can run around pointing at Republicans and say, "What are you complaining about, you VOTED for it!" (Whatever "it" is, in the end).November is not far off now, Davis and his crew have set themselves up for a huge win if they can go into the election season telling voters that electing Republicans will ensure taxpayers will get a chance to decide for themselves about the spending limit.If Baldacci is willing to throw his support for exactly the version of a Constitutional spending limit DEFINED by Republicans, with a Republican name as lead sponsor of the bill, then sure Davis and Bruno should welcome him. But do you seriously think that's what they have in mind? Don't be so naive! Baldacci is on his own. Davis helped solidify that for his caucus with that OpEd piece.

So George,WIth all due respect,
You are against the tax capYou are against Baldacci's support on the constitutional spending capwhat are you for?I mean, I hope all of you realize a constitutional spending cap will only occur with a republican majority this fall.2/3s is still 2/3s however

Folks are so afraid of the tax cap, you might see something pretty interesting.I for one would not close any doors to accomplish my goals.Maybe everyone else will and maybe that is why we are where we are.If George is correct, and the tax cap is truly the anti-Christ that he has painted it as, maybe you will see an olive branch out of Augusta to defeat it.Maybe not, but why close the door?

quote:Originally posted by Ray Richardson:

Why is it that Republicans can't simply say, hey, this is our criteria and if you agree with it, we would be glad to work with you?

They did. They got the brush off, and now the Ds are trying to co-opt the message. And, excuse me in advance for offending, but it sure sounds like you are trying to help them by quibbling over the formula instead of just sticking to the message?

So, let me be clear here just so I am sure what is being said.If Baldacci were to publicly say to Davis and Bruno, look, let's work together. I will support the spending cap at personal income growth and bring acriss enough democrats to give the 2/3s vote that is needed to make the constitutional process happen, you all are saying, "no, don't accept it"Am I correct in what I am seeing?Ray

Ray, should they trade a cap for a tax increase? One cent on the sales tax or a huge increase in the tobacco tax?

Ray: Given the Baldacci and legislative majority, you should instinctively see any "offer" as an attempt to blow one by the R minority. The Ds have absolutely no reason to deal in REAL tax relief. Acting cooperative at this early juncture is obviously a meaningless bluff.Not until they are down and bleeding will there be anything approaching real progress. Under current circumstances, why would you believe Baldacci wants to retreat from their current budget growth profiles? There is not an iota of willingness to cut or limit spending, and you know it.You want to believe he's seen the light. Sorry. I don't buy it one bit. Does the word "politics" mean anything to you?You should stop taking doubting comments as reflecting suspicion towards your motives. They are not that at all; instead, they reflect a complete distrust for any seemingly cooperative offers from the party in control, which has no real reason to make honest and sincere offers.Most of us simply don't trust anything they propose that hasn't been gained by backing them into a corner. If they volunteer something, we assume it is a scam, a deception, or worse.Sorry Ray. We are cynical, you aren't. We distrust, you don't. That's just the way it is.

I have said from the start of this legislative term that the R legislators should just let the Dems have at their own brand of macro economics. The R's decided to go along to get along and held out the olive branch. Look what it got them.In recent months, I have been encouraged by the statements made from both Senator Davis and Representative Bruno that they were going to start playing hardball with the Dems. I hope they keep their eye on the ball over the next couple of weeks.If the Dems want to raise the sales tax, let THEM do it. Let THEM build the model. It will not work. Don't let them suck you in.John Baldacci has a long track record of liberalism. I doubt he had an epiphany on the short plane ride back from D.C. Friends of mine said "He's really more conservative than you think, Bob." Yeah, right.The Dems have painted themselves into a financial corner. Let them keep painting.Oh, by the way. There is another $250 million dollar invoice on the way to Baldacci and friends...courtesy of the MMA/MEA and Maine voters on June 8th. It's called "1A".Don't buy it, Ray. Let the tax increases be the work of the Dems. We don't need to be part of it.[ 04-25-2004: Message edited by: Bob Stone ]

This thread should really be a lesson to the Republican members of the House and Senate. I have been a registered Republican since I was old enough to vote. I have always voted for my party because Republicans get it.It is funny that the Republicans in Augusta have never reciprocated on the deal. Go a long to get a long folding on major policy and never standing on principle. It get even worse when you see how we cannot even get our RINO's to back the party in crucial times.Ray and others keep saying that the Republicans have been doing a great job for the past 120 days. I say that is to little, to late. While I am glad to see some party unity, I fear that the Demonrats are going to spring a trap and we are going to get destroyed by it. Same old, same old.Tony

SA2,No, no trade, I specifically mentioned to the Governor that a 1% sales tax increase was the worst thing that could happen to bring about property tax relief.A) It is the most regressive tax we haveb) it is not tax decuctible, unless you are the greatest record keeper in history.He said, emphatically, he would veto it
Anne, No one is trying to monkey with a formula. The Governor doesn't negogiate with me. He would negogiate with Davis and Bruno. They know what to do.I want a spending cap because I no longer trust our government to be responsible. Would that change with a Republican Majority? Yes, I believe it would, but with Art Mayo and a couple of others, if it is 19-16, 18-17, 20-15 I would want the cap to insure they other side didn't lure guys like Art.I personally, at this point, am working to win the tax cap vote because I believe it is a tool (step) to a larger process.If we could get Baldacci, Bruno, Colwell, Dagget and Davis to the table with the understanding that a Constitutional Spending Cap was gonna be hammered out, I and many others would not support the tax cap.I have faith in Paul Davis that if he got to the table, he would know what to do. Are the rest of you questioning that?The ship of state is sinking. The democrats aren't stupid, they know it as well. Now might be the right time.Quit living in the past. We can't change it. We can, however, change our future.While I don't get a vote, if I did, I would damn sure make sure I kept all of the options on the table to best serve the people of Maine.I have no doubt that Senator Paul Davis would say the same thing.He has worked hard to forge a better future for Maine. I am sure he would make the right decision if this theoretical conversation we are having actually occurs.[ 04-25-2004: Message edited by: Ray Richardson ]

quote: So a tax increase other than a sales tax increase should be on the table?

Didn't we have that fight last weekend? No tax raising Republican should be re-elected, remember?I think Paul Davis is a good leader with a good compass. He won't raise taxes, he knows it is wrong.The options piece referred to the formula:population plus inflationpersonal income growth averaged over five years75% of personal income growthEtc., Etc., Etc.,To be clear for those who apparently are not following along closely:
I would trade a spending cap for the tax cap, but not for a tax increase.Taxes are too high.I would think that the formula could be fluid, that the leaders could figure out what makes sense to get it done.I don't sit at that table.

quote:Don't buy it, Ray

Bob and Mel,I am not being naive. I understand the dirty nature of this game.I also know that it is 18-17 in the Senate80-66-5 or something like that in the houseWe are no where near 2/3s to get a Constititional cap going. We need help.If it is being offered and if it meets the straight-faced test while not violating any of our principles, are you saying don't take it?I am not advocating that we accept whatever we are given. I am saying that if it meets our terms, why not?BTW George, because it won't is not answer to my question[ 04-25-2004: Message edited by: Ray Richardson ]

Georgie, Georgie, Georgie;My Mayor hasn't even passed a budget yet. Don't say he has raised tax just yet.You guys can't stand it because I am reasonable and consistent all at the same time.Just so we are further clear.I think extreme partisianship is a virtue. It seperates us from them. I only wish there was more of it.

"If we could get our leaders on board with a Constitutional spending cap, which is what we really need in Maine, I would gladly trade one for the other."Both property taxes and state spending need spending caps, they are not substitutes for one another.The only way to be sure that an increase in the sales tax replaces the property tax and is not an add-on, is to completely ban and eliminate property taxes for education. This would be a huge blessing to local taxpayers and small businesses.Even then the 1% cap would be a big cut for towns with mill rates in the 20's.If we are really serious about abolishing the scourage of property taxes we should introduce the local, town surcharge on the state individual income tax and eliminate the property tax entirely.

Hadley...1. Under the Maine constitution, the towns are supposed to be 100% responsible for k-12 education. Senator Brennan denies it, but it is right in there.2. The income tax is THE WORST tax we can impose if we are hoping for economic growth. This has been proven by econometric modeling repeatedly.The above doesn't square with your post.Bob

Bob,You beat me to the post while I was trying to process what Hadley was saying. I'm still not sure. Eliminate property tax and allow municipalities to have some kind of local rider on income tax? Can you elaborate, Hadley?nd

quote:Originally posted by Hadley E. Smith:
... The only way to be sure that an increase in the sales tax replaces the property tax and is not an add-on, is to completely ban and eliminate property taxes for education. This would be a huge blessing to local taxpayers and small businesses...

Mr. Smith, do you know of any locale that does not finance (most of) its K-12 with the property tax? I thought everyone uses the property tax.

quote:Originally posted by billPhillips:
Mr. Smith, do you know of any locale that does not finance (most of) its K-12 with the property tax? I thought everyone uses the property tax.

In the 03-04 fiscal year, 137 school units in Maine financed most (over 50%) of their basic K-12 education expenditures by depositing checks from big brother in Augusta.

quote:Originally posted by George:
But overall, the state only pays for about 44% of education. What Hadley is suggesting is almost a billion dollars a year that would be shifted from the property tax to other taxes. If that was to be funded by a sales tax increase that would mean a 12.5% sales tax based on what is taxed today.

In my town the folks would be tickled pink to receive "only" 44%!Actually the total shift would be about three quarters of a billion. But I understand what you're saying... a billion here, a billion there: pretty soon we'll be talking real money.

George,I think you want to take some zeros out of the two numbers above.Steven

Careful, there are some here who think you are not normal.

quote:Originally posted by Anne Field:
Bangor Daily News - Print this Article

Last updated: Saturday, April 24, 2004
Naming in the spirit
of rhetoric
In a column in yesterday's Bangor Daily News ("Naming names in budget fiasco"), Sen. Paul Davis touts empty promises and false assumptions in regard to the majority party's response to the state budget and tax relief. ........To imply that there is plenty of money in Augusta and that shrinking state government would change our tax burden is simply skirting the real issue. ....
....State government has been trimmed significantly....
...the Senate Democratic plan also proposes spending caps at the municipal and county levels similar to ones put in place at the state level...This session is the first time Republicans have not submitted a budget proposal to deal with our budget problems. The only idea we hear from the Republican minority party is cutting more from programs that Maine people want and need, and capping spending....
web page

There is so much to comment on, but in regard to the last quote above, I think Senator Stanley should remember the following from February...Republicans Offer Plan to Lower Taxes
The Republican tax reform plan provides tax relief without raising additional taxes.

February 12, 2004 AUGUSTA, MAINE - At a State House press conference earlier today, Republicans laid out a comprehensive tax reform and relief package that addresses Maine’s onerous tax burden by lowering property and income taxes. Unlike other tax reform proposals, the Republican plan offers real relief without resorting to tax and fee increases.The guiding principles of the Republican proposal are as follows:· Limit growth in government spending.
· Make it more difficult to raise taxes.
· Let Mainers keep more of their paychecks.
· Set priorities and follow through on promises.
· Provide meaningful, long-term property tax relief.“Our government spending is not in line with what people earn,” said House Republican Leader Joe Bruno (R-Raymond). “We have to put a mechanism in place that protects Mainers paychecks from being eroded by state government. Then and only then can we tackle Maine’s tax burden.”The Republican plan proposes a constitutional amendment that limits the growth in state government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth. It proposes a constitutional amendment requiring a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to raise taxes or fees.Senate Republican Leader Paul Davis (R-Sangerville) said, “The key to tax reform in Maine is to put these runaway budgets on a diet - once and for all. Presently, the Legislature spends every dime it gets its hands on and when that runs out, they borrow more. In my six years here in Augusta it has been the same old story and it is time for change.”“Spending in Maine has been growing more than twice the rate of inflation for far too long,” said Representative Harold Clough (R-Scarborough), the ranking House Republican on the Legislature’s Taxation Committee. “We need a constitutional amendment that caps the growth in spending. Had we done something similar 10 years ago, government spending in Maine would be $400 million less than it is today. That equates to a 15% reduction in the tax burden.” One of the major components of the Republican plan is to eliminate the income tax for all Maine families with incomes of less than $27,000. They also propose across the board reductions in income tax rates specifying that revenues in excess of the spending cap first be used for these purposes. It also provides long-term property tax relief by assessing property tax bills based on the purchase price of a home and pegging any future increases to inflation until that property is sold or transferred again.“Maine people expect and deserve meaningful tax relief,” said Senator Richard Nass, ranking Senate Republican on the Taxation Committee. “Our plan provides real property and income tax relief so that our friends and neighbors will not end up being forced out of their homes due to unfair tax assessments. Our plan addresses, head-on, the real problem that is driving property taxes upward - out-of-control government spending. Unless the Legislature is willing to deal with this reality, things will not improve. It is high time that we do more than provide mere lip service to tax relief. This plan accomplishes that goal.”
# # # #
DETAILS OF THE MAINE REPUBLICAN TAX PLAN FIRST…
Limit Spending by Government Support a constitutional amendment that would cap the growth in spending for State, County and Municipal government to the rate of inflation plus the percentage growth in population.q A majority of the states have some form of limitation on the growth in spending. q Spending in Maine has been growing more than twice the rate of inflation.

q If a cap had been enacted 10 years ago, spending would be about $400 million less today. That is about $320 dollars for every person in the state-or about a 15% reduction in the tax burden.
Make it Harder for the Legislature to Raise or Enact Taxes and FeesSupport a constitutional amendment that would require a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate to create a new tax or fee, or raise existing taxes or feesq 14 states require a supermajority to raise taxes.q States with super-majority requirements have had stronger economic growth.THEN…Reduce Maine’s Income Tax BurdenStep 1: Provide immediate relief for 40% of Maine’s most needy families by eliminating the tax for families making less than $28,000 per year. Step 2: Provide ongoing relief through across-the-board reductions in income tax rates over time as the spending cap frees up additional revenues. At least 50% of the excess revenues would be used to accomplish this gradual --across the board reduction.
Provide Property Tax Relief Assess property at the most recent sale price.q The property tax needs predictability, stability and fairness injected into the formula. Property tax relief should include the following:1. When property is purchased, the sale price would be the “Base Property Value,” which would be established as the basis for future property tax bills.
2. The “Base Property Value” would only increase at the rate of the Consumer Price Index.
3. When property is transferred, the new basis would be based on the “Fair Market Value” at the time of the transfer.
Set Priorities and Follow Through on Promises
Republicans propose a freeze on the expansion of existing programs and a moratorium on the creation of any new programs-until we are meeting our existing obligations.[ 04-26-2004: Message edited by: Keith ]

quote:Originally posted by George:
That is only $400 million less a year. The tax cap that you support will decrease government revenue by about $700 million a year. So which do you want -- radical and quick reduction in government spending or a soft cap on spending that would only have an effect when revenues are growing quickly?

I want $700 million now and more later. I want my state to only tax me at the rate that some "average" state does and not always try to set a new record for state greed. I want my property tax to not tax me out before I can retire and flee in a few years. I want my curent tax bill to go WAY down, and not just slow in its constant increase.That is what I want. ;)

quote:Originally posted by Ray Richardson:
We are no where near 2/3s to get a Constititional cap going. We need help.[ 04-25-2004: Message edited by: Ray Richardson ]

No, we need FEAR. We need the dems to be terrified of the voter. We need a big win on the cap and a big win on 1A, We need such a strong signal sent that even an Augusta RINO cannot avoid the lesson.Then we negotiate. Now is too soon.
:eek:[ 04-26-2004: Message edited by: James ]

George et al,Okay, so you have made me King for the day. Through edict, this is what I would do with my day (government wise)
1) Place Constitutional Spending Cap on ALL levels of government tied to population growth plus inflation2) Cut all brackets of income tax 20% phased in over two years3) Expand homested exemption to $50,000 and cap property re-valuations at rate of inflation4) Eliminate the personal property tax on business equipment5) Cut the legislature to 48 House members and 16 Senators6) Eliminate 17% of the state work force immediately7) Have no state employee or municpal employee make more than $69,999 per year.8) Consolidate school districts so that are no more than 20 school districts statewide and that all Superintendents are elected, not selected9) Restore competition in the healthcare industry by removing mandates that have driven private insurance companies from Maine10) Eliminate another 14% of the reduced state work force11) Take the gas tax off auto-pilot12) Allow the government in Maine (all levels) to own no more than 8.5% of the property in the state13) Give any company that would provide the infrastructure for redundant power and redundant internet access to any business center in Maine tax free status for 20 years14) Have the Boston Red Sox play the New York Yankees at Hadlock Field and me have seat directly behind home plate

quote:My question was to Ray -- whose position seems to be that he will give up his demand for a $700 million immediate tax cut for a lukewarm spending cap that would have cut spending by $400 million over the last 10 years.

Georgie,I thought you were against the tax cap. Now you tell me I am lukewarm because I really want a spending cap.I am confused.I have always said I want a spending cap, I just didn't believe we were gonna get until we got somebodies attention.That was the gist of my remarks in Yarmouth. This is a tool to get there.I have never wavered on getting the Spending Cap. I have simply decided to look at differing strategies to get there.If you keep running into the same brick wall to get to the same destination, doesn't it make sense to choose a differnt path and finally get there?

quote: If we had this cap since 1994, our budget would be 4.7 billion instead of 5.5 billion

That number is 800 million this year alone. In other years it would have been less than 800 million, but the total over the ten years would have been about 3 billion dollars.In my world, that is a lot of money

Ray for King, for Pope, Fuehrer... whatever works... well, maybe not Fuehrer. ;)