From a non-profit organization
Comments were that should my approach succeed in shifting some federal taxes to states, some states with recipient economies rather donor economies would actually lose funds due to the structure and practical workings of the federal budget; I would cause some states to receive less federal transfer payments than they receive now. That there is only so much discretionary spending in the federal budget, and my approach would directly affect transfer-payments to the states.
My response
First, my intention is to increase revenues to all states at the expense of the federal revenue stream, and so to put brakes on federal spending. My approach is simple but may be flawed in practice. Second, that the approaches by Governor Patrick, Speaker DiMasi and the Legislature are not ambitious enough; they may relieve the state budget crunch in the short-run but do not address the longer-term structural issues of the federal/state government relationship. I am not anti-federalist, but rather view the federal part of the equation as overly favored at the expense of state and local economies; there is an imbalance in favor of the federal budget.
In Massachusetts, I don’t see the proposed legislative benefits of new casinos or increased taxes on cigarettes as having the broad impact required to affect not only the Massachusetts economy but other states as well. There is a real opportunity cost to the current priorities of the federal budget, and states and local authorities could be the key to setting the economic engines of this country on a positive course. Further, I do not see the deliverance of relief from the property tax burden to residents that Governor Patrick made a key part of his effective grassroots campaign in getting elected.
Thanks to those who have taken the time to speak or email me so far.
George