Governor Patrick is in DC today, attending a meeting of the National Governors Association. He is slated to meet with his friend President Obama today. Perhaps they can discuss this little contradiction in their approaches to the current recession:
A (small) part of that massive "stimulus" bill that Nancy Pelosi wrote and President Obama signed provides for a modest tax cut for the middle class. Proponents called this the "Making Work Pay" provision, though a more accurate name would be "Making Work Performed By Some People Pay Slightly More." On average, this provision will supposedly put $13 per week back into some workers' paychecks.
Assume for a moment - try, anyhow - that President Obama is correct to assume that this relatively small injection into personal bank accounts will have a stimulating effect on the lagging economy. What, then, is the inescapable conclusion about Governor Patrick's own proposals to take money away from those same taxpayers - at the gas pump, the liquor store, the grocery store, in hotels and restaurants (should I update this list daily)? If one accepts the proposition that $13 per week from the feds will stimulate the economy, then one must also accept the counter proposition that whatever portion of that $13 is snatched back by the state will dilute the "stimulus" by that amount. How does that make sense? Maybe the President can explain to the Governor.
On that topic, the Massachusetts state government is slated to receive somewhere in the neighborhood of $8 billion in "stimulus" funding. Governor Patrick wants to snatch some of our "stimulus." How much of the state's "stimulus" do you think the taxpayer will be able to snatch? None would be a safe bet.
Eric Fehrnstrom has a good piece on this general subject in today's Herald. I wonder how many voters in Massachusetts understand that for all his talk about cuts "to the bone," "sacrifice," "shared pain," etc., Governor Patrick in fact continues to increase state spending?