What ethics means to me.
Writers on this site have been properly concerned with the ethics proposals of candidates for Council and Mayor. They want to know how these candidates are going to shut down the pay-to-play culture of our government, and regulate elections so that the power of money is replaced by the power of voters.
But there are other measures of a candidate’s ethics that we may not be paying enough attention to. For instance, how ethical is it for a candidate to propose tens of millions of dollars of spending, while simultaneously proposing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax cuts.
I’m not raising this to rehash all the arguments pro and con relating to the merits of business privilege tax cutting. But I do think that the stand that candidates take on that idea says more about them than their policy views. It also states how seriously they take their obligation to be straight with the electorate.
Now it’s one thing to argue for tax cuts and also for cuts in government programs. That’s what honest conservatives do. But it’s another thing entirely to offer the idea that you can have your cake – with very tasty icing – and eat it over and over again after it’s all eaten up. That’s what tax-cutting, big spenders do. And it’s not right.
Now not all of the candidates have said that they’re for substantial cuts in, or repeal of, the BPT. In fact I think only two of the mayoral candidates have called for full or substantial cuts, although I expect more will follow. But those two, Congressman Brady and Michael Nutter, have an ethical problem.
At least Congressman Brady, as I understand his statement on the issue, has said he would repeal the BPT when possible. That suggests he understands that if the City has to spend lots of additional funds on education, police, social services and other pressing needs, BPT cuts won’t be possible at the same time. But Michael Nutter has never said any such thing, as far as I know. The only concession to reality that he’s made is that he’s not for total repeal anymore, only cutting the net income part to the level of the wage tax, while still abolishing the gross receipts part. Since the wage tax is likely to sink to 3% or less, that means cutting the tax by well more than half. Instead of a revenue loss of $400 million a year, that would reduce the hit to a mere $250 million or so.
But at the same time, Nutter wants all the things he wants (which I don’t need to list here; you can go to his website to find them.) And now he wants to limit real estate tax increases. Sharp increases in revenue from that tax happen to be the main source of revenue that is supposed to magically replace the revenue lost from cutting the BPT (according to the Tax Reform Commission.) So according to Nutter, we’re going to take $250 million out of the annual budget, cap the revenue source intended to replace it, and expand city services.
Oh, and by the way, the two other sources of revenue growth we might get from an expanding economy are also going way down. The wage tax is headed toward 3% due to the wonderful onset of casino gambling (which Nutter urged us to accept as a fait accompli in his answer to NN’s questionnaire.) And, of course, these businesses will pay hardly anything in business tax.
But never mind. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s . . . supermayor.
Given his superpowers, Nutter doesn’t feel obligated to explain his math. NN’s questionnaire to the candidates asked the following question:
“How would you balance the need to maintain municipal services with the need for tax restructuring in Philadelphia?”
Nutter responded by objecting to the question. “Balance is a misleading metaphor,” he said. And then he went on to basically repeat the same vague rationale he supplied all during his obsessive Council fight for full repeal of the BPT. Namely, tax reform equals “development of economic opportunity and an expanded revenue base” and so there are no tradeoffs involved. (You can find Nutter’s full answer to this and other questions by going to http://www.phillynn.org/ElectionCommittee
Now maybe this is blind ideological true belief. But, frankly, I think Nutter is too smart to think there isn’t even a temporary delay between the time the tax is cut and the time the magical new revenues (but not too much real estate tax) roll in. And that some decisions need to be made about that.
But he won’t tell us what they are. And to me, that is unethical.
Not supporting Michael Nutter in 2007.
Unfair criticism
In The Next Mayor post on Nutter's housing plan, myself and other posters felt that Nutter was being held higher standard because he is presenting actual specifics rather than vague generalities. This seems like a similar instance. You are criticizing his response to a questionnaire where he is the only mayoral candidate to respond so far.
Your criticism seems unfairly harsh to me. You don't merely say he is wrong; you call Nutter unethical even though you concede that his assumptions may be true. The fact is that Detroit and Philadelphia were the only cities in the top ten that lost population between 1990 and 2000. This is a problem. If the population keeps dropping and the tax base keeps dropping, tax revenue will also drop. With falling tax revenue under the status quo, municipal services will also have to be reduced. This is why "Balance is a misleading metaphor." I don't think he ever said there won't be trade-offs or that tax restructuring will lead to more tax revenue the next day, only that tax restructuring is necessary. I don't think Philadelphia would be better off if population keeps on falling.
The issue is more complex than I feel you would admit, and I feel your criticism is unfairly harsh.
FYI the Q&A is as follows:
1. How would you balance the need to maintain municipal services with the need for tax restructuring in
Philadelphia?
BALANCE IS A MISLEADING METAPHOR. THE QUALITY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES IS A
COMPLIMENT NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEALTHY REVENUE BASE APPROPRIATELY
TAXED. QUALITY SERVICES, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ESSENTIAL SERVICES,
CANNOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE FACE OF A DECLINING REVENUE BASE. FOR
MYSELF, THE WHOLE POINT OF TAX REFORM IS THE SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND AN EXPANDING REVENUE BASE THAT MAKES
POSSIBLE IMPORTANT MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Not at all unfair
My criticism isn't based only on his questionnaire. But his answer is revealing. And, yes he gets credit for answering, but presumably he's willing to accept criticism, as well as kudos, for the contents of the answer.
And yes among all the other things he hasn't said, he hasn't said: "there won't be trade-offs or that tax restructuring will lead to more tax revenue the next day." But he hasn't said what those trade-offs are or what will happen given the absence of those new revenues; in fact he refused to acknowledge the relevance of the question in the questionnaire. And if he didn't have a record of having blown off all such questions for the past 5 years, I might not be that concerned about it. But he has blown off the relevance of the question and ridiculed Lance Haver when he proposed a fail safe provision in Nutter's repeal ordinance that would restore the tax if the magical new revenues didn't appear. So he's refused, consistently, to deal with this issue and just fed us pablum.
And that's disturbing, and that's why
I'm not supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
who do you support?
Stan, I have been involved in the nascent progressive movement (which others call the "reform" movement, though you and I would say progressive) with you every step of the way...since the time before and right after you retired, we have talked about attempts to cut the BPT, taxes, organizing the progressive community and more. No could agree more with you on most issues--despite the fact that we often disagree a lot about strategy and implementation of ideals.
This post, though, has me stumped. What good do you think it will do to just tear into Nutter?
I have certainly criticized Nutter a lot, and after starting Philadelphians Against Santorum, I've lost my right to say you should be for someone and not just "against," but in this case, i have to ask, who do you support?
As I have come to understand friends and bloggers and other folks' support of Nutter, it does make better sense to me. I disagree, but I understand. And if you notice, I have stopped attacking Nutter because a) he seems like a decent guy who believes, more or less, he is doing the right thing and b) a lot of people i know way better than I know him think he is a decent guy and is doing the right thing.
I think rather than preach to the converted, it makes more sense to articulate your reasons for supporting someone else and target those who have not made up their mind yet.
I like Fattah. I decided to go work for him to get to know him better and see what he is all about. I am impressed. I like him the best because, like me, he thinks the only way to make Philadelphia's population numbers, median wages and more stabilize and increase is to work with our existing population, of which only 20% has a bachelor's degree or higher and of which 1 in 3 people live at or below 200% of federal poverty guidelines.
I think the only way our city will be solvent into the future is by making long-term investments, in the people who already live here and working as hard as possible to take care of more immediate issues now.
There's a lot more to him than that, but that's the essence to which I am attracted.
Nutter, on the other hand, seems to be in the mold of Gulianni and Bloomberg in that he wants to clean house ASAP, make a lot of reforms to the delivery of service and take care of the business community and let it work its magic in terms of improving the economy. In a capitalist society, in which corporations have consolidated and expanded the reach of their power, the Nutter model does seem logical. And in a hot national real estate market, a lot of folks have seen how attractive Philly has become and want to keep pulling new people in. I don't think there are enough empty nesters and NYC transplants to make up the losses our city budget has experienced due to lessened revenue due to lessened wages---but a lot of people do.
Additionally, many of the folks, particularly younger ones and those new to the city, have no use for the city services that may be lost due to tax reform or more corporate cronyism. I go to the library all the time, but how many people that support Nutter go to rec centers, or city health centers? How many people have ever had a fire in their home? How many send their kids to public schools?
A lot of the folks that have been vocal in their support of tax reform--white center city liberals--are disgusted with city services (justified or not) and are willing to take the risk of losing some revenue if they think a paradigm shift will occur in government.
So, like I said, I disagree with this mentality myself, but calling the Nutter unethical, and by proxy his supporters, does not seem like a good way to engage in any real dialogue.
Further, Nutter, like him or not, has at least issued policy papers and been very present in this election and in his attempt to build a base of support.
So, like I said, we all know what you are against, but what is it you are for?
Well said.
Well said.
Nutter's very personal stake in public education
Thanks, Ray, for this post. I think it has been helpful in advancing the kinds of conversations progressives must have.
You state:
Additionally, many of the folks, particularly younger ones and those new to the city, have no use for the city services that may be lost due to tax reform or more corporate cronyism. I go to the Library all the time, but how many people who support Nutter go to rec centers, or city health centers? How many people have ever had a fire in their home? How many send their kids to public schools?
Good questions, and I have heard Nutter pose these questions to his supporters. I see Nutter as working in a myriad of ways to bridge the class divide in this city. I am talking about the poor vs. middle class divide. There is another divide--all of us vs. the plutocrats--but that’s more of a debate for national politics.
Finally, Nutter is the only candidate with a child currently attending the public schools. He has a real personal stake in the success of our schools.
Karen
Stan – To summarize your
Stan –
To summarize your argument, you seem to be asserting that it is unethical for a politician to propose a program and not tell his or her constituents how much that program would cost or where the funding would come from. You point to Nutter’s BPT proposal not only as an example, but as the crux of your argument.
But then, isn’t it just as unethical to give a laundry list of programs a politician would like to institute or fund, but not say how they plan to implement those programs. Many of the other politicians are doing exactly what you accuse Nutter of doing. For example, I was comparing Nutter and Fattah’s housing plan last night. Both were good; in fact I would say I liked Chaka’s better because it had so many good ideas. Unfortunately, precisely because his list was so long and aggressive I could only assume it was wishful thinking. He wants to better fund or start a lot of programs - many of them aren’t funded in being now because the city has no money, or would have to cut other important programs. So then, where is the money coming from? Probably the same fund that would buy Dan’s pink horse, I suspect (it was pink, right?). (Not to just pick on Fattah, I’m still wondering where Brady’s 1000 truant officers and police are going to come from.)
But
Nutter goes beyond failing to say how he's going to pay for his programs, he actually calls for a massive tax cut. So he's calling for spending going up, revenue down. Fattah has said he's going to come out with a budget and finance plan, but he hasn't yet. If he calls for a massive tax-cut, then yes, I'd say he's subject to the same criticism I made of Nutter.
You raise a lot of points
and thoughtful ones, and I probably won't answer all of them satisfactorily. But I've been thinking about this question of why so many reformers are for Nutter, and it's clearly due to the "ethics" issue, and it just got me to thinking about how limited our accepted definition of that word has become. And maybe that's because the "pay to play" aspect of ethics has been so prominent and corrosive in our public life, that people have concluded that whoever takes care of that has passed the ethics bar. But I think another major problem in our public life, and not just in Philly, is the narrow definition of ethics. I don't think it's ethical at the national level to cut taxes for the rich, and not find the money to provide health, housing, or education for struggling families. And I think part of our political problem has been that we've let the right wing seize the mantle of morality -- which is pretty synonymous with ethics -- while promoting these very same immoral policies of the economic elites.
And I do also think ethics and morality are involved in how politicians deal with the public. I think they need to level with us. And be called on it when they don't.
So I didn't really think about the tactical pros and cons of calling Nutter out when I sent my post; I just felt what I thought about it needed to be said. You may be right; maybe no one will be persuaded. But I do think Nutter has been misleading the public and that I should point it out.
I didn't, by any means, intend to suggest a lack of ethics on the part of Nutter's supporters. They are not doing the misleading, and they don't have the responsibility to fill in what the candidate leaves out. And many of them believe, and have said so here, that Nutter must know what he's doing and, of course, he'll do whatever he has to do to square the round peg.
But he can't square it. Something has to give and he's denying that. And then people will get hurt when he can't do what he's claimed he can do, and that's not right either.
So I confess to being non-strategic, but this is a place where we're straight with each other, and I felt it appropriate to state it like I see it.
As to what and who I'm for, I'm leaning toward Fattah for all the reasons you gave, but I'm not totally convinced, and frankly that's largely because I haven't seen his tax policy yet. I'm hoping he's not going to go for the smoke and mirror approach as well, but I know the pressure he's under from the big biz types and I want to see how he deals with it.
If he doesn't deal with it honestly, then I'm probably going to be for no candidate. I can't be for Evans because of his role in preempting the City's power to regulate predatory lending, and neither Brady or Knox have said much of interest.
So, bottom line, I'm looking for a straight shooter. I'm hoping that's Fattah because there's no one else I think I can support. And I'll be pleased if he is the one. But if he suggests we can accomplish all the good things he wants to acccomplish -- and I think most of them are good -- without being realistic about the money, I'll spend all of my time working for Council candidates like Marc Stier, who've managed to tell the whole, painful, truth about where we are as a city.
There is nothing unethical about cutting taxes, per se
There is nothing unethical about cutting taxes, per se. If cutting taxes on only the rich were to make everyone better off (a frequently shaky premise), it would not be unethical to do so, even if it improves the finances of the rich more than the poor (who it also helps under this hypothetical). I agree that in certain situations that cutting taxes is unethical. I think Bush's cuts were unethical. I don't think they furthered any legitimate policies and that they hurt the country and the vast majority of Americans.
I do not think cutting the BPT is unethical. I think that Philadelphia is not as great a city as it could be. Its population and tax-base is falling. I think that the BPT and wage taxes, along with a bunch of bureaucratic red-tape, prevents a lot of potential growth. I think that economic growth must be encouraged and that it would help everyone in Philadelphia (even if yuppies benefit more than others would benefit). I think that cutting the BPT is part of that equation.
As far as a fail-safe mechanism, it seems unnecessary to me. (I would like to hear an official Nutter position on it though.) If I guess right, it is something like, "if three years after cutting the BPT, growth is not X%, it will be automatically raised to previous levels." It seem unnecessary to me because it could be restored, raised, or lowered, regardless at anytime. There are also many, many other variables that impact growth and I don't think it is fair to pin it all on the BPT. If it is cut and there is a national recession, it would not be fair to say that cutting the BPT didn't work. I also think that a fail-safe mechanism injects risk in starting a business here; entrepreneurs may assume the cut is temporary. Let the city council make adjustments based on what is learned.
I am not an economic expert and did not do a full analysis of anything, but it seems right to me that cutting the BPT can help the city. Calling someone who sincerely believes that unethical does not seem right to me.
If Nutter was called out for not explaining how everything is paid for, why isn't Fattah called out as well? It seems like every plan Fattah rolls out, he is criticized for not explaining how to pay for it.
Bottom line, I am looking for a straight shooter as well. Fattah did not appear to be that guy based on his behavior in Shame of the City. He was shown making baseless race-baiting accusations that Katz was trying to prevent blacks from voting in the election, even as thugs were attacking Katz workers.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I never said cutting taxes per se is unethical
I said failing to square with people what the consequences of that will be is unethical.
In ridiculing the idea of a fail-safe, Nutter suggested just what you did; it's unnecessary, Council will take care of it if there's a shortfall. But the reality is, as you've pointed out, that Council can point to any number of other possible factors for a shortfall and never reverse the cut. Indeed, it's been cutting taxes for 10 years now, we have all kinds of unmet needs, and instead of calling for a restoration of any of the tax cuts, we're getting demands for even sharper cuts.
And I agree that one can, in good faith, believe that tax cuts will cause growth. Stating that belief is clearly appropriate. But no one believes the growth will come overnight. So the question remains: what do we do in the meanwhile? And Nutter fails to answer the question. And that is wrong.
As to Fattah's statements in "Shame of the City", the proclivity of the Republican Party to use any number of dirty tricks to prevent Democrats from voting is well-known and widespread. So I don't think that particular suggestion was beyond the pale. But I agree that he should have had evidence, and I would be surprised if he didn't.
But I haven't tried to suggest that any of the other candidates are angels. I just think the consequences of this particular misleading proposal represent a huge danger to the viability of this City, and that Nutter's evasions need to stop.
Stan, You're What's Wrong With Progressives
Seriously. I've kept my gloves on up till now. I've tried satire to get my point across, aka calling Stan "Loretta."
But seriously, the reason why the Progressive movement has never made any progress under your watch is because peeps like yourself are constantly causing it to fracture.
You are a tool of the machine. You are what allows them to divide and conquer.
I'll give you credit and assume you know this and are getting a little something something on the side for your efforts. Either that, or you're just ignorant. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be getting something than be ignorant.
Let's just consider Stan's following statement:
Are you seriously this misinformed? Do us all a favor and check the record. Because you seem entirely unwilling to inform yourself of reality, let me break it down for you:
For the record, vis-a-vis whether Brady or Hoeffel or Fattah, et al. should have known: a) why the bug was in the mayor's office; and b) who Shamsud-din Ali was, here is the best - and irrefutable evidence - to stop folks from perpetuating this misinformation.
- Bug discovered on 10/7/03
- Shansud-din Ali's home and "office" raided on 10/8/03, and the related news coverage of course describes his ties to Street and his role in Philly politics. So, anyone who claims Ali's ties to Street wasn't public knowledge until the trial two years later is ignorant or worse (aka, "Spinning the shit").
- If you're the least bit cognizant of Philadelphia's political landscape, you know that the Daily News wrote back on July 3, 2003 that the FBI was probing Ali vis-a-vis a no-show teacher scam involving Community College of Philadelphia, of which, ended up being part of his conviction in 2005. So, the raid on SDA in October 2003 was not particularly shocking to anyone paying attention - Ali was already known to be the target of an FBI probe.
Let's assume folks like Fattah and Brady, or at least someone on their staff, pay attention to these kinds of details.
Back to the Mayor's race and your claim that Progressives were justified in believing the bug was the result of Republican dirty tricks
- 10/10/03, the DN has extensive coverage, including an article which discloses - for the first time - there are TWO major probes: one into drugs and one into pay-to-play corruption.
- Also on 10/10/03, DN writes an article by Einhorn and Caparella titled "Islamic Imam isFocus of Probe "about Ali about probe AND his Black Mafia background.
So in other words, it was all out there in the midst of the damn 2003 election. Hell, it was in the damn headlines!!!! I don't doubt the fact that folks like Stan could have been entirely ignorant of these facts. But Fattah and Brady were either aware of who Ali was and why the FBI had good reason to bug the mayor's office or they were criminally negligent - after all they've got entire staffs in D.C. devoted to making sure they're up on this kind of shit.
So yes, Fattah and Brady lied to us. They spun the shit. They ran cover for a criminal organization that has bilked the city for millions.
Seriously Stan, how much money have apologists like yourself cost the city? Just think about all the millions that could have been allocated to your precious city services???
So before you make any further statements about Fattah, Brady or any other pol who lied to us all in the 2003 election, do us all a favor, familliarize yourself with the facts.
______________________________
Phillyville
This is really too harsh,
This is really too harsh, and doesn't lead us to getting more people to feel comfortable writing.
Agreed.
This also doesn't follow Dan's rule of blogging which is you should only be saying stuff online you would say in person. Ruby, for those who don't know him, is actually nice, and coherent in real life, and i doubt he'd say what he said to Stan and I know for a fact that he wouldn't say the stuff about Fattah that he does--ie unsubstantiated assumptions with no actual proof--because he had the chance at the YPP party and punked out.
More importantly, Ruby and Stan are illustrating my point above which is that there are different philosophies underlying both voters and candidates in this race, and rather than disrespect those, i hope we can all work harder to understand the differences and use that understanding to better under score our points of agreement.
They Psychology of Campaigns or Can We All Just Settle Down
One of the things that happens during a political campaign, whether you are a candidate or a supporter, is that we make a, possibly difficult, choice to run or support someone, and then we spend the rest of the campaign reinforcing our choice. So we keep looking for arguments to support our side and attack the other. And then we magnify our differences and become very harsh to one another. This is really destructive to our effort to build a progressive movement in this city.
We have seen it in this thread. And I saw it personally a day or so ago. Because I have expressed my long held concern about self-financing by wealthy candidates and said that I might be willing to accept a small increase in the contribution limits in order to give Fattah, Brady, Evans, and Nutter a better chance to keep pace with Knox--say an increase in the PAC limits from 20,000 to 40,000--a friend called me a traitor to the progressive movement and is no longer talking to me. I'm sure my friend will come down and at some point and remember everything I have done in the last two years in support of campaign finance reform. And I have a thick skin and understand where this comes from, so I won't hold a grudge. But this kind of behavior can really make us crazy and undermine our efforts in the future.
So, please, let's not let the passions of the moment overcome our good sense. Let's not find more and more litmus tests for what makes one a true progrrogressive. And please, let's not call other progressives names.
YPP and Fattah
Ray,
Fine, if I punked out at the YPP party, so be it. But as I told you that night, I did not think that it was the appropriate venue for me to confront Fattah. Maybe tonight at the candidate forum I'll ask him to explain whether, he like Brady, spun the shit? Would that be appropriate for the sustainability forum?
And, yeah, I'll stand by the fact that Stan is poisonous to the Progressive community.
Aside from his tendency to spout rhetoric based on half-truths, he's a jackass. I have met him once in my life and for no reason whatsoever he singled me out and attacked me personally. Mind you, I had not even said a word at this meeting. His conduct does Neighborhood Networks a disservice. By way of background, tt was his conduct at this meeting that reminded me of the "Loretta" scene from Life of Brian that I like to bring up every so often.
DeWitt Brown, aka "Ruby Legs"
______________________________
Phillyville
So now I know who you are
which would be easier if you would sign your name. And you're incredibly sensitive about a comment I made which I assured you at the time was not personal at all, but simply about who you were or were not representing. But that was a private meeting and this is not the place to talk about it. I hope you'll agree to that.
What I would like to know more about is my "rhetoric based on half-truths." Care to be more specific?
My name is listed on my blog
My name is listed on my blog which you, alone with anyone else can easily find simply by clicking on the link at the bottom of every one of my posts.
No matter how you attempt to minimize your behavior, your real world conduct is not appopriate and neither is your online conduct. My mistake was to lower my online conduct to your demonstrated level. And I apologize to the YPP community for doing so.
As for your rhetoric of half-truths, see my discussion of your reference to Fattah and the bug and everyone else's discussion of your hard-on for Nutter.
______________________________
Phillyville
This is sad and repugnant
and that's all I have to say.
If you want
a thread about how, as you so judiciously put it, Fattah and Brady "ran cover for a criminal organization that has bilked the city for millions" you ought to start one. Or you ought to go to the police with that charge which is a fairly serious one. You apparently have nothing to say about what I blogged about. Noted.
It's Personal
I think that Stan's contstant attacks on Nutter are personal and have nothing to do with contributing to a substantive policy debate. Case in point, Bob Brady says - in the policy selection of his website - the following: "On Day One of a Brady administration, we will begin an aggressive campaign to eliminate the business privilege tax and cut the city wage tax." http://www.bobbradyworks.com/issues. Stan - I'll ask you directly - why don't you call Brady out on this? He position is certainly clear and in direct conflict with what appears to be your policy?
Well, I missed that so
consider my comments to apply to Brady as well. That's extremely disappointing in someone who prides himself as being the candidate of the row house regular folks.
I have been mostly focused on Nutter, you're correct in that. I guess that's because I've headed up One Philadelphia, whose website you can find at http://onephiladelphia.org, which spent the better part of two years fighting Nutter's obsessive insistence on repealing the BPT. So Nutter's position goes beyond the verbal and I know that he intends to move heaven and earth to repeal, or sharply cut, this tax. Without confronting the hard choices that this necessitates. And secondly I guess it's because so many people on this site think Nutter is the answer and I think so strongly that they're misguided. And that they're giving Nutter a free pass for a position which I believe, no matter how unstrategic it may be for me to say, goes to character as well as policy.
But yes, Brady's statement is awful, and there's no way I would support him. Nor any other candidate who tells us we can spend lots more and cut revenue at the same time. It's just not honest.
Obsession?
Stan - I appreciate that you'll now focus some of your energies of concern on Brady, the person who is articulating a complete elimination of the tax immediately. I would also suggest - gently and respectfully - that your concern about Nutter's position on BPT reduction or repeal borders on obsessive itself. You don't seem to have any perspective on what else the man has accomplished or stood for during his 15 years of public service, other than his position on enhancing Philadelphia’s tax competitiveness. For me the, the operative question for you becomes, why are you so scared of a Mike Nutter mayorality?
because
and I'll say from the outset that this now applies as well to Brady -- cutting the BPT without replacement revenues means you can't do anything to solve any of the problems of the City that require money. And that's lots of them. This particular policy stance affects almost every other concern that we've been talking about, so it calls into question the ability of the City to make progress in education, public safety, jobs (yes jobs, since cutting revenue means eliminating lots of good, worthwhile City jobs) housing, everything.
So I'm not personally scared of a Nutter -- or Brady -- mayoralty. I'm scared for the City.
I Share Your Concerns
I share your concerns, but don't think that BPT reduction or a more ethical and efficient government are things to be scared of. Mike Nutter has made it consistently clear that he's for tax competitiveness and that he understands that revenues have to be replaced (or reprogrammed/reprioritized) and that he has a broad and compassionate understanding of how to service the citizenry of Philadelphia, including the economically disadvantaged. You've chosen what you'd like to focus on and what you'd like to ignore with respect to Mike Nutter's record and policy statements. I suspect that you are or plan to support another candidate for Mayor and rather than tell us what's great about them (e.g., their record), you have to "go negative" on Nutter.
More ethical and efficient government is wonderful
and so is "tax competitiveness" but being for those goals still doesn't justify willfully ignoring the disconnect between cutting taxes and increasing services. It just doesn't compute.
Haven't there been gradual
Haven't there been gradual tax cuts in the wage tax, but increasing revenues?
Supporting Michael Nutter in 2007!
Yes, they've been so gradual
they've been outpaced by the rate of inflation. So there's more revenue, but in real dollars, I don't know. And, if so the revenue would likely have been even greater given the growth in the national economy over the last 10 years. But in any event, no one has proposed taking the wage tax to zero, or anything like it in 15 years. That's what Nutter fought hard to do to the BPT while in Council. How much growth are we going to get in the BPT as it falls to 0?
Even Rendell who started the tax cut ball rolling wants to facilitate further deep cuts in the wage tax with replacement revenue, namely an increase in the sales tax, and from casino revenues. I'm not crazy about either idea, but at least he's facing reality about how to finance deep cuts. That's all I'm looking for. Let's stare reality in the face.
The proposed reduction of the BPT was gradual too
Stan, After browsing older threads and looking at this thread, it appears that you have a vendetta against Nutter and an obsession on keeping the BPT at current or higher levels. The BPT and other taxes hurt the economic development of Philly. Your issue doesn't seem to be about revenue for city programs; it seems to be taxes out of spite.
How much growth are we going to get in the BPT as it falls to 0?
Are you looking for growth in the BPT or growth in revenue? There were studies and projections that projected revenue growth with the BPT elimination, but you dismissed them. Economic growth and funding are a complex issue that you are demanding simplistic answers to.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
That's incorrect.
I'm not calling for keeping the BPT at the same or higher levels, I'm calling for replacing the lost revenue with other revenue and/or restructuring it so that it's fairer to small business. And I have blogged on that in detail at http://youngphillypolitics.com/node/1926
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I worked for two plus years with One Philadelphia fighting against Nutter's agenda when he pushed it in City Council. And I worked at Council for 22 years. That's why I've focused on Nutter, because I know him so well. I take no pleasure in denouncing his policies. I was saddened and disappointed when he first presented this position at Council, and that is my attitude now. And I know that he's done good things and has presented good ideas. But I strongly believe that his position on the BPT, and the way he presents it, undermines all of it. And that's all there is.
And when I learned today about Brady's position on the BPT I made clear that I'm just as disappointed in him.
I have no vendettas. I'm looking for the best person to be the next mayor, one who will be able to finance his plans, and be open about the problems his conflicting positions present.
And it's a pity that every time someone criticizes someone who's running for mayor, so many bloggers on this site rush to impugn the integrity of the writer, or suggest a nefarious vendetta that he or she is supporting someone else for mayor. It really does debase the debate, and it's sad. Let's discuss the issues. Period.
Ignoring?
You - Stan Shapiro - choose to be ignorant of Mike Nutter's articulated understanding of the connection between tax reduction and service delivery. What doesn't compute is your personal vendetta against Mike Nutter. Who do you support for Mayor? Tell us what you like about them. Stop with the inaccurate attacks on Nutter.
Where is that understanding articulated?
I'd like to see it.
Maybe follow the race more closely?
Stan - you don't seem to be following the Mayor’s race very closely. While you said that you've spent the last couple years fighting "Nutter's" agenda with respect to the BPT, you somehow missed Brady's intention to completely eliminate the BPT immediately? That's why I infer from your posts that your more obsessed with attacking Nutter than with the BPT issue itself. As far as Nutter understanding the connection between revenues, expenditures, and the maintenance of city services and concern for our city's economically disadvantaged, I'd again suggest that you follow the Mayor's race more closely and in particular listen and read more about Michael.
P.S. I don't intend to be mean or give you a hard time - I am sure that you are a lovely, passionate person, but you need to get over your obsession with Michael. Also, I think that Marc Stier’s great and don’t think that his positions on taxes are at all inconsistent with Michael’s.
On Brady
we're going over some territory I already covered here, but I'll repeat, my first impression of his position was that he was looking to reduce the BPT only to the extent possible given service needs. But you pointed me to a much more absolutist statement on his website, and I responded by denouncing that statement. So I'm not giving Brady any more leeway than Nutter. However, Nutter has a record on this, Brady doesn't. So I am, in fact, more concerned about Nutter because I know how he actually orders his priorities in practice. And that is to let the tax cuts fly, and worry about services later. Again, I don't get any joy in noting this about Nutter. I have nothing personal against him, but that's been his story. And I can't ignore his history as I evaluate his current campaign.
I support Marc Stier as well; the clear distinction between Marc and Nutter is that Marc is 100% committed to not cutting the tax unless there are replacement revenues. And that's a big deal.
As far as my being a lovely, passionate person, it would seem Ruby Legs doesn't agree, but my mother, bless her, always did during her long life. I hope she still would if she were with us.
last night's mayoral forum
Brady was the only candidate to state he was going to repeal the BPT.
______________________________
Phillyville
And that is certainly where he seemed weakest...
As Dan has pointed out in the past, where is he going to get the money to pay for other items? He did mention that we could save money by moving to recycling once a week, which is a step in the right direction...
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
So Now Brady's the Big Biz candidate
Surprising, and really sad, especially if he didn't temper his remarks with caution about preserving and growing services. Sunoco, Walmart, Comcast, the ball clubs, the supermarket and hotel chains, all have a new best friend.
Cutting Taxes
Is it possible to look at efficiencies as well as revenue replacements?
It's great to do that
But say what the efficiencies are, and how much they will save, and show how much your new initiatives will cost, and tell us where your priorities are if all of these things don't add up to a balanced budget. Because unlike the federal government, if we don't have a balanced budget, the City can't borrow from the Chinese. And PICA is looking down our necks to slam us if we are headed back to the bad old days of the early nineties when no one cared about bottom lines.
Thanks, I Know
I know all about management and productivity and balancing competing interests in a municipal government context..it's what I do for a living. So we're in agreement then? Also, I disagree that Marc Stier's and Mike Nutter's position on this issue are different. Both are for making Philadelphia more tax competitive and making sure that revenue losses are made up in one way or another while making sure that critical public services are delivered and that the interests of the economically disadvantaged are looked out for.
You ought to get your candidate to talk about it then
other than the way he did in his answer to NN's questionnaire in which he suggested there is no balancing needed. And that asking about balance was the wrong question to ask. Which no other candidate did. And I'm sorry, I've never heard him even acknowledge that there might be tradeoffs except in an offhanded way when he's stated that if there are revenue shortfalls, Council would fix it by restoring tax rates in following years. And that's shutting the barn door after it the cow's gone, and something, furthermore, that will never happen.
So I'm glad that this is an area of your expertise, but I don't see it -- although I know the potential is there -- in your candidate.
You're Not Listening
Stan - I think that you're very biased again Mike Nutter and it will be hard for you to be objective. I honestly have no clue what you're talking about and think that you've misconstrued Nutter's position and record with respect to balancing taxes and services.
Stan is against Nutter...
duly noted. Can we now table this, so we can discuss tabling the motion to table the motion on next weeks meeting of tabling motions?
I work for Damon K. Roberts in his run for City Council. Unless otherwise stated this and every comment by myself is the opinion of myself, and not of Damon or any other candidate, organization, committee, etc.
Point Taken
I will cease and desist.
Faulty Static Assumption
The "balance" question implies the very, very faulty assumption that the city's economy will be static over the entire 15 year period in which the BPT is phased out or reduced. "Balance" is the wrong word to use.
Another poster posted that as the wage tax was reduced, revenue increased. There were no losses to balance with cuts.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
Well, there are some who would like us to end this
but I don't know why unless it's being suggested we get a life.
But to answer, no the balance question doesn't assume things remain static, it assumes that things might not work out magically. In other words, it might be -- it just might be -- that magical new revenues don't come in because the BPT is sent to the place in hell reserved for it. Someone who proposes a tax cut should recognize that possibility and tell us what they will do in that event. And we're talking about legislation, as it was last proposed by Nutter, which would lock in year by year tax cuts for 15 years until all $400 million of revenue was eliminated. And a Tax Commission report which said the only way those revenues could be recouped would be if the politicians in charge would allow real estate assessments to soar as a result. But Michael Nutter has suggested that real estate tax increases should be capped. Also, wage tax rates, which would also capture new growth, are slated to decline more rapidly than in the past. Thus the wage tax will capture less growth than it might otherwise.
So granted that some believe that no matter what, cutting taxes will actually create more revenue -- or even much more revenue -- I would hope you would concede that there is at least a slim possibility that it won't be enough to cover the revenue loss that would otherwise occur. All I'm saying is that at a minimum candidates pushing sharp cuts in taxes should tell us how they would deal with that possibility.
And what's so controversial about that?
BPT stuff
You sound reasonable in that post, but earlier it sounded like you demanded that Nutter balance the 2015 budget now or be deemed unethical. You called out Nutter alone because of your history with Nutter, and gave the other candidates a free pass.
Do you agree that "quality service, and more importantly essential service, cannot be maintained in the face of a declining revenue base"? Philadelphia is one of the few large cities with a declining population. It is also the only large city with a BPT. (Every other city gets by with a BPT, and they are growing.) If revenues will fall because of either a declining economy or a tax reduction, I would choose a tax reduction and a healthy, growing economy. I know it is not that simple. I know not all tax cuts are good. The BPT is just one factor in the economic health of the city and its government. It is a complex issue that you want a simplistic answer to. It sounds like you concede the need for tax restructuring, but view any attempt to do so as unethical.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor.
You started out reasonable in your post too
and of course I think we need a growing revenue base to sustain services. However you accuse me of wanting a simplistic answer and actually it's those who seek guaranteed year by year BPT tax cuts going to zero who are doing that. They're assuming enough growth to replace the lost revenue, and no plan in the event that the growth isn't sufficient. No one, not even the most zealous advocates of BPT elimination can point to any ironclad assurance that the growth will be enough. But they, simplistically, say, we should just take the gamble and not worry about it. I'm not making this up because I was present at almost every Council debate on the issue over the last five years. That was being said repeatedly. So who's being simplistic?
And, again there's no way I view any effort at tax restructuring as unethical. I've called for it myself, and will again shamelessly promote the blog in which I did that. You can find it here: http://youngphillypolitics.com/node/1926 What I view as unethical on the part of Nutter, and now Brady as well, is proposing deep cuts in a tax without proposing ways to make up the revenue loss in the event that their hypothesis about growth-based new revenues -- and that's all they have, a theory -- turns out not to work. And by failing to deal with the interim losses which everyone concedes will take place, between the time tax cuts are enacted and those new revenues show up.
Point of Information
Brady never said eliminate the BPT "immediately". He said, work with City Council to eventually eliminate the BPT. What's he's been calling for is a schedule of gradual reductions (such as what is going on with wage tax), that at the end would eliminate BPT. The city's current plan has the Gross Receipts portion eliminated by 2020, but keeps Net Profits at 6.5%. Brady is proposing to start wacking away at the Net Profits side as well.
This is what's on Brady's website
"On Day One of a Brady administration, we will begin an aggressive campaign to eliminate the business privilege tax and cut the city wage tax. . . . We will ask campaign chairman and friend, Jonathan Saidel, to lead this effort. The successful former city controller will be at Mayor Brady’s side every step of the way to reduce the tax burden that drives businesses and residents to move to the suburbs and beyond."
I didn't see anything about working with Council. And I especially didn't see anything about weighing the need for tax cuts against the need to maintain and, in some cases, increase, city services.