Massachusetts Legislature Forks Over $177 Million in STATE TAXES to PENTAGON

[Octafish]

Mass. Legislature and Gov. Fork Over $177 Million in State Taxes to the Pentagon

An Imperial Scam Coming to Your State Soon

by JOHN V. WALSH
CounterPunch, APRIL 29, 2014

Just weeks before Tax Day, April 15, Governor Deval Patrick, Obama’s “close friend,” signed into law a bond bill that dispenses $177 million in Massachusetts State Taxes to the Pentagon for construction and “upgrades” of U.S. military bases in the state. That’s right, not federal taxes but state taxes.

On April 15, the federal govt. collected about $1 trillion in personal income taxes. The Pentagon will get $600 billion this year, and along with the CIA, NSA, the costs of overseas wars as in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, the bill for the imperial-military complex will come to about $1 trillion. Does not the war machine get enough as it swills down at the federal trough, without gouging us at the state level?

Meanwhile cities and towns are in dire need of more state aid for schools and other crucial spending, like ravaged roads, crumbling bridges and decaying senior centers. Taxes have been raised in many cities and towns because of the lack of such funds from state coffers, further burdening the taxpayers.

But it is worse; Massachusetts is not alone. Similar legislation, for $40 million, has already been enacted in Connecticut for the Naval Submarine Base in Groton. And there is rumor that similar legislation has been proposed in other states. Thus the $40 million in Connecticut and the $177 million in Massachusetts may well serve as pilots for more giveaways by other states. In fact it is likely that states which refuse to pony up may be threatened with loss of their military bases and the jobs that go with them, setting off an unseemly bidding war to house the machinery of death and destruction.

Still worse, the bill in Massachusetts passed 150-0 without any opposition voiced in the House and with only two nay votes in the Senate which houses 40 solons. It scarcely needs to be pointed out that the Mass. Legislature is almost exclusively Democrat and that many of these Dems tell their liberal constituents that they are against the war on Iraq and Afghanistan – or at least they were while Bush was in office.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/29/an-imperial-scam-coming-to-your-state-soon/

Warmongers and Banksters get what they want, over and over again. I guess We the People will just have to be patient until they're full. Then we'll get some money for jobs, housing, schools, roads, health care, cleaning up the environment, that Apollo Program for energy no one talks about...

[Octafish]

1. Hurray for State Taxes going to Warmongers Kick

Remember, the Carlyle Group is your Friend.

[woo me with science]

2. K&R

[Octafish]

3. Perhaps, one day, local government and schools won't have any money at all.

They won't need it as Carlyle Group knows best what to do with it.

[Jefferson23]

4. You have a problem with Democrats supporting the Pentagon with state taxes, why?????

K&R

[FarCenter]

5. Relatively peanuts compared with DoD spending in the Bay State

And they have to do something, since they no longer have powerful legislators like Tip O'Neil and Teddy Kennedy to keep the military spending gravy train running their way. Massachusetts has been more successful that other Northeastern states in keeping high-tech military bases from closing/moving to the South.

[Jefferson23]

6. But that is not peanuts for state taxes, we're not to expect better investments than the Pentagon?

[FarCenter]

7. DoD spending in MA is about 14 billion and about 100,000 jobs depend on it.

It would likely blow a hole in MA state budgets if much of that went to other states.

[Jefferson23]

8. We are talking about adding 177 million in state taxes to the Pentagon.

Why would they need to add to that already astronomical number?

[n2doc]

9. You are describing extortion

Isn't the Federal Government supposed to not do that?

As far as moving/closing bases, My impression is that is a completely political process, and it wouldn't matter one bit how much a state kicks in.

[Xithras]

10. I'm anti-military, but the practical realities here are simple.

The Pentagon has had a bit of a paradigm shift over the last few years and has made it clear that politics will no longer play a part in military base closure decisions. Having a powerful Senator or being home to an influential lobby will no longer keep military bases open in a state. If there is no longer any military need to keep a base in a particular location, or if a base needs upgrades that are not cost effective, the base will be closed and the assets transferred elsewhere.

Military facilities in Massachusetts need updates that the Pentagon says aren't cost effective, and as a result those facilities are at the top of the closure list. Massachusetts is attempting to keep the bases open by making the repairs and updates themselves, changing the cost/benefit ratio and trying to keep them viable to the Pentagon.

Just ONE of the five bases under discussion, Hanscom AFB, injects over $8 billion a year into the Massachusetts economy. The other four inject billions more. From the perspective of the Massachusetts state house, the $177 million is a small investment to keep that money rolling in. The tax loss from losing those bases would cost Mass FAR more than $177 million.

For better or worse, the move makes economic sense.

[Jefferson23]

11. Then the cycle will never change. n/t

[Xithras]

12. The $177 million is still "profitable" for the state. They'd take a bigger hit without it.

Consider it "operating expenses". A store has to spend money on inventory so that it has something to sell.

Look at it this way: The Pentagon supports around 100,000 jobs in Massachussets with these bases. If the median wage for those jobs is $40,000 a year, we're talking about $4 billion a year just in INCOME for Mass residents. A quick check shows that the base income tax rate for Massachussets is 5.3%, so those Pentagon jobs net the state over $200 million a year in income tax revenue alone. If the Pentagon shuts those bases, the $200 million a year goes away anyway. From that perspective, spending $177 million really cost the state nothing, as its simply giving back tax revenue that the Pentagon had sent to the state in the first place.

This is worthwhile for two reasons. First, it keeps people employed. Secondly (and probably more importantly), the state gets to keep taxing and profiting from the OTHER $10 billion a year that the Pentagon ALSO injects into the Massachusetts economy. That tax revenue dwarfs the income tax hit they're taking.

When it comes right down to it, the state had two choices. They could take a $177 million dollar cut in the tax revenue they derive from the Pentagon, or they could take a 100% cut in the tax revenue they derive from the Pentagon. There was no "cut-free" option. The Pentagon is closing the spigot, and Massachusetts is trying to minimize the damage.

[Jefferson23]

13. I understood that from your previous post, and there is no disputing that, is there?

My statement to you remains true, however...if the cycle does not change, if there is
no transformation of priorities but to rely on the Pentagon for employment, we never
move away from it. I don't see that as a positive long term objective for us.

[Xithras]

14. I know, and I agree with you on that point.

As I said in my first post, I don't shy away from identifying myself as "anti-military". I believe that our foreign bases should be closed, much of our standing military force should be disbanded, and that our military should exist only in a defensive posture within the United States itself. I don't believe in "nation building", foreign military interventions of any type, or even the idea that the U.S. needs to be a global military power.

Which means, I also believe that the pain that Massachusetts is trying so desperately to dodge is something that ALL states SHOULD (and hopefully will) experience at some point. You and I seem to agree that the states have become addicted to the Pentagons dollars, and that needs to end.

I was simply commenting that, from an economic and political standpoint, the move made sense. Unfortunately, given the "rah rah go U.S." militarism that permeates American culture and both political parties, few in our government are willing to take a stance in favor of scaling back the Pentagon budget and our military power. So our elected reps end up focusing on those short term economic and political concerns.

[Jefferson23]

15. Yes, we are more in agreement than not. Any transformation away from that dependency

takes time and should include a stimulus package..but that is another story. One we likely agree on too,
it was not nearly large enough at the time so we're still relying on what we should have begun to move away from..sigh.

One day, hopefully.