I’ve often written about the effects of single-party politics in Massachusetts.

There’s a bill on Beacon Hill that would help remedy the problem. The idea is that when faced with a ballot with no good choices, you’d have the option of voting for “none of the above. If enough people choose it, a new election is held. It’s certainly an option that I would have taken in November (I even used the “none of the above” phrase!)

I think some people are hung up about what to do if “NOTA” wins the race. I think it’s a bit of a red herring. “None of the above” won’t be at the top of the ballot, but it will be a message. Candidates with high NOTA numbers will be more vulnerable in future elections and opposition campaigns will be able to demonstrate support before they even run. NOTA will make primaries more competitive, and maybe even encourage a few entrants from other parties for the general election.

While I like the idea, I predict that it won’t make it into law. The representatives in office now were elected by the current system. That succeed in the system. They have built their political machines and, history tells us, those machines will keep them in office as long as they want. These aren’t people interested in change. They’re interested in the status quo.

This reform, like so many others, is destined for defeat.

When I was running for state rep in ’04, one of my “stump speech” issues was auto insurance. I talked about how the law permitted the insurance commissioner to annually make a formal declaration that competition for insurance in Massachusetts was impossible, and then fulfill the prophecy by imposing price controls. I talked about how it resulted in higher insurance prices for most car owners. I also talked about how the state was forcing good drivers to subsidize bad ones, how people making riskier choices were being subsidized by people making safer choices.

I am, of course, delighted that Governor Deval Patrick’s appointee, Nonnie Burnes, has decided to open the door to competition (well, at least crack the door open).

The usual set of naysayers are starting up their chorus. Check out this Globe editorial, and then do some of the math with me. The Globe cites a MassPIRG statistic that one million drivers will be left without choices in the new system. It notes that there are four million autos in Massachusetts. By my math, that’s claiming that 25% of drivers will be in this high-price, no-choice deadend. The editorial also relays Burnes’s statement that 80% of Massachusetts drivers subsidize the 20% riskiest drivers. Which means that . . . there are some people who are currently subsidizing other drivers, paying above market rates, that won’t find an insurer in the new system? That doesn’t pass the smell test. Everyone who gets to stop subsidizing bad drivers will enjoy rates that fall even faster than they are now.

MassPIRG, and by association the Globe, is engaged in some classic fearmongering. I notice that most of the people who will see higher rates live in cities. I also note that MassPIRG is a strong advocate of using public transportation. Do you think MassPIRG has considered that if the cost of driving a car in the city goes up, that more people will use public transportation?

One last thought: When Mitt Romney was governor, he got to appoint his own insurance commissioner. I’d really like to hear him try to explain why he couldn’t have made this change. And then I’d look at the list of his contributors for people in the insurance industry.

Here’s hoping that the changes stick. Let’s put the costs where they belong.

I can hear you mumbling: “But Dan, the budget is a whole week old. Aren’t you ready with a penetrating, insightful, line-by-line analysis?” No, I’m not. See previous post. And remember that I have a job that I like. You’re going to have to settle for highlights for now.

• Patrick claims that his budget is free of “financial gimmicks and shell games.” I’m not convinced. For starters, the state is required to stock away $100 million per year in the rainy day fund. Skipping this payment is defensible if you define this year as a “rainy” year, but that argument doesn’t hold water (har har). Look at the state’s 8-year history (from the ’08 document).’08 is not a bad year for the state.

  The state’s revenue sources are variable in nature. Anyone who balances a checkbook (or even pays a credit card) knows that you have to be prudent in rich years so that you can make ends meet in lean years.

  Patrick also is taking $75 million from the rainy day fund – the interest the fund would have earned. This is one of those decisions that seems so easy, but makes the future so much more difficult. I feel safe predicting that Massachusetts will see another recession. The odds are that we’ll have a recession during Patrick’s term of office. When it hits, he’s going to look at the ’08 budget with deep regret.

  There are those that claim this isn’t a significant point. I haven’t found a defense of this budgetary choice that didn’t have the shrill voice of partisanship. It’s a bad idea that, if enacted, will cost the state dearly in the future.

• I don’t think Patrick budgeted enough in aid for cities and towns (particularly schools). Arlington’s Town Manager had this premliminary assessment of the state figures and how they compared to the 5-year budget plan: “It is an increase of approximately $295,000. We are carrying an estimate of $400,000. State assessments are also $78,000 higher than estimated so there is a total negative impact of approximately $183,000.”

  That number could be mitigated if the state were picking up more of the tab in other areas. But I don’t see any compensation in the MWRA, MBTA, or regional school funding. This budget doesn’t do what Arlington had hoped.

• Along the same vein: Patrick made a promise to tackle the property tax. In his budget statement he said: “we have held local aid steady and increased state aid to schools by more than $200 million. By doing this, by enacting the proposals in our Municipal Partnership bill, and by implementing the direct tax credit proposed in our budget, pressure to increase local property taxes will be relieved and property taxes for thousands of homeowners will actually start to decline.” This statement is a mixture of fact and half-truths.

  I know that writing a budget is hard. I know that he can’t make everyone happy. But when the challenge is too hard, when the budget falls short, he should admit it. He shouldn’t smile and pretend that the challenge has been met.

  Holding local aid steady and increasing school aid by $200 million are not things to be proud of. They’re better than nothing, but they not scoring points with the municipal budget makers.

  The municipal partnership bill, if passed, would permit cities and towns to increase the hotel tax and permit a meals tax. That helps Boston and the Cape, but doesn’t do much for places that aren’t tourist destinations. Sure, it takes pressure off the property tax, but it’s taxing the exact same people as the property holders.

  Finally, the tax credit is not a reduction in the property tax. It’s an income tax credit to certain qualifying people who pay a property tax. Yes, it means that thousands of people will pay less. Yes, it makes the property tax a more progressive tax. But does it relieve the pressure to increase property taxes? Does it help cities and towns balance their budgets? It does not.

• The Globe printed an allegation that the state wasn’t meeting educational funding goals. I haven’t found any corroboration or a rebuttal. The quote was from Republican Brian Dodge: “Dodge pointed to state aid for local schools, an account Patrick increased by $200 million over this year. Under a formula contained in the current year’s budget, however, local education aid was supposed to increase next year by $255 million.” I’m very curious to see the full story on this line item. If it’s true, I wonder why we haven’t heard yet from the teacher’s union.

• Despite the rhetoric, Patrick vindicates some of Romney’s controversial vetos. In 2006, Romney vetoed $2 million for a the Turning 22 program (a transitional program for mentally disabled people). Beacon Hill Roll Call notes that that in December the “House 156-0, Senate 37-0, overrode Gov. Romney’s $2 million veto reduction (from $8.5 million to $6.5 million) in funding for the Turning 22 Program.” Romney cut the same money a second time with the emergency spending cuts he imposed in October. Patrick reversed those cuts when took office. But, when Patrick made his own budget, he reinstated the cut and made it larger: $3 million cut, to $5.5 million.

  If Romney (or Healey, or any non-Democrat) had made this cut I believe there would have been a protest. It would have been another case of the heartless Republicans hurting the most vulnerable citizens. When a Democrat makes the cuts, there is a muted protest. I don’t have an opinion on this particular program (I know next to nothing about it). I am disappointed the party of the budget cutter matters more than the cut.

• I had to find something I liked this budget. It wasn’t hard. During the Q&A after his budget speech, Patrick answered a question from a homelessness prevention activist. I forget the question exactly, but the answer was: “I’m combining the 11 budgets for homelessness into 2 budgets. The goal is to house everyone, and to wrap them in the support services they need to stay housed and healthy.” I like it because of the attitude it represents. It is willing to ignore the beauracracy and institution that has developed. It ignores the associated sense of entitlement. It looks at the root of the problem and redefines the way money is spent so that it is focused on solving the problem, not on how to fund the existing programs.

I know that budgeting is not easy. It would take a miracle to make a budget that did everything for everyone. This budget demonstrates that Patrick can’t perform miracles.

I still want Patrick to succeed. This budget was a chance to convert me from a hopeful skeptic to a fervent supporter. So far, I feel more like a jaded observer. This budget is going to the legislature. I fully expect them to put their greasy fingerprints on every page, earmarking here and shifting there. If this budget had something worth fighting for, Patrick could probably leverage his popularity and keep the legislature at bay. I just can’t see anything worth fighting for.

Whenever there is a question about taxes in Massachussetts, Michael Widmer is never far from a microphone. He is a fixture in press releases and news articles.

He’s particularly popular when there is talk about the personal income tax: he predicts doom and gloom if the voter-enacted income tax decrease to 5% is ever implemented. His quotes provide cover for every legislator who is unable to make hard choices in government spending. He advocates highway tolls. He likes local option taxes – the ones paid by individuals, anyway. You can find his quotes attached to everything from healthcare to transit projects.

He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, and the press is entitled to quote him. The only thing that drives me crazy is when the press pretends that he’s an independant voice. His organization is called the “Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.” But which taxpayers exactly does he represent? Boston.com:

Michael Widmer, president of the business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, was scathingly critical of Patrick’s plan.

“The proposal provides limited property tax relief at a high cost to the Massachusetts economy,” said Widmer, adding that it would be economically destructive to ask corporations to take another $500 million hit on top of the $400 million they had to pay after the Romney administration closed other so-called loopholes and a $600 million increase in unemployment insurance taxes in 2004.

“Cumulatively, you’re talking about $1.5 billion annually in additional taxes at a time when our economy is weak, 150,000 jobs below where we were in 2001,” said Widmer, whom the Legislature often turns to for budget analysis. “This adds significantly to the competitiveness disadvantage facing Massachusetts businesses.”

Please, never mistake Widmer as an “independant” voice. His bills are paid by the businesses that pay state taxes. Consider him through that lens. When he says something, he’s saying it so that his constituency will have a lower tax bill. When he advocates higher personal income tax, he does so because it makes it easier to keep corporate taxes low. When he advocates local option taxes, he’s doing it to protect his bosses. And when he wants to keep the tolls? It’s because that’s a revenue source that doesn’t hurt his benefactors.

Boston.com headline today: Patrick Seeks Tax Freedom for Cities, Towns

I read that headline and thought about Patrick’s campaign promise: “I believe a rational revenue structure, sensible tax policy and fair distribution of state resources to cities and towns — so that property taxes can be lowered and kept low — are essential elements of a true partnership between state and local government.”

I read that headline and expected to read something that talked about how state revenue could be used to lower property taxes. If you were to ask me about tax freedom, I’d talk about lowering taxes. Maybe I’d bring up Tax Freedom Day. Either way, “tax freedom for cities and towns” is about lower taxes, one way or another. Maybe a leak or a trial ballon about the state budget proposal due on March 1, I thought?

Starting the article, I was quite surprised to find that “tax freedom” actually referred to tax increases! The article is about permitting states and towns to tax a wide range of economic activity. That’s not tax freedom!

I am dismayed by the bias of the headline. It could have said “Patrick seeks tax authority for cities and towns,” for instance; that phrase is much closer to politically neutral and the right length.

The actual text of the article was also biased. “After 16 years of Republican governors, Patrick may give Democrats more cover to vote for legislation that could be labeled ‘pro-tax’ by conservative opponents.” Could be labeled? Is the Globe trying to suggest that legislation that enables broad tax increases on the local level is anything other than “pro-tax?”

I look forward to next week’s Globe headlines: “Anti-Freedom Advocates Call for Lower Taxes,” or maybe “Freedom Fighters Demand Higher Taxes.”