Tuesday, March 18, 2008
DiMasi Seeing Green
It should be enough for Sal DiMasi to oppose the governor's casino plan, which is--on its very best day--nothing more than a regressive tax increase. But opposing a bad idea is never enough, so the Speaker has to propose creating a $50m kitty to fund alt-energy projects to prove he's doing something.
Given that Massachusetts is absolutely rotten with venture capital firms, tier-one research universities, and highly-skilled workers, creating a fund of this kind is beyond unnecessary. We don't have to give investors, employees, or businesses a reason to come to Massachusetts. What we have to do is avoid giving them reasons to leave. This, unfortunately, is a lot less fun and exciting than appropriating money for pet causes.
And therein lies another reason why, even if it's "just 50 million," a fund like this is a bad idea. Venture investors are lined up around the block of any remotely-promising technology with near- to mid-term commercialization potential, and our local universities are hardly lacking in funds. Harvard, MIT, and BU all have endowments more than capable of supporting dramatic increases in funding of basic research. Why not pass a law requiring universities to spend a progressive percentage of their endowments each year in order to maintain their tax-exempt status? Now that would be a fun pissing match. ¶ 8:46 AM
It should be enough for Sal DiMasi to oppose the governor's casino plan, which is--on its very best day--nothing more than a regressive tax increase. But opposing a bad idea is never enough, so the Speaker has to propose creating a $50m kitty to fund alt-energy projects to prove he's doing something.
Given that Massachusetts is absolutely rotten with venture capital firms, tier-one research universities, and highly-skilled workers, creating a fund of this kind is beyond unnecessary. We don't have to give investors, employees, or businesses a reason to come to Massachusetts. What we have to do is avoid giving them reasons to leave. This, unfortunately, is a lot less fun and exciting than appropriating money for pet causes.
And therein lies another reason why, even if it's "just 50 million," a fund like this is a bad idea. Venture investors are lined up around the block of any remotely-promising technology with near- to mid-term commercialization potential, and our local universities are hardly lacking in funds. Harvard, MIT, and BU all have endowments more than capable of supporting dramatic increases in funding of basic research. Why not pass a law requiring universities to spend a progressive percentage of their endowments each year in order to maintain their tax-exempt status? Now that would be a fun pissing match. ¶ 8:46 AM
