Turning his attention to the next fiscal
downturn, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday said he will
push a state constitutional amendment to limit budget growth in
future years, with excess money going to the state's rainy-day
fund....
Depending on its specifics, Finneran's proposal
could face opposition from both the left and the right, with
liberals looking to maintain the ability to pour more cash into
programs during flush times and conservatives pushing to send it
back to the people in the form of tax cuts....
Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said any proposal to send
money to the rainy-day fund should include provisions for tax cuts.
Money should first go to rolling back taxes, and only then should
extra cash be used to prop up future spending, she said.
"A tax limitation should be part of it, and
surpluses beyond that could certainly be directed into a rainy-day
fund," Anderson said. "The rainy-day fund is an enabler. It gives
them a place to stash the money until they can spend it."
...
The state won wide praise for building up a $2.3
billion rainy day fund during the boom years of the 1990s, but the
cash proved insufficient to weather the recession. And the state has
spent so much of that money so fast that it only has $300 million
left to deal with next fiscal year, when the budget gap is projected
to top $3 billion.
The Boston Globe
Mar. 13, 2003
Speaker
seeks amendment on fiscal growth
Change would boost
saving
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran lashed out at
Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday, accusing him of exaggerating claims of
government waste while making "categorically false" statements about
public pensioners.
In fiery remarks that stopped just short of
calling Romney a liar, Finneran said Romney has several times made
inaccurate statements in public, then offered "mumbled retreats" in
private settings....
Republican troops were incensed - accusing
Finneran of trying to distract attention from his admission to
business leaders that he made a mistake by burning up the state's
reserves without cutting spending....
"[Romney] has gone on in any number of forums to
say ... that people who are in their early, mid- and late-40s can
kick up their heels to live relatively large and comfortable lives
on the backs of the taxpayers," Finneran said. "That is a
categorically false statement."
Finneran insisted state workers must put in 40
years before maxing out their pensions - a claim that turned out to
be inaccurate and which Republican lawmakers gleefully threw back in
his face.
The Boston Herald
March 13, 2003
Finneran
takes aim at gov:
Romney fires back on issues while chastising
speaker
Only after 40 years of service, Finneran said,
can state employees receive anything close to what Romney
said.
According to the state Treasurer's office, which
oversees the pension system, state employees who are 60 years old
with 40 years of service can retire with 80 percent of their salary
from their three highest paying years. At age 65, state employees
with 32 years of service get the same deal. Those who retire at age
55 with 10 years of service receive 15 percent of their
salary.
State police, who pay 12 percent into the system
compared to 9 percent for other employees, receive 75 percent of
their salary after 25 years, regardless of their age.
Associated Press
Mar. 13, 2003
Finneran
chides Romney over waste charges
Speaker says gov. distorted
truth
Despite Governor Mitt Romney's continued
insistence that he won't cut any community's state dollars by more
than 10.5 percent, the Massachusetts Municipal Association said
yesterday that at least 130 cities and towns would have to cope with
deeper cuts if the governor's budget is approved....
The new numbers, which arrived on a day when
House Speaker Thomas Finneran accused the governor of making a
"categorically false statement" about the state's pension fund, are
sure to provide additional ammunition to local officials who have
publicly questioned Romney's credibility since he released his
proposed budget last month....
Administration officials countered that the
municipal association manipulated its numbers by factoring in grant
programs that Romney would cut, while ignoring ones he would
expand....
"They have selected just those grant programs in
which we've made the most dramatic reductions to try to dramatize
the extent of the local aid cuts," said Ann Reale Collins, one of
the governor's top budget aides....
Geoff Beckwith, who heads the municipal
association, admitted that his group's numbers aren't
perfect...
The Boston Globe
Mar. 13, 2003
Local
aid cut figures disputed
Romney's numbers wrong, group
says
Gov. Mitt Romney has finally revealed his budget
proposal one that actually increases spending next year, does not
raise taxes and preserves a safety net for the most needy people in
the commonwealth. Let the frenzy begin!
One thing is certain: The Legislature will tear
this budget to shreds. It takes on too many sacred cows, cuts too
many friends and relatives off the state payroll. and makes too much
sense for the Legislature to pass anything remotely similar to
it....
The howling already has begun from all the
predictable quarters....
Michael J. Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, wailed, "It will definitely mean
service reductions."
And what is wrong with that? ...
Romney has gotten off on the right foot and
deserves praise for his hard work. Now he will have to work 10 times
harder to push his budget through the jungle of 200 legislators who
will have thousands of gored special interests whispering in their
ears, "Save me!"
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Feb. 28,
2003
Romney
plan for budget makes sense
In a surprising admission that politicians just can't
help themselves, House Speaker Tom Finneran wails "Please, stop me
before we spend again!" The reputed "fiscal conservative" only now
reluctantly admits tearing through his much-touted $2.3 billion "rainy
day" fund without reducing spending. "Take it out of my hands before I
create another fiscal crisis!" he now pleads, after the damage has
again been done.
So we've got another proposed constitutional
amendment coming at us, courtesy of The Best Legislature Money Can
Buy. Remember the last one they put before us voters ... the one that
guaranteed themselves permanent automatic pay raises, disguised as an
amendment to keep them from raising their own pay ever again?
Here comes another amendment to the state
constitution that will be forever, to run alongside state Sen. Stan
Rosenberg's proposal to kill the initiative petition process.
If we're serious about amending the state
constitution to prevent future fiscal crises, why don't we instead
adopt the TABOR amendment, as voters in Colorado have
done. Colorado is now considered in the best position to manage the
fiscal crises that are plaguing most other tax-and-spend states.
TABOR stands for Taxpayers' Bill Of Rights. Since its
passage in 1992, proposed tax increases in Colorado require a
two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, then approval by the
voters for passage. A "rainy day" fund is mandated, along with strict
requirements defining "emergency" conditions under which it can be
tapped.
As a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment,
TABOR has successfully protected both the state and taxpayers'
interests. Whose interests do you suppose Tom Finneran's proposed
amendment would protect?
The unified strategy to defeat Governor Romney's
government restructuring plan is becoming clear: Discredit him, his
administration, and his "Common Sense for the Commonwealth" plan at
every turn. If the entrenched status quo can't find an opportunity,
they'll create one.
Speaker Finneran stopped just short of calling the
governor a liar yesterday for mis-speaking about state worker's
generous pension plan, then himself mis-spoke. Does that make Finneran
a self-accused liar?
Massachusetts Municipal Association mayors and town
managers accused Gov. Romney of using "fuzzy math" yesterday when he
announced the level of local aid cuts. Then MMA's director, Geoff
Beckwith, had to admit that their the sky is falling doomsday
numbers are not exactly on the money either, if not outright
manipulated!
The coordinated attack on Gov. Romney's credibility,
integrity and accuracy has been launched. Unfounded as it may be, it's
the best strategy they can muster. And mark my words, it will be
ramped up into a frenzied mantra in the days, weeks and months
ahead.
You heard it here first, and I also predict that it
won't work. Citizens are just too aware of the ugly mess on Beacon
Hill, too sickened by it for too long. In desperation they elected
Mitt Romney, a last chance hope to clean it up, and that's exactly
what he's trying to accomplish.
This desperate clash of two cultures can end with
only one winner.
The Boston Globe
Thursday,
March 13, 2003
Speaker seeks amendment on fiscal
growth
Change would boost saving
By Rick Klein, Globe
Staff
Turning his attention to the next fiscal downturn,
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday said he will push a state
constitutional amendment to limit budget growth in future years,
with excess money going to the state's rainy-day fund.
Finneran said such an amendment is necessary to
stop the big swings the state has experienced in recent years, with
periods of economic growth and ample revenues, followed by revenue
declines and gaping deficits. Finneran also wants the amendment to
tightly control the amount of cash reserves that could be spent in a
given year and the uses for that money, ensuring that the rainy day
fund can provide a multi-year cushion the next time state finances
are tight.
"It should not be subject to the idea of the
governor, the idea of the speaker, the idea of the Senate
president," said Finneran, who outlined his plans in a speech before
the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. "It should be written into
the constitutional framework of Massachusetts in order that citizens
of all stripes and all corners can be better protected from the
cycles of feast and famine and boom and bust."
Finneran offered few details yesterday, saying he
will work with all interested parties to bring a proposal to the
Legislature this year. Because a state constitutional amendment must
be approved in two consecutive legislative terms, the earliest it
could reach the voters would be 2006.
Depending on its specifics, Finneran's proposal
could face opposition from both the left and the right, with
liberals looking to maintain the ability to pour more cash into
programs during flush times and conservatives pushing to send it
back to the people in the form of tax cuts. To advance, the proposal
would need the support of a majority of the state's 200 House and
Senate members.
State Representative Byron Rushing, a leader of the
progressive wing of state legislators, said he believes now is not
the time to discuss proposals that limit growth. Because spending
has recently been slashed so deeply due to the economic downturn, he
said, future growth would be measured on a base that is underserving
many of the state's most vulnerable residents.
"This discussion should really follow a discussion
of what state government should be doing," said Rushing, a Democrat
from the South End. "You should do it when you have money, not when
you don't."
Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said any proposal to send
money to the rainy-day fund should include provisions for tax cuts.
Money should first go to rolling back taxes, and only then should
extra cash be used to prop up future spending, she said.
"A tax limitation should be part of it, and
surpluses beyond that could certainly be directed into a rainy-day
fund," Anderson said. "The rainy-day fund is an enabler. It gives
them a place to stash the money until they can spend it."
But Finneran said the current fiscal downturn shows
the need for such an amendment. The state won wide praise for
building up a $2.3 billion rainy day fund during the boom years of
the 1990s, but the cash proved insufficient to weather the
recession. And the state has spent so much of that money so fast
that it only has $300 million left to deal with next fiscal year,
when the budget gap is projected to top $3 billion.
"I think it would be the most important public
policy question that the citizens of Massachusetts would have an
opportunity to speak on in many many years," Finneran said.
A spokeswoman for Senate President Robert E.
Travaglini said he is open to discussing Finneran's proposal in
detail in the months to come.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, March 13, 2003
Finneran takes aim at gov:
Romney fires back
on issues while chastising speaker
by Elisabeth J.
Beardsley
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran lashed out at Gov.
Mitt Romney yesterday, accusing him of exaggerating claims of
government waste while making "categorically false" statements about
public pensioners.
In fiery remarks that stopped just short of calling
Romney a liar, Finneran said Romney has several times made
inaccurate statements in public, then offered "mumbled retreats" in
private settings.
"We have to speak the truth at all times - that is
an imperative," Finneran told the Greater Boston Chamber of
Commerce.
"I just mean to share with you some of the
frustrations in the broad and sweeping statements that are made to
the public, and then the private retractions and the private
retreats," he added.
The speaker's salvo - his first major attack on
Romney - marked a significant turn in the chummy camaraderie that
legislative leaders have extended to outsider Romney since he took
office 10 weeks ago.
Romney denied the alleged disconnect in his
statements, and chalked Finneran's remarks up to entrenched Beacon
Hill resistance.
"I'm talking about such bold change and such bold
reform, that there are going to be a lot of things that people
aren't going to like, particularly people who've been around here a
long time," Romney said.
Republican troops were incensed - accusing Finneran
of trying to distract attention from his admission to business
leaders that he made a mistake by burning up the state's reserves
without cutting spending.
"He's done a masterful job of professing guilt and
culpability, but he's managed to cloud the story by throwing a
couple of head shots at the governor," said House GOP Leader Bradley
H. Jones (R-North Reading).
In the unscripted preamble to his formal remarks,
Finneran bored in on Romney's recent claim on a radio talk show that
state workers could retire after 20 years with 80 percent of their
pensions.
"He has gone on in any number of forums to say ...
that people who are in their early, mid- and late-40s can kick up
their heels to live relatively large and comfortable lives on the
backs of the taxpayers," Finneran said. "That is a categorically
false statement."
Finneran insisted state workers must put in 40
years before maxing out their pensions - a claim that turned out to
be inaccurate and which Republican lawmakers gleefully threw back in
his face.
Romney, meanwhile, admitted that he erred - most
state workers can retire after 25 or 30 years, depending on their
job.
"It was a mistake," Romney said. "I'm going to make
more mistakes but I will do my very best to clear them up as quickly
as I can."
Revisiting an issue that's annoyed lawmakers for
weeks, Finneran flogged Romney for claiming in his State of the
State speech that he had found $2 billion in government "waste and
inefficiency."
Romney backtracked from those remarks two days
later, dismissing the brouhaha as a debate over "semantics" - but
Finneran said yesterday he didn't buy it, and insisted Romney's
numbers are "shaky."
"I do not think it's one of semantics," Finneran
said. "I think it's one of focus and one of understanding."
Despite the backtrack, Romney yesterday stuck by
his estimate of $2 billion of "wasteful practices and potential
efficiencies" - chastising Finneran for trying to "poke at the
words" instead of evaluating his proposals on the merits.
Return to top
Associated Press
Thursday,
March 13, 2003
Finneran chides Romney over waste
charges
Speaker says gov. distorted truth
By Jennifer
Peter
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran criticized Gov.
Mitt Romney yesterday for making a "categorically false statement'
about the state's pension system and for distorting the truth about
the amount of waste and inefficiency in state government.
In both cases, the Boston Democrat said, Romney
made inaccurate statements in public and then made a "mumbled
retreat' in a more private setting.
"I just mean to share with you some of the
frustrations with the broad, sweeping statements that are made to
the public and then the private retractions and the private
retreats,' Finneran told a breakfast gathering of the Greater Boston
Chamber of Commerce. "It seems to me that if we are going to make
progress as a commonwealth ... then we have to speak the truth at
all times. That is the imperative.'
While acknowledging a misstatement about the
pension system, Romney argued that the real impetus behind
Finneran's remarks was Beacon Hill's resistance to reform.
"I'm not surprised that with the kinds of changes
I'm proposing that there are going to be some people who are going
to react differently,' Romney said. "We're dramatically changing the
way we're spending money and how we're using our money and how we're
serving our citizens, and that is a big and bold change.'
In a preamble to a speech on overhauling the state
budget process, Finneran specifically focused on Romney's claim in
his State of the State address that his staff had identified $2
billion in waste and inefficiency in state government. Two days
later, Romney backed away, telling reporters that "there may be $2
billion, but I haven't found it all.'
Finneran said the governor's comments hint at a
lack of "focus' and "understanding.'
Romney yesterday stood by his initial claim,
arguing that the overhaul package added up when taken in its
totality.
"We've laid out our $2 billion,' Romney said. "It's
a new direction, it's taking advantage of new efficiencies, cutting
out waste, reforming, restructuring, closing loopholes, raising fees
that were unnecessarily low, raising tuition. All those things
combined to find that $2 billion.'
Finneran also talked about the Republican
governor's claim that the state's pension system was extravagant.
According to Finneran, Romney said the system allowed state
employees to retire with 80 percent of their annual salary after 20
years on the job.
"In any number of public forums ... he made
reference to the fact that people who are in their early-, mid- and
late-40s can kick up their heels... on the backs of the taxpayers,'
Finneran said. "That is a categorically false statement.'
Only after 40 years of service, Finneran said, can
state employees receive anything close to what Romney said.
According to the state Treasurer's office, which
oversees the pension system, state employees who are 60 years old
with 40 years of service can retire with 80 percent of their salary
from their three highest paying years. At age 65, state employees
with 32 years of service get the same deal. Those who retire at age
55 with 10 years of service receive 15 percent of their salary.
State police, who pay 12 percent into the system
compared to 9 percent for other employees, receive 75 percent of
their salary after 25 years, regardless of their age.
Romney admitted making an incorrect statement on a
radio talk show after the budget was released, attributing the more
generous benefits to all employees, not just the police.
"It was a mistake and I'm going to make more
mistakes, but I'm going to do my very best to clear them up as
quickly as I can,' Romney said.
While questioning some of Romney's statements,
Finneran said he was committed to giving careful consideration to
the governor's many proposals and declared that nothing would be
considered "dead on arrival,' as has been the case in past
years.
Finneran also called for broad constitutional
changes designed to prevent future financial crises by requiring the
Legislature to set aside a fixed amount in reserves each year and
limiting the amount the Legislature could drain from those reserves
each year.
Any constitutional amendment would have to be
approved by a majority of lawmakers during two consecutive two-year
legislative sessions and then passed on to the voters in the form of
a ballot question.
Finneran said there was not yet any House consensus
on Romney's most controversial budget proposal - the restructuring
of the higher education system and the elimination of the office of
University of Massachusetts President William M. Bulger. But he
again expressed his support for the former Senate President's tenure
as the university's leader.
"If you expunged everybody's last name and just
looked at the record, he's been the best university president that
I've seen and I've seen many of them,' Finneran said. "I think the
private fund-raising, I think the endowed chairs, I think the
programs of excellence he's put in ... all speak for
themselves.'
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 13, 2003
Local aid cut figures disputed
Romney's
numbers wrong, group says
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe
Staff
Despite Governor Mitt Romney's continued insistence
that he won't cut any community's state dollars by more than 10.5
percent, the Massachusetts Municipal Association said yesterday that
at least 130 cities and towns would have to cope with deeper cuts if
the governor's budget is approved.
The group, which lobbies for cities and towns on
Beacon Hill, calculated that 52 communities would lose 13 percent or
more of their so-called local aid, and 18 would have their money
slashed by 15 percent or more.
The new numbers, which arrived on a day when House
Speaker Thomas Finneran accused the governor of making a
"categorically false statement" about the state's pension fund, are
sure to provide additional ammunition to local officials who have
publicly questioned Romney's credibility since he released his
proposed budget last month.
"The governor's budget has used fuzzy math from the
beginning, and parts of the budget are just outright misstatements,"
said Framingham Town Manager George King, whose town would have to
endure a cut of more than 13 percent - or $2.1 million - according
to the municipal association. "I think the anger would be a lot less
if they were making proposals that were realistic and
straightforward."
The crux of the dispute is the administration's
decision to roll some education grants into Chapter 70, the state's
funding for public schools. Because Romney included the grant money
in the 2004 local aid calculations but not in the 2003 figures, he
underestimated the impact of the cuts, mayors and the municipal
association say.
Administration officials countered that the
municipal association manipulated its numbers by factoring in grant
programs that Romney would cut, while ignoring ones he would expand.
When the increases are included, they said, Framingham's local aid
cut ends up at less than 5 percent. Barnstable's cut goes from more
than 16 percent in the municipal association's analysis to 2.9
percent, and Beverly's cut goes from 12 percent to 8 percent.
"They have selected just those grant programs in
which we've made the most dramatic reductions to try to dramatize
the extent of the local aid cuts," said Ann Reale Collins, one of
the governor's top budget aides.
But Collins acknowledged that when all of Romney's
increases and decreases in grant programs are calculated, the result
is a net loss of $52 million. Since Romney's initial budget
presentation didn't break down those cuts by city and town, it's
possible that some communities would face cuts of more than 10.5
percent, she said.
Geoff Beckwith, who heads the municipal
association, admitted that his group's numbers aren't perfect, but
he insisted that they offer a clearer picture of the impact on
cities and towns than Romney's do.
"We're not interested in getting into a war and
pointing fingers with the governor's office. What we've heard and
been able to document is that the cuts to many, many communities are
greater than the 10.5 percent cap claimed by the governor," he said.
"We're not suggesting that the numbers we're releasing are
all-inclusive, but they are more inclusive."
Local officials probably would have protested any
cut in local aid, but the conflict over the accuracy of Romney's
numbers has stoked their anger.
"I hope it doesn't poison the relationship. I hope
it's a learning process, and that he understands that some mistakes
were made in the budget," said Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who
says he's facing a cut of at least 13 percent, or $46 million. "You
can't just throw grant programs into Chapter 70 - that's not the way
it's been done over the years."
A meeting last week between Romney and three dozen
mayors did little to calm the roiled waters.
"They really wanted to defend their positions more
than they wanted to discuss with us and move ahead," North Adams
Mayor John Barrett III said after the meeting. "They kept trying to
defend their numbers, and we said there's a credibility gap between
the governor and the mayors and other local officials. Their numbers
are just wrong."
After the meeting, Romney said, "The mayors have
every reason for being frustrated with us not fully communicating -
accurately and completely - the information that they need." He
promised to provide each community with an explanation of its local
aid figure. But he didn't back down from his 10.5 percent assertion.
"Our percentages are correct," he said.
Newton Mayor David Cohen said Romney could help
repair the relationship by acknowledging that some cities' cuts will
exceed the 10.5 percent cap.
"In order for the governor to have his assertions
taken seriously, he has got to show that he speaks with
credibility," said Cohen, who would face a cut of nearly 17 percent,
or $1.8 million, according to the municipal association. "It's
imperative that he clearly and unequivocally acknowledge that the
cuts in local aid are far deeper than he originally claimed."
Return to top
Reprinted in the Salem News
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
The Brockton Enterprise
Friday, February 28,
2003
Editorial
Romney plan for budget makes
sense
Gov. Mitt Romney has finally revealed his budget
proposal one that actually increases spending next year, does
not raise taxes and preserves a safety net for the most needy people
in the commonwealth. Let the frenzy begin!
One thing is certain: The Legislature will tear
this budget to shreds. It takes on too many sacred cows, cuts too
many friends and relatives off the state payroll. and makes too much
sense for the Legislature to pass anything remotely similar to it.
But at some point, the silent majority in Massachusetts, the
taxpayers who have been abused and unrepresented on Beacon Hill for
too many years, will rise up in anger. We only hope it happens
soon.
Romney hit all the high notes. He seeks to rub out
Umass President William Bulger and his 68-member circle of
sycophants, saving $14 million. He wants to eliminate the odious
Pacheco Law, which protects public employees, effectively outlaws
privatizing services and cost the state $263 million last year. He
plans to lay off 2,000 state workers, cutting into the well-larded
bureaucracy. He wants to cut state aid to cities and towns by about
5 percent, but will be easier on the poorer communities. Romney said
the restructuring of state government will save $2 billion a
year an extraordinary claim, but one that should be given a
chance to be proven.
The howling already has begun from all the
predictable quarters. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who spent like a
drunken sailor over the last decade and has done little to address
shrinking revenues, whined, "This gets beyond the core of
government. This gets into the marrow."
Not even close, Mr. Mayor.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, wailed, "It will definitely mean service
reductions."
And what is wrong with that?
Why must the state provide aid and comfort for all
its residents? That is not the function of government. But in recent
decades, the Legislature and its enablers in the governor's office
allowed the budget to balloon and never said no to a spending
request. That has resulted in spoiled constituencies that will
surely go on the offensive now that they may face some cuts in these
tough fiscal times.
Romney has gotten off on the right foot and
deserves praise for his hard work. Now he will have to work 10 times
harder to push his budget through the jungle of 200 legislators who
will have thousands of gored special interests whispering in their
ears, "Save me!"
Return to
top
