CLT
UPDATE
Friday, April 18, 2003
Easter Bunny next to support tax
hike plot?
Even though House leaders insist they will propose no new taxes this year, talk persists on Beacon Hill about using revenue-generating measures to balance a state budget that is $3 billion in the hole.
The state teachers union and municipal leaders have launched high-profile advertising campaigns in favor of raising taxes, and a key House panel has issued a report examining the effect of dozens of new taxes.
"We need to look at some sensible combination of revenue sources or we won't have enough money to keep core services such as early childhood education programs, class size reduction grants and school breakfasts," said Ann
Wass, vice president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association....
The MTA wants lawmakers to return the income tax rate to 5.6 percent and consider closing corporate tax exemptions and broadening the sales tax....
One popular theory is that after the House releases its budget Wednesday, it is expected deep cuts - especially a cut of up to 20 percent in state aid to communities - will so outrage the public that they will support tax hikes.
Such a scenario would be a magnified replay of last year's budget process, when House leaders threatened a 10 percent local aid cut, then withdrew the cut after drumming up support for a $1.2 billion tax increase package....
That bleak outlook has some House Democrats waiting to see what happens if local officials react to the proposed cuts with severe measures such as layoffs of hundreds of teachers.
Some are quietly mulling some of the approaches backed by the MTA.
The Telegram & Gazette
Friday, April 18, 2003
House could bend on no-new-taxes
MTA, others say preserving services is priority
For the first time in a dozen years, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering borrowing to pay for the state's operating expenses, a financial maneuver akin to a family taking out a loan to pay for groceries....
But to some fiscal conservatives, discussion of floating bonds to help with a budget deficit amounts to an admission by Democrats that they are unable or unwilling to bring state government within its means....
"It's completely irresponsible, and it's a very bad idea," said Eric Kriss, Governor Mitt Romney's secretary for administration and finance, adding that Romney fiercely opposes any such loan. "We don't need any more postponing for the future what we can take care of today. It is a gimmick, and it is viewed very skeptically by Wall Street."
Still, the idea of deficit borrowing is gaining currency on Beacon Hill, as the state faces a budget gap of $3 billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1....
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed group that is widely respected for its budget analysis, has suggested that the state float as much as $500 million in bonds to cover operating expenses, as part of a comprehensive plan to close the budget gap that also includes deep budget cuts and fee increases. The following year, the state could responsibly borrow up to $250 million, the group says, as long as the full plan is announced this year and followed strictly....
"If we borrow to get out of this fiscal crisis, we'll already be in the next one before we pay this off," said House Republican leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading. "This would really be a mistake." ...
"The bondholders don't care how much you borrow, as long as you identify a revenue source to show that you can support it," said [state Rep. Marie J.
Parente, chairwoman of the House Committee on Long-Term Debt], a Milford Democrat.
That means a loan is not necessarily an alternative to a tax hike, because taxes may have to be hiked to pay back the loan - though the tax increase could be smaller because it will be used to repay bondholders over several years. State lawmakers say they are loath to raise taxes at all, after last year's $1.2 billion tax hike.
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 18, 2003
Legislators consider deficit borrowing
State would issue bonds for operating expenses
The proposal, which will be rolled into the budget the House will release next week, was pitched as an alternative to Gov. Mitt Romney's plan to impose premium increases on all state workers.
House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers (D-Norwood) said Romney's plan contains a "fundamental unfairness" - requiring low-income workers to pay the same dollar amounts as wealthy public employees.
"Those who earn more are better equipped to pay more," Rogers said. "We're trying to look out for low-wage workers."
State leaders are all scrambling to address skyrocketing costs in the $815 million health insurance system for public employees, which is slated to grow by another $65 million this year....
Romney aides called the House plan a "positive step," but noted it would only save $35 million, vs. Romney's $65 million savings.
"We think our plan is better because it saves more money and it includes the incentives, and it brings employees more in line with the private sector," Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said.
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 18, 2003
House leaders propose 'fairer' health rate hike
Municipal leaders, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, have pushed the Legislature for the power to hike local taxes on everything from meals to concerts and other forms of entertainment.
Asked Thursday if the House budget would include state or local-option taxes, Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood, said no, adding most House members have "a very strong anti-tax philosophy at this point."
Proponents say the higher taxes would help offset expected deep cuts in state aid to cities and towns. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have warned communities of local aid cuts of up to 20 percent.
Associated Press
Friday, April 18, 2003
House budget chief nixes call for local tax options
Although the public position of the legislative leadership is that there is no appetite for higher taxes, close observers think the true intent is to accept just enough of Romney's proposals to blunt the charge that lawmakers are impervious to change -- and then hope that the consequences of a no-new-taxes budget will make the case for additional revenues apparent to all.
So will the need for new taxes speak for itself? It's possible -- but not unless a robust and convincing reform impulse forcefully declares itself first.
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 18, 2003
Is that a breeze of reform?
By Scot Lehigh
Nothing, absolutely nothing - including the state's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - will stop the Massachusetts Legislature from taking care of its own.
A Patriot Ledger editorial
Thursday, April 17, 2003
More pay hikes for legislators
In killing two gambling proposals Tuesday, the Massachusetts House of Representatives gave a much-needed lift to the state economies of Connecticut and Rhode Island....
So what's Plan B? Speaker Tom Finneran and Rep. Daniel
Bosely, both ardent gambling opponents, have only one sure winner for the revenue shortfall: deep and devastating budget cuts leading to increased taxes. How creative is that?
In essence, Finneran, Bosley and the like don't want a gambling plan that might fit Massachusetts' needs.
Instead, they're content to watch busloads of Bay State patrons take millions of dollars across the border on a daily basis, while taxpayers pure of mind and spirit get their pockets picked.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Passing up the bucks
Health Care For All and other consumer and advocacy organizations joined together to speak on Governor Romney's budget and its effect on people with disabilities. The consumer and advocacy organizations also pledged their support for taxes in order to maintain health coverage for vulnerable populations....
Organizations endorsing the call for taxes include Health Care For All, AIDS Action, Easter Seals Massachusetts, Boston Center for Independent Living, Metrowest Center for Independent Living, Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann and Massachusetts ARC.
Health Care for All
News Release - April 17, 2003
Advocates, consumers find fault with Romney's budget,
call for taxes to maintain health care coverage
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Michael Widmer ("Mickey W") and his Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation must be proud today. Not only is he running cover for the
Legislature once again -- providing them with the "borrow your way out of
debt" strategy -- but it'll take a a tax hike to pay back the big bankers who
make the loan. As Boston Globe State House reporter Rick Klein noted today,
"a loan is not necessarily an alternative to a tax hike, because taxes may have to be hiked to pay back the loan
..." Finneran lieutenant Marie Parente, chairwoman of the House Committee on Long-Term
Debt, admitted, "The bondholders don't care how much you borrow, as long as you identify a revenue source to show that you can support
it."
"Given the size of the problem and the limited options that are on the table, deficit borrowing should certainly be one of the tools that's being
considered," said an MTF spokesman. "But at the same time, it needs to be part of a package."
And we all know the "package" MTF is looking for. (Can you say
"sales tax hike"?)
"The bondholders" is Beacon Hill lingo for
"big bankers," and big bankers are represented by the
"business-backed" Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Just another
coincidence I suppose.
But even Mickey W. had recommended only $500 million
in borrowing this coming fiscal year and only another $250 million next
fiscal year, so the Legislature is blowing MTF's cover as being
"widely-respected" fiscally conservative. Borrowing a billion dollars
more can't be funded only by Widmer's proposed increase of the sales tax. Where
will they get the rest of the repayment?
Worse yet is that borrowing, hiking taxes to pay off the
debt, then spending the surplus year after year after the debt has been
retired instead of reducing taxes -- growing government beyond sustainable come
the next economic downturn -- is precisely what got us into this current
fiscal disaster.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones observed, "If we borrow to get out of this fiscal crisis, we'll already be in the next one before we pay this
off." What he left out is that, without long overdue reforms and
restructuring, today's $23 billion state government will again expand and become
even more expensive, just as it did since the last recession when Dukakis' final
budget was under $14 billion.
In rejecting the mayors' request for local option taxes,
House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers said most House members have "a very strong anti-tax philosophy at this point."
This initially seemed like a positive sign coming from Beacon Hill ... until one
realizes that the only increased revenue option now available to the mayors and
municipal officials is to exert pressure for state tax increases on
income, sales. etc.
And don't miss Rogers' "at this point." It's
a telling operative escape clause, parsing which is too reminiscent
of "It all depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Municipal Association has
created a new website and
is running its radio blitz calling for, among other increases, the income tax
rate to be jacked up ("rolled back"?) to 5.95 percent.
In the midst of this "worst fiscal crisis since the
Great Depression," amidst such "financial distress" for cities
and towns, where has the MMA come up with all its extra cash to run a statewide
blitz of radio ads and build a new website -- and why has no enterprising news
reporter thought to inquire? MMA is funded through dues from each municipality,
in turn funded by local taxpayers. Are they getting funded by another source?
From the Mass. Municipal Association's new website:
8. Increases in state taxes to partially restore the Commonwealth’s revenue capacity
No responsible corporate or private operation facing financial distress would fail to examine and consider price increases. Similarly, no party responsible for resolving a public fiscal crisis should fail to examine and consider, in good faith, increases in taxes and fees. In many ways, the state is facing a revenue crisis, not a spending crisis. To that end, the state should follow the recommendations in section 3 and also be open to an increase in the long-range revenue capacity of the state.
In order to restore a healthy state economy, tax and revenue options could include:
• Restoring the income tax to 1999 levels ($1 billion)
• Increasing the sales tax by one cent ($700 million)
• Increasing the motor vehicle excise tax rate and/or schedule by a uniform amount statewide (keeping it as a local revenue)
• Exploring ways to shore up corporate tax collections
The MMA proposes that the most straightforward and stabilizing strategy would be to restore the income tax to the 1999 rate of 5.95 percent. A significant portion of the deficit would remain, but necessary revenues would be available to provide balance and equity in achieving state solvency. The income tax is also a much fairer revenue source to pay for services than the property tax
You'll have to pardon the cynic in me if you must, but watch the
mayors and selectmen now redouble their efforts to get those state taxes
hiked. Another piece of the Legislature's grand strategy is now in
place.
Easter Seals Massachusetts is also "endorsing
the call" for another tax hike [See Health Care for All news release
below]. I always thought it was a charitable organization -- at least it was the
last time I received its solicitation in the mail. Do Easter Seal stamps this
year highlight its political message for higher taxes on its potential donors?
Happy Easter folks, but before this weekend is over the
Easter Bunny will probably be pulled out of Tom Finneran's hat, screeching for
tax hikes too.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Friday, April 18, 2003
House could bend on no-new-taxes
MTA, others say preserving services is priority
by Shaun Sutner
Even though House leaders insist they will propose no new taxes this year, talk persists on Beacon Hill about using revenue-generating measures to balance a state budget that is $3 billion in the hole.
The state teachers union and municipal leaders have launched high-profile advertising campaigns in favor of raising taxes, and a key House panel has issued a report examining the effect of dozens of new taxes.
"We need to look at some sensible combination of revenue sources or we won't have enough money to keep core services such as early childhood education programs, class size reduction grants and school breakfasts," said Ann
Wass, vice president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
"These are all things that are not frills but essential to a child's learning," Ms. Wass said. "We want to continue to be able to provide a high-quality education for all students and we don't see this economic situation as a case of overspending but of falling revenues."
The MTA wants lawmakers to return the income tax rate to 5.6 percent and consider closing corporate tax exemptions and broadening the sales tax. The income tax was frozen last year at 5.25 percent after being reduced in 2001 from 5.6 percent after voters passed a $1.2 billion tax cut referendum.
Even with the sentiment for taxes among interest groups, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman John H. Rogers this week maintained that "taxes are off the table in this budget."
Mr. Rogers, D-Norwood, predicted floor amendments to the budget calling for tax hikes will go "down in flames."
Some observers are not so sure.
One popular theory is that after the House releases its budget Wednesday, it is expected deep cuts - especially a cut of up to 20 percent in state aid to communities - will so outrage the public that they will support tax hikes.
Such a scenario would be a magnified replay of last year's budget process, when House leaders threatened a 10 percent local aid cut, then withdrew the cut after drumming up support for a $1.2 billion tax increase package.
"They don't know anything else in Massachusetts except raising taxes,' said Laurie J. Letourneau, a conservative activist from Shrewsbury. "I don't believe for a minute we won't get new taxes.'
But there are important differences from last year.
For one, voters in November nearly approved a referendum that would have abolished the state income tax - sending shockwaves through the political establishment, which is now wary of taxes.
Also, in Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, voters chose a chief executive who campaigned strenuously against new taxes and has kept up the rhetoric against them since he took office.
On the other hand, the state's fiscal predicament, as bad as it was a year ago, is twice as severe now, and the state has all but depleted the reserves it drew upon to close 2002's $1.5 billion deficit.
That bleak outlook has some House Democrats waiting to see what happens if local officials react to the proposed cuts with severe measures such as layoffs of hundreds of teachers.
Some are quietly mulling some of the approaches backed by the MTA.
"I don't think there's any appetite either within the House or the general public for taxes, but what I'd like to see us debate is a re-examination of some of the tax breaks we gave in the 1990s," said state Rep. Harold P. Naughton Jr., D-Clinton, a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Naughton said last year's vote on abolishing the income tax was both a signal of public antipathy to taxes, as well as a message that they were dissatisfied with state government.
"Legislators would almost have to see a sea change in public attitudes, but if there's a chance that could happen, maybe it's now. The cuts are going to be dramatic," he said.
In the Legislature's other chamber, senators are watching to see what develops in the House, which must originate all revenue matters.
The traditionally more liberal Senate is expected to include other revenue sources in its budget, which is due out next month, such as slot machines at racetracks.
While Sen. Cynthia S. Creem, D-Newton, chairwoman of the Senate Taxation Committee, has sought information from state revenue officials on how much money could be raised by various taxes, most senators are keeping mum on taxes.
"The Senate President has issued a statement of principles saying we will have no new taxes, and barring a groundswell of people beating our doors down saying they want new taxes, we'll do what the House does," said Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge. "We're certainly not being overwhelmed with mail for new taxes. We're being overwhelmed with mail saying don't cut."
But tax opponents remain suspicious that Democrats in the Legislature are having it both ways - saying no to new taxes while keeping their options open.
"They are certainly spending a lot of time studying it," said Rep. Karyn E.
Polito, R-Shrewsbury.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 18, 2003
Legislators consider deficit borrowing
State would issue bonds for operating expenses
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
For the first time in a dozen years, Massachusetts lawmakers are considering borrowing to pay for the state's operating expenses, a financial maneuver akin to a family taking out a loan to pay for groceries.
The move's backers argue, essentially, that the state needs to eat. They say that with tax hikes and gambling expansions looking less and less likely to win approval this year, deficit borrowing represents perhaps the only realistic way to avoid gutting funds for schools, health care, and public safety.
"It is not the most of all evils when you compare it to the decisions we're going to make in the next few months," said Senator Mark C.
Montigny, chairman of the Senate Committee on Long-Term Debt, which makes recommendations on the issuing of state bonds. "It has to be squarely on the top of the agenda of options."
But to some fiscal conservatives, discussion of floating bonds to help with a budget deficit amounts to an admission by Democrats that they are unable or unwilling to bring state government within its means. The state leaned heavily on such bonds to cope with the fiscal crunch of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but the debt payments for those bonds were a burden long after the state's economy recovered. The state didn't finish paying off that debt until 1998, gobbling up about $275 million a year in the meantime.
"It's completely irresponsible, and it's a very bad idea," said Eric Kriss, Governor Mitt Romney's secretary for administration and finance, adding that Romney fiercely opposes any such loan. "We don't need any more postponing for the future what we can take care of today. It is a gimmick, and it is viewed very skeptically by Wall Street."
Still, the idea of deficit borrowing is gaining currency on Beacon Hill, as the state faces a budget gap of $3 billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1. Two task forces appointed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, brought forward the borrowing option this week, with one suggesting that the state could borrow as much as $1 billion to lessen the blow of budget cuts. The Senate committee led by
Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, is planning to hold a public hearing on the issue early next month, in time for senators to include borrowing in their version of the state budget, if they deem it necessary.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed group that is widely respected for its budget analysis, has suggested that the state float as much as $500 million in bonds to cover operating expenses, as part of a comprehensive plan to close the budget gap that also includes deep budget cuts and fee increases. The following year, the state could responsibly borrow up to $250 million, the group says, as long as the full plan is announced this year and followed strictly.
"Given the size of the problem and the limited options that are on the table, deficit borrowing should certainly be one of the tools that's being considered," said Cam Huff, a senior research associate at the taxpayers foundation. "But at the same time, it needs to be part of a package."
With the current low interest rates, Huff said, the state could probably obtain bonds at a 5 percent interest rate, with a seven-year repayment schedule. That would cost the state less than $100 million a year to pay off the $500 million debt, allowing services to be preserved until the economy recovers, he said.
"It's a trade-off," Huff said. "You're buying time for your ability to repay so you can recover, and you can avoid Draconian cuts by bridging the gap until there's a recovery."
Massachusetts borrows every year to pay for capital projects, such as road and bridge construction and renovations, but has borrowed to pay operating expenses only under the most dire fiscal circumstances. Although the state constitution requires a balanced budget, Massachusetts is one of the few states that can issue bonds to pay for operating expenses - as long as the overall budget balances, with at least as much money coming in as going out.
The state hasn't had a reason to borrow since the last economic downturn. In 1989, under Governor Michael S. Dukakis, the state borrowed $466 million. The following year, after the budget hole had grown larger, the state issued $1.4 billion in bonds to balance its books.
After two years of heavy borrowing in 1989 and 1990, the Wall Street rating agencies came close to putting Massachusetts' bonds on par with junk bonds, and the Bay State remains the state with the heaviest debt load per capita in the nation. A lowered bond rating would boost the cost of borrowing money.
"If we borrow to get out of this fiscal crisis, we'll already be in the next one before we pay this off," said House Republican leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading. "This would really be a mistake."
Representative Marie J. Parente, chairwoman of the House Committee on Long-Term Debt, said borrowing for operating expenses would be an option as long as the state identifies a dedicated stream of money to pay back the loan.
"The bondholders don't care how much you borrow, as long as you identify a revenue source to show that you can support it," said
Parente, a Milford Democrat.
That means a loan is not necessarily an alternative to a tax hike, because taxes may have to be hiked to pay back the loan - though the tax increase could be smaller because it will be used to repay bondholders over several years. State lawmakers say they are loath to raise taxes at all, after last year's $1.2 billion tax hike.
But Montigny and other lawmakers say borrowing can work as long as the state makes good-faith efforts to restructure government and streamline operations.
"In our society, certainly there are good financial reasons for borrowing," said Representative Anne M. Paulsen, a Belmont Democrat who served on the House Task Force on Local, State and Federal Revenues. "It is something that should not be taken off the table, especially if it's short term and it's low interest rates."
Even some conservative economists say the option is worth pursuing. Ideally, bonds can be used to even out the bumps in the business cycle, with extra cash coming to the state during rough times and debt paid off in boom years, said David G.
Tuerck, executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute, a conservative economic think tank at Suffolk University.
"It makes perfect sense," Tuerck said. "It's a small price to pay to avoid higher taxes."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, April 18, 2003
House leaders propose 'fairer' health rate hike
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Highly paid state workers would have to kick in much more for their health insurance while lower-income employees would be protected from premium hikes under a plan unveiled by House leaders yesterday.
The proposal, which will be rolled into the budget the House will release next week, was pitched as an alternative to Gov. Mitt Romney's plan to impose premium increases on all state workers.
House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers (D-Norwood) said Romney's plan contains a "fundamental unfairness" - requiring low-income workers to pay the same dollar amounts as wealthy public employees.
"Those who earn more are better equipped to pay more," Rogers said. "We're trying to look out for low-wage workers."
State leaders are all scrambling to address skyrocketing costs in the $815 million health insurance system for public employees, which is slated to grow by another $65 million this year.
State workers currently pay 15 percent of their health care costs. Romney would increase their contribution to 25 percent.
House leaders proposed a five-tiered system, in which retirees and workers making less than $25,000 would see no premium hikes.
The employee contribution would be increased to 20 percent for workers making between $25,000 and $49,999, and up to 25 percent for salaries between $50,000 and $89,999.
The split would jump to 30 percent for workers making between $90,000 and $109,999, and to 35 percent for salaries over $110,000.
House officials said about 100 state workers fall into the top category - including Romney and his key aides, University of Massachusetts President William M. Bulger and his inner circle, and Turnpike Chairman Matthew J.
Amorello.
Romney aides called the House plan a "positive step," but noted it would only save $35 million, vs. Romney's $65 million savings.
"We think our plan is better because it saves more money and it includes the incentives, and it brings employees more in line with the private sector," Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said.
In other news yesterday, Rogers flatly rejected requests by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and other local leaders for the ability to impose such new local-option taxes as an increase in the meals tax.
And a House task force on work force development rejected Romney's proposal to break up the UMass system and wipe out Bulger's office - saying it would have "devastating effects" on the campuses.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Friday, April 18, 2003
House budget chief nixes call for local tax options
The House's top budget writer on Thursday rejected calls from mayors and other local officials to give them greater freedom to raise taxes.
Municipal leaders, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, have pushed the Legislature for the power to hike local taxes on everything from meals to concerts and other forms of entertainment.
Asked Thursday if the House budget would include state or local-option taxes, Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood, said no, adding most House members have "a very strong anti-tax philosophy at this point."
Proponents say the higher taxes would help offset expected deep cuts in state aid to cities and towns. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have warned communities of local aid cuts of up to 20 percent.
A House panel appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran released a report earlier this week mentioning the possibility of allowing local option tax hikes.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 18, 2003
Is that a breeze of reform?
By Scot Lehigh
Where, this space lamented a month or so ago, are the Democratic reformers? Right here, state Representatives David Linksy of Natick, Cory Atkins of Concord, and Michael Festa of Melrose answered this week, telling this columnist that they and two other Democratic lawmakers -- Alice Peisch of Wellesley and Mark Carron of Southbridge -- have formed a good-government caucus. The House Democratic Council, which now claims 12 members, is intent on increasing the role of individual lawmakers in a body where events are tightly scripted by leadership.
"We think this is a group of independent-minded representatives who are willing to step forward and try to do the right thing irrespective of political philosophy or political allegiance," said
Linsky.
Rather than ally itself with either Finneran's leadership or the progressive dissidents, Atkins says, the council will help rank-and-file members develop their own issue expertise and ensure that their ideas are heard.
"We are longing to be part of an institution that we can take great pride in," she says. Can't they take pride now? "I don't think so," says Atkins. "I don't think our constituents view us that way."
Although the council just got started, Festa expects its members will assert themselves during the upcoming budget debate. "There is a lot of interest in looking at the issue of reform of the court system, for example," he says.
That's not the only sign of a faint reform breeze starting to ruffle the curtains of the Beacon Hill status quo. On Wednesday, Democratic Representative Barry Finegold of Andover and Senator Brian Joyce of Milton proposed eliminating the Governor's Council, a colonial relic puffed up with pay and self-importance but absent any function that couldn't easily be done by other branches of government.
And, mirabile dictu, this week even saw a call, by Senator Robert O'Leary, a Barnstable Democrat, to overhaul the Quinn bill, the $100 million boondoggle that gives police officers large salary increases for earning often dubious college degrees. "The reality is that the Quinn bill has extremely high public costs and marginal public benefits," declared O'Leary, uttering a truth seldom acknowledged on Beacon Hill.
But if tough times have triggered a tentative reform impulse in the rank and file, so far the leadership has proved mostly resistant. On Wednesday, John Rogers, Finneran's Ways and Means chairman, ceded a bit of ground, saying the House budget would embrace some of Governor Romney's proposals, among them the elimination of the patronage-choked Metropolitan District Commission and the restructuring of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. And yesterday, Rogers responded to Romney's desire to charge state employees more for health insurance by unveiling his own plan.
But on other obvious reform issues, such as overhauling the Pacheco Law, the roadblock to cost-effective service delivery the Legislature planted in the path of privatization, or taking on the Quinn bill (or police details), or streamlining the gold-plated Boston Municipal Court, the House's young budgeteer struck a wait-and-see posture.
Nor is there any word forthcoming on the better-management ideas Romney highlighted this week: removing state supervisors from unions and ending bumping rights, the musical-chairs practice of letting employees with more seniority avoid layoffs by claiming the posts of those with less time on the job.
If what Rogers's wait-and-see stand on reform really means is wait and you won't see, then the House will be making a serious mistake.
It's long been clear that the feeling among the Democratic Party's various constituency groups is that the best way to deal with the budget problems would be simply to pass a large tax increase. Indeed, several of those groups are currently running radio ads advocating higher taxes.
Although the public position of the legislative leadership is that there is no appetite for higher taxes, close observers think the true intent is to accept just enough of Romney's proposals to blunt the charge that lawmakers are impervious to change -- and then hope that the consequences of a no-new-taxes budget will make the case for additional revenues apparent to all.
So will the need for new taxes speak for itself? It's possible -- but not unless a robust and convincing reform impulse forcefully declares itself first.
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Editorial
More pay hikes for legislators
Nothing, absolutely nothing - including the state's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression - will stop the Massachusetts Legislature from taking care of its own.
Legislators have no qualms about condemning cuts made and further cuts suggested by the governor, which so many allege will hurt the state's poor and powerless. They have yet to come up with proposals of their own, though. The House will release in its version of the budget next week.
But first things first: More pay for more chieftains in the House. This time it's under the guise of "organizing our own affairs," without having the governor's approval.
In a scenario deserving of comparison with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, House Speaker Tom Finneran reshuffled committees this week, dropping some and adding new ones. And with each new committee comes a new committee chief, and a pay raise reflecting the honor of being one of Finneran's lieutenants.
The cost of this gambit is small, maybe $15,000 to $30,000. But the symbolism is large. Lawmakers' energies should be focused on saving the ship of state and not on who is organizing the cruise itinerary.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Editorial
Passing up the bucks
In killing two gambling proposals Tuesday, the Massachusetts House of Representatives gave a much-needed lift to the state economies of Connecticut and Rhode Island.
Our New England neighbors can breathe a sigh of relief: there'll be more money in the gaming pot for them to save jobs for teachers, firefighters and police.
The $900-million casino expansion at Mohegan Sun now looks like a sure bet to produce more revenue for Connecticut's tax coffers.
And Rhode Island legislators can follow through with expanding the number of slot machines in Lincoln and Newport, now that Massachusetts won't be a competitor just a provider of more customers and jobs.
As for Massachusetts, we may be broke but our puritan ethic is intact.
And what about all the potential social ills legislators have prevented among the citizenry? (The state Lottery, a $4.6 billion monopoly, produces some of them but no one's complaining).
It's a relief to know the Legislature knows what's good for us. Once again, a majority of citizens, who favor expanded gambling, are denied.
Is cutting off a potential $400 million revenue stream good for a state dealing with a $3 billion deficit and a growing unemployment rate?
Lowell-area Rep. Tom Golden answered that question best: "This was an opportunity to put some needed money on the table, and I think it's also something that's palatable to most of the citizens in the commonwealth."
Too bad 95 of Golden's colleagues couldn't see the obvious or weren't courageous enough to buck House leadership.
So what's Plan B? Speaker Tom Finneran and Rep. Daniel Bosely, both ardent gambling opponents, have only one sure winner for the revenue shortfall: deep and devastating budget cuts leading to increased taxes. How creative is that?
In essence, Finneran, Bosley and the like don't want a gambling plan that might fit Massachusetts' needs.
Instead, they're content to watch busloads of Bay State patrons take millions of dollars across the border on a daily basis, while taxpayers pure of mind and spirit get their pockets picked.
Return to
top
Health Care for All
News Release
April 17, 2003
Advocates, consumers find fault with Romney's budget,
call for taxes to maintain health care coverage
Health Care For All and other consumer and advocacy organizations joined together to speak on Governor Romney's budget and its effect on people with disabilities. The consumer and advocacy organizations also pledged their support for taxes in order to maintain health coverage for vulnerable populations. This event occurred in advance of the Joint Committee on Health Care's hearing on the Governor's Medicaid Reform Bill.
"People with disabilities understand there's a fiscal crisis, but we don't understand why programs such as CommonHealth that enable people to go to work will be capped, why the personal care attendant program, which I'm on, will be changed such that service may grind to halt, why prescription programs such as Advantage will be cut so that in just a matter of weeks for many, we'll go from taking meds to visiting ERs," said Rob Park of the Boston Center for Independent Living.
Governor Romney's budget would freeze coverage for thousands of disabled adults and people with HIV in the CommonHealth and Family Assistance programs, eliminate coverage for thousands more by tightening eligibility criteria and re-introducing the asset test, do away with the Prescription Advantage Program which provides a drug benefit for more than 5,000 people with disabilities and significantly alter the Personal Care Attendant
(PCA) program thereby jeopardizing services for more than 8,100 individuals who rely on PCAs to maintain employment, independence and decent health. In addition, the Romney budget fails to restore vital benefits including eyeglasses, artificial limbs, dentures and body braces for more than 191,000 disabled adults.
Representative Deborah Blumer (D-Framingham), who participated in today's event, declared, "I don't see how we can maintain health care and other essential services, much less restore cuts already taken, unless we can find additional sources of revenue. We are in the midst of a crisis of values."
Organizations endorsing the call for taxes include Health Care For All, AIDS Action, Easter Seals Massachusetts, Boston Center for Independent Living, Metrowest Center for Independent Living, Independent Living Center of the North Shore and Cape Ann and Massachusetts ARC.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|