CLT
UPDATE
Friday, July 18, 2003
Democracy won; Finneran zero
Finally conceding a rare defeat in his own chamber, Speaker Thomas M. Finneran ditched his prize pay-raise bill and declared from the well of the House, "I want to change the topic."
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 18, 2003
Speaker listens, silences pay plan
Acknowledging that he'd created a "distraction" that's taken away from important business facing the state, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday put off until 2005 his bid to grant pay raises to his lieutenants, effectively killing the measure for the foreseeable future.
In a highly personal and unusual address to his colleagues on the House floor, Finneran defended the merits of the pay raise proposal and said he still hopes the Legislature will eventually agree with him about the need for it....
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran reluctantly postpones action on pay hike measure
In a rambling 15-minute speech, Finneran said he would postpone any action on the bill, which he said had cast a "cloud" over the House, until the last day of the session in January 2005, a move that virtually kills the plan until the next session....
Finneran, who has consistently portrayed the bill as a way to give the House and Senate more autonomy in organizing themselves and creating new committees, targeted Gov. Mitt Romney several times during the speech, accusing him of initially supporting the bill then vetoing it.
"Something happened between then and now. I don't know what it is. I'll leave it to others to speculate," Finneran said. "The governor has changed the equation and I am going to respond to that by changing the subject."
Associated Press
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran delays action on pay raises until last day of session
"Something changed," Mr. Finneran said of the governor's recent skepticism over the measure. He said he was also concerned that supporters in the House would be accused of having "blind loyalties" to the speaker.
Meanwhile, a number of House members said the speaker had failed to muster enough support to pass the measure in the House by a required two-thirds majority....
Critics of the stipend proposal declared victory, saying it would prevent the speaker from assuming even more control over the legislative body, and shore up the independence of individual House members they believed were threatened by the speaker's stipend bill.
"It's a victory for democracy in the House and good government in Massachusetts," said Pamela H. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, an organization that railed against the proposal.
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran halts plans to hike, create stipends
Outcry on Hill prompts delay
Yesterday, when it appeared he couldn't get the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, he backed off.
Few are convinced that this is the end of it....
Yesterday, Finneran said he will put off the pay raise issue until January 2005, as if a delay will justify what is little more than a grab for power.
According to Pam Wilmot, executive director of the good-government group Common Cause, the Massachusetts Legislature leads the nation in the number of positions that carry leadership stipends.
For weary taxpayers, enough is enough.
A Springfield Republican editorial
Friday, July 18, 2003
Too many lieutenants, not enough soldiers
But like most tyrants, the speaker went too far in his attempt to unilaterally control all House pay and, with it, most House members. For the first time, he didn't get his own way, and the illusion of the omnipotent wizard, to switch to another musical analogy, is gone. Now that legislators have a glimpse at the ordinary man behind the curtain, maybe, somewhere over the rainbow, they will hold their heads erect and use their brains, their hearts and their courage to represent us.
The Salem News
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Legislators should whistle a happy tune
By Barbara Anderson
After you elected me speaker, I spoke at caucus about abolition and creation of new committees that are more relevant. I stand by every one of those words and the merits of the proposal. The governor agreed publicly several times that the proposals I was making had merit, made sense and he intended to support them.
Something happened between then and now. I am not sure what it is. I will leave it to others to speculate....
Sometimes an idea takes time. This one will take some time. The merits will become more clear to people over time. In the meantime it is my intention to remove the cloud.
House Speaker Finneran's address to the House
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Transcription by State House News Service
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Congratulations to those of you who joined us, called
your state representative and senator, and actively contributed to this
stunning upset victory!
House Speaker Tom Finneran yesterday acknowledged
defeat -- a rare and major event on Beacon Hill -- and set aside
his Pay-Raise Power-Grab ... for now.
"Something happened between then [when the
governor initially supported his power grab] and now. I am not sure what it is. I will leave it to others to speculate...."
There's no need for speculation about what that
"something" was: CLT, Common Cause and CPPAX united to
defeat his Pay-Raise Power-Grab, first convincing the governor to veto
it then asking our members to contact their state reps and senators and
speak out against it. The media picked up on our actions and reported
almost daily on Finneran's maneuvers; it became the major story it
deserved to be. From then on what was once inevitable was turned around
and Emperor Finneran was finally handed a humiliating defeat.
In his rambling and disjointed speech yesterday, his
obsession -- and anger -- were apparent. He tried interjecting other
issues as he spoke, but he kept returning to his defeat and how right he
still is despite his loss. "The merits will become more clear to people over
time," he asserted, stroking his massive ego: Finneran can be
defeated, but he can never be wrong. Everyone else is just too thick not
to stand in awe of his imperial genius.
This is the second defeat we handed Finneran this
year, following the defeat of the Proposition 2½ overlay account
end-run he advocated.
Great job activists! Together we've dented his
once-invincible armor. The Emperor has no clothes.
But Finneran will not go quietly into the night. He
promised "I'll be baaack!"
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 18, 2003
Speaker listens, silences pay plan
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Finally conceding a rare defeat in his own chamber, Speaker Thomas M. Finneran ditched his prize pay-raise bill and declared from the well of the House, "I want to change the topic."
Pounded for months on his plan to grab unfettered power to hand out pay bonuses to his lieutenants and facing resistance from upstart lawmakers, Finneran called the issue a "distraction and a cloud" over the House.
While conceding a "setback and a disappointment," the powerful speaker avoided a clear-cut defeat at the hands of Gov. Mitt Romney, who vetoed the bill.
Insisting the measure, though dead this year, will rise again, Finneran said, "This one will take some time.... But the merits will become more clear over time."
The speaker's remarks were met by a standing ovation from House members - but some said he had no choice but to back down.
"He just couldn't go all the way and take a vote on it because he knew he'd lose," said Rep. Philip Travis (D-Rehoboth).
Finneran effectively killed the plan by postponing consideration of it until Jan. 4, 2005, the last day of the current legislative session. Finneran needed a two-thirds majority to override Romney's veto and couldn't get it despite intense one-on-one lobbying with waffling members.
Liberal and moderate Democrats joined with Republicans against the plan, and other lawmakers were fearful of how their yes vote would play with voters.
"We have a speaker who is listening to members in a way he hasn't listened before, and we've got members who are talking to him like never before," said Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End). "This is an example of what the different minority groups in the House can do when they work together."
But Majority Whip Lida E. Harkins (D-Needham) said Finneran was stymied by media preoccupation with the issue.
"He felt it was the only story being printed and everything else was falling by the wayside," Harkins said.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran reluctantly postpones action on pay hike measure
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, Globe Correspondent
Acknowledging that he'd created a "distraction" that's taken away from important business facing the state, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday put off until 2005 his bid to grant pay raises to his lieutenants, effectively killing the measure for the foreseeable future.
In a highly personal and unusual address to his colleagues on the House floor, Finneran defended the merits of the pay raise proposal and said he still hopes the Legislature will eventually agree with him about the need for it. But he said the continuous attention the measure attracted has detracted from more pressing business and he proposed to postpone voting on the measure until Jan. 4, 2005, the last day of the current legislative session.
"So much for the merits," Finneran told a rapt gallery in a 10-minute speech that alternated between jocular and angry in tone. "Being a fairly good listener and someone who is trying to hone my skills ... I do detect that this issue has been a distraction and a cloud."
The speaker's retreat, which he signaled in a televised interview earlier this week, was an acknowledgement that granting pay raises to a select few lawmakers was politically untenable when the state is cutting back on school and social services programs due to the tight state budget.
Effectively, the proposal would have benefited a half dozen or so House lawmakers and would have cost the state about $50,000 a year. Finneran was seeking authority to grant bonus pay to new chairmen and vice chairman in addition to their $53,381 annual base salary. Currently, 51 of the 160 House members receive bonus pay, usually $7,500 or $15,000 a year.
Lawmakers were relieved that they wouldn't have to vote on the bill again. The bill's opponents commended Finneran for respecting the will of the lawmakers and backing off.
"He is absolutely right, he has removed the cloud over the Legislature," said Representative Byron Rushing, the South End Democrat who opposed Finneran in the race for speaker in January.
Rank-and-file lawmakers said they were glad the episode could be put behind them, after weeks during which it had dominated private and public discussions.
"You couldn't even talk about the real stuff about what our government looks like, the quality of life in this Commonwealth," said Representative Mary E. Grant, a freshman Democrat from Beverly.
Finneran first brought the bill forward in February but backed off when rank-and-file lawmakers balked at giving it quick approval. The House approved the measure in April, voting 100-to-50, only to see the legislation vetoed by Governor Mitt Romney. The governor objected to the fact that the bill would have given legislative leaders nearly unfettered power to grant pay raises to their loyal deputies.
In the end, Finneran was unable to persuade two-thirds of House members -- the threshold required to override a gubernatorial veto -- to stand with him in support of the bill. His bid to override the veto was hampered by the decision of 13 Republicans who voted for the pay hike in April to back Romney and promise to vote against the bill.
When Finneran spoke yesterday, a hush washed across the usually bustling chamber. Members sat intently, many unsure whether Finneran was about to push for a vote or withdraw the measure. He started the speech with an extended recitation of the financial problems facing the state and of his own desire to be a better father, speaker, and pianist.
Finneran was combative to the end, blaming the media for blowing the bill's affect out of proportion. He accused Romney of flip-flopping on his support, after he first indicated that he would allow the House to organize itself as it saw fit.
A few hours after his speech, the House passed an internal rule that accomplished the main goals that Finneran laid out in the original bill. The House created new committees on Medicaid and homeland security, but it is not yet clear how much bonus pay the committee chairmen will receive. Romney said he would sign such a measure, even if it slightly increases the number of posts in the House carrying bonus pay beyond the Legislature's base salary.
When Finneran's speech ended, lawmakers' slow clapping built into a standing ovation. Because the Legislature will meet in informal session on the final day of the legislative session, putting off the measure effectively kills it for this term, since the objection of a single lawmaker can kill any legislation.
Raphael Lewis of the Globe staff and Globe correspondent Brendan McCarthy contributed to this report.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran delays action on pay raises until last day of session
By Steve Leblanc
Speaker Thomas Finneran took to the floor of the House on Thursday to announce he is abandoning his push for a legislative pay hike bill, an issue he'd previously said was a priority.
In a rambling 15-minute speech, Finneran said he would postpone any action on the bill, which he said had cast a "cloud" over the House, until the last day of the session in January 2005, a move that virtually kills the plan until the next session.
Finneran, who has consistently portrayed the bill as a way to give the House and Senate more autonomy in organizing themselves and creating new committees, targeted Gov. Mitt Romney several times during the speech, accusing him of initially supporting the bill then vetoing it.
"Something happened between then and now. I don't know what it is. I'll leave it to others to speculate," Finneran said. "The governor has changed the equation and I am going to respond to that by changing the subject."
Romney never backed the plan, according to spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
"The governor agrees with the principal that each branch should be able to organize themselves as they see fit, but he never signed onto the idea that the governor and the public should be permanently shut out of decisions concerning legislative pay increases," he said.
During the past two weeks, Finneran has struggled to come up with the two-thirds majority needed to override Romney's veto.
His job got tougher when many Republicans who initially supported the plan withdrew their backing to support Romney's veto, forcing Finneran to get the two-thirds votes from Democrats.
Finneran continued to press for support, calling lawmakers into his office one at a time, offering not to use the new power to reward his top lieutenants with pay hikes for the rest of the legislative session.
The offer apparently failed to win over enough lawmakers. Several Statehouse watchdog groups had threatened to put a question on the ballot next year to repeal the law if the House and Senate overrode the veto.
"This was a bill about legislative compensation, pure and simple. It was about giving the speaker more power to reward loyal lieutenants," said Pam Wilmot of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "This is one of the most major defeats where (Finneran) really tried to pass legislation and failed."
Finneran conceded that the topic had begun to distract lawmakers from their ongoing debate over which of Gov. Mitt Romney's $201 million in vetoes to override.
"I do detect that this issue has become a distraction and a cloud," said Finneran, D-Boston. "The cloud, however, has to be addressed."
The plan has caused controversy because it would give Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, almost unchecked ability to award bonus pay for their deputies during a time of fiscal crisis.
The bill would give the speaker and the Senate president the power to create new legislative committees and give the chairmen and leaders of those panels additional stipends without the approval of the governor.
Currently, any such change would require the House or Senate to approve a bill that would then be sent to the governor's desk.
Return to
top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Friday, July 18, 2003
Finneran halts plans to hike, create stipends
Outcry on Hill prompts delay
By John J Monahan, Staff
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, D-Boston, yesterday withdrew controversial legislation to allow new stipends for legislative leaders and provisions to remove the Senate and the governor from the approval process for legislative stipends, at least until 2005.
Acknowledging that controversy over the proposal had been overshadowing the work of the Legislature, Mr. Finneran took to the floor of the House and said he would delay consideration of the measures until January 2005.
"This issue has become a distraction," Mr. Finneran said of growing public criticism. "A cloud had to be lifted."
He added that while Gov. Mitt Romney had initially indicated he would favor the change, the governor had retracted that support when the plan emerged as a major controversy.
"Something changed," Mr. Finneran said of the governor's recent skepticism over the measure. He said he was also concerned that supporters in the House would be accused of having "blind loyalties" to the speaker.
Meanwhile, a number of House members said the speaker had failed to muster enough support to pass the measure in the House by a required two-thirds majority.
The proposal would have eliminated requirements for increased stipends for legislators and legislative leaders to be approved by the Senate and the governor, and provided initially for a doubling of chairmanship stipends and creation of new stipends of $7,500 per year for vice chairmen of certain committees.
Once the stipend change was removed from legislation to reorganize the House, the body gave unanimous approval to a change in House committees that had accompanied the original proposal that Mr. Finneran outlined in January.
The House voted unanimously to eliminate the Committee on County Government and the Committee on Federal Financial Assistance, and established two new committees, a Committee on Homeland Security and a Committee on Medicaid.
Critics of the stipend proposal declared victory, saying it would prevent the speaker from assuming even more control over the legislative body, and shore up the independence of individual House members they believed were threatened by the speaker's stipend bill.
"It's a victory for democracy in the House and good government in Massachusetts," said Pamela H. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, an organization that railed against the proposal.
"This bill was a move to further expand the speaker's powers and give him the ability to set the pay for all his loyal lieutenants, without limit and without the possibility of review by the Senate or the governor," Ms. Wilmot said.
State Rep. Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester, who would have been in line for a $7,500 stipend under the proposal as vice chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, said he was pleased to see the controversy ended.
"I got caught in the middle between a fight between the governor and the speaker," Mr. Pedone said. "His decision to pull it back was a good idea. It had become a black cloud over the Legislature that was overshadowing all the good things we have been doing," Mr. Pedone said.
"I've become accustomed to setbacks and disappointments ... My intention is to remove the cloud and get back to other issues," Mr. Finneran said.
Return to
top
The Springfield Republican
Friday, July 18, 2003
Editorial
Too many lieutenants, not enough soldiers
Lawmakers can hardly accept a pay raise after they have made so many decisions that have caused such pain to so many across the state, can they?
You don't know House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran.
Finneran has spent much of his time recently pushing House members to override a veto by Gov. W. Mitt Romney of a bill that would give the House speaker and the Senate president the authority to give pay raises to their top lieutenants.
Yesterday, when it appeared he couldn't get the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto, he backed off.
Few are convinced that this is the end of it.
The base pay for members of the Massachusetts Legislature is $53,381. A committee chairman, vice chairman and others in leadership positions receive raises, usually an additional $7,500 or $15,000 above the base salary.
If any one member of the Legislature had the authority to hand out these bonuses without the governor's approval, he or she would have power that goes well beyond anything ever imagined by the early framers of the Massachusetts government.
The governor was wise to veto the bill, and we hope members of the Western Massachusetts delegation indicated to Finneran that they would sustain Romney's veto.
Finneran called more than a dozen House members behind closed doors earlier this month and urged them to override the governor's veto. One of those summoned was freshman House member Christopher J.
Donelan, an Orange Democrat who has promised his constituents that he would work hard to secure funding to keep the Orange District Court open in the midst of the severe budget crisis. Donelan was reportedly asked what he would most like to see get done in the Legislature. If Donelan was an idealist in the world of politics when he first ran for the office, it's likely he is no longer.
In the past, this newspaper has supported modest pay raises for lawmakers. And we will continue to do so in the future as long as the raises are given for an honest day's work, not as a reward for blind obedience.
Yesterday, Finneran said he will put off the pay raise issue until January 2005, as if a delay will justify what is little more than a grab for power.
According to Pam Wilmot, executive director of the good-government group Common Cause, the Massachusetts Legislature leads the nation in the number of positions that carry leadership stipends.
For weary taxpayers, enough is enough.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Legislators should whistle a happy tune
By Barbara Anderson
"Whenever I feel afraid, I hold my head erect and whistle a happy tune, so no one will suspect I'm afraid." Rogers and Hammerstein, The King and I.
Singing this brave little ditty, Anna prepares to meet the King of Siam. With his dark eyes flashing beneath the smooth head, an arrogant stance and attitude, the quasi-benevolent dictator holds totalitarian rule over the Massachusetts House.
Wait, am I confusing Yul Brynner with Tom Finneran? A common mistake.
Like the King, Speaker Finneran is charming, fast talking, and standing on the line between the traditional past and a viable future. Each despot finds it "a puzzlement" that he can't rule a modern and competitive kingdom while at the same time demanding that his subjects bow with their heads touching the ground whenever he enters the room. In the end, the King of Siam was a tragic figure, often beloved yet unable to get his giant ego out of his way. Fortunately, it looks right now as if Speaker Finneran could be spared this sad fate. If enough legislators whistle a happy tune and stand up to him, he may yet return to reality in time to leave a positive legacy.
A few weeks ago, his pay raise bill was on a fast track to deliver him even more power than he has already. Passed by both the House and Senate, it was sent to Gov. Mitt Romney as a "housekeeping measure" that would simply allow the speaker and the Senate president to organize their respective branches as they choose. The Senate passed the law just to accommodate the speaker; the ego problem is Speaker Finneran's alone. If the bill passed, he would have our representatives beholden to him for an unlimited number of leadership bonuses
Rep. Mark Howland, D-Freetown, argued that this would merely give the legislative branch the power to "set its staff." No, legislators can already set their staff, i.e., secretaries and aides. This new bill would give the speaker the chance to make legislators themselves his "staff," leaving us with alleged representatives whose foreheads spend a lot of time resting on the floor. Romney, respecting the concept of representative democracy and balance of power among the branches, vetoed the Finneran power-grab.
Some legislative rebels joined with pro-democracy groups Common Cause, Citizens for Limited Taxation and Citizens for Participation in Political Action to urge House members to sustain the veto. If the speaker thinks he cannot win, he won't bring the issue to the House floor, and two things will happen: 1. Pay raises will still require a vote of both branches and the governor's signature, and 2. The speaker will have learned that he is not the King of Siam.
I remember when the charm outweighed the power-hunger. As a state legislator, Tom Finneran was fairly supportive of the voter-passed Proposition 2½; but then he became Ways and Means chairman and one of his first acts was to attempt an exemption to that law that would have raised property taxes. When that was defeated, he did a good job at first working with Gov. Weld on welfare reform and state government downsizing. I worked with him myself to defeat the proposed taxpayer-funded Megaplex and appreciated his opposition to the graduated income tax. But then he became speaker of the House, a title that went directly to his head. He put a deceptive constitutional amendment on the 1998 ballot, telling voters that if they gave approved automatic pay raises, legislators would no longer vote for their own higher pay. Then, winning the amendment, he orchestrated hikes in legislative expense accounts and created new, higher-paid leadership positions for members who voted his way.
While preaching fiscal prudence and restraint, Speaker Finneran presided over billion-dollar annual budget increases and the creation of slush funds -- while fighting the income tax cut that would have prevented the "good-time spending" that got us into our current fiscal straits. He also launched an assault on the initiative petition process, leading the House to ignore or change laws that had recently been passed by the voters.
Legislators who occasionally stood up to him lost their chairmanships and extra pay.
His latest project is a bill that gives taxpayer dollars to certain businesses, handing Finneran some power in the private sector as well. Wonder how low those business leaders can bow to get their share of the loot?
But like most tyrants, the speaker went too far in his attempt to unilaterally control all House pay and, with it, most House members. For the first time, he didn't get his own way, and the illusion of the omnipotent wizard, to switch to another musical analogy, is gone. Now that legislators have a glimpse at the ordinary man behind the curtain, maybe, somewhere over the rainbow, they will hold their heads erect and use their brains, their hearts and their courage to represent us.
Return to
top
House Speaker Finneran's address to the House
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Transcription by State House News Service
FINNERAN COMPENSATION BILL: The House suspended rules to consider the governor’s veto of H 3743 compensation of certain members of the General Court.
Speaker Finneran said I realize this may be the third time I have addressed the members within a seven or eight-week time. I spoke on the investment tax credit, economic development and here I am again. I apologize if I wear out my welcome. Frustration number one is I don’t have the time to do the recreational reading I would like. I have a huge pile of books next to my bed. I always say some day. Frustration number two is I miss debate. There is a give and take and spontaneity to it. On the rostrum you are trying to be referee, a fair judge. I promise I won’t keep you here too long.
By suspension of the rules, we have interrupted consideration of the governor’s vetoes to address the reorganization bill, often recognized as the pay raise bill. Everyone will pick their own title. As I have thought this issue through over the last several weeks, we gathered on Jan. 1 and started on the new year. To my Democratic colleagues in Gardner Auditorium, I spoke about what I thought had been accomplished and what I hoped to accomplish.
I try to take this seriously. Some of you may say, Tommy don’t take it so seriously. But it’s a measure of you, your faith and judgment.
Sometimes you are accused of blind allegiance. I try not to leave you in an uncomfortable position. I spoke about things I would like to achieve myself. I said more important than being a better Speaker, was to be a better father and husband. I am still working on it. My daughters’ washing machine is broken and I am doing washing and folding and this week they may say he’s a great dad. You have your own relationship with my wife Donna. You can ask her if I’m a better husband. I wanted to learn to play the piano. No progress on that whatsoever.
I said I wanted to be a better Speaker. I thought I had been a pretty good Speaker. I still think that. But you can always be better at what you do even if in fact you are good. Someone else will be a judge. I finally said that an essential element of that, given the challenges we faced, it would be incumbent on me to improve my listening skills. People say it’s imperative for someone to be a good speaker, a debater an orator but in terms of getting things done, you really have to develop incredible listening skills. I continue to work on that.
After you elected me speaker, I spoke at caucus about abolition and creation of new committees that are more relevant. I stand by every one of those words and the merits of the proposal. The governor agreed publicly several times that the proposals I was making had merit, made sense and he intended to support them.
Something happened between then and now. I am not sure what it is. I will leave it to others to speculate. Renegotiating contracts saves hundreds of thousands of dollars. The additional proposal was something no speaker has ever done – to abolish two committees. We do away with them because they are not necessary any further.
County government was important once upon a time. Federal Financial Assistance has promise and potential but never really materialized. The governor’s office of federal affairs usurps and undercuts any legislative effort. I proposed two committees that will stand the test of time. Homeland security, I don’t need to dwell on it. Even the most obtuse person and critics see the merit. Medicaid is in fact the ticking bomb that will destroy and explode state government as we know it until someone figures out what, if anything, we can do with that.
It’s grown from $2.5 billion to $6 billion over five or six years. It should astound people. The silence about that amazes me. Nobody will stand up and tell the truth. The expenditure is going to destroy the ability to educate our sons and daughters and to do everything we hold dear. The abolition of two committees and the creation of two committees. Numerical and financial equivalents. I thought it was a pretty good day’s work for the taxpayers.
So much for the merits. And as I said, so much for the initial position of the governor. Things have changed. Being a fairly good listener and being cognizant of everyone in this chamber, I do detect that this issue has become a distraction and a cloud.
I am impressed about the contributions every member has made this year. On January 1 it was a bleak day in terms of our economic forecast and whether we could rise to the occasion. The House saw opportunities and spoke to those opportunities. They were lost in the hurly burly of campaigns. A $3 billion deficit loomed in January. The budget was done. It was honest and transparent.
We have done some remarkable work. I have given a full and ambitious fall agenda. The cloud has to be addressed. I am in the best position to address it.
It was my proposal. Will ask for your consideration that this be postponed until Jan. 4, 2005.
It can’t go any later. That’s the last day in the session. After the last day in July next year, we will only be meeting in informal sessions. One objection is enough to defeat a proposal.
My proposal today is to effectively move away. I will respond to the change in the equation by changing the topic back to a balanced budget and consideration of his vetoes and to economic development and things we will do in the fall.
I will ask you to hold to your very high standard of performance. By my action today, I think I am meeting that standard. I think this proposal has merit, by any fair person’s assessment.
But sometimes fairness does not get too far in politics. I always read about how powerful I am – the full moon scheduled to come up will not appear. What drivel and nonsense.
I have become accustomed to setbacks. I talked about two-year budgets. It fell on deaf ears.
More recently I proposed a committee on Long-Term Debt. It was scoffed at and criticized. Now the committee is seen as a welcome addition to the structure of government and its performance. Setback and disappointment is the lot of a legislator, including the Speaker of the House.
We will survive as an institution and continue to move forward. Sometimes an idea takes time. This one will take some time. The merits will become more clear to people over time. In the meantime it is my intention to remove the cloud.
I appreciate the indulgence of the members. I ask for support for the motion in the hands of the clerk for this entire matter to be postponed until Jan. 4, 2005.
A House rule creating House committees on Medicaid and Homeland Security, I would defer to the members. The governor thus far has indicated he would have no problem with that element because apparently that has passed his muster. That too might change with the governor. You have been kind and patient. Thank you very much.
Members applauded the Speaker.
The House adopted a motion to postpone consideration of the matter until Tuesday, Jan. 4, 2005.
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
|