CLT
UPDATE
Monday, January 3, 2005
Why the Bay State Diaspora?
The idea was simple: end the Legislature's formal two-year session a few months early and give lawmakers a chance to campaign, vacation and take care of business in their home districts without fear of missing crucial votes.
Routine matters could be taken up in the waning months during sporadic informal sessions, but any significant or controversial bills that would typically require a roll call vote would be put off to the next two-year session.
But what started as an attempt to shorten the 24-month session to 19 months is turning into a legislative free-for-all....
But critics say the informal sessions are being used to slip bills through that should be debated and voted on during formal sessions.
"It's an ugly metamorphosis from something that started out as a good idea into something that has turned into a Frankenstein's monster," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, a government watchdog group.
Wilmot said controversial bills have been whisked through during informal sessions....
Beacon Hill lawmakers, many coming off hard-fought elections, have shown little appetite to battle over relatively low-profile bills.
Some even see the Legislature's ability to agree on bills during informal sessions as a hopeful, bipartisan sign.
"We're all elected to do the same thing. We're all elected to work for the citizens of the commonwealth. We're all going to kind of sit down and work together to get things done," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow.
Associated Press
Friday, December 31, 2004
With clock ticking,
lawmakers scurry to pass dozens of bills
The police union wants lawmakers to let them retire earlier and reduce some of the stress in their lives.
City and town leaders say they are thankful for these sacrifices, but fear the added benefits from early retirement will strain their already overburdened budgets.
The debate will come to a head next year when lawmakers consider a measure sponsored in the House by Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport that would allow local police officers to retire after 25 years of service with 75 percent of their salaries....
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, agreed that the retirement system needs to be changed so it becomes less expensive and is more in keeping with other states.
"I can understand why the police would want to get it, especially if you look at what other public employees get and what those at the upper level of the University of Massachusetts get. But to the average taxpayer, all these pensions seem very high. They can't even fantasize about the pensions you get in the public sector. People in many private industry jobs can't retire until they are 66 under new Social Security rules," she said.
The Newburyport Daily News
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Measure aims to allow cops to retire earlier
The long-running scandal of those travel expenses collected by state lawmakers points up yet another way in which our elected representatives consider themselves a class apart.
Most "real people" don't get paid for their daily commute, so it remains a mystery why those who campaigned for the privilege of serving as legislators should collect this little bonus for actually getting to their State House offices. Perhaps there was a time when that was the only perk of office - a time when citizen-legislators left their homes, their farms, their shops and offices to do "the people's business."
However, today most legislators view the job as full time and get paid accordingly - base pay is $53,380 and a committee chairmanship makes that $60,880. Workers in the private sector with comparable salaries don't get per diem allowances....
Any privilege that establishes legislators as a separate class (this one costs taxpayers $670,000 to $740,000 a year) is destructive of the democratic process. When Turnpike tolls or MBTA fares or the cost of gasoline go up, legislators should feel the pain just as we do. But they don't, and that's just wrong.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, January 3, 2005
'Travel' expenses a perk too many
With a new Legislature convening this week, Massachusetts judges are mounting a campaign for a $34,000-a-year pay raise, but their effort faces a tough battle to overcome both a state budget deficit and political tensions between the judicial branch and Beacon Hill.
The judges, most of whom make $112,777 a year, have not had a raise in nearly five years, and they argue that their pay is at the bottom of the scale when compared with jurists in other states. The proposal for a 30 percent increase is being put forward by the Massachusetts Judges Conference, which represents the state's more than 370 judges, and would cost nearly $13 million in the first year....
In addition, those sources say, some lawmakers are considering a plan to grant a pay raise to trial judges but exclude the Supreme Judicial Court justices ...
The chief justice now makes $131,512 a year and associate justices make $126,942. Under the bill filed for the Massachusetts Judges Conference, those salaries would rise to $170,597 for the chief and $164,670 for the associates on July 1....
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the joint judiciary committee and a cosponsor of the pay-raise bill ... concedes that if his colleagues approve the raise, many would then feel huge pressure to raise other state workers' salaries. "It would open a whole can of worms," said a top aide to a legislative leader....
The lawmakers, including some who see their local courts as patronage havens, have traditionally taken keen interest in the court system. Massachusetts is the only state whose Legislature dictates the spending for each individual court. An independent study by a former district court judge, James Dolan, for the Pioneer Institute, a fiscally conservative think tank, found that lawmakers had created 382 positions the judiciary never sought, costing taxpayers $48.3 million.
The Boston Globe
Monday, January 3, 2005
Judges begin push for a raise
Massachusetts' distinction as the only state to lose population in the past year is proof that high housing costs and a sluggish job market are making it tough for middle-class residents to plant roots here, a trend that could hurt businesses if it isn't reversed, experts said.
Despite a national increase of 3 million people, the Bay State saw its population drop by 3,852 from July 2003 to 2004, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.
"I think it's a real wakeup call for Massachusetts," said Ian Bowles, president of
MassInc. "This is dipping negative. As the economy improves we could have some workforce constraints. You already see that in some sectors." ...
While the drop may seem small (the population remains about 6.4 million), a net 58,910 people abandoned Massachusetts for other states, Census spokesman Robert Bernstein said. That was offset by births and an immigration wave that favors the Bay State....
MassInc.'s research shows many people are fleeing to other New England states, especially New Hampshire, though a sizable number also move to Florida, Georgia and Arizona, Bowles said.
"It's not just a retirement phenomenon," he said, noting that the "middle-class flight" of people who can't afford to live here accounts for a chunk of the problem.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Census loss shows many find it's hard to make it in Mass.
The US Census Bureau recently released population estimates showing Massachusetts to be the only state in the nation to actually lose residents. The statistics are "estimates"; in fact, in the last actual count conducted in 2000, we proved that the estimates had shortchanged Massachusetts by hundreds of thousands of people. However, we would be foolish to ignore the unmistakable message these statistics send: Massachusetts is losing to its competition.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 2, 2005
Stemming population loss in Mass.
By Bill Galvin
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Secretary of State William Galvin is either too much
of an insider -- too close to the forest to see the trees -- is blind
and clueless, or is playing Beacon Hill magician. I've got to believe
he's intentionally leading us to look in the wrong direction while he
manipulates his illusion and misdirects us from the obvious reality.
But none of his simplistic if not disingenuous
solutions will reverse the exodus, change why Massachusetts has the
"distinction" of being the only state in the union to
lose population in the past year.
People are fed up with business-as-usual on Bacon
Hill, fed up with its political culture of special-class entitlement, fed up with all
the failed efforts to reform state government in any meaningful way,
fed up with high taxation. And weather isn't the only factor if one at
all, as
many are moving further north.
"MassInc.'s research shows many people are fleeing to other New England states, especially New Hampshire, though a sizable number also move to Florida, Georgia and
Arizona," the Boston Herald reported. But, as the
"experts" whistle past the graveyard, much of the real
"why" is papered over.
l Could it be
because Tax Freedom Day (according to the Tax
Foundation), when taxpayers stop paying for government and begin
keeping their earnings, is April 7 for New Hampshire, April 8 for
Florida, April 9 for Georgia and Arizona ... but over a week later on
April 18 for Massachusetts?
l Could it be
because this same study ranked New Hampshire at 27, Florida at 25,
Arizona at 22, and Georgia at 21 in a list of highest-taxed states --
and Massachusetts at the 4th-highest taxed state? I see utterly no
consideration whatsoever of comparative tax burdens. But wouldn't one
suppose that this would be a factor when assessing the emptying out of
Massachusetts for new habitats?
l Could it be
because we have "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" that's
always looking for more self-aggrandizement at taxpayers expense while
seeking new ways to dodge as much accountability as legislators can
possibly avoid?
l Could it be
because of so many things like we're "the only state whose Legislature dictates the spending for each individual
court," and "that lawmakers had created 382 positions the judiciary never sought, costing taxpayers $48.3
million"?
l Could it be
because our Legislature is the only body in world history to
have automatic, constitutionally-mandated pay raises?
l Could it be
because this same Legislature feels itself to be above the will of the
voters time after time, when the people
-- the alleged "constituents" they "serve" -- vote
"the wrong way" on ballot questions?
l Could it be
because this Legislature and local governments are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the public employee unions?
l Could it be
because the state has created hundreds of "public authorities" that
answer to nobody.
l Could it be
because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is a power unto itself,
out of step with all other states in the nation?
I see no mention of what I expect are the real
root causes for this mass exodus -- the only state in the union to lose
population in the past year.
Simply put, this unique Bay State Diaspora
is a demonstration of mass-resignation to defeat, acceptance that the only
vote which counts any more in Massachusetts is the vote of feet crossing
borders. Those émigrés have finally had enough.
"[A] net 58,910 people abandoned Massachusetts for other
states" in just the past year. More of our friends, family,
and neighbors will surely follow until the problem is at first
recognized, then changed for the better; until Massachusetts government
at last begins to function as governments do in the other 49 states.
"Of the people, by the people, for the people."
It's unfortunate that Secretary Galvin and others are
unable to recognize, accept, and relate the true root causes. That would
have been at least a start.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
Associated Press
Friday, December 31, 2004
With clock ticking, lawmakers scurry to pass dozens of bills
The idea was simple: end the Legislature's formal two-year session a few months early and give lawmakers a chance to campaign, vacation and take care of business in their home districts without fear of missing crucial votes.
Routine matters could be taken up in the waning months during sporadic informal sessions, but any significant or controversial bills that would typically require a roll call vote would be put off to the next two-year session.
But what started as an attempt to shorten the 24-month session to 19 months is turning into a legislative free-for-all.
In just the past two weeks, with the start of the new session fast approaching, lawmakers in the House and Senate have rushed through dozens of bills, with few members in either chamber.
And because each bill is approved by voice vote, there's no record of how individuals lawmakers voted.
While most of the bills were routine, there were also significant pieces of legislation approved - from a bill allowing the wrongfully convicted to sue the state, to a major crackdown on scammers who defraud insurance companies by staging phony car accidents.
Lawmakers also passed a supplemental spending bill that includes a tax break for users of Fast Lane and public transportation, and another bill that eases recently adopted requirements that oil barges entering Buzzards Bay must have tugboat escorts.
Legislators defended the process, saying it allows them to rescue largely non-controversial bills, like local home rule petitions, from legislative limbo as the clock ticks down. The new session begins Wednesday.
They also point out that all it takes is an objection by a single lawmaker to block a bill during an informal session. Truly controversial issues, like gay marriage or taxes, are taken up during formal sessions, they add.
But critics say the informal sessions are being used to slip bills through that should be debated and voted on during formal sessions.
"It's an ugly metamorphosis from something that started out as a good idea into something that has turned into a Frankenstein's monster," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, a government watchdog group.
Wilmot said controversial bills have been whisked through during informal sessions.
During an informal session in the final days of former acting Gov. Jane Swift's administration, lawmakers approved legislation requiring the state to pay all legal costs and punitive damages up to $1 million for constitutional officers like Swift - even if they lose a lawsuit that alleges they intentionally violated someone's civil rights.
The bill was designed to protect Swift from a lawsuit by then Massachusetts Turnpike board member Christy Mihos who alleged Swift violated his civil rights when she tried to fire him. A court ordered Mihos reinstated.
But the law could have unintended consequences, like protecting public officials who violate civil rights based on race, Wilmot said.
"This should be done when all lawmakers are present and there can be a debate if needed," said Wilmot.
Beacon Hill lawmakers, many coming off hard-fought elections, have shown little appetite to battle over relatively low-profile bills.
Some even see the Legislature's ability to agree on bills during informal sessions as a hopeful, bipartisan sign.
"We're all elected to do the same thing. We're all elected to work for the citizens of the commonwealth. We're all going to kind of sit down and work together to get things done," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, R-East Longmeadow.
Return to top
The Newburyport Daily News
Saturday, January 1, 2005
Measure aims to allow cops to retire earlier
By Claude Marx and Stephanie Chelf, Staff writers
The police union wants lawmakers to let them retire earlier and reduce some of the stress in their lives.
City and town leaders say they are thankful for these sacrifices, but fear the added benefits from early retirement will strain their already overburdened budgets.
The debate will come to a head next year when lawmakers consider a measure sponsored in the House by Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport that would allow local police officers to retire after 25 years of service with 75 percent of their salaries. They can currently retire with 80 percent of their salaries after 33 years.
Police unions say their members are not primarily concerned about the money.
"This will give them a chance to have a less stressful life after they finish being a policeman. This is a job that wears on you physically and emotionally," said Larry
Crosman, a trustee for the Massachusetts lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Massachusetts State Police officers already have the benefit while state and county corrections officers are eligible to retire at 50 percent of their pay after 20 years.
In New Hampshire, police officers can retire at 50 percent of their salary if they are at least 45 years old.
David Baier, legislative director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said the bill would "create an expensive benefit without regard to the costs." He added that communities would be forced to pay the salaries and health insurance expenses for new police personnel while still funding health insurance for young retirees not yet old enough to receive Medicare.
Police officers in the Bay State earn an average annual salary of $50,000, not including overtime and detail work, according to the Massachusetts Police Association. Pensions are based on the highest three years of salaries.
Newburyport Auditor Bill Squillace said the impact of the bill would result in higher costs, but it would vary depending on the individual retiring.
"It would be more of an expense," Squillace said. "It can be significant."
The city will pay $2.46 million this year into its retirement fund, Squillace said. That costs is expected to rise next year to $2.7 million.
Newburyport Police Lieutenant Richard Siemasko said local police have been waiting for pensions to be in line with those of the state police.
"We pray for that every year," Siemasko said. "It's better to retire a little earlier. That would be great (if the bill) went through."
Three city officers — Marshal Thomas Howard, Lt. Robert Gagnon, and Officer Donald Hall — have 25 years of service, Siemasko said.
The Massachusetts Police Association, which lobbies the Legislature on police issues and supports the bill, estimates that between 10 percent and 15 percent of the state's approximately 19,000 municipal police officers have 25 or more years of service.
Association spokesman James Machado predicted that few officers would retire during their first year of eligibility. He noted that only about 2 percent of corrections officers retire after 20 years of service.
Costello is sponsoring the measure in the House and Rep. Joyce Spiliotis, D-Peabody, is a co-sponsor. Neither returned telephone calls seeking comment on the issue.
Sen. Joan Menard, D-Somerset, is the bill's main sponsor in that chamber and Sen. Thomas McGee, D-Lynn, has introduced a measure that would require the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission to conduct a study of the costs of changing the retirement rules.
Shawn Feddeman, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitt Romney, said the administration has taken no position on the bills, but would review them if they are passed by the Legislature.
Menard's spokesman, Kevin Conlon, said that by allowing older officers to retire early "it makes for younger police forces," and communities would save money because older officers tend to retire on disability more often.
Baier said his organization supports McGee's measure because "I'm in favor of more information for everybody." He opposes a rule change that would solely benefit police department employees without a comprehensive overhaul of the retirement system.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, agreed that the retirement system needs to be changed so it becomes less expensive and is more in keeping with other states.
"I can understand why the police would want to get it, especially if you look at what other public employees get and what those at the upper level of the University of Massachusetts get. But to the average taxpayer, all these pensions seem very high. They can't even fantasize about the pensions you get in the public sector. People in many private industry jobs can't retire until they are 66 under new Social Security rules," she said.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, January 3, 2005
A Boston Herald editorial
'Travel' expenses a perk too many
The long-running scandal of those travel expenses collected by state lawmakers points up yet another way in which our elected representatives consider themselves a class apart.
Most "real people" don't get paid for their daily commute, so it remains a mystery why those who campaigned for the privilege of serving as legislators should collect this little bonus for actually getting to their State House offices. Perhaps there was a time when that was the only perk of office - a time when citizen-legislators left their homes, their farms, their shops and offices to do "the people's business."
However, today most legislators view the job as full time and get paid accordingly - base pay is $53,380 and a committee chairmanship makes that $60,880. Workers in the private sector with comparable salaries don't get per diem allowances.
But that isn't the worst part. No, the worst part is the potential for abuse. There is the Beacon Hill mindset that this little perk is there for the taking, so why not? For example, it strikes us as exceedingly odd that Sen. Guy Glodis (D-Auburn) began putting in for full five-day weeks (at $36 a day) after being elected Worcester County sheriff in November. In all Glodis put in for 41 days during those waning hours of his lame-duck term.
And it remains an open question exactly how Rep. Paul Kujawski (D-Webster) actually arranged to "travel" to the State House (and collect his $36 a day) at a time when his driver's license was suspended following his arrest for drunken driving.
Any privilege that establishes legislators as a separate class (this one costs taxpayers $670,000 to $740,000 a year) is destructive of the democratic process. When Turnpike tolls or MBTA fares or the cost of gasoline go up, legislators should feel the pain just as we do. But they don't, and that's just wrong.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Monday, January 3, 2005
Judges begin push for a raise
Lawmakers seen cool to 30% hike
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
With a new Legislature convening this week, Massachusetts judges are mounting a campaign for a $34,000-a-year pay raise, but their effort faces a tough battle to overcome both a state budget deficit and political tensions between the judicial branch and Beacon Hill.
The judges, most of whom make $112,777 a year, have not had a raise in nearly five years, and they argue that their pay is at the bottom of the scale when compared with jurists in other states. The proposal for a 30 percent increase is being put forward by the Massachusetts Judges Conference, which represents the state's more than 370 judges, and would cost nearly $13 million in the first year.
A spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi called discussions regarding a proposed pay raise premature, echoing the skepticism of other lawmakers who say the state can't afford a big judicial raise at a time when the state budget deficit could reach $900 million. But beneath the talk of fiscal problems is a long list of conflicts that have created friction between lawmakers and the judicial branch in recent years.
The bad feelings reached such a point this past fall that DiMasi cut off communications with Robert A. Mulligan, chief justice for administration and management, after Mulligan ignored the speaker's recommendation that Suzanne DelVecchio be reappointed as chief justice of the superior courts, according to sources in the legislative leadership.
Mulligan could not be reached for comment last week.
In addition, those sources say, some lawmakers are considering a plan to grant a pay raise to trial judges but exclude the Supreme Judicial Court justices, reflecting their continued anger over controversial SJC decisions that include legalizing gay marriage and forcing the Legislature to provide funding for a public campaign finance law. The rulings have caused continuing political anxiety for lawmakers.
The chief justice now makes $131,512 a year and associate justices make $126,942. Under the bill filed for the Massachusetts Judges Conference, those salaries would rise to $170,597 for the chief and $164,670 for the associates on July 1.
The judges argue that if the salaries are not raised, the state could lose experienced members of the bench and fail to attract bright and talented lawyers, and they say their current pay is dwarfed by some of the starting salaries paid at large Boston law firms. A survey by the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly a year ago found that 75 percent of the state's attorneys make more than trial court judges.
A study by the National Center for State Courts, a Virginia-based group that monitors judicial salaries, ranks Massachusetts halfway down the list of states for judges' pay. The base salary for trial court judges put the state 23d, below Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania. And when the cost of living in each state is factored in, Massachusetts' ranking falls to 46.
Those figures have created some sympathetic ears in the Legislature.
"I think it is clear to many of us that we need to review the court system's salaries for judges and court officers," said Senator Brian Lees, the minority leader and an East Longmeadow Republican.
Representative Eugene O'Flaherty, the House chairman of the joint judiciary committee and a cosponsor of the pay-raise bill, said he recognizes that he will have a tough task of winning its approval in the face of the budget problems. He also concedes that if his colleagues approve the raise, many would then feel huge pressure to raise other state workers' salaries. "It would open a whole can of worms," said a top aide to a legislative leader.
But O'Flaherty said the arguments for raising judicial salaries are compelling. He said judges and clerks are badly underpaid and that they should not have to pay for any decisions or actions by the SJC that have angered Beacon Hill. The last pay increase kicked in on July 1, 2000.
"They are out there every single day, working at a very difficult job," said O'Flaherty. "The district court is where the disputes of society are remedied. It is not easy."
Under O'Flaherty's legislation, the trial court judges would get their raise to $146,351 next July, their first raise in five years. With two other annual step raises, the trial judges would be paid $156,775 by July 1, 2007. The pay of the SJC chief justice would rise to $182,748 in July, 2007, and the associates would get $176,398.
Superior Judge Paul A. Chernoff, speaking for the judges conference, said the group feels that the issue is a matter of equity and respect for those who sit on the bench.
Chernoff, who has been a judge for 28 years, noted that he teaches in the evening at Boston College law school and that some of his students are headed to their first jobs in law firms where they will start at salaries $25,000 a year more than he makes.
"That part of it doesn't square," said Chernoff. "You're supposed to look up to the judge. You're not supposed to put him on a pedestal, but when you have achieved a certain level in society, it ought to be recognized."
As it seeks to persuade the Legislature and Governor Mitt Romney of the need for salary increases, the judges conference is creating a special committee, headed by former attorney general Francis X.
Bellotti, to press the case. The group will include some of the state's leading figures in law and criminal justice. Romney's office said the governor would consider the pay-raise proposal, but did not indicate whether he will include it in his budget plan to be unveiled this month.
The lawmakers, including some who see their local courts as patronage havens, have traditionally taken keen interest in the court system. Massachusetts is the only state whose Legislature dictates the spending for each individual court. An independent study by a former district court judge, James Dolan, for the Pioneer Institute, a fiscally conservative think tank, found that lawmakers had created 382 positions the judiciary never sought, costing taxpayers $48.3 million.
Judges, concerned over funding and their own salary levels, often tread lightly when dealing with Beacon Hill. They have seen some of their colleagues become targets of retribution. Three years ago, the lawmakers, in an assault on judicial independence, pushed through a little-noticed budget rider that stripped judges of their power to hire probation officers in their courts and gave the power to the state commissioner of probation. By giving the hiring authority to a state official who can bend to their whims and taking it away from court administrators who wanted to hire more minorities, the legislators gained some control of highly prized patronage jobs.
In a controversial dust-up in 1981, Senate President William M. Bulger slashed then-Housing Court Chief Justice George Daher's budget and demoted him after he resisted Bulger's patronage demands. A hidden budget rider in 1995 stripped SJC Chief Justice Paul
Liacos, who had crossed Bulger and other lawmakers, of his use of a special hideaway office at the district court near his home.
Things haven't improved. Mulligan, who is getting good reviews from some on Beacon Hill, particularly in the Senate where he has reached out to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, has also created some tensions. His refusal to take DiMasi's strong suggestions to give
DelVecchio, a popular figure among political insiders, another term as head of the superior court has rippled quickly through the courts. Judges see their pay-raise requests on the line.
"It may well have [derailed] the deal," lamented one legislative leader who backed DelVecchio's appointment and favors the judicial pay issue.
As for the House leader, "Speaker DiMasi has the highest respect for Justice DelVecchio and he looks forward to the continuation of good working relations with Chief Justice Mulligan," said DiMasi spokeswoman Kim
Haberlin. "He does believe a discussion relative to pay raises for judges at this particular time is premature in light of the ongoing fiscal constraints the state faces."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Census loss shows many find it's hard to make it in Mass.
By Karen Eschbacher
Massachusetts' distinction as the only state to lose population in the past year is proof that high housing costs and a sluggish job market are making it tough for middle-class residents to plant roots here, a trend that could hurt businesses if it isn't reversed, experts said.
Despite a national increase of 3 million people, the Bay State saw its population drop by 3,852 from July 2003 to 2004, the Census Bureau reported yesterday.
"I think it's a real wakeup call for Massachusetts," said Ian Bowles, president of
MassInc. "This is dipping negative. As the economy improves we could have some workforce constraints. You already see that in some sectors."
Michael Goodman, director of economic and public policy research at the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute, said part of Massachusetts' allure for businesses has been the ability to provide a stock of qualified workers.
"If that advantage starts to erode, as it appears to be, it's not a good sign," he said.
While the drop may seem small (the population remains about 6.4 million), a net 58,910 people abandoned Massachusetts for other states, Census spokesman Robert Bernstein said. That was offset by births and an immigration wave that favors the Bay State.
The Census Bureau won't be able to say for a few months which parts of the state have been stung the most, or where people are taking up residence instead.
MassInc.'s research shows many people are fleeing to other New England states, especially New Hampshire, though a sizable number also move to Florida, Georgia and Arizona, Bowles said.
"It's not just a retirement phenomenon," he said, noting that the "middle-class flight" of people who can't afford to live here accounts for a chunk of the problem.
Phil Hailer, a spokesman for state development chief Doug Foy, agreed high housing costs are partially to blame and said Gov. Mitt Romney is pushing for more housing as part of the solution.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 2, 2005
Stemming population loss in Mass.
By Bill Galvin
The US Census Bureau recently released population estimates showing Massachusetts to be the only state in the nation to actually lose residents. The statistics are "estimates"; in fact, in the last actual count conducted in 2000, we proved that the estimates had shortchanged Massachusetts by hundreds of thousands of people. However, we would be foolish to ignore the unmistakable message these statistics send: Massachusetts is losing to its competition.
We must act quickly to get Massachusetts moving again. We need to address the root causes of our population loss: high housing costs and job losses.
A study by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research and education group, determined that Massachusetts lost 5.6 percent of its jobs as a result of the 2001 recession. Even more disturbing, the records in my office which trace the outmigration of voters to other states show that the largest age group leaving Massachusetts are men and women 30 to 49 -- not just recent college graduates looking for a career but more established younger people who were the most productive part of our workforce.
Finger-pointing will not solve the problem. Massachusetts has unique assets and resources that should be marshaled to generate new jobs. We are still known worldwide as a destination for higher education, healthcare, and research. In the past, the cluster effect of our universities, hospitals, and research institutions created an environment that led to substantial job creation.
But world market conditions have rapidly changed. A new product, technology, or service invented or developed here seldom is produced or perfected here because it is not cost efficient. Massachusetts will never win a race to the bottom when it comes to production costs, nor would it want to. We can only win by emphasizing our creativity and inventiveness.
Here are some thoughts:
l Health care costs. Although our health care system is good and a high number of residents have coverage, the real crisis is the rising price of health insurance for less and less coverage. And the higher costs of health insurance are a real deterrent to job creation.
We should try to reduce the pressure on employers by pursuing the option of reinsurance for catastrophic costs and chronic care, spreading or absorbing the risk for health insurers and at the same time increasing scrutiny of "profits" by insurers and HMOs. We might even consider some form of basic universal health insurance with the state as the guarantor.
l Bringing in our major institutions. Our greatest economic asset is our wealth of institutions of higher learning and cutting-edge medicine. In the past, patents, inventions, and new procedures developed in these institutions helped create jobs. But the employment benefits were by coincidence; we now need to make it by design. We need a plan that brings the leaders of these institutions into the state's economic and job-creation efforts. At the same time, the state should consider incentives for researchers and inventors to pursue development opportunities.
l Linking housing and transportation policy. While housing costs across Massachusetts are high, they are not uniform. In general, metropolitan Boston has the highest costs. The greatest opportunity for job creation has also historically occurred in the metropolitan Boston area, while western Massachusetts and southeastern Massachusetts have suffered higher unemployment rates.
While the state must continue to support construction of moderately priced housing, better transportation access to areas such as Fall River and New Bedford would stimulate housing in those metropolitan areas, which are more affordable than Greater Boston. Transportation, housing, and an available workforce would, in turn, be incentives for new employers to move in.
l Education policy. While Massachusetts has made educational progress as measured by test scores, it is, like most of America, poorly positioned to compete on the international scene, where the emphasis is on science, higher mathematics, and engineering.
These ideas certainly do not exhaust the possibilities. The problems of housing, job loss, and population decline are not exclusively political or economic. They cannot be solved by government action alone, and history suggests the marketplace will not correct itself. It is up to us to get all the parties together.
This should be the year that leaders from the business, academic, medical, and research communities join with government leaders to get Massachusetts moving again. All concepts should be explored. The only unacceptable concept is inaction. If Massachusetts is to remain the special place that it is, we cannot let it become a depopulated economic backwater.
Bill Galvin is the Massachusetts secretary of state.
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
|