Associated Press
Saturday, May 18, 2002
Finneran calls budget "disciplined,"
dismisses critics as "voyeurs"
By Steve Leblanc
BOSTON (AP) House Speaker Thomas Finneran on Friday described
the House's budget plan as "disciplined, intelligent work" while dismissing critics as "voyeurs" too timid to engage
in public life.
Finneran's defense came just 12 hours after the House
wrapped up debate on a stripped-down $22.8 billion spending plan. The plan left some programs largely unscathed
while making deep cuts to others, including denying Medicaid health care coverage to about
35,000 state residents.
The state's plummeting finances forced the cuts, even after
the House approved a $1 billion package of new taxes, Finneran said. He said the House cut about $1 billion from what
would have been needed to maintain services in the new fiscal year.
The cuts could result in layoffs of teachers, police and
firefighters, he said.
"Retrenchment is the order of the day," he said. "Serious
substantial cuts were made."
Finneran brushed off criticism about the process the House
used to reach agreement on some cuts and spending proposals.
Throughout seven days of debate, Finneran invited House
members to retreat behind closed doors to hammer out the grittier details of the spending plan.
Critics said the public should have had access to the
meetings, but Finneran said all final votes were taken on the floor of the House.
If critics don't like the process, they should run for
election, he said.
"The voyeurs, the good government types that you might talk
to, they're the ones who are disappointed because they'd like to participate without having to expend any sweat or invest
any personal credibility," he said. "They have no credibility."
Finneran said one reason for the closed-door meetings was to
block the media from some of the "hurly-burly" of the political process. The Legislature is exempt from the state's open
meeting law.
"The Legislature in its wisdom has decided that the
hurly-burly of some of the legislative debate is probably best handled away from you folks, to be perfectly blunt about it,
because you folks ofttimes get in the way of progress," he said to reporters Friday.
Critics said the closed-door meetings denied voters and the
public insight into the political process.
"Essentially you have a mini-legislative session without
formal rules," said Pam Wilmot of Common Cause of Massachusetts, a government watchdog group. "You're talking
about a whole deliberative process that's done behind closed doors."
Wilmot credited Finneran with allowing all representatives
into the meetings instead of limiting them to his leadership team.
"It is more inclusive," she said.
Finneran, who spent much of the year traveling the state
warning about the fiscal crisis, said he is proud of the budget approved by the House. He said lawmakers avoided a "spending
spree," protected core programs like education and mental health, and approved strategies
designed to encourage tighter fiscal discipline in the future.
He also said a majority of House members were prepared to
repeal the Clean Elections law. In the budget, the House voted to gut funding for the public campaign financing law.
The Supreme Judicial Court has said the Legislature should
either repeal the voter-approved law or fund it.
"Most (House members) clearly disagree with the law,"
Finneran said. "The flaws in the law are becoming more and more apparent.
The budget debate now shifts to the Senate, which is also
expected to debate its own package of new taxes.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, May 18, 2002
Finneran weighs Clean Elections vote
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is considering pushing for
a vote to repeal the Clean Elections Law - a move that could bring legal finality to the drawn-out struggle over the
measure but is sure to outrage supporters of the campaign finance reform.
Pleased with this week's House vote that drained money set
aside for public campaign funding, the speaker said it may be time for the Legislature to strike the law, which is widely
detested on Beacon Hill.
He said he has not decided whether he will push for the
repeal, but expressed confidence that, despite its overwhelming approval by voters in 1998, most lawmakers and citizens now
agree with him that the law is ill-advised. He predicted large majorities in the House and the
Senate would support a repeal effort if it's brought forward, since most feel that tax
dollars would be better spent on priorities like education and health care.
"Quite frankly, the public tide is beginning to turn,"
Finneran said. "The flaws in the law become more and more apparent to everyone each day that goes by, particularly at a
time like this ... Clearly we have an opportunity to address this. I'm aware of the Supreme Court
opinion that says either fund it or repeal it, and we're trying to respond to that in
the way that the political system allows us to do. Time will tell."
In January, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the
Legislature is in violation of the state Constitution because it has failed to either fund or repeal the law. Though many
observers initially believed the ruling would spur lawmakers to appropriate the money, the Legislature
dug in, and Clean Elections candidates now face a complicated process to obtain
state funds.
The court allowed supporters of the campaign reform to
auction off state cars on April 28, and other public property could be sold off in the effort to generate money.
Acting Governor Jane Swift is likely to veto any repeal of
the law, which would require two-thirds of legislators to override her. Finneran said yesterday that those votes would be
difficult to muster.
Finneran's remarks came during an hour-long question-and-answer session with reporters,
held after seven days of budget debate produced a $22.9 billion spending plan
that contains cuts to health care and social services. He exulted in the House's spending restraint and
applauded the tax and budget debate he presided over as "far and away the best
process" he has seen in his 24-year legislative career. He also praised his own leadership.
"I'd say to my critics that they cannot name another person
in the House of Representatives that could have quarterbacked the billion dollars in taxes and done it with the credibility
with which that was achieved," Finneran said. "It was a very impressive performance. I think it
defied the predictions, the expectations of close observers of the legislative process.
Nobody thought we could or would do what we have thus far been able to do."
The Mattapan Democrat was unapologetic about deep cuts to
Medicaid, which would force more than 30,000 poor residents who've been unemployed for more than a year to lose their
health insurance as of Jan. 1. The economic slowdown, he said, has required lawmakers to
"act like adults."
"We have a tendency to embrace Medicaid without perhaps a
full analysis of the cost implications," Finneran said. "While we might wish that we had other choices, we don't have
those other choices, and some decisions have to be made."
Senate leaders, who take up the budget next, were quick to
criticize the Medicaid cuts, with Ways and Means Chairman Mark C. Montigny calling them "disgusting" and promising to
not incorporate them in the budget his branch passes. The tax and spending issues are
expected to be debated in the Senate next month.
The Senate also appears unlikely to go along with the
House's move to spend most of the money set aside for Clean Elections on long-delayed salary increases for state workers.
The House's vote was widely seen as sending a message that the House does not support Clean
Elections.
The Senate may also be reluctant to take up a repeal of the
law. And even if a repeal is approved, the law's supporters say they'd argue before the Supreme Judicial Court that it's
too late to eliminate the law for this election cycle. Candidates are already receiving Clean
Elections money via the sale of state property, in accordance with an SJC ruling.
David Donnelly, director of Massachusetts Voters for Clean
Elections, said that Finneran's opposition to Clean Elections stems from self-interest, since he and other incumbent
lawmakers fear that publicly funded candidates may oust them from power. Few legislators
in Massachusetts face opposition.
"For a policy that the speaker doesn't think deserves much
attention, he certainly spends a lot of time trying to convince the public that it's a bad idea," Donnelly said. "Voters have
to ask themselves: Why is he fighting against this so hard?"
The law promised public money to candidates for state office
who choose to limit their fund-raising and spending. The law was intended to reduce the influence of special interest
money and campaign contributions on state politics.
Finneran served notice that the issue has helped winnow the
field of gubernatorial candidates that he may wind up supporting. The speaker initially said that he is still
undecided in the race for governor and could vote for any of the five Democrats seeking to be governor, but then
he caught himself.
"I have been studiously neutral, and I think equally
complimentary of all of the candidates," Finneran said. "I'm not ruling out Shannon O'Brien, Tom Birmingham, Steve Grossman,
Robert Reich ... sorry, let me offer a clarification. I don't think I'd be voting for Warren
[Tolman]."
Tolman, who has received more than $700,000 for his campaign
and has made Clean Elections a centerpiece of his campaign, said he wears Finneran's ire as a badge of honor. It
could wind up helping him at the June 1 Democratic state convention, Tolman said.
"There are those people who don't view Tom Finneran as a
positive thing in the Democratic Party," said Tolman. "I have my agreements and disagreements with Tom Finneran. I don't
tiptoe around him."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Saturday, May 18, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
'Voyeurs' for democracy
Oh, that Tom Finneran, can he turn a phrase or what?
The speaker called a news conference yesterday, the House
having wrapped up its work on the state budget for Fiscal Year 2003. Not surprisingly he was effusive in his praise of how it
had all gone. He congratulated House members for their "disciplined, intelligent work," and
frankly we can't dispute him on that. But then he went on to label as "voyeurs" those
who actually thought the people's business ought to be conducted in public, rather than in a back
room at the State House where legislators thrashed out the real lineup of budget
amendments.
We don't know when the give and take of debate and democracy
became a bad thing and the need to witness it a perversion, but from now on count us among the committed voyeurs.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Let's have another drum roll, please,
for our state reps
by Jim Campanini
Lowell Sun Columnist
Thirteen days have come and gone since "T-Day," and all is
getting back to normal (raising taxes) as opposed to abnormal (decreasing taxes) in the commonwealth.
Working families will soon have less money in their pockets,
while legislators will be comforted by praise from their superiors for a job well done.
I guess we should all be thankful to state reps Cory Atkins
of Concord, Geoffrey Hall of Westford, Bill Greene of Billerica, Carol Cleven of Chelmsford, Colleen Garry of Dracut
and Lowell's Tom Golden, David Nangle and Kevin Murphy. With diehard ingenuity, they helped
solve the state's spending crisis. They voted to raise taxes.
"T-Day" or Taxachusetts Day came on May 2 when the House of
Representatives approved a massive $1.06 billion tax increase by a 131-24 margin.
The tax package was remarkable on two counts: its bloated
amount (no prior debate was held on cutting costs or reforming programs, so the Legislature never set a bottom line need
for the 2003 fiscal year budget) and the overwhelming support it received by legislators in an
election year.
If there's one cardinal rule professional politicians know
better than the menu at Locke Ober's, it's that you don't vote to raise taxes when you're about to face the electorate. But
this group rarely faces opposition, so they don't care.
Six Democrats joined 18 Republicans to vote against the tax
hike. Most agreed some form of a tax hike was needed, but they opposed solving the state's problems in one huge tax
bailout without first controlling the state's overspending. It's common
sense that you spend only what you take in revenues, right?
From this area, Democrats Jim Miceli of Wilmington and Barry
Finegold of Andover stood side by side with Republican Robert Hargraves of Groton to say "no" on taxes and
overspending. They reasoned that the Legislature had a chance to get a handle on
spending but chose not to.
"We were originally talking about raising $700 million in
revenue by tinkering with the Lottery payout, holding back the pension contribution, using the rainy day reserves. Then all of
a sudden everything's rolled into one big tax package," said Miceli, who's been a House
member since 1974. "Basically, a billion dollars in taxes was too much for me to support. It
took my breath away."
Finegold, who represents two precincts in Tewksbury, shared
Miceli's concerns. "I'm on record as supporting some tax increases, but this was too much too soon. We should have
looked at ways to save money first. We can save millions in the bulk purchasing of drugs for
our Medicaid programs, so why aren't we counting on that?"
Hargraves likened the tax increase to fiscal madness. "You
don't raise taxes during a recession. And it you do, you cut costs and look at other revenue options first. We didn't,"
he was quoted as saying.
Still, the majority of reps applauded themselves after the
"T-Day" raid on taxpayers. Atkins said, "We gave ourselves a hand for all the hard work we did. This was well thought out."
No, Cory, it wasn't. It was the easy way out.
The tax package froze the income tax rollback at 5.3
percent, increased the cigarette tax by 75 cents, reduced the personal exemption to $3,300 per child from $4,400, and
eliminated the deduction for charitable contributions.
It added a burden to working families already struggling to
make ends meet and made the poor poorer (they smoke). It hurt charities catering to the least vulnerable in our society.
There was no debate on court, prison or Medicaid reform. No
talk on revising the Quinn Bill, a police officers' perk costing Massachusetts $100 million annually. No talk of fiscal
accountability for the $9 billion spent since 1993 on education reform.
Atkins, however, pointed to a Boston Herald poll of 400
Massachusetts voters in which 71 percent favored the House's tax increase. It was published May 4.
"I haven't received any angry calls, and the poll validates
what we did," she said.
I'm not picking on Cory Atkins. She's a straight shooter and
I like that. In fact, Atkins and Hargraves are the only two area reps who've accepted The Sun's invitation to write an
occasional opinion piece on Beacon Hill issues. The others, well, most of the time they don't
have an opinion unless the Speaker whispers one to them.
Anyway, I reminded Atkins in a recent telephone chat what
real voter validation is. Three come instantly to mind, all state ballot initiatives approved by more than a million
voters: Clean Elections, the income tax rollback and charitable deductions. The Legislature
repudiated all three this year.
It's funny how legislators cite polls when it's to their
advantage, but ignore genuine voters expressing themselves in democratic elections.
The fact that there's been no rise to rebellion shouldn't be
construed as if the peasants aren't restless. They just can't miss a day of work to go to Beacon Hill and protest.
People are upset, though. Here's some emails I've received
since my May 3 column "The Great Tax Raid of 2002."
From Gary Kelleher of Westford: "I couldn't agree more
(about your column) but what can the average 'taxpayer' do? ... The problem really lies in the fact that you have a Democratic
Party that has all the power and control and there are so many people on the public payroll
that you will never change the system here in our lifetime. Republicans cannot get elected as
long as the system has half the people in the state on the Democratic payroll, and don't think
the Dems don't know it and play into it. But the one thing you can do is continue to
expose them to the light of the day. They hate that because they have to wonder how long the stupid
taxpayer will continue to just roll with the punches."
Thanks, Gary. And you're right, they do hate public
scrutiny.
From David Conole of Dracut: "Come the first week of
November, I will also be checking this list (of reps who voted for the tax increase) and see how many of the Republican
challengers The Sun endorses in its editorials. Hopefully, I won't have to gag on such phrases
as, "in the midst of the state's fiscal crisis, now is not the time to change
representation ... and ... he's been a great representative for the past 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years and voters should allow
him to continue."
David, you make a good point. Still, it's not a race unless
an incumbent has a challenger. Too often, contested elections are the exception not the rule.
From Chuck McKinney of Groton: "I really appreciate your
column. I'm amazed that people are taking this in such a nonchalant manner. It's a tribute to how well-orchestrated Mr.
Finneran's efforts have been. There are so many problems with the process and with the
planned tax hikes which were predetermined by the Democratic leadership months ago, it's
difficult to talk about them all. But why do revenue before expenditures in a down year?"
Chuck, you're a smart cookie. No one on Beacon Hill is
fooling you.
From John Wilder of Chelmsford: "I couldn't agree more with
your disgust and anger at Finneran's actions on the tax hikes. He must be replaced as Speaker of the House. The
question is: Do the members of the House have the nerve to vote him out?
No way, Jose. Believe it or not, Tom Finneran is the
brightest bulb in the 60-watt Legislature. He's not the problem. The gutless reps are.
From Christine MacFarlane of Billerica: "Many thanks, Jim,
for speaking out so energetically on 'The Great Tax Raid of 2002.' It is encouraging indeed to see Republican candidates
emerging to take on local Democrats in the fall election. I'm right there with you to see who's
voting to raise taxes and who isn't."
Bless your heart and what's left of your wallet Christine!
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 17, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
The judges dodge a bullet
Massachusetts courts have dodged a bullet. Rep. Angelo
Scaccia (D-Readville) withdrew his attempt to seize control.
Scaccia apologized to Speaker Tom Finneran for offering his
amendment without running it by the speaker. Alas, we have seen no reports of how long Scaccia's nose grew during that
speech.
Among other things, Scaccia's bill would have given
clerk-magistrates and registrars power to hire everybody in their courts who wasn't a judge. He would have abolished the
position of chief justice for administration and management, now held by Judge Barbara
Dortch-Okara, and replaced it with a lay administrator. All this would have made patronage
easier.
The amendment was converted into that classic ticket to the
legislative graveyard, a study requirement. But a real study could be very useful.
A real study would ask why the Legislature created 2,700
courthouse jobs in the past decade that weren't requested, why the Boston Municipal Court has a staff of roughly the
same size as the central office for 69 district courts and why the district courts of Suffolk
County cost twice as much as the aggregate cost of their counterparts in Berkshire, Franklin,
Hamden and Hampshire counties, which together have about the same caseload.
The solutions to any problems of Massachusetts courts do not
lie in more legislative micromanagement.
Return to top
