Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation and Government, praised the move by the incoming administration as evidence of
"character and common sense."
"I don't think that it should make people who aren't
independently wealthy feel bad, should there be a governor in the future who would not be able to do
that," Anderson said. "But it's nice for people in this situation to not only help save the
Commonwealth money, but to make it easier to pay Cabinet secretaries more,
which I think is a valid concern."
The Boston Globe
Jan. 1, 2003
Romney, Healey vow to forgo pay
Imagine being the boss at a time when you are firing
employees, thinking about hacking into money for educating children, and considering cutting benefits
for the poor and infirm.
And then imagine that you think you are entitled to
a pay raise. What is the message you are sending?
That feeling of entitlement is in full swing right
now at the Statehouse, where lawmakers are constitutionally entitled to pay raises at a time
when Massachusetts faces what the state's new budget guru, Eric Kriss, calls its
worst financial crisis since the Great Depression....
No lawmaker in good conscience should take a raise
this year. And it's time we revisit giving anyone constitutionally guaranteed raises.
An Eagle Tribune editorial
Dec. 31, 2002
Pay raise sends wrong message
The Massachusetts Current Economic Index for
November was 127.7, up 0.9 percent from October (at annual rates) and down 0.1 percent from November
of last year....
"The Massachusetts economy has been essentially flat
all year," said Benchmarks Co-Editor Alan Clayton-Matthews. "The total number of jobs in
the state may continue to decline for several more months...."
Massachusetts Benchmarks (Report)
Dec. 31, 2002
Massachusetts economy flat for past year
Slow growth predicted for 2003
"People are just disgusted," said Elliot
Strasnick, the pharmacist at the Village Pharmacy in Marblehead. "How do they justify that? How do they
sleep nights?"
The $1.30 per prescription surcharge was included in
the state budget this year as a way to raise money to pay for Medicaid, an insurance program for
poor and disabled people. The legislature plans to lower the tax to 65 cents per
prescription in July.
Steve Kalivas, pharmacist at Tremont Pharmacy in Peabody, called the concept
of raising that money by taxing prescription drugs "mindless." Kalivas, who
is also a Health Board member in Peabody, said he knows elderly people who
already can't afford their prescriptions, and who have to choose between
buying medications and buying food. If anything, the government should be
looking for ways to make prescription drugs cheaper, he said....
"Instead of lowering the cost of these drugs, they
are putting a tax on it," Kalivas said. "Most pharmacists feel that the consumers, especially the
elderly, are being hurt tremendously." ...
Sharon Felton, a social worker who helps the elderly
with health insurance problems for the Salem Council on Aging, said she can't believe the state
government is putting a tax on prescription drugs.
"I think it's disgusting," Felton said. "Our seniors
are struggling as it is with prescription costs...."
State Sen. Fred Berry, D-Peabody, who supported the
pharmacy tax in this year's budget, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
The Salem News
Jan. 1, 2003
New prescription tax
starts today at local pharmacies
The relationship between House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran and Governor-elect Mitt Romney, who arrives on Beacon Hill tomorrow with an
impressive mandate, will probably dictate policy at the State House as Massachusetts confronts a difficult future....
But overlooked in many analyses of their relationship is a fundamental
difference, which could derail that natural alliance. Romney believes that state
government is broken, while Finneran does not - and the latter still seeks the
perks and patronage appointments that come with power.
From judicial posts to budget amendments, those who
have frequent dealings with Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, say that the speaker expects cooperation
from other state leaders - with the threat of holding up their priorities in the
House always looming.
The Boston Globe
Jan. 1, 2003
Beacon Hill struggle may center on perks
While Democratic leaders are publicly willing to
shrug off Romney's campaign criticism, they're flatly insisting that Romney produce the goods he
promised - a balanced budget that protects vital services without imposing new taxes.
House Majority Leader Sal DiMasi warned that lawmakers will stick Romney
with the repercussions if he fails to prove he can solve the state's $2 billion
deficit solely through government reorganization.
"We're going to hold him to his promises," DiMasi (D-Boston) said. "It remains
to be seen whether or not he can fulfill the commitments he made during the
campaign."
The Boston Herald
Jan. 2, 2003
Romney has to play ball with Dems he ripped
To many of the members whose votes gave Thomas M.
Finneran a lopsided victory yesterday, there is indeed a new House Speaker - Finneran himself,
chastened by criticism and newly committed to opening the House to opinions
other than his own.
But to those who voted against the speaker, their colleagues weren't embracing
a new Finneran, but expressing their fear of the old Finneran - the iron-fisted
leader who ruthlessly punishes those who oppose him....
"The perception of fear of the speaker was greater
than the perception of fear of their constituents," said Douglas W. Petersen, a Democrat from Marblehead
who voted for Rushing, the South End Democrat who challenged Finneran's reelection....
Carol A. Donovan, a Democrat from Woburn who backed
Rushing's candidacy, said that although she respects many of her colleagues who talked of seeking
reform but did not join the reformers, she thinks they are naive. She spoke
about one of them, [Rep. Michael] Festa, a close friend, who was ready to join
Bosley a year ago in a potential battle with Finneran.
"Mike is an eternal optimist," Donovan said. "He thinks he can play a role with
the speaker. But I think he's going to be stabbed in the back again. He is closing
his eyes to the situation."
The Boston Globe
Jan. 2, 2003
Supporters see changed speaker
But critics argue fear of retribution fueled reelection
"Many of the states see Internet sales tax as a
chance to offset budget deficits right now," said Juliana Deeks, an online retail analyst with New
York-based Jupiter Research....
Taxing Internet sales is a tricky business, with complex rules dictating whether
states can force online retailers to collect sales tax from local customers.
But new options have emerged ...
Massachusetts lawmakers, faced with a budget deficit
of as much as $500 million, are considering following the lead of those states....
The Boston Globe
Jan. 2, 2003
State circles Net
Budget woes force leaders to revisit levies on online sales
As I write this, the transition of power in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts is taking place. Jane Swift goes back into the rank of citizen, citizen Mitt Romney is assuming the
rank of governor.
I'm excited ... and I'm not sure why.
"Facts are stubborn things," reminded President Ronald Reagan, quoting our own John
Adams ("Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
[John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December
1770] ... and so they are.
Today -- in the midst of this transition of power, this
celebration of democracy -- I'll leave the facts to speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
Romney, Healey vow to forgo pay
Will spend part of $255,000 on raises for aides
By Stephanie Ebbert
Globe Staff
Mitt Romney and Kerry Healey said yesterday they will
decline their salaries as governor and lieutenant governor for all four years of their administration -
a move they hope sets the tone for public service and sacrifice as the state
confronts difficult financial times.
The promise, with no known precedent in Massachusetts, will
save the state $255,000 a year. Romney, who takes office tomorrow, said the state can use
some of the savings to increase the salaries of top aides.
"We face huge challenges in the coming year that require
sacrifices of us all," Romney said in a statement yesterday. "This is a symbolic move that we hope
sets the appropriate tone and which demonstrates our strong commitment to
public service."
Romney had previously said he was having difficulty
attracting private-sector talent to work in state government. His spokesman said yesterday that two of
his picks will also forgo salaries. Robert Pozen, the newly named chief of
commerce and labor, will also waive pay. Education adviser Peter Nessen
will work for $1 a year, but he has not yet decided if he will take a salary after his
position is elevated to Cabinet status.
While he is waiving his own pay, Romney has increased the
pay for several positions - including two to be filled by key campaign advisers - well above the
$130,000 top salary in Acting Governor Jane Swift's office. Three members of
Romney's senior staff are slated to earn $150,000. They are Eric Fehrnstrom,
his campaign spokesman, who is becoming communications director; Cindy
Gillespie, a campaign adviser who will be chief of legislative and intergovernmental affairs;
and Doug Foy, the outgoing head of the Conservation Law Foundation, whom Romney recruited for the new post of
chief of commonwealth development.
Romney is pledging to stay within the current appropriation
for staffing the governor's office - $5.2 million - though he hopes to trim that in future years,
Fehrnstrom said. It is not clear how Romney's payroll will compare with Swift's
because Romney is creating some new jobs, eliminating others, and moving
others to department payrolls. Romney will not hire a chief secretary, a
$117,500 position used by previous governors to fill patronage jobs.
Cabinet secretaries' salaries are paid by the departments
they head, not from the governor's office account.
The savings from the decisions of the top Romney officials
to decline salaries are a tiny fraction of the state budget, but underscore Romney's determination
as he takes over the corner office to strike a theme: The old ways must be
reexamined and all spending is open to review.
As the top administrators forgo salaries, however, the
Legislature is scheduled for a pay increase, the result of a 1998 constitutional amendment that adjusts
their pay every other year to keep pace with household income. But the
governor must determine the percentage increase, and Fehrnstrom said yesterday that Romney had not yet taken a position.
"By not taking a salary, Mitt and Kerry are not sending a
message that other people should follow their lead," Fehrnstrom said. "This is a personal decision
made by both of them and is not meant to set an example for other elected
officials. And it's not meant to establish a precedent that would bind other
governors."
Romney and Healey are both multimillionaires who poured
significant personal resources into their campaign for office. Romney spent $6.1 million while
Healey spent $1.8 million. That clouds their symbolic gesture, said George
Pillsbury, director of the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project.
"It's just not an option for a lot of people or even state
legislators," he said. "We saw a campaign when they broke all kinds of records on their spending. Maybe
he should have put $6 million into one of the budget items he's going to cut."
Romney still plans to fill two agency director positions -
for economic development and labor - and intends to transfer responsibilities for homeland
security to the public safety secretary.
Romney, who was CEO of the Winter Olympics last year, waived
a salary in that role as well, though he had at first said he would accept a salary after the
fact if the Games were financially successful.
He came late to the decision this time as well; originally,
he had said he might accept reduced pay.
Healey had made no earlier promises, but she said yesterday
that the decision was made so that she and Romney could recruit the best candidates.
"Because we're facing a fiscal crisis, we don't want our
desire to have the best possible team in place to cause an additional burden to the taxpayers," she said
in a statement.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and Government, praised the move by the incoming administration as evidence of
"character and common sense."
"I don't think that it should make people who aren't
independently wealthy feel bad, should there be a governor in the future who would not be able to do that,"
Anderson said. "But it's nice for people in this situation to not only help
save the Commonwealth money, but to make it easier to pay Cabinet secretaries more,
which I think is a valid concern."
Return to top
The Lawrence Eagle
Tribune
Tuesday, December 31, 2002
Editorial
Pay raise sends wrong message
OUR VIEW
Legislators should not have guaranteed raises
Imagine being the boss at a time when you are firing
employees, thinking about hacking into money for educating children, and considering cutting benefits for
the poor and infirm.
And then imagine that you think you are entitled to a pay
raise. What is the message you are sending?
That feeling of entitlement is in full swing right now at
the Statehouse, where lawmakers are constitutionally entitled to pay raises at a time when
Massachusetts faces what the state's new budget guru, Eric Kriss, calls its
worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Some lawmakers want to take
the raise; others think it's the wrong thing to do.
We agree wholeheartedly with the latter.
How could this happen? Some lawmakers will argue that it was
the voters of this state who mandated that they should get them. They will argue that it was
an effort by voters to stop lawmakers from voting themselves pay raises. You
remember making that decision, right? Probably not.
In a move that critics considered to be stealth politics at
its best, lawmakers in 1998 placed a measure on the ballot that grants them automatic pay raises
every two years, and they made it almost repeal-proof because it is an
amendment to the state constitution.
The problem is, many voters probably had no idea what they
were voting for in 1998. The question was worded in such a way that it left the impression voters
were taking away lawmakers' rights to give themselves pay raises. Just four
years before, lawmakers had voted themselves 55 percent raises, spurring
public outrage. So in an effort to take the pay raise out of the political arena,
they placed it in the constitution. What wasn't quite so clear to voters was the
fact this ballot question gave lawmakers something that no one should have --
an almost guaranteed raise every two years.
The mechanism for determining the pay raise is a tricky
thing. The law says it is tied to the change in household median income -- "as ascertained by the
governor." Some lawmakers might argue that median income could go up or
down. But from 1989 to 1999, it has increased 37 percent, according to U.S.
Census statistics. The buzz on Beacon Hill is that this year it could go up 8
percent to 13 percent. That's about $4,000 to $6,500 in raises for lawmakers.
No lawmaker in good conscience should take a raise this
year. And it's time we revisit giving anyone constitutionally guaranteed raises.
Return to top
Massachusetts Benchmarks
UMass Donahue Institute
Economic and Public Policy Research Unit
December 31, 2002
Massachusette economy flat for past year
Slow growth predicted for 2003
The Massachusetts economy grew slightly in November, and
only slow growth is expected far the next six months, according to the Massachusetts
Benchmarks current and leading economic indexes.
Massachusetts Benchmarks, the economic journal published by
the UMass Donahue institute in collaboration with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,
releases the indexes monthly. The Donahue institute is the public service,
outreach end economic development unit of the UMass Office of the President.
The Massachusetts Current Economic Index for November was
127.7, up 0.9 percent from October (at annual rates) and down 0.1 percent from November
of last year.
The Massachusetts Leading Economic Index for November was
1.7 percent, and the three-month average for September through November was 1.4
percent. The leading index is a forecast of the growth in the current index over
the next six months, expressed at an annual rate. Because of monthly fluctuations in
the data on which the index is based, the three-month average of 1.4 percent may be a more reliable indicator of near-term
growth.
"The Massachusetts economy has been essentially flat all
year," said Benchmarks Co-Editor Alan Clayton-Matthews. "The total number of jobs in
the state may continue to decline for several more months, as the expected
rate of increase in production of goods and services - at an annualized rate of
1.7 percent over the next six months - is not large enough to offset productivity
gains plus looming job cuts coming in state and local government, finance, and
manufacturing."
Clayton-Matthews said, "This last year would have been
significantly worse if not for a surge in foreign exports by Massachusetts businesses. The future,
however, remains uncertain. The risks, including a possible war with Iraq and a
continued delay in capital spending by businesses, are mostly on the downside."
For a comprehensive analysis of the latest Massachusetts
Benchmarks economic indexes compiled by Prof. Alan Clayton-Matthews, please visit:
www.massbenchmarks.org/indices/indices.shtml.
A quarterly analysis of the Massachusetts economy can be
found on-line in the latest issue of Massachusetts Benchmarks at:
www.massbenchmarks.org/current_issue.html.
Return to top
The Salem News
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
New prescription tax starts today at local pharmacies
By Julie Kirkwood
Staff writer
Most North Shore pharmacies will start charging a $1.30
state tax on prescription drugs today, angering consumers and the pharmacists who are
collecting the money.
"People are just disgusted," said Elliot Strasnick, the
pharmacist at the Village Pharmacy in Marblehead. "How do they justify that? How do they sleep
nights?"
The $1.30 per prescription surcharge was included in the
state budget this year as a way to raise money to pay for Medicaid, an insurance program for
poor and disabled people. The legislature plans to lower the tax to 65 cents per
prescription in July.
Steve Kalivas, pharmacist at Tremont Pharmacy in Peabody,
called the concept of raising that money by taxing prescription drugs "mindless." Kalivas, who is
also a Health Board member in Peabody, said he knows elderly people who
already can't afford their prescriptions, and who have to choose between
buying medications and buying food. If anything, the government should
be looking for ways to make prescription drugs cheaper, he said.
"Instead of lowering the cost of these drugs, they are
putting a tax on it," Kalivas said. "Most pharmacists feel that the consumers, especially the elderly,
are being hurt tremendously."
The new tax applies to all prescriptions filled at pharmacies in Massachusetts,
except for prescriptions that are paid for by Medicare or Medicaid. Out-of-state pharmacies that
fill prescription drugs through the mail will not have to charge the $1.30 tax.
On the North Shore, BJ's Wholesale Club in Danvers is the
only pharmacy that has announced it will absorb the tax rather than pass it on to consumers.
Membership to BJ's comes at a cost, though, at $40 per year.
CVS, Walgreen's and Brooks pharmacies have all announced
they will collect the tax. Costco on Route 1 in Danvers will also be charging the tax.
Sharon Felton, a social worker who helps the elderly with
health insurance problems for the Salem Council on Aging, said she can't believe the state
government is putting a tax on prescription drugs.
"I think it's disgusting," Felton said. "Our seniors are
struggling as it is with prescription costs."
She said the government should be taxing the people who can
afford to pay more, not putting a burden on its sick citizens.
"I'm devastated by this tax," Felton said. "Our economy is
in a really tough place, but we really need to evaluate what we're taxing."
State Sen. Fred Berry, D-Peabody, who supported the pharmacy
tax in this year's budget, could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Legislators argued that Medicaid accounts for about a
quarter of the state's expenses and it is rising fast. Revenues are so low Massachusetts is in a budget
crisis. Even with the $36 million the pharmacy tax is expected to generate
annually, the state will still have to cut off Medicaid benefits for 50,000 people
in April.
Berry's spokesman said yesterday the senator believes
increasing the state sales tax or income tax would be a much fairer way to pay for the Medicaid
deficit, but his colleagues in the legislature opposed raising taxes this year. That
is why he supported the pharmacy tax.
Some of the details of the tax have yet to be worked out.
The state Division of Health Care and Policy held a hearing Monday to get input from the public, and
probably will not formalize the $1.30 tax until late January or early February,
according to an agency spokeswoman.
Pharmacists were advised to start collecting the tax now,
because if the $1.30 tax is approved they will be responsible for paying the government
retroactively to the first of the year.
Local pharmacists said they don't expect to lose business
because of the tax. They are just frustrated because it is being implemented before the details are
clear and because they feel the premise is wrong.
"The people who can't afford it are being asked to pay for
it," Strasnick said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
Beacon Hill struggle may center on perks
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
The relationship between House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran
and Governor-elect Mitt Romney, who arrives on Beacon Hill tomorrow with an
impressive mandate, will probably dictate policy at the State House as
Massachusetts confronts a difficult future.
The two men share deep strains of fiscal and social
conservatism, similarities that have many predicting that they will team up and dominate the more
liberal state Senate. Early signs from the two have been warm and positive,
with each pledging to work constructively with the other.
But overlooked in many analyses of their relationship is a
fundamental difference, which could derail that natural alliance. Romney believes that state
government is broken, while Finneran does not - and the latter still seeks the
perks and patronage appointments that come with power.
From judicial posts to budget amendments, those who have
frequent dealings with Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, say that the speaker expects cooperation
from other state leaders - with the threat of holding up their priorities in the
House always looming. If Romney insists on shunning the Beacon Hill horse-trading game, which Finneran has perfected over 24 years
in the House, a major collision could occur between the two men, and Romney could find his
agenda stalled.
"You can expect some confrontation," said John E. McDonough,
a former Democratic state representative from Jamaica Plain who left the Legislature in
1997. "Those kinds of transactions - deals, trades, understandings, arrangements - go on all the
time. They're the daily currency of life within the building. Mitt Romney will have to decide how he'll handle it."
Finneran is expected to be re-elected today to the post he
has held since 1996, and Romney will be inaugurated tomorrow. They are expected to dominate
decisions on state policy over the next several years.
Robert E. Travaglini, the East Boston Democrat who is set to
become Senate president today, has neither the leadership experience of Finneran nor the
public platform enjoyed by Romney.
The speaker has solidified at least the perception of being
the most powerful figure in state government in recent years, and he's not likely to quickly cede
control to Romney or anyone else, said Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at
Tufts University.
If he doesn't realize it already, Romney will learn early on
the importance of cultivating allies in the House and the Senate, given the lopsided Democratic
majorities in both branches, Berry said.
"He'll have to compromise a lot more than he wants to with
the Democratic Legislature," he said.
While Finneran is by no means the only practitioner of the
mutual back-scratching that defines much of state politics, he is viewed as one of the
most skilled operators, who relishes his ability to help friends and allies. When
state leaders huddle for the end stages of their annual budget talks, Finneran
sometimes brings along a scribbled list. Even as budget cuts are finalized,
Finneran makes clear he expects additional funding for his list of favored parks,
hospitals, and courthouses.
His interest in the judiciary can be especially intense.
While governors have the power to nominate judges and clerk magistrates, Finneran often quietly
recommends candidates to the governor, and puts his political capital behind
them.
When a Globe analysis found the speaker's fingerprints on
one out of every eight judicial nominations made in 2001 by governors Paul Cellucci and Jane
Swift, Finneran told a reporter, "You didn't find them all."
In recent months, Finneran helped persuade Swift to nominate
Brian J. Kearney - the husband of a defeated ally in the House, Maryanne Lewis of
Dedham - to be a clerk magistrate. Kearney was approved for the job, despite
the objections of the Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Appointments, which
declared him unqualified.
But Romney is promising a squeaky-clean administration, free
of patronage and political deal-making.
He has named Ralph C. Martin II, a widely respected former
Suffolk district attorney, to chair the Judicial Nominating Council. Romney has also promised
an overhaul of the system for the selection of judges, which he believes is too
political.
"I will look for people to get jobs based on what they know,
not who they know," Romney said the day after winning the governor's race.
Still, Romney has sent some signals that his no-patronage
stance is flexible, particularly when it comes to appointing former campaign workers to
high-profile posts in his administration. McDonough said Romney may be
building in some wiggle room for himself to play the appointment game with
other politicians when necessary.
"All the conversation has been so imprecise," he said.
Governor William F. Weld faced a roughly similar challenge
after winning the election in 1990. He campaigned against "walruses" in state government, but
he ultimately thrived as a player of the patronage game. He even ended up
clearing the way for former Senate president William M. Bulger to become
president of the University of Massachusetts, years after saying on the
campaign trail that Bulger "personifies much that is wrong with Massachusetts
politics."
For Romney, the real test could come the first time that
Finneran sends along a name for a clerk's job or a judgeship. Romney could, of course, acquiesce and
build some capital with the speaker. He could ignore Finneran's suggestion
altogether.
Or - perhaps staying truer to his campaign themes - he could
go public with the episode, holding it up as an example of the type of thing he's out to change,
McDonough said.
The likeliest scenario, he said, would see Romney learning
to choose his battles. He could go along to get along on some minor appointments, and then pick a
high-profile request to publicly turn down.
"He appears to be somebody who can work collaboratively, who
can work together with folks," McDonough said. "I would presume that he will look for
not sort of a blanket stopping cold [of politically wired appointments], but that
he will search for an opportunity to make his point. He will draw a line in the
sand, and draw maximum public attention as a way to send the public signal,
and a way to change the atmosphere to some extent."
Berry said that if Romney targets government waste or
patronage spending, he will have two distinct advantages over Finneran: The tight state budget means
costs must be cut, and pork in the state budget is always hard to defend. But if
Romney becomes associated with deep service cuts as well, that message could
easily be lost, and Romney could find himself needing Finneran's help more
than ever, he said.
"Romney's vision of what government ought to be is going to
be subsumed in budget cuts," Berry said. "Six months from now, it's going to be hard to figure
out what that was."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 2, 2003
Romney has to play ball with Dems he ripped:
Reforms face big hurdles
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Gov.-elect Mitt Romney is in for an old-fashioned schooling
on the meaning of "love-hate," as he tries to push his reformist agenda through the Democratic
Legislature that he's routinely blasted as stridently status quo.
Coming into office without government experience or Beacon
Hill connections, Romney's first order of business is to make friends - a lot of them, including as
many Democrats as he can chase down.
In the two months since his election, Romney has spent a
good chunk of time making nice with the legislative leaders he derided as the presiding officers of
the "mess on Beacon Hill."
He's also been dropping in on individual lawmakers and
committee chairmen - some of whom have never received a visit from a governor and were pleasantly
flustered to find Romney at their door.
"People are looking for leadership and a way out of the
mess," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. "They've all indicated through their public
comments that they stand ready to assist Mitt."
The retail approach to politics worked wonders for former
Gov. William F. Weld, who made an art of schmoozing recalcitrant Democrats into supporting
his agenda.
Weld predicted that Romney's "straightforward, open" style
will score points with House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E.
Travaglini - who hold make-or-break power over his agenda.
"I think he's in a pretty good position," Weld said. "He's
certainly got more serious skill sets than I had when I came to that position in 1991, and he's got a
similar task ahead of him."
While Democratic leaders are publicly willing to shrug off
Romney's campaign criticism, they're flatly insisting that Romney produce the goods he promised -
a balanced budget that protects vital services without imposing new taxes.
House Majority Leader Sal DiMasi warned that lawmakers will
stick Romney with the repercussions if he fails to prove he can solve the state's $2 billion
deficit solely through government reorganization.
"We're going to hold him to his promises," DiMasi (D-Boston)
said. "It remains to be seen whether or not he can fulfill the commitments he made during the
campaign."
Romney's unorthodox plans for solving the state's fiscal
woes may attract adherents among rank-and-file Democrats alarmed by the dwindling list of
solutions to the snowballing fiscal crisis.
Hampered by the tiny numbers of legislative Republicans,
Romney will have to use the power of his bully pulpit to try to move those Democrats into his
column, said House Republican Leader Brad Jones.
"We need to do the marketing to raise some public awareness,
public dialogue, public pressure," said Jones (R-North Reading).
But before Romney hits the warpath, he ought to give
legislative leaders a heads-up, said outgoing Administration and Finance Secretary Kevin Sullivan.
Romney has already employed the courtesy call tactic to head
off trouble with Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino - warning the mayor that he was going to
criticize subsidies for the Democratic National Convention.
"It's very disarming," Sullivan said. "We've had a lot of
luck with the House and Senate that way - we never blindsided them."
Romney already seems to be attracting allies of conflicting
stripes in the House - including Finneran, who shares Romney's conservative fiscal and social views.
But allies are also popping up in unlikely places - for
instance, among the small band of liberal House dissidents who are excited about Romney's indictment of
patronage and waste in government.
"He'll find a lot of willing partners," said Rep. James
Marzilli (D-Arlington). "All he needs to do is reach out."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 2, 2003
Supporters see changed speaker
But critics argue fear of retribution fueled reelection
By Frank Phillips
Globe Staff
To many of the members whose votes gave Thomas M. Finneran a
lopsided victory yesterday, there is indeed a new House Speaker - Finneran himself,
chastened by criticism and newly committed to opening the House to opinions
other than his own.
But to those who voted against the speaker, their colleagues
weren't embracing a new Finneran, but expressing their fear of the old Finneran - the iron-fisted
leader who ruthlessly punishes those who oppose him.
Yesterday's 118-17 victory over Byron Rushing, with two
members voting "present," came despite the fact that Finneran is, based on last year's elections,
reviled far more than admired by Massachusetts voters. Only three of the
legislators from the 18 districts where voters were able to cast a ballot
instructing their representative to vote against Finneran followed their
constituents' wishes.
From the view of the anti-Finneran caucus yesterday, his
power is derived from his real - or perceived - acts of retribution against those who cross him.
"The perception of fear of the speaker was greater than the
perception of fear of their constituents," said Douglas W. Petersen, a Democrat from Marblehead
who voted for Rushing, the South End Democrat who challenged Finneran's
reelection. Petersen said voter anger at Finneran's leadership is the number
one issue among his constituents.
Petersen, reform activists say, is the poster boy for
retribution. He felt the sting a year ago when he refused to bend to the House leadership's demand
that he support its efforts to gut the Clean Elections Law, a move that Finneran
is strongly pushing. The speaker dumped Petersen from his position as House
chairman of the Legislature's Committee on Natural Resources. Petersen said
he was being punished; Finneran denied that the removal was related to the
Clean Elections issue.
Finneran's supporters, and those who say they support the
spirit of the rebels but chose to vote for Finneran, insist that his reputation for striking out against
those who oppose him is exaggerated.
Michael Festa, a Melrose Democrat who has backed reform
challenges to Finneran in the past, had to defy his constituents' vote yesterday when he cast
a ballot to give the speaker another term. He said he made it clear to the voters
in the fall that he would use his judgment on the issue and not necessarily be
ruled by the ballot vote. The tally in his 32d Middlesex district was 59 percent
to 41 percent to vote against Finneran. Festa won reelection with 67 percent of
the vote.
Festa scoffed at the notion that he or some other reformers
who rebuffed Rushing's candidacy were concerned about retribution. He said he has talked at
length with Finneran about opening up the House and is now convinced the
speaker is reaching out to more members who would bring diverging views
into the House leadership.
"There is not much sense to be a voice in wilderness," Festa
said. "I think that my constituents' expectation is that they want me to be part of the process. I
would rather work with the speaker's strengths than to rail against them."
Rushing refused to accept the notion his band of rebels had
been crushed. He rejoiced over the fact that for the first time in recent memory a caucus of
Democrats put their legislative careers on the line to oppose the House
leadership. He said that the challenge seemed to force Finneran to listen to
more members.
Still, a host of lawmakers who have backed reform efforts in
the past chose to shun the Rushing-led revolt with the explanation that the House needed
Finneran in difficult times. The strong support for Finneran, many said, is a
show of admiration for his willingness to wrestle with difficult budgetary issues.
The House needs his knowledge of the budget to cope with the state's fiscal
crisis - as long as he opens himself to differing views, they say.
It was also a practical decision, according to Representative Daniel Bosley, a
Democrat from North Adams who had toyed a year ago with leading a revolt
against Finneran. That effort fizzled when he and his cohorts realized they
could not muster the votes.
"Rather than make the speaker the fight, a lot of the
members want to make the fight over the rules and how we deal with the budget process," said Bosley,
chairman of the Government Regulations Committee. "They're not going to
cast a vote for someone who is not going to win. They will pick their fights
carefully."
Carol A. Donovan, a Democrat from Woburn who backed
Rushing's candidacy, said that although she respects many of her colleagues who talked of seeking
reform but did not join the reformers, she thinks they are naive. She spoke
about one of them, Festa, a close friend, who was ready to join Bosley a
year ago in a potential battle with Finneran.
"Mike is an eternal optimist," Donovan said. "He thinks he
can play a role with the speaker. But I think he's going to be stabbed in the back again. He is closing
his eyes to the situation."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 2, 2003
State circles Net
Budget woes force leaders to
revisit levies on online sales
By Chris Gaither
Shortly before the Internet sector collapsed, sending
California on the way to its current $35 billion budget shortfall, Governor Gray Davis in September
2000 refused to sign a bill that sought to wring more state tax revenue out of
online retailers.
"The governor vetoed it, saying, 'We don't want to kill the
goose that laid the golden egg,'" Hilary McLean, a spokeswoman for Davis, said this week.
But only two years later, many lawmakers in California and
other states starving for more revenue are staring at that goose and salivating.
US states collectively are projecting shortfalls of $40
billion to $50 billion this fiscal year, and as much as $75 billion next year, according to the National
Governors Association.
While states are planning to slash spending programs, they
are also looking to new ways to drum up revenue. Taxes on online shopping sales are near the top
of many states' lists.
"Many of the states see Internet sales tax as a chance to
offset budget deficits right now," said Juliana Deeks, an online retail analyst with New York-based
Jupiter Research.
Taxing Internet sales is a tricky business, with complex
rules dictating whether states can force online retailers to collect sales tax from local customers.
But new options have emerged as California and other states
in fiscal despair are showing more willingness to challenge the online retailers over tax
jurisdiction, in an effort to collect taxes on Internet purchases.
Massachusetts lawmakers, faced with a budget deficit of as
much as $500 million, are considering following the lead of those states. Senate Ways and
Means chairman Mark C. Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, told the Globe
this week that the state should pursue sales taxes on Internet shopping to help
close the gap, though he offered no specific plans for accomplishing that.
Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat, recently
resubmitted a bill that would have Massachusetts join a group of 33 states, known as the
Streamlined Sales Tax Project, that are seeking to make sales tax rules more
uniform.
By standardizing some of the definitions of taxable items,
the group hopes to persuade Congress that the new state sales tax codes would be simple enough
for Internet retailers to follow. Travis's bill had languished in the Taxation
Committee for two years.
Court rulings have allowed most Internet shopping sites to
avoid collecting sales tax on behalf of the states they ship goods to. For a state's government to
require such collection, a retailer must have a physical presence, known as a
"nexus," in that state.
Massachusetts requires that its residents pay a 5 percent
"use tax" on items purchased from out-of-state Net retailers, but without the help of the retailers
it has virtually no chance of enforcing that law. Most consumers ignore it.
For the first time, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue
this year plans to include a line on the state tax return asking consumers to declare the amount
of use tax they owe from purchases they made overseas, over the Internet, or
by catalog. But revenue commissioner Alan LeBovidge said the department has
few ways to ensure compliance.
"We would need about 3,000 more auditors on street corners,
going and knocking on people's doors. That's the reality of it," he said.
With such weak methods of enforcement, states collectively
missed out on $13.3 billion in revenue from taxes they could not collect on online sales in
2001, according to a study conducted that year by two University of Tennessee
professors. Massachusetts alone lost $200.6 million, and that figure is
expected to triple by 2006, the researchers said. The lost revenue was projected to total
1.25 percent of total state sales tax revenue in 2001, the lowest among all
states.
Still, that money looks tempting to officials who are
looking for state-funded programs to cut.
"We should be taxing those [retailers] on the Internet,"
Travis said. "States are losing money and will continue to lose money."
But California and other states have begun to challenge the
definition of what constitutes "nexus." Davis's 2000 veto killed a bill that challenged the legal
separation between big brick-and-mortar stores and their online sales divisions, but
California has since won two important battles against Internet retailers that Massachusetts and other states could try to
emulate, analysts said.
Both cases pitted California, the nation's largest state,
against two of the nation's largest booksellers. Barnes & Noble and Borders argued that their
online divisions are separate entities, and that therefore the presence of their
bookstores in California did not establish a nexus that could be used to
force them to collect state taxes from Net shoppers in California.
But Borders stores accept returns of items bought on
Borders.com, which California's sales tax agency ruled was enough to establish nexus. In
September, that agency decided the distribution of a $5 Barnesandnoble.com
coupon in the company's stores three years ago was enough to establish
"affiliate nexus" between the parent company and its online arm.
Not surprisingly, Internet retailers are trying to fight any
changes that would require them to collect state sales taxes. The retailers worry about the
complexities of trying to compute sales tax for individual states. They also fear
that the extra charges could drive customers to Web sites that are not taxed.
Online sales, though totaling $40 billion in 2002, still
constitute only 2 percent of overall retail sales, Jupiter said in a recent report. But the Net's share of total
retail sales is expected to grow to 3 percent this year and 5 percent by the
end of 2007.
