Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation and Government, said every legislator who ever voted for a tax increase should
reject the pay raise. "The pay raises are in the state constitution and the
governor has to offer it but the Legislature doesn't have to take it or keep
it," she said.
The Boston Herald
Jan. 4, 2003
Legislators due for instant pay hike
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.
Ironically, when voters also passed the Clean Elections law in 1998 -- a move
intended to give candidates a better chance against incumbents -- lawmakers
headed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran said voters didn't understand what they were voting
on, and he worked hard to get rid of Clean Elections. Despite arguments that the automatic pay
raise was similarly misleading, you certainly aren't seeing Finneran working hard to change it.
A Salem News editorial
Jan. 2, 2003
Automatic raises for legislators sends wrong message
Refusing to accept the pay raise or donating it back
to the state or to some charity are two options, though they are not without cost. Legislators are
still liable for any federal or state taxes on their established salaries even if they
don't accept the raise or if they give it away. (Although there could be a modest
charitable deduction on their federal tax returns -- but not on their state taxes
since legislators suspended the state charitable deduction law during this
period of budget deficits.)
Personally, I like the idea of checking the option
on our 2002 state income tax form to pay my taxes at the higher rate of 5.8 percent on my entire salary,
rather than the minimum rate of 5.3 percent that most state taxpayers will
pay.
The Telegram & Gazette
Jan. 2, 2003
State legislators should refuse pay raise
during tough times
By State Sen. Richard T. Moore
Massachusetts for most of the past two years was in
a recession, and gross state product declined for seven consecutive quarters, through the third
quarter of 2002. The sharp downturn was in proportion to the magnitude of
the late 1990s boom caused by a high-technology spending spree.
The Boston Globe
Jan. 4, 2003
New England recovery lagging
3% or more US gain seen, less for region
Facing a high-stakes and delicate decision over
legislators' pay, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday refused to detail what salary he is recommending for
lawmakers.
The Boston Globe
Jan. 4, 2003
Romney quiet on salary issue
Is preparing to set legislative pay level
Backing off his inaugural speech's criticism of
lawmakers for overspending, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday said he would try to develop a consensus
with legislative leaders on how to address fiscal problems, noting that he will
need their cooperation to quickly bring the budget into balance....
Romney's comments on the budget yesterday, delivered
at his first news conference as governor, marked a change in tone from his inaugural address on
Thursday. In that speech, he suggested that the Democrat-controlled Legislature spent irresponsibly
during the boom of the 1990s, setting up the current crisis of a $500 million deficit this year and a
separate budget gap of up to $3 billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1.
"State government spent the windfall, and borrowed
even more," Romney said Thursday. "We've used up virtually all our cash, borrowed all the banks will
lend us, and we are still spending much more than we're earning." ...
Yesterday, perhaps realizing that he will need the
cooperation of Finneran and Travaglini, Romney clarified his remarks, saying he did not mean to
assign blame for the state's fiscal mess.
The Boston Globe
Jan. 4, 2003
Romney reaches out on budget
Vows to work with lawmakers on fiscal crisis
Massachusetts' besieged initiative petition process
is coming under renewed attack in 2003 from a familiar source: the state Legislature.
Emboldened after defying with impunity the will of
the people and the Supreme Judicial Court on clean elections last year, the Legislature now is
contemplating a frontal assault....
The lawmakers claim their intent is to counterbalance the increasing influence
of large, often out-of-state financial interests in initiative campaigns ... That is
political flapdoodle at its most insulting....
In recent years, increasingly autocratic legislative
leaders have succeeded, by hook or by crook, in evading or nullifying the people's will on term
limits, legislative salaries, the income tax rollback, deductions for charitable donations
and more....
This proposal to undermine the people's right to participate directly in the
lawmaking process must not stand.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Jan. 2, 2003
A grave betrayal
Into the new year we go, and the issues go on as well. Legislators are still looking forward
to their guaranteed automatic pay raise, but leading economists have reported that
the state's economy is barely holding its own and will only recover after the national economy
rebounds, perhaps later this year, perhaps not.
Can you imagine, with the Boston Federal Reserve Bank president's observing
"Massachusetts for most of the past two years was in a recession, and gross state product
declined for seven consecutive quarters," the state median household income
actually grew?
Gov. Romney's secretary of administration and finance, Eric
Kriss, has termed the looming fiscal crisis the worst state government has faced since the 1930s, during the Great
Depression. Is it even conceivable that legislators deserve an automatic pay raise?
The U.S. Census conclusion on median household income won't
be out until this coming fall, so Gov. Romney must "estimate" its rise or fall. If the decision was left to you -- especially
considering the fiscal mess the Beacon Hill pols have again created -- could you even
remotely consider proposing another pay raise for legislators?
Gov. Mitt Romney's smartest way out would be to point to the
only economic indicators available, and deny any pay raise. If he wants to "play ball," as it seems he's already
beginning to learn how to do, he can just hold salaries harmless: No increase, no decrease,
until the Census figures are released.
But already, he's learning that he has to deal with the
professional pols and has backed off on the accurate appraisal he boldly asserted in his inauguration address: "In state
government, our slow and bureaucratic ways have led to leviathan budget deficits and tax
hikes ... State government spent the windfall, and borrowed even more ... We've used up
virtually all our cash, borrowed all the banks will lend us, and we are still spending much
more than we're earning."
His assessment was right on target and everybody knows it,
especially those acting most offended, his most vociferous critics, Finneran and Travaglini. But in speaking truth to
power he offended power, and so yesterday he back-tracked. This is not an auspicious
beginning, but maybe he knows what he's doing? For now, I'll give him the benefit of the
doubt ... and keep my fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 4, 2003
Legislators due for instant pay hike
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
Days after laying into legislators for their free-spending
ways, Gov. Mitt Romney is likely to hand them pay raises on Monday.
Aides to the governor said yesterday that he has an estimate
of what legislative pay will be in the new year but that "as a courtesy" to House Speaker Thomas
M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini he would not release it
until after telling them first.
Aides to the new governor stressed yesterday that their boss
is not to blame for the pay hikes. Massachusetts voters themselves approved a change in the
state constitution in 1998 that ties legislative pay raises to the average
household income in the state.
Since the income figure almost always increases, the pay
raises are practically automatic. The state's 200 lawmakers received 7 percent raises last year.
It's unclear how much more money they'll get this year amid
what many are saying is the worst budget crisis the state has seen in decades.
Romney only has an estimate in hand - the official figure
for household income from the U.S. Census Bureau won't be out until the fall. Aides took pains to
explain that Romney can't say no to the pay raises and that his only job is to
pass along the numbers.
"It's a mechanical action and he has no discretion in this
matter," spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said. The issue proved too hot to handle for former acting
Gov. Jane M. Swift, who left office Thursday, a day after the pay raises were
supposed to kick in.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and Government, said every legislator who ever voted for a tax increase should
reject the pay raise. "The pay raises are in the state constitution and the
governor has to offer it but the Legislature doesn't have to take it or keep it,"
she said....
Return to top
The Salem News
Thursday, January 02, 2003
Editorial
Automatic raises for legislators
sends wrong message
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 the state
faces what its new budget guru, Eric Kriss, calls the worst financial crisis since
the Great Depression. Some lawmakers want to take the raise, others think its
the wrong thing to do.
We agree wholeheartedly with the latter.
How could this pay raise conundrum happen? Some lawmakers
will argue that it was the voters of this state who mandated that they should get the pay raise.
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, in 1998 lawmakers 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. Changes to the constitution require
votes of two sitting Legislatures, followed by the approval of all voters in the
state.
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.
Ironically, when voters also passed the Clean Elections law
in 1998 -- a move intended to give candidates a better chance against incumbents -- lawmakers
headed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran said voters didn't understand what they were voting
on, and he worked hard to get rid of Clean Elections. Despite arguments that the automatic pay raise was similarly
misleading, you certainly aren't seeing Finneran working hard to change it.
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."
While some lawmakers might argue that median income could go
up or down, in reality, over the past couple of decades it has gone up. For example, from
1989 to 1999, it has increased 37 percent, according to federal Census statistics.
The buzz on Beacon Hill is that it could go up 8 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.
Should lawmakers be paid more than the $50,123 base pay they
get? Probably. But first, they should be proving to us that they are keeping a promise they
made to the voters when they gave themselves 55 percent raises -- they
promised to be "full-time legislators." Many of them are not; they are working
part time in the Legislature and part time in private practices, usually as
lawyers.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, January 2, 2003
State legislators should refuse pay raise
during tough times
By State Sen. Richard T. Moore
There is a provision in the Massachusetts Constitution that
sets the pay for state legislators at the median income of the families that they represent. The
purpose of the provision was to put an end to potentially exorbitant "Halloween
Pay Raises" in which legislators would vote to increase their own pay. The
amendment took the issue out of legislators' hands permanently.
When the voters of Massachusetts approved the concept in
1998, the state was awash in burgeoning revenues and some voters were concerned that legislators
might take "their share" of the state's wealth by voting themselves another big
pay raise. Voters agreed that it was fair to link legislators' salaries to that of
average families across the state and that legislators could receive a pay cut if
the average income dropped, just as they receive a pay increase if average
income increased -- essentially keeping pace with inflation.
No one complained two years ago with state revenues still
strong, when Gov. Paul Cellucci determined that the median income had increased by 8 percent
and, therefore, legislative pay should increase by that amount, from $46,410 to
the current $50,123. It should be noted that this was the first increase in
legislative pay since 1994.
Now that the state is facing staggering budget deficits
resulting from the current national recession, the constitutionally mandated automatic pay raise
has become a political issue. It seems inconsistent to some that legislators
should receive a raise while budget realities are forcing state employee layoffs
and program cuts.
Despite the fact that the pay raise only equals the median
income of the people that legislators serve, the perception of receiving a raise in a time of scarce
resources has created an embarrassing situation -- even if the sum of raises for
all of the legislators amounts to only about $1 million. That amount will do little
to address a $2 billion to $3 billion deficit, but its symbolism should not be
underestimated.
To be fair, it should be noted that the majority of
legislators have not ignored the plight of state employees. The Legislature has supported efforts to help
state employees by approving an early retirement package to avoid layoffs,
appropriating funding for contractually approved salary increases (even though
the governor reneged on her agreement to fund the contracts), and has resisted attempts to decrease the
amount that the state provides for state employee health insurance. Cuts in state health programs and other services --
many of which were made unilaterally by the governor to balance the budget --
have also not been popular among members of the Legislature.
The budget deficit should not change the principle that the
constitution, rather than legislators themselves, should set the rate of any legislative pay increase
or decrease. The existence of a budget deficit also increases the workload of
legislators and their responsibility to make difficult, unpopular choices.
Therefore, a good case can be made in support of a modest pay raise after two
years at the same salary.
However, legislators need to consider what former Gov.
William Weld used to call "the smell test" when deciding whether to accept what, this year, will be a
raise. There are several options to defuse the controversy that legislators
might want to consider.
Refusing to accept the pay raise or donating it back to the
state or to some charity are two options, though they are not without cost. Legislators are still
liable for any federal or state taxes on their established salaries even if they
don't accept the raise or if they give it away. (Although there could be a modest
charitable deduction on their federal tax returns -- but not on their state taxes
since legislators suspended the state charitable deduction law during this
period of budget deficits.)
Personally, I like the idea of checking the option on our
2002 state income tax form to pay my taxes at the higher rate of 5.8 percent on my entire salary,
rather than the minimum rate of 5.3 percent that most state taxpayers will
pay.
I think there is also merit in donating some or all of any
pay raise to some nonprofit agency that has had its state funding cut. If that option were to be
chosen, my choice would be to donate to an organization such as Tri-Valley
Elder Services, which helps so many senior citizens throughout my senatorial
district.
Public employees, including those who are elected, perform
responsible functions and provide important services to the people of our state. They and
their families should not be expected to sacrifice any more than anyone else in
our efforts to resolve the budget crisis brought on by the downturn in the
national economy.
However, the leadership position of legislators, the
governor and other constitutional officers and the judiciary means that, for now, we all should work
within our current salaries in an effort to address the problem and help our
state get back on track.
State Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, represents the
Worcester & Norfolk District.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, January 4, 2003
New England recovery lagging
3% or more US gain seen, less for region
By Kimberly Blanton
Globe Staff
The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
predicted yesterday that the US economy would grow "moderately but steadily" this year, but she
cautioned that New England's growth would be slower....
The nation, after experiencing a 2001 recession, swung last
year between strong and weak growth but ended weakly. Wall Street economists estimate
the US economy grew at an annual pace of just 1 percent in the final quarter of
last year. But, like Minehan, private economists expect the pace to accelerate
as the year advances.
Minehan was far more guarded in her New England outlook,
which she called "uncertain."
Massachusetts for most of the past two years was in a
recession, and gross state product declined for seven consecutive quarters, through the third
quarter of 2002. The sharp downturn was in proportion to the magnitude of
the late 1990s boom caused by a high-technology spending spree.
The New England Economic Project, a group of forecasters in
the region, estimated in October that Massachusetts' payrolls would shrink by 1.8 percent
in 2002, far greater than the 0.8 percent decline for the nation as a whole and
for all of New England.
Minehan said a full recovery in New England hinges on when
the US economy begins to revive. Moreover, she said, due to the region's heavy concentration of
high-tech manufacturing, software, and technology services, "The current
nationwide weakness in telecom, computers and technology services suggests
New England may lag the nation's recovery."
Alan Clayton-Matthews, a professor of public policy and
economics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, said his analysis shows that
Massachusetts, in the final weeks of last year, began to grow at a very slow 1.7
percent annualized rate. This growth should continue through May, he forecast.
"If this does come to fruition it represents a slow
expansion," Clayton-Matthews said....
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, January 4, 2003
Romney quiet on salary issue
Is preparing to set legislative pay level
By Stephanie Ebbert
Globe Staff
Facing a high-stakes and delicate decision over legislators'
pay, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday refused to detail what salary he is recommending for
lawmakers.
The legislative pay adjustment was mandated in a 1998
constitutional amendment, in which voters approved automatic, biennial pay hikes for their
legislators in order to end the practice of lawmakers voting themselves pay
increases. The amendment called for the governor to determine adjustments in
their pay based on the rise - or fall - in median household income over the prior
two calendar years.
The rate is to be set by the first Wednesday in January
every two years, but the deadline was extended because of the New Year's Day holiday and the
Romney team's inability to determine the number on Thursday, the day of the
inauguration, said Romney press secretary Shawn Feddeman.
Though the Office of Administration and Finance calculated
the adjustment yesterday, Feddeman said, Romney declined to make it public until he could
meet with legislative leaders Monday.
"As a courtesy, Governor Romney would like to notify the
House and Senate leadership before releasing it publicly," Feddeman said.
Legislators' pay is a tricky issue, especially given the
economic downturn and likelihood of layoffs later this year because of the fiscal crisis. Acting Governor
Jane Swift, who could have addressed the salary adjustment herself, left the
task to Romney.
The constitutional amendment provides little guidance to the
governor about which economic indicators should be consulted to determine the median
household income, making the "automatic" increase somewhat subjective. The
US Census does not issue its survey of median income until the fall.
Complicating the picture, Romney, who is a multimillionaire,
announced this week that he would work for four years without taking his $135,000 annual
salary. Aides would not say whether he would urge legislators to also do more
with less. Legislators currently make a base salary of about $50,000, with
members who hold committee chairmanships or other leadership posts receiving additional pay.
Individually, some legislators have been talking about
declining the pay raise because of the difficult economic times. At least 5,800 state workers have lost
their jobs over the past 18 months and more layoffs are expected in the new
year.
In his inaugural address this week, Romney called for
immediate changes to stem a fiscal emergency.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini and House Speaker
Thomas M. Finneran could not immediately be reached for comment.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, January 4, 2003
Romney reaches out on budget
Vows to work with lawmakers on fiscal crisis
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
Backing off his inaugural speech's criticism of lawmakers
for overspending, Governor Mitt Romney yesterday said he would try to develop a consensus
with legislative leaders on how to address fiscal problems, noting that he will
need their cooperation to quickly bring the budget into balance.
Romney said he will meet frequently with House and Senate
leaders in coming weeks to devise a plan to close a budget gap that could reach $500 million this
fiscal year. A top aide said Romney could begin to address the problems
through cuts and proposals to the Legislature by the end of next week.
"The emergency needs that we have financially are ones that
I will address not only through the executive branch but also with the leadership of both houses
of the Legislature," Romney said. "Those emergency needs are not steps that I
will take on my own, but I'll take in consultation with others. It may
indeed require legislation to help take certain action, and if there is legislative action
that's required, we'll bring that forward immediately to the Legislature."
A Romney spokesman said it would be premature to speculate
on what specific actions will be pursued, but Romney said he may ask the Legislature to grant
him expanded authority to rein in spending. The governor's emergency powers
to reduce spending, as laid out by the state constitution, cover only about 63
percent of the state's $23 billion budget, mostly in the areas of health and
human services.
The biggest area of spending off-limits to the governor is
aid to cities and towns, which accounts for $5.5 billion of annual state spending. On Tuesday,
Jane Swift, then acting governor, recommended that Romney ask the Legislature for the
authority to reduce local aid, along with other possible solutions.
Such a request could put Romney in a political minefield,
because local officials and many House and Senate members are fiercely protective of state aid for
their hometowns. Included in the $5.5 billion is the nearly $4 billion the state
spends every year on aid to local elementary, middle, and high schools.
Ordinarily, a newly elected governor does not make formal
budget recommendations until late February, when the state constitution requires the
filing of a proposed spending plan for the next fiscal year. But this year, with
the state's fiscal climate continuing to worsen, lawmakers have expressed a
willingness to come back into session to work with the governor on the current
fiscal year's budget.
Romney's comments on the budget yesterday, delivered at his
first news conference as governor, marked a change in tone from his inaugural address on
Thursday. In that speech, he suggested that the Democrat-controlled Legislature spent irresponsibly
during the boom of the 1990s, setting up the current crisis of a $500 million deficit this year and a separate budget gap of
up to $3 billion in the fiscal year that begins July 1.
"State government spent the windfall, and borrowed even
more," Romney said Thursday. "We've used up virtually all our cash, borrowed all the banks will
lend us, and we are still spending much more than we're earning."
That part of his address brought sharp rebukes from House
Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, who both said that the
newly installed governor ignored the fact that the Legislature built up a $2.3
billion rainy day fund during the boom years. Other legislators noted that the
state also enacted 42 tax cuts over the past 12 years, peeling away $4 billion a
year from state coffers.
Yesterday, perhaps realizing that he will need the cooperation of Finneran and
Travaglini, Romney clarified his remarks, saying he did not mean to assign
blame for the state's fiscal mess. He said that only with hindsight is it clear that
the state was overspending through the late 1990s, and added that he recognizes that virtually every other state did the
same.
"I must admit, in a 15-minute speech, I glossed over a lot,"
Romney said. "I'm not suggesting Massachusetts is alone or that somehow we are particularly to
blame in Massachusetts government. I'm saying instead that we have - as a
nation, as a group of states, and as a state here - spent more than we would
have spent had we known what was coming."
Most State House watchers believe the state's fiscal woes
are the result of many factors, including the economic slowdown, the collapse of the high-tech
stock market, deep tax cuts enacted during the boom years, and vast additional
investments in health care and education.
House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers called it
"heartening" that Romney sought to clarify his statements. He also applauded the governor's
willingness to negotiate with lawmakers before presenting his ideas, saying it
suggests that Romney is more interested in accomplishments than grandstanding.
"Many times governors will roll out bills and build up
public relations behind them, but won't work with the most critical people involved in the process: the
legislators themselves," said Rogers, a Norwood Democrat. "Philosophical
battles can be avoided when you work together beforehand. It's not only smart
politics, it's smart policy-making." ...
Globe correspondent Benjamin Gedan contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, January 2, 2003
Editorial
A grave betrayal
Massachusetts' besieged initiative petition process is
coming under renewed attack in 2003 from a familiar source: the state Legislature.
Emboldened after defying with impunity the will of the
people and the Supreme Judicial Court on clean elections last year, the Legislature now is
contemplating a frontal assault.
A bill sponsored by Democrats Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg of
Northampton and Rep. Robert P. Spellane of Worcester would raise the minimum number of
certified signatures on initiative petitions from the current 72,000 to 100,000.
The requirement would make it significantly more difficult for grass-roots
movements to place proposals on the ballot.
The lawmakers claim their intent is to counterbalance the
increasing influence of large, often out-of-state financial interests in initiative campaigns -- a
reference to the successful English immersion initiative bankrolled by
billionaire Ron Unz last fall.
That is political flapdoodle at its most insulting.
In fact, the requirement would be a negligible obstacle to
the Ron Unzes of the world, who can deploy armies of signature-collectors. But it would create a
huge additional burden for true grass-roots movements that depend largely on
volunteers.
This is just the latest in a string of assaults on the
people's right of initiative petition, guaranteed by the state constitution. In recent years, increasingly
autocratic legislative leaders have succeeded, by hook or by crook, in
evading or nullifying the people's will on term limits, legislative salaries, the income tax
rollback, deductions for charitable donations and more.
The right of initiative petition, established in 1917, was
not intended to usurp Legislative prerogatives and certainly not to establish an ad hoc People's
Legislature. It was intended to give the electorate the ability to make laws
when elected representatives refuse to act.
This proposal to undermine the people's right to participate
directly in the lawmaking process must not stand.