House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday said Gov. Mitt
Romney's pledge to address the state's fiscal crisis without new taxes is already showing signs of cracking in the face of
sweeping budget cuts.
Finneran told the Herald he isn't casting doubt on Romney's
budget plan before the governor has even unveiled it, but added, "I note that the governor himself
has begun to acknowledge the difficulty of the task and that we already seem
to be crimping in upon core services."
Finneran took to the radio airwaves yesterday in support of
his budget chief who, a day earlier, began raising the specter of new taxes to help fill a $2 billion
to $3 billion budget gap next year.
"I think I understand what (House Ways and Means Chairman)
John Rogers' comments are about," Finneran told WBZ-AM 1030 radio. "The governor said
during the course of the campaign that we can balance the budget without a
reduction in any core service and without new taxes ... It's a good standard - if
it could be done."
Romney, moving to tamp down the percolating tax talk, again
insisted yesterday he will veto any legislative bid to hike state taxes.
"If the leaders of state government put our minds together,
we can balance next year's budget without raising taxes. That's what the voters want, that's
what our economy needs and that's what working people insist upon," Romney
said.
But with few rock-solid allies in the anti-tax camp at the
State House, the governor's words - and veto - will likely prove worthless, Republican
lawmakers said.
"The Democrats have started down the tax road and the best
thing I can tell the taxpayers is they should sew their pockets shut while they still have the
chance," said House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading). "If
Finneran wants it and the governor vetoes it, they've got all the strings to
override it."
Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Roxbury) called the new governor
irresponsible for trying to take tax increases off the table.
"We can't cut our way out of a $3 billion deficit unless we
intend to put a big sign on the door that says 'closed for business,'" she said. "The cuts are already
into core services. Lives are being affected and some are being lost. We are
already there."
Local leaders are feeding hungrily on Finneran's comments,
taking them to mean he is warming up to what they've been saying for months: that massive
cuts and government reform alone won't solve the state's budget mess.
"(Finneran) is a bright man and Rogers is a bright man and
they have come to conclusion that there is no other way out of this but to include taxes in the
solution. They will make every cut on the face of this big government but after
they make those cuts, they'll have to raise more revenues," North Adams
Mayor John Barrett III said.
Romney and his budget chief Eric Kriss were in New York City
today meeting with the state's bond rating agencies and unveiling the broad outline of their
plan to cut between $450 million to $600 million this year and deal with as
much as a $3 billion hole beginning in July.
The governor refused to speculate yesterday on what pro-tax
forces may have in store for him but said he won't back down from his promise not to raise
taxes.
Finneran said lawmakers clearly heard what voters had to say
about tax hikes in November when 45 percent of them favored abolishing the state income tax.
"At the moment, the overwhelming sentiment is we did the tax
issue last year now it's time to reduce the expenditures," he said.
But Rep. Jay R. Kaufman (D-Lexington) recalled hearing the
same kind of anti-tax sentiment last year at this time. By July, lawmakers overwhelmingly
voted in favor of the state's single largest tax increase ever of $1.2 billion.
"And that's when we still had $3.5 billion in reserves. Now,
we have just about no rainy day fund left, we are going to be starting out the year with a huge
deficit and the economy is in a tailspin. No one loves the idea of taxes but we've
got to realistically look at what our options are," Kaufman said.
Return to top
Associated Press
Friday, January 24, 2003
Pressure for taxes likely to increase
with budget cuts looming
Despite strong anti-tax signals from voters in November, the
T-word is beginning to be heard more frequently around Beacon Hill as Gov. Mitt
Romney prepares to announce as much as $600 million in budget cuts next
week.
The first to call for another round of tax increases were
those most dependent on state spending human service advocates and municipal leaders.
House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood, joined
the discussion this week when he said that "the most prudent amongst us" would
recommend a mixture of new revenues and spending cuts.
The tax talk is likely to become more prevalent as long-discussed budget cuts
become reality.
"I think we're going to hear a major hue and cry if they're
going to do $600 million in cuts on top of what's already been done," said Michael
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "Given the size of the
problem, it becomes likely that taxes will become a serious part of the
discussion sometime this spring."
Widmer's organization opposes new taxes, but has recommended
that the state use the approximately $300 million remaining in its rainy day fund to help
close an estimated $450 million to $600 million budget gap this fiscal year,
which ends June 30.
Widmer also supports up to $500 million in short-term
borrowing while leaders devise a way to address a 2003-2004 budget deficit of as much as $3
billion.
Voters in November elected a governor who said he would not
raise taxes, but they came very close to approving a ballot question that would have eliminated
the state income tax. Polls had predicted an overwhelming defeat.
Romney has not swerved from his anti-tax stance, saying
repeatedly that increasing the financial burden on citizens is not the answer. He has said he will
explore raising some fees that do not cover the cost of the state service they're
associated with, but has not yet made any specific recommendations.
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, has also said that
lawmakers have little appetite to consider new taxes after approving a $1 billion increase last
year. A Finneran spokesman said Thursday that the speaker's position has not
changed, but refused to comment on Rogers' statement. Rogers is Finneran's
hand-picked budget chief.
Many states may be forced to resort to tax increases in
2003-2004 after exhausting reserves and one-time measures, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
"There is ample evidence to suggest that the situation in
state finances has not improved and may have gotten worse, so we're down to the last resort, which is
often tax increases," said Arturo Perez, an NCSL budget analyst.
Municipal leaders said that despite opposition, new taxes
must be considered. The Legislature last week gave Romney the unilateral power to reduce state
aid to cities and towns this year, perhaps by as much as $200 million.
"Revenues need to be on the table," said Geoffrey Beckwith,
executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. "Local officials are raising taxes
each and every year to pay for important local services. We're strongly calling
for a balanced approach."
What is certain, according to Health Care for All, is that
people will suffer if the state relies solely on budget cuts to solve its financial woes. The human service
sector has already undergone two rounds of cutbacks this fiscal year.
"The administration is clearly sending signals that cuts are
the only option," spokeswoman Allison Staton said. "Quite simply we're in a crisis situation and
can't afford, literally or figuratively, any more cuts."
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Friday, January 24, 2003
T-word raised at Statehouse
By Shaun Sutner
Telegram & Gazette Staff
Sooner than almost anyone thought, taxes are being debated
again on Beacon Hill.
With Gov. Mitt Romney, who rode to victory in November on an
antitax platform, in office for only three weeks, some Democrats and even the stray
Republican have raised the issue as the state's fiscal crisis has deepened.
The reappearance this week of the politically dangerous
topic so soon after Mr. Romney's election and the near-passage of a ballot measure to eliminate the
state income tax on Nov. 5 is confounding to some observers.
But at a Statehouse hearing Wednesday at which economists
testified that a financial recovery won't happen anytime soon, several key legislators said new
taxes may be unpalatable but perhaps necessary, in concert with budget cuts.
Central Massachusetts lawmakers are mostly averse to new
taxes -- especially after last year's $1.2 billion tax increase.
However, some are open to giving cities the so-called "local
option" to charge their own taxes on restaurant meals. Mr. Romney has appeared open to this
route while remaining steadfastly against other taxes.
"I don't believe we're going to do taxes," said state Rep.
John J. Binienda, D-Worcester, one of four lawmakers from the region in House leadership.
"Romney has pledged no taxes and he'll veto them. I don't think it will pass."
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, a panelist at the Wednesday
revenue hearing, asked about the potential of short-term borrowing to help fill a
projected $2 billion-plus deficit, something he said is a "cardinal sin" to many.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, a budget watchdog group, said he would previously have not recommended it,
but told Mr. Brewer that the state should now consider borrowing $500 million
over five or six years.
The only revenue approach Mr. Brewer said he would support
now is giving cities the right to impose hotel and meals taxes.
"They know what they need and they can take responsible
action," Mr. Brewer said, calling the option preferable to property tax hikes....
And even though GOP Sen. Michael R. Knapik of Westfield
suggested this week that corporate tax breaks be reviewed in light of the state's need for more
revenues, most Republican lawmakers still consider taxes forbidden territory.
Rep. Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden, maintained that it is
far too early to even debate raising the state income tax, or any other new levies for that matter.
"A message was sent by the electorate that I heard loud and
clear. They want state government reformed and reorganized," he said. "They don't want taxes
and they should not be discussed until we restructure state government."
Mr. Evangelidis also said he doesn't like the idea of
issuing debt to get through the crisis, a tactic used a decade ago that has been soundly criticized since.
"That does not seem like a fiscally prudent way to operate,"
he said.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 24, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
They just don't get it up on Beacon Hill
Republican Sen. Michael Knapik (Westfield) and Democratic
Rep. John Rogers (Norwood) at first glance make strange bedfellows.
Yes, there's the party affiliation, geographic distance
between their two districts and, usually, vastly different approaches to fiscal issues. But yesterday
they danced together as smoothly as Wonderland Ballroom waltzers of old,
each dangling the specter of raising taxes to close next year's budget deficit
which Gov. Mitt Romney's fiscal aides say may reach as high as $3 billion. The
tax hike talk followed a sobering revenue forecast hearing which confirmed
what everyone already knew - "The Massachusetts economy remains quite soft,"
noted one economist.
For his part, Rogers, the House budget chief, says most
"prudent" legislators would support a mix of spending cuts and tax increases to close the gap. Knapik
chimed in that the employers who received tax breaks in the 1990s should
have to justify continuing to receive them. "We can't afford to go without one
penny now," Knapik said. Neither can the taxpayers, gentlemen.
Romney has his work cut out for him, if Republicans are
already weak-kneed before he even submits his budget proposal. But, thankfully, governors can set
the terms of the debate, and Romney should do so constantly and clearly by
renewing his pledge to veto any tax cut passed to balance the budget and to
take his case to the voters - who cut the income tax four years ago and came
close to repealing it last November - to ensure his veto is upheld.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 24, 2003
In House, only 71 say no to raise
By Stephanie Ebbert
Globe Staff
Fewer than half of the House's 160 members have notified the
state they will decline a 6.5 percent raise - a pay increase that sparked a contentious debate
among constituents who were frustrated that members would receive a boost
in their salaries as other state programs face cuts.
In the Senate, where 36 of 40 members agreed to forgo the
$3,258 raise, three others decided they would accept the money and donate it to charities of
choice. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the Associated for
Retarded Citizens, and homeless shelters in Framingham and Fitchburg are
among the organizations that will receive money from Senators Robert A.
Antonioni of Leominster, Mark Montigny of New Bedford, and David P. Magnani of Framingham. Senator Guy W.
Glodis, a Worcester Democrat, decided to take the raise outright.
The pay raises, mandated by the state Constitution and
calculated by Governor Mitt Romney, raised public anger at a time when the state is slashing programs
and has recently raised taxes. While the Senate reached a near-unanimous
decision to forgo the raises earlier this month, House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran allowed his members to make individual decisions on the hotly
politicized issue. As of yesterday, which was the deadline suggested by
legislative leaders so salaries could be adjusted in time for the January 30
payroll, only 71 of the House's 160 members had sent letters declining
the raise.
The Senate and House members who have declined the extra
money so far will save the state $348,606 in salaries this year. The raises for all 200 legislators
would have cost the state $651,600 in a difficult fiscal year, in which Romney is
expected to slash state programs up to $600 million.
Because of those anticipated cuts, and the prospect of bleak
revenues in the next fiscal year, many legislators decided to divert their raises to charities in
their districts, rather than see the state spend it.
"Candidly, I felt that I could make more of an impact making
the donation to these individual agencies than I could by forgoing the raise and letting the
money go to whatever entities in the budget that 200 members and the governor deem
appropriate," said Antonioni, a Democrat. "I just felt like I could have more of an impact by giving the money myself."
That sentiment angered Barbara Anderson, executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation, who said it was the same argument she had used to oppose
legislators' recent tax increase: People should be able to spend their money as
they see fit.
"For the most part, taxpayers can spend their money more
wisely than the Legislature. When it comes to charity, we can certainly do a better job,"
Anderson said. "Since we have to raise the money, most of us pay pretty close
attention who we're giving it to."
Many legislators also decided to take a furlough, which
means that their official salary is still increased on paper though they do not receive the raise in this
calendar year. That approach boosts the legislators' pensions, which are based
in part on their three highest years' salary.
However, Treasury spokeswoman Karen Sharma said that the
raises would be restored next year, and that even those lawmakers who outright declined the
raise would start the 2004 year with the higher salary - $53,381 for a
rank-and-file legislator. Many also have their pay boosted by stipends for
leadership posts.
Finneran said he decided to take a furlough and noted this
marked the second year that many House members decided to waive some of their pay to
accommodate the shrinking budget.
"No other citizens in Massachusetts have made the sacrifices
the members have made," he said.
Finneran said he felt "ambivalent" about rejecting a raise
that was called for in a constitutional amendment approved by voters in a 1998 vote. The
amendment was intended to take the controversial issue of pay raises out of
legislators' hands, and automatically adjust their salaries every two years,
based on changes in the state's median household income as determined by the
governor.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 24, 2003
Now that legislators have theirs
they come after more of yours
by Howie Carr
This is how it works on Beacon Hill.
The Legislature grabs a big fat pay raise for themselves,
and now, three weeks later, to pay for their money grab, they start talking about cutting your pay.
And look at the solons they've dragged out to float these
trial balloons for higher taxes.
Among those pols stepping forward Wednesday to bang the drum
for higher taxes were a convicted income-tax non-filer, a hack who once compared a
convicted-felon income-tax evader to Jesus Christ, and the guy in the Senate
who collected more money last year for driving to work than anyone else -
$10,560.
This is a joke, right? Surely they can't be serious, because
if they were, wouldn't they trot out some people with at least a semblance of credibility?
But then, who in the General Court has a shred of credibility - about anything?
As for the reps' constituents, well, let them eat cake.
Consider the credentials of the point-hacks for higher
taxes. We start with Rep. John Rogers (D-Norwood). He's the House chairman of Ways and Means. He
has spent almost his entire adult life at the State House, first as an aide, then as
a rep, now as a chairman.
Rogers said of taxes, "I think they should be on the table."
Rogers now worships House Speaker Tom Finneran, but in 1996,
he was a devoted acolyte of Tommy Taxes' predecessor, Good Time Charlie Flaherty. It
was Easter, and Flaherty had just copped a plea to income-tax evasion, and
Rogers compared the crucifixion of Christ to Good Time Charlie's felonious
travails. I kid you not.
Then there's Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (D-Roxbury).
"The reality," she said Wednesday, "is that the hole we're
in, we're not going to get out of this just by cutting."
Is that right, senator? The last time Dianne found herself
in a personal hole, she just stopped paying. Taxes, that is. Didn't bother to file between 1991 and
1994. She, too, had to cop a plea, and ended up incarcerated in a halfway house
where she had to be back by sundown every evening.
Now she wants to raise taxes on people who work.
Then there's Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield). He's
extremely concerned about tax breaks for corporations. Me, I'm extremely concerned about federal
income tax breaks for solons who live more than 50 miles from the State
House, and I'm also concerned with how much dough some of these solons are
being paid for driving to work.
In 2002, Knapik grabbed more per diem money than any other
senator, Democrat or Republican - $10,560.
Then you have the mayors, screaming bloody murder about the
proposed local aid cuts. Oh, the horror. The leader of that gang is Boston's own, Mayor
Mumbles Menino. He was at the mayor's conference in D.C. this week, where
he assured the assembled mayors:
"We's are all Democrats."
Mayors need money, he said, because "we service all people."
Oh yeah, Mumbles "services" the taxpayers all right.
Other mayors are whining almost as much as Mumbles. Consider
Mayor Sharon Pollard of Methuen. She told a newspaper in Essex County about the
tragedy she is presiding over in Methuen.
"(I) am only hiring essential personnel," she said.
Oh, the horror. How many more must die?
By the way, Mayor Pollard is a former state senator married
to a former state rep named Tom Lussier. Lussier runs the Mass. Teachers Retirement Board,
and last year paid a $5,000 fine to the Ethics Commission for misuse of his
public credit card. Among other things, he was buying airline tickets to sunny
places for his wife, the mayor.
I know a businessman who had a run-in with another of the
mayors who's been squawking about local aid cuts. My friend needed a city permit to open a
business, and one of his guys was told by the mayor that if he wanted the
permit he would need to go to a certain connected lawyer.
The lawyer told my friend how much it would cost him to get
City Hall off his back - $50,000. My friend went to court instead. Took him two years to
prevail, but no way, he said, was he going to allow himself to be shaken down
by a hack mayor and his bagman.
Yeah, Mumbles is right. City governments do "service" us
all. With a little help, of course, from their income-tax-evading friends at the State House.
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on
WRKO AM 680, WHYN AM 560, WGAN AM 560, WEIM AM 1280, WXTK 95.1 FM or online at
howiecarr.org.
