The Boston Herald
Monday, February 3, 2003
Lawmakers eye taxes as budget reality looms
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Cracks are starting to emerge in Beacon Hill's rhetorical
anti-tax wall as lawmakers quail in the face of next year's looming, $3 billion budget deficit.
Despite a no-new-taxes fever on Main Street and a hold-the-line standard
bearer in the Corner Office, leaders in both the House and Senate have
broached the radioactive topic over the past 10 days.
Having already gone out on the taboo limb to raise taxes
$1.2 billion last year, most rank-and-file lawmakers are feeling "extreme reluctance" when it comes
to further levies, said Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael
Widmer.
But that resistance could crumble as the pain of Gov. Mitt
Romney's $343 million in fresh budget cuts sinks in, and as lawmakers face the harsh reality of
next year, he said.
"The tide will have to turn pretty dramatically - and it
may, if we truly cut our way to a balanced budget," Widmer said.
Some economists are waving red warning flags, saying a rush
to further tax hikes would drive business away and hamper the state's ability to pull out of
the economic doldrums.
"When you're already down and you take steps that make your
(business) climate even less favorable, then you're putting yourself in a position where
recovery is going to be that much more difficult," said Andre Mayer, president
of the New England Economic Project.
But Wall Street overseers say they wouldn't necessarily
think badly of Massachusetts if leaders resort to tax hikes.
"Probably what you'll see all across the country is some
blend of reducing expenditures and quite possibly raising revenues," said Fitch IBCA Vice
President Claire Cohen. "What Wall Street would be looking for is that
Massachusetts, going forward, would be in a position to balance its budget."
Observers of all stripes point to three key factors weighing
against tax hikes: Romney's unswerving anti-tax campaign theme, the unexpected near-passage
of a referendum abolishing the income tax, and lingering political exhaustion
following last year's tax hike.
Romney has pledged to veto any tax increase that crosses his
desk - but even the hard-line governor's tune has changed since he assumed office amid the
worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.
The governor now says he's open to local-option tax hikes,
so long as the affected voters give the thumbs-up via referendum.
At least one Beacon Hill leader, Senate President Robert E.
Travaglini (D-E. Boston), is agitating for more tax hikes to ward off the worst of the coming cuts,
echoing the sentiment of many in the Senate.
Senators are furious over Romney's move to hike scores of
fees while refusing to consider taxes - a juxtaposition that amounts to "hypocrisy," said state Sen.
David Magnani (D-Framingham).
"It's a mistake to start a year with a 'no-new-tax' pledge
while you've got a $3 billion budget deficit," Magnani said. "I don't think we should take anything off
the table."
However, in the House, Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) is
frowning on new taxes - even as his top lieutenant, Ways and Means Chairman
John H. Rogers (D-Norwood) encouraged a mix of tax hikes and cuts.
To be sure, there's a pro-tax element in the House, and
those lawmakers have detailed tax-hiking plans at hand.
House liberals are backing a nine-bill package that aims to
repeal some of the 40 tax breaks, worth a combined $4.5 billion annually, approved over the past
decade.
Many of the repeal bills target the business community -
seeking to take back high-profile handouts like the tax breaks given to Raytheon, Fidelity and the
insurance industry.
In addition to the corporate crackdown, state Rep. Ruth
Balser (D-Newton) has filed a bill to hike the income tax to 5.6 percent - a move that would inject $450
million back into state coffers.
"People, I believe, don't want programs dismantled," Balser
said. "That's a basic social contract."
But for now, the pro-tax sentiment seems to be limited to a
small group of liberal dissidents; more moderate Democrats make up the vast majority of the
Legislature.
State Rep. Thomas O'Brien, who voted to support last year's
tax hike, said he won't do it again this year unless his constituents absolutely insist. He called
that unlikely in the wake of Romney's election and strong support for income
tax abolition.
Forty-seven other states slogged through last year's budget
woes without major levy increases, but the Bay State was quick to resort to broad-based tax
hikes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Return to top
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, February 2, 2003
Kids take back seat to raises
Taylor Armerding
Staff Writer
More notes from the "it's-all-about-the-children" files in
public education:
You've got to give Tom Meyers credit. He doesn't fudge
around.
The president of the Andover Education Association (the
teachers union), asked recently if his membership might be willing to delay scheduled raises this
year to help the town cope with its fiscal crisis and preserve programs for
students, was blunt: "The association is not interested in subsidizing
education in Andover," he said.
I think most of us already knew that. Still, it's interesting to hear a union head
actually admit that it's only incidentally about the children. It's more about
their pay raise.
The way to resolve this problem is with -- what else? --
another property tax override, he said.
You can hear the override pitch right now. You local
taxpayers should dig deep, should sacrifice, whether you've been laid off, had your wages frozen, taken a
pay cut or are having trouble paying your mortgage. After all, it's for the
kids.
But don't expect union members to give up their 5 percent
(on top of 3.1 percent in 2001 and 3.7 percent this year). Don't expect them to accept any
erosion in their status as the highest-paid teachers in the region.
It doesn't matter that the contract was negotiated when the
economy was much better, and that the union used the robust economy to argue for
substantial pay increases. If the School Committee was short-sighted enough to
give them 12 percent over three years (well above the inflation rate), tough
luck. It's the town's problem. The kids' problem. Definitely not their
problem.
In the face of such refreshing honesty, let's hope committee
members can remember the lessons of history so they won't be condemned to be so
short-sighted again.
* *
*
For years, there have been open whispers that a number of
bilingual teachers in the Lawrence schools couldn't speak English, or couldn't speak it very well.
Those whispers are now public declarations, now that the
specter of English immersion is hanging over the system. Some of these teachers could lose their
jobs if they are unable to pass an English proficiency test.
And that raises the obvious questions: How did they get
those jobs in the first place? Isn't fluency in two languages a fundamental qualification for teaching
students in a bilingual program? Isn't it a monolingual program otherwise?
Well, yes, say several School Committee members and
brand-new Lawrence Teachers Union President Francis McLaughlin.
But, that raises another obvious question: Why haven't they
been fired already? And the answer to that gets a bit fuzzier.
Superintendent Wilfredo Laboy inherited this problem, they
say. You can't blame the teachers for being hired -- it was the system. And once they are
members of the union, you can't just cut them loose.
Indeed, Laboy admits that a number of bilingual teachers
can't speak English well. He says the system offered them ESL (English as Second Language)
classes last year, and only some of them took the offer. Yes, you heard right.
Teachers who are supposed to be fluent in both English and Spanish were
offered classes to learn English.
School Committee member Pedro Arce says one bilingual
teacher complained to him in Spanish about the impending test. "I replied in English, and she
couldn't understand me," he says, "so I told her to get out of my face."
Yet, Laboy says the test, and possible job losses "could
result in litigation on the basis of discrimination."
Only in America, I guess, would people come into court and
say with a straight face that being fired because they were unqualified amounts to discrimination.
There is discrimination here, of course. It is against
children stuck with unqualified teachers. But again, it's not really about them.
