He vowed not to raise taxes. But Governor Mitt Romney never made any
promises about fees.
The governor's proposed 2004 budget includes $60 million in fee increases ...
Fees are different from taxes, Romney said yesterday, because they affect
narrow groups of people, and pay for specific services that are "generally
considered relatively voluntary." ...
In recent years, with antitax sentiment strong, fees
have become a convenient tool for lawmakers and governors across the country, who face budget
deficits but know they won't find public support for tax hikes, said Arturo Perez, a
budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures....
Romney wants to establish 33 new fees and raise 57
others....
"The fees that we've increased are those which we believe are justified on the
basis of the cost of delivering the service," Romney said.
The Boston Globe
Feb. 28, 2003
Romney proposals on fees draw fire
Practically no one is spared from dozens of new and
increased state fees proposed Thursday by Gov. Mitt Romney, who insisted they are not taxes....
"I'm not going to try and be the dictionary here, in
terms of defining the difference between a fee and a tax. For me, generally, a fee is something which
applies to a subset of the population," Romney said. "A tax is something which
is far more broadly applied." ...
The governor proposed raising an additional $10 million by changing the used
vehicle sales tax. People would pay taxes based on the value of the car, not the
actual sale price. He said his tax experts say that's legal....
Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said fees, taxes
and revenues are all the same.
"We might as well charge a fee for breathing and tell people to stop whining and
hold their breath," he said.
Associated Press
Feb. 28, 2003
Governor says proposed new, higher fees are not taxes
The budget released Wednesday includes an outside
section - itself a hideously stupid way to make law - that would require a 5-cent deposit on every
bottle or can of juice or noncarbonated water. The same proposal would put a 15-cent
deposit on bottles of wine or hard liquor.
A Boston Herald editorial
Feb. 28, 2003
Nickel and diming the public
Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss told
Herald editors and reporters that Menino - who had protested the cut - must buck up and absorb
his "fair share of the sacrifice" as the state grapples with a $3.2 billion budget
gap.
"Don't cry poor boy for Boston," Kriss said. "Boston, despite what some people
might say, is one of the wealthiest communities in the state." ...
Kriss insisted there's nothing "disproportionate" about Boston's cut, noting that
it amounts to 10.5 percent of the city's aid - the same percentage cut that
many communities received - and only accounts for 2.3 percent of Boston's $2
billion overall budget.
Boston is expected to enjoy enough growth in its property tax base to mitigate
the entire local aid cut - and to boost its overall spending over last year's level,
Kriss predicted....
Kriss also teed off yesterday on labor unions, warning that entrenched laws
such as civil service and the anti-privatization Pacheco Law are sending
the state's finances into a "death spiral."
The Boston Herald
Feb. 28, 2003
Romney's budget boss blasts Menino's 'crying'
Governor Mitt Romney's plan to shake up and reorder
state government is hitting Beacon Hill like a thunder bolt.
We cannot support every proposal the governor has made, but he deserves
credit for doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign: Bring
genuine change to state government. The political veterans scoffed when candidate Romney talked about
streamlining and eliminating waste and inefficiency. But in a matter of weeks, he has a plan that may be
overly optimistic in projected savings but is groundbreaking in the way it would
reshape state services and agencies....
The initial reaction to the governor's plans has been typically sour. Legislators
are, first and foremost, wedded to a series of special interests whose main goal
is to preserve the status quo. The new Senate president, Robert Travaglini,
earlier sounded the call for new taxes, and he'll have many seconds.
A Patriot Ledger editorial
Feb. 27, 2003
Another Massachusetts revolution
Gov. Mitt Romney's crusade for government reform by
rooting out patronage, eliminating redundant jobs and restructuring agencies is eight weeks old and
showing no signs of abating....
But let's not fool ourselves and neither should Romney be snookered by the
overtures: the status quo has ruled the Legislature for decades and it will be
hard to eradicate a mindset that caters to public employee union lobbyists and
workers....
The Commonwealth is long overdue for a major overhaul to restore public
confidence in state government and the way it operates.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Feb. 27, 2003
Real reform
In 1966, Clint Eastwood starred as "The Man With No Name" in the third of his "spaghetti
westerns." Like that Eastwood classic, Gov. Romney's budget contains three main characters.
Ironically, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" followed "A Fistful of Dollars" then "A Few
Dollars More." This series seems an eerily appropriate analogy for Beacon Hill politics
and its latest fiscal disaster.
Yesterday's Patriot Ledger editorial opined: "We cannot support every proposal the
governor has made, but he deserves credit for doing exactly what he said he would do
during the campaign: Bring genuine change to state government."
That sums up CLT's position as well. Sure, we've got a problem with some if not many of
Gov. Romney's fee creations and increases, but overall how can you not revel in the long
overdue revolution he's launched, and the panicky response of the reactionary status quo?
Just think: the business-as-usual Beacon Hill gang actually thought they would increase
next year's budget by not the usual $1 billion each year ... but by $3.2 billion next year!
And they're now shocked, we're to believe, that their feeding frenzy has come to its
inevitable end.
"Nobody other than the governor has suggested that there's $2 billion in inefficiencies and
waste," House Speaker Tom Finneran bristled in reaction to Gov. Romney's speech earlier
this week. Finneran asserted that most of the growth of the budget in the last decade has
been in education and health care programs.
The operative words is "most" -- because we all watched him double legislators' per diems
and travel pay, just for example, and pack the courts and agencies with his supporters and
friends. And the Legislature's endless expansion of the Medicaid "budget-buster" program
during that period made it the most generous in the nation.
Even Finneran's much-touted "healthy rainy day fund" only allowed this spending frenzy
to last one more year longer than it should have ... which is what we predicted when he
kept raising the ceiling and expanding the slush fund to avoid the automatic tax cut trigger.
You know how much CLT dislikes the new Swift/Legislative tax on self-paying nursing
home beds and prescription drugs. Unfortunately, Gov. Romney's budget expands this
"fee" concept with "fees" on health insurers, and if this works may go farther with "fees"
on hospitals.
We are trying to find someone in the Administration who can make sense of this. We
understand that by using the money for Medicaid, they hope to get it half-reimbursed by
the federal government. But in the end, someone who is a responsible citizen (paying his
own nursing home bill, for his own prescriptions, paying for health insurance) or providing
these essential services is paying for a benefit to someone else, and getting no special
service in return.
This makes the "fee" a tax; a tax on personal responsibility. And there is no end to where
this concept can go. A tax on your root canal bill, to pay for someone who can't
afford dental care? On your car repair bill, to pay for state car repairs? We have to stop this
before it becomes an epidemic.
Health insurers are already operating on the edge. They will either pass along the tax to
the businesses and individuals who pay the premium, or try to absorb it and cut back on
benefits -- or like some small pharmacies, may go out of business.
The worst-case scenario: the taxes and fees pass the Legislature easily, the reforms don't
make it, income tax rates go up too, and we taxpayers are double-screwed.
The other Bad: The expansion of the bottle bill to fruit juice containers, etc. This has
nothing to do with the environment at this point; the state wants the money it gets if
the containers are not returned (escheatage).
And why stop with fruit juice? Put a tax on cans of peas, tubs of butter, boxes of cereal.
And they will....
All of a sudden state Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) has discovered that fees, taxes
and revenues are all the same. "We might as well charge a fee for breathing and tell people
to stop whining and hold their breath," he said.
Where was this opportunistic pol the last time fees were raised by the Legislature? It can't
happen without the Legislature's approval, and you can bet the new fees and hikes
will be snapped up and adopted a lot quicker than any of the governor's reform proposals!
There's poor Mayor Tom Menino, out there crying the sky is falling still, that his Boston is
being treated unfairly with the biggest cut in local aid in the state. That's because
Boston gets the most local aid in the state, some $600 million a year. His city's local aid cut is the
same percentage as many others. It's simply the opposite effect from the liberals'
argument against "unfair tax cuts for the rich."
Liberals bemoan the fact that taxpayers who pay in the most get more actual dollars as
their equal percentage of a tax cut -- and now they bemoan that mayors who got the most
in taxpayer handouts get more actual dollars withheld as their equal percentage of a
spending cut.
Consider it simply a spending cut for the rich.
The Boston Globe
Friday, February 28, 2003
Romney proposals on fees draw fire
By Joanna Weiss, Globe Staff
He vowed not to raise taxes. But Governor Mitt Romney never
made any promises about fees.
The governor's proposed 2004 budget includes $60 million in
fee increases, on everything from daily fees at state golf courses to a new fee on individuals who
file complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
Fees are different from taxes, Romney said yesterday, because they affect
narrow groups of people, and pay for specific services that are "generally
considered relatively voluntary."
It's a fine-tuned distinction that is largely accepted by
budget specialists: Taxes are imposed broadly on the general public, while fees are connected to
particular services, and typically imposed at the point of a transaction.
In recent years, with antitax sentiment strong, fees have
become a convenient tool for lawmakers and governors across the country, who face budget deficits
but know they won't find public support for tax hikes, said Arturo Perez, a
budget analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Like Romney, New York Governor George Pataki, for example,
proposed a budget last month that includes no tax increases. But Pataki seeks to raise $1.3
billion in fees and fines, on everything from marriage licenses to tires.
Critics say such fees, while politically convenient, often
disproportionately affect the poor, because they are not graduated to account for income. For
example, a middle-class couple refinancing their two-bedroom home pays the
same flat fee of $200 to the state as a millionaire refinancing a palatial mansion.
And some Massachusetts lawmakers yesterday said Romney's
proposed fees could discourage actions that increase public safety.
Senator Mark Montigny, a New Bedford Democrat, took issue
with Romney's proposal to increase fees for criminal background checks. Lawmakers have long
encouraged private day care centers and nursing homes to use those checks to
screen job applicants. Besides, Montigny said, by relying on fees instead of
taxes, Romney was avoiding a broader debate about the need for tax increases.
"If you believe more revenues are needed, you need to stand
up and say it," Montigny said. "We might as well say to people that we're going to start
charging a fee for breathing, and why don't you stop whining and hold your
breath if you don't want to pay it?"
Romney wants to establish 33 new fees and raise 57 others.
Some constituent groups are already questioning whether
Romney's specific fees are fair. James Wallace, spokesman for the Gun Owners Action League,
said his organization considers the state firearm registration fee -- which
Romney proposes raising from $25 to $75 -- to be a tax on the 200,000 state
residents who hold firearm identification cards.
"It's not a service," Wallace said. "It's a tax on your
rights. We're not getting anything."
Politicians turning to fees when taxes are not an option is
nothing new in Massachusetts history. In the early 1980s, then-governor Michael S. Dukakis
swore off tax hikes, but proposed a set of fees under a package he called the
Revenue Enhancement and Protection Program. And in the early 1990s, then-governor William F. Weld, who pledged not to raise taxes,
considered raising fees on lawyers to help pay for court operations.
At a news conference yesterday, Romney said the lines
between taxes and fees can sometimes be blurry. A driver's license fee, he said, affects a broad enough
population to be considered a form of tax.
But he said his budget -- which would not hike fees for a
standard driver's license -- contains only fees that are more narrowly drawn. Budget writers
sought to raise fees that are not currently covering the cost of the service, said
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman, who said revenue from fees would not go into the state's general fund.
"The fees that we've increased are those which we believe
are justified on the basis of the cost of delivering the service," Romney said.
Of course, covering the cost of those services with new fees
frees up other money to pay for other programs in state government.
In some cases, Romney's proposed fees would affect relatively small groups.
Out of 4.6 million drivers in Massachusetts, about 111,000 would be subject to
hikes in commercial license fees, where the hikes range from $8 to $10.
And only 395 people would be subject to the proposed hike in the motorcycle license
fee, which applies only to those cyclists who do not also drive cars.
But state residents who see their bank accounts decrease
might not draw a distinction between taxes and fees, or care how many other people are sharing
the burden, Montigny said.
"The thing that they really care about is how much discretionary income do I
have at the end of the week," he said.
Wallace, of the Gun Owners Action League, said he overheard
similar comments in halls of the State House yesterday.
"I'd rather they raise my property taxes," he heard someone
say. "At least I can write that off."
Return to top
Associated Press
Friday, February 28, 2003
Governor says proposed new, higher fees are not taxes
By Ken Maguire
Practically no one is spared from dozens of new and
increased state fees proposed Thursday by Gov. Mitt Romney, who insisted they are not taxes.
The Republican governor proposed 33 new fees and increasing
57 others including some that would make it more expensive to golf on state courses, to
register firearms, to teach horseback riding, to seek mental health services, and
to make phone calls from prison which he said would raise nearly $59 million.
They all need Legislative approval.
"I'm not going to try and be the dictionary here, in terms
of defining the difference between a fee and a tax. For me, generally, a fee is something which
applies to a subset of the population," Romney said. "A tax is something which
is far more broadly applied."
Romney, who vowed on the campaign trail to avoid new taxes,
released his proposed fiscal 2004 budget on Wednesday. It contains more than $2 billion in
cuts and savings, but no new or increased taxes.
Not everyone agrees that the proposed fees are not taxes.
The Gun Owners Action League said a proposed firearms registration fee increase from $25 to
$75 is a tax.
"It's not a fee. It's a tax on an individual's right to bear
arms in Massachusetts," said Jim Wallace, a lobbyist for the group. "Basically, we're being robbed. The
system doesn't work and we're paying more for it. What are we getting for our
money? Nothing."
Romney said there's a difference.
"Taxes ... generally are not linked to a particular
service," he said. "Fees are typically associated with a specific service which generally is considered
relatively voluntary."
The governor proposed raising an additional $10 million by
changing the used vehicle sales tax. People would pay taxes based on the value of the car, not the
actual sale price. He said his tax experts say that's legal.
"We're looking at what the fair value is," he said.
The governor wants to bump phone charges for state prison
inmates from 86 cents to $2 per call, generating $2 million.
Blind people would have to pay a new $10 fee for a state
certificate of blindness and $15 for a photo identification card.
The Department of Mental Retardation would charge a fee of
$100 to determine a client's eligibility.
"To say 'Before we're going to talk to you, you've got to
put $100 on the table,' it seems crass and unnecessary," said Steve Collins, executive director of
Massachusetts Human Services Coalition.
A new Department of Public Health fee would require $50 for
all initial tuberculosis tests. Another $400 fee would be assessed for people who tested
positive.
"We're going back to typhoid Mary time here," Collins said.
"Fees would be a disincentive for folks to get checked out for these conditions. It's putting more
folks at risk."
But Romney's administration says no fee no service.
"We understand their concerns but considering the fiscal
crisis we're in, if we don't charge fees, we'd have less services for needy people," said Dick Powers,
spokesman for the Office of Health and Human Services.
Speeding ticket surcharges would double to $50.
Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said fees, taxes and
revenues are all the same.
"We might as well charge a fee for breathing and tell people
to stop whining and hold their breath," he said.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 28, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Nickel and diming the public
With all of the real battles Gov. Mitt Romney has to fight,
the ones that will have a serious impact on the lives of virtually every man, woman and child in
this state, you'd think he would attempt to steer clear of the little fights he just
doesn't need.
And so it is entirely bewildering why the governor is
mucking up this particular budget battle with a totally pointless effort to expand the state's returnable
bottle law. The budget released Wednesday includes an outside section -
itself a hideously stupid way to make law - that would require a 5-cent deposit on
every bottle or can of juice or noncarbonated water. The same proposal would
put a 15-cent deposit on bottles of wine or hard liquor.
When the law was passed in 1982 the idea was to minimize
litter. Now we don't know about the governor's neighborhood, but last time we looked, the state's
streets and highways were not a dumping ground for discarded bottles of
merlot or Nantucket Nectars. Recycling is working quite nicely and some
communities even realize a tidy profit off those plastic bottles from Poland
Springs.
This proposal represents a brand of chi-chi environmental
elitism that surely has no place in a serious state budget.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 28, 2003
Romney's budget boss blasts Menino's 'crying'
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Gov. Mitt Romney's newly combative budget chief opened fire
yesterday on Mayor Thomas Menino, accusing the mayor of crying "poor boy" in the face of
a $46 million local aid cut - an attack that pushed angry municipal leaders
further down the warpath against Romney.
Administration and Finance Secretary Eric Kriss told Herald
editors and reporters that Menino - who had protested the cut - must buck up and absorb
his "fair share of the sacrifice" as the state grapples with a $3.2 billion budget
gap.
"Don't cry poor boy for Boston," Kriss said. "Boston,
despite what some people might say, is one of the wealthiest communities in the state."
Kriss' salvo came one day after Romney unveiled a budget
that slashes local aid to cities and towns by $232 million - with a full 20 percent of that total cut
coming out of Boston's hide.
Menino had immediately protested the cut, telling the Herald
on Wednesday that Romney wielded the budget ax much harder against Boston than any
other community.
"Why such an inordinate cut to local aid to the city of
Boston?" Menino said. "It's unfair."
The administration's assault on the state's most powerful
local leader sent tremors through the ranks of the state's mayors, who are still rankling over
what they view as administration slights.
North Adams Mayor John Barrett III, who recently mixed it up
with Romney's spokesman, called Kriss' remarks a "very big boo-boo," especially since Menino
has taken a "restrained" approach to Romney.
"When you get a street guy angry, it's going to come back
and haunt them," Barrett said. "They're messing with the varsity and they're only JV."
After Boston's $46 million reduction, the next biggest local
aid cuts were imposed on Quincy and Somerville, which each took a $3.9 million hit. Most
communities saw cuts of less than $1 million.
But Kriss insisted there's nothing "disproportionate" about
Boston's cut, noting that it amounts to 10.5 percent of the city's aid - the same percentage cut that
many communities received - and only accounts for 2.3 percent of Boston's $2
billion overall budget.
Boston is expected to enjoy enough growth in its property
tax base to mitigate the entire local aid cut - and to boost its overall spending over last year's level,
Kriss predicted.
"(Menino's) going to have a growth in his overall budget
next year, I can virtually guarantee it," Kriss said.
Menino declined comment yesterday, but his budget director
Lisa Signore returned Kriss' fire - disputing his assertion that property taxes will grow
enough to plug the entire local aid cut.
Signore said the city's financial officers have had "no
direct contact" with Kriss.
"I'm not sure that he's qualified to make that statement,"
Signore said. "Some of their numbers are uninformed."
Romney's cuts to the city are likely to be greater than $46
million, once reductions in various grant programs are factored in, Signore said - denying
Kriss' claim that the city's budget will grow.
"I'm not expecting that," Signore said. "With the sharp
decline in your second-largest source of revenue, I question how he makes the prediction."
Boston's property tax base has grown by roughly $50 million annually over the
past few years but Menino's spokeswoman Carole Brennan insisted the money
has already been built into the budget.
"That money is all accounted for," Brennan said. "It's not
like it's a fluke extra that we can play with or just go on vacation with."
Kriss also teed off yesterday on labor unions, warning that
entrenched laws such as civil service and the anti-privatization Pacheco Law are sending the
state's finances into a "death spiral."
Romney's budget proposes doing away with both laws, pulls
state managers out of unions, and gets rid of "bumping rights" that allow workers with seniority to
take jobs for which they're not qualified.
Past efforts to reform such practices have been "half-hearted" because
politicians fear the unions' historical clout, Kriss said.
But Romney received "zero union endorsements" beyond one
group of state police, Kriss said. "Let's engage the battle," he said.
Union leaders predicted the strongly pro-union Legislature
would rally and spike Romney's plans, which they dismissed as political.
Return to top
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Editorial
Another Massachusetts revolution
Governor Mitt Romney's plan to shake up and reorder state
government is hitting Beacon Hill like a thunder bolt.
We cannot support every proposal the governor has made, but
he deserves credit for doing exactly what he said he would do during the campaign: Bring
genuine change to state government. The political veterans scoffed when
candidate Romney talked about streamlining and eliminating waste and inefficiency. But
in a matter of weeks, he has a plan that may be overly optimistic in projected savings but is groundbreaking in the
way it would reshape state services and agencies.
In health and human services - the crucial spending area -
Romney wants to retain services while consolidating overhead operations. That means
eliminating administrative offices left and right, in Boston and around the state.
He reasons every agency does not need its own accounting, human resources
and similar offices. They would be consolidated. It's a private sector idea that
makes good sense for state government.
Jobs will be lost. The goal is to improve services delivery
by accomplishing savings elsewhere. Anyone familiar with problem families knows there must be
a more efficient way to help them than to have separate social workers in many
agencies working on parallel tracks.
Romney cited 12 different state agencies that have workforce
training programs. That must change.
The governor also wants managers to be just that, and not
union members. That'll cause apoplexy throughout the system, but who can argue with this
sound logic?
The reorganization plan contains other proposals that will
energize state employee unions as never before. But this is a battle that needs to be fought.
The structure and rules of state government have not changed in 30 years. No
organization - especially a $20 billion one - can afford to remain stagnant.
The initial reaction to the governor's plans has been
typically sour. Legislators are, first and foremost, wedded to a series of special interests whose main goal
is to preserve the status quo. The new Senate president, Robert Travaglini,
earlier sounded the call for new taxes, and he'll have many seconds.
The governor made it clear Tuesday that he will not
countenance new taxes at this time. In his State of the State Address, he was talking to Massachusetts
voters, who not only elected him but nearly voted to end the state income tax.
This is the beginning of a new and critical campaign for the
financial future of Massachusetts. Romney calls it common sense versus politics as usual.
The Legislature, local leaders, everyone with an interest in
keeping Massachusetts strong, must act responsibly. Those who don't like Romney's
ideas have a duty to devise their own prescriptions for change.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Editorial
Real reform
Gov. Mitt Romney's crusade for government reform by rooting
out patronage, eliminating redundant jobs and restructuring agencies is eight weeks old and
showing no signs of abating. His plans offer a great deal for the Legislature to
consider and act on.
The goal is to reduce the size and cost of government,
retain essential public services and improve efficiencies.
Romney's ambitious reorganization has targeted the patronage-laden
Metropolitan District Commission, the inefficient court system, the ever-expanding health and human
services divisions and bureaucratic-rich higher education.
There are a host of valid reasons to accept the governor's
measures in one sweeping legislative vote, the most compelling being that Romney has a
mandate from voters who elected him.
Some legislators, however, are pressing the governor for a
piece-by-piece package, saying this will give them more time to study and control the process.
Certainly, there is room for compromise. That legislators
are willing to listen to the governor's groundbreaking ideas is a sign they know change is in order.
But let's not fool ourselves and neither should Romney be
snookered by the overtures: the status quo has ruled the Legislature for decades and it will be
hard to eradicate a mindset that caters to public employee union lobbyists and
workers.
To that end, the governor's got Article 87 of the state
Constitution up his sleeve. Once exercised, it gives the Legislature 60 days to act on Romney's
restructuring plans in a single yes or no vote. In fact, the clock is now ticking
toward a May showdown.
Lawmakers should use the time remaining to suggest changes
in Romney's plan that will help facilitate a successful reorganization of government.
What they shouldn't do, however, is mount a defense of the
present system as adequate and in need of only minor changes to improve it.
The Commonwealth is long overdue for a major overhaul to
restore public confidence in state government and the way it operates.
Return to top
