Well, the state's new 2002 income tax form gave these folks a chance, literally,
to put their money where their mouths were: A check-off box offered them the
option of paying the old 5.85% rate instead of the new, lower 5.3%.
Only a fraction of the 1,055,161 citizens who two years ago said they preferred
the higher rate actually paid it....
And this in liberal Massachusetts, home of Mike Dukakis, Barney Frank and
John Kerry. Come to think of it, we wonder if these famous liberal totems
agreed to pay the rate of higher tax virtue on their own state income-tax
returns.
The Wall Street Journal
Mar. 11, 2003
Review & Outlook
Coalition of the Unwilling
[DOR Commissioner Alan LeBovidge] also briefed the
committee on a new tax initiative, sponsored by Republican legislators, that gives taxpayers the
option to voluntarily pay income tax at the rate of 5.85 percent instead of the
standard 5.3 percent.
As of this week, only 413 of 900,000 taxpayers have
opted to pay taxes at the higher rate, which has generated an extra $42,130 in state revenue,
according to LeBovidge.
The MetroWest Daily News
Mar. 12, 2003
[Excerpt]
Bill would put tax scofflaws on 'Net'
The Legislature approved the fee last year as a way
to raise an estimated $72 million to help offset the cost of the state's quickly rising Medicaid budget.
Under the plan, pharmacies are scheduled to contribute $36 million, which will
be matched by funds from the federal government.
Associated Press
Mar. 12, 2003
Pharmacies want drug tax repealed
Small drugstores say plan to fund
Medicaid causing financial pain
* * *
A plan by Gov. Mitt Romney to tax health maintenance
organizations to raise money for the state's Medicaid program could leave more Bay State
residents without health insurance and destabilize the state's insurers, business and
HMO leaders warned yesterday.
Romney proposed an $89.5 million HMO assessment that
would be used to garner federal matching funds for the program that covers health care for the
poor....
Romney has said he is looking for ways to garner more
federal dollars to help pay the state's growing Medicaid bill.
Already, the state has laid similar assessments on
pharmacies and nursing homes....
How to collect the assessment, pending lawmakers' approval, would be decided
later. But it's expected to be about $30 a person each year, the Massachusetts
Association of Health Plans said....
Eventually the tax would be passed to consumers, said Dr. Marylou Buyse, the
association's president.
The Boston Herald
Mar. 12, 2003
Business leaders panning plan to tax HMOs
* * *
The Romney plan proposes a 15 percent tuition increase for in-state students
... And by increasing the size of the financial aid pie - Romney proposes
to put half the tuition increase toward financial aid - students who can't afford the
increase are protected.
A Boston Herald editorial
Mar. 12, 2003
Higher ed reforms rest on Bulger fate
*
* *
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875
Never have the socialist leaders of the Peoples Republic of
Taxachusetts had it so good. Karl Marx, the father of Socialism/Communism, would be proud that his legacy lives on in
Massachusetts and grows stronger.
We've warned for months that if this radical introduction of
income redistribution is allowed to root and take hold, there will be no stopping it.
First came the "assessments" -- taxes by another name -- on
prescription drugs and nursing home beds for those who pay their own costs, so that more can be provided to
those who can't, don't or won't pay. So far, that applied Socialism is succeeding. This
betrayal was first achieved last year by the Legislature and former acting-governor,
Republican Jane Swift.
Sort of like how it took anti-Communist Republican President
Richard Nixon to open Communist China when a liberal never could have gotten away with trying without being
tagged a "Pinko."
Now comes Gov. Romney's proposed "assessment" on health
insurance for those who pay for their own, to further fund the ballooning state Medicaid budget. That's estimated to
cost each of us paying for our own health insurance an additional $30 a year when the cost
is passed on to us, as costs to business always must be.
Mitt Romney, a successful businessman before being elected
governor, surely understands this reality -- doesn't he?
But he now also wants to charge higher tuition to those
students who pay, to provide more financial aid to those who don't.
Apparently "assessments," "fees," and other income redistribution sleights of hand are
working so well, have taken root firmly enough, that Republican governor Mitt Romney is
comfortable expanding the socialist scheme on a regular basis. What part of income
redistribution is he missing?
"Taxes" need never be raised again, so long as these direct
subsidies from those who can afford to those who can't continue to expand ... until none of us can afford.
A centerpiece of socialist philosophy, "from each according
to his ability, to each according to his need" -- especially espoused by a
Das Kapitalist -- would I'm sure thrill Marx.
In the end, Karl Marx is winning from the grave.
The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
Review & Outlook
Coalition of the Unwilling
You know how when you ask people what their favorite music
is, everyone answers "classical" or "jazz" -- but when you go to Sam Goody and look at the
CDs they actually buy, Madonna sells more than Mozart or Monk? Massachusetts just had a
similar lesson in the political psychology of taxes.
As recently as last November, Massachusetts voters shot down
a ballot initiative that would have abolished the state income tax. At the time this was
hailed as yet more evidence that the tax revolt was over, that voters really do
prefer paying higher taxes to cutting "services." Even in 2000, when the Bay
state's voters approved a tax cut, 41% dutifully voted for keeping the
rate at 5.85%.
Well, the state's new 2002 income tax form gave these folks
a chance, literally, to put their money where their mouths were: A check-off box offered them the
option of paying the old 5.85% rate instead of the new, lower 5.3%.
Only a fraction of the 1,055,161 citizens who two years ago
said they preferred the higher rate actually paid it. In his column for the Boston Herald, Howie Carr
worked out the math, citing state Department of Revenue figures listing a mere
345 people out of the first 855,786 filers -- 1/25th of 1% -- opting to pay the
higher rate. Total extra revenue gain? $34,668.
And this in liberal Massachusetts, home of Mike Dukakis,
Barney Frank and John Kerry. Come to think of it, we wonder if these famous liberal totems
agreed to pay the rate of higher tax virtue on their own state income-tax
returns. Mr. Carr, there's an idea for your next column.
Return to top
Associated Press
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Pharmacies want drug tax repealed
Small drugstores say plan to fund Medicaid causing financial pain
By Jennifer Peter
A feud between the Legislature and Massachusetts pharmacies
continued yesterday as key lawmakers informed drugstore representatives that they are
unlikely to see any relief from a new prescription tax.
"If I had it my way, I would vote to repeal this assessment,' said Rep. William
C. Galvin, D-Canton, vice chairman of the Legislature's Joint Insurance
Committee. "But the chances of passing it on the floor are nil or none.'
Lawmakers were more receptive to legislation sponsored by
Sen. Charles E. Shannon Jr., D-Winchester, which would exempt the state's approximately
200 independent pharmacies from the $1.30 fee on all prescriptions not
covered by Medicaid or Medicare.
Sen. Guy W. Glodis, D-Auburn, co-chairman of the Insurance
Committee, said he would use his position as a "bully pulpit' to win repeal of the assessment.
Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, co-chairman of the
Legislature's Health Care Committee, will conduct a hearing on March 26 on several repeal
proposals.
Smaller, independent drugstores have had a harder time
absorbing the fee, which took effect on New Year's Day.
"They are right now in quite a bind,' said Kathleen White,
who addressed the Insurance Committee on behalf of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
"I'm not sure how long they can continue to do that.'
Initially, the state's largest pharmacy chains and most
independent pharmacies passed along the fee to consumers, sparking an angry response from
lawmakers, who said they never intended to tax patients. Attorney General
Thomas F. Reilly also launched an investigation of the pharmacies' actions.
In mid-February, the chains suddenly backed down, agreeing
to pay the fee themselves and to give refunds to customers who were overcharged since the
beginning of the year.
Some independent pharmacies, which compete closely with
nearby chain stores, have also stopped charging the fee. Others, in more remote areas, have
continued to tack it onto customers' bills.
The Legislature approved the fee last year as a way to raise
an estimated $72 million to help offset the cost of the state's quickly rising Medicaid budget.
Under the plan, pharmacies are scheduled to contribute $36 million, which will
be matched by funds from the federal government.
Several lawmakers have proposed repealing the tax, arguing
it potentially penalizes the sick and diverts attention from the main cause of rising pharmacy
costs: the high prices charged by pharmaceutical companies who manufacture
the drugs.
In recent weeks, the state has taken steps to hold these
costs down, according to Douglas Brown, acting commissioner of the state's Division of Medical
Assistance. The state will accelerate its review of all drugs within particular
classes to determine which are the most cost-effective. Doctors who want
to prescribe a different drug within that class will have to get authorization from
the state.
Brown estimates this will save the state an estimated $150
million to $175 million during fiscal year 2004.
Another initiative will require doctors to get approval from
the state before prescribing more than seven drugs to any one individual. Any prescriptions for
patients who are already receiving four brand-name drugs would also have to
be authorized. This, Brown said, could save the state about $20 million.
Despite these initiatives, lawmakers on the Insurance
Committee did not seem inclined to spare pharmacies from paying the fee. They again focused on the
fact that pharmacies, who claim to have only a 2 percent profit margin, have
not been willing to disclose any details about their finances.
"I'm trying real hard to find some sympathy,' said Sen.
Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Business leaders panning plan to tax HMOs
by Jennifer Heldt Powell
A plan by Gov. Mitt Romney to tax health maintenance
organizations to raise money for the state's Medicaid program could leave more Bay State residents
without health insurance and destabilize the state's insurers, business and
HMO leaders warned yesterday.
Romney proposed an $89.5 million HMO assessment that would
be used to garner federal matching funds for the program that covers health care for the
poor.
"They are all making a little money right now and the sense
was that this was a fair thing," said Ron Preston, secretary of Health and Human Services. "We're
trying to maintain coverage and we're trying to spread the costs around."
But business leaders contacted yesterday said Massachusetts
companies - and their employees - will ultimately bear the cost.
"What may be an assessment on health plans is eventually
going to be reflected in the premiums," said Rick Lord, president of the Associated Industries of
Massachusetts. "Our health care costs are already among the highest in the
country. To drive them up through an assessment is the wrong thing to do."
Premium hikes will cause some small businesses to drop
health coverage, said Jeffrey L. Busha, legislative director for the Small Business Service Bureau Inc.
Small employers already face premium hikes of up to 30 percent.
"They're struggling to hold on, to keep offering insurance,"
he said. "But they're unable to bear anymore in the way of taxes, whether they're surcharges,
assessments or fees."
Romney has said he is looking for ways to garner more
federal dollars to help pay the state's growing Medicaid bill.
Already, the state has laid similar assessments on pharmacies and nursing
homes. In those cases, the intent was to send back some of the money to those
industries.
How to collect the assessment, pending lawmakers' approval,
would be decided later. But it's expected to be about $30 a person each year, the Massachusetts
Association of Health Plans said.
Most of the assessment likely would be paid by the state's
three largest insurers and HMOs: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard
Pilgrim Health Care Inc. and Tufts Health Plan.
Eventually the tax would be passed to consumers, said Dr.
Marylou Buyse, the association's president. But she warned that because insurers have already set
this year's premiums, they would have to absorb the added cost.
"My concern is that while we agree with the goals, we're
very much concerned about the method," she said. "It's not going to fix the problems that are
generating the cost and it's going to further stress a financially unstable
system."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Higher ed reforms rest on Bulger fate
When it comes right down to it, two things are clear about
Gov. Mitt Romney's proposal to revamp the public higher education system. One, it will make the
mission of accessibility and affordability easier to fulfill. And two, the
proposal will remain just wishful thinking unless Romney succeeds in removing
University of Massachusetts President William Bulger from his post.
On the cost front, the Romney plan exposes the current
fiction that the main cost borne by students is tuition. Student fees which are set, and spent, directly
by campuses, have gone up by as much as 50 percent in the past two years,
and can cost students more than twice as much as tuition. Bridgewater State
College for example, charges $910 for tuition, but $2,825 in fees.
To add insult to injury, financial aid packages cannot be
applied to fees, so students and their families have to bear the fee burden alone.
The Romney plan proposes a 15 percent tuition increase for
in-state students, in line with neighboring state schools, but takes away fee setting authority from
the campuses. This will help stabilize student costs. And by increasing the size
of the financial aid pie - Romney proposes to put half the tuition increase
toward financial aid - students who can't afford the increase are protected.
Of course, none of Romney's higher education vision can
become reality without legislative support and that is, so far, in short supply.
Legislators will have no choice but to make cuts to higher
education to close the fiscal year 2004 deficit. Tuition will be increased. But budget cuts and tuition
hikes without reform hurt students.
And it is clearer than ever that the major obstacle to
reform is Bulger.
"When people have not had to struggle hard to acquire an
educational opportunity, they sometimes forget that is the experience of many of us,"
Bulger said in testimony before a legislative hearing this week. "Some people
have to sacrifice and that's not appreciated at all by the governor."
By resorting to class warfare, Bulger showed that he can't
debate Romney's plan on the merits. But Bulger has vowed to fight it anyway. "I'm ready to do
battle," he declared.
With deep legislative support, Bulger's a formidable foe.
Until he steps - or is pushed - aside, there will be little debate on the merits of Romney's plan. And
that's too bad for the students paying the bill.
Return to top
