CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, April 1,
2003
Boston Globe, Gimme Lobby have misplaced priorities
With the budget battles ramping up to next month's release of the House spending plan,
the state's largest teachers union unveiled a massive ad blitz yesterday aimed at
drumming up support for tax hikes.
Sometimes House Speaker Thomas Finneran's motives are as clear as mud. Other times they are as glaring as a Las Vegas billboard. Such is the case with Finneran's move to dispose of the gaming issue before budget deliberations begin....
Ah, but Finneran has another card to play. The same budget rule that excluded gaming revenues from being considered during the budget debate specifically included the consideration of new taxes. Under the rule, members can't tie new tax revenues to their spending amendments but can consider tax increases generally before the budget is debated. Since they'll know the impact of the House budget proposal on their pet programs - and since gaming and blocking payments will be off the table - House members will "be left with no choice" but to raise taxes.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, March 31, 2003
Finneran's rule win the taxpayer's loss
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday asked his loyalists to grant him free rein to boost legislative pay by creating new committees with extra bonuses.
Under the plan formally floated to lawmakers yesterday, House and Senate leaders would have unilateral control over which and how many lawmakers receive bonuses on top of their $53,380 base salary.
Critics said the move is a naked attempt by Finneran, who as speaker chooses who is in the leadership, to expand his power.
"It's a way for him to reward more friends and punish more enemies," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts....
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Critics label Finneran pay scheme a power grab
Tomorrow's will be Finneran's second attempt to get the measure passed: In early February, he tried to push it through the House in the waning minutes of an uneventful session. Outraged members stopped him when they realized what was happening, but it's not clear they will be able to block him tomorrow.
Critics say Finneran wants more power to reward allies with bonus pay, and make the House more autocratic.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Bill would raise pay of some lawmakers
Speaker seen poised to reward
Mayor Thomas Menino's fiscal chickens are coming home to roost. Before the handwringing begins over his proposal to close five schools as a cost saving measure, it is informative to read a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute on the millions of dollars the Menino administration wasted on bloated construction costs for three new schools....
But city leaders apparently had money to burn. (Hey, it was only 10 percent theirs.) So they spent an extra $5.4 million on the new Orchard Gardens school in Roxbury, an extra $5.5 million on the New Boston Pilot Middle School in Dorchester and a whopping $6.7 million more on the Mildred Avenue Middle School in Mattapan.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Schools open, close as lessons learned
During his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney could not have been more emphatic about his resolve to reverse the state's plan to drop 36,000 chronically unemployed adults from Medicaid. But today is the day they will no longer be insured ...
The Legislature voted last year to drop them to generate $32 million in savings between now and the start of the next fiscal year on July 1....
Even in tough economic times, snatching health coverage away from the needy is indefensible.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
A sickening system
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Boston Herald's editorial yesterday, "Finneran's rule win the taxpayer's loss,"
echoes my Saturday commentary, "Tax
hike strategy becomes clear." Remember when he was the golden boy of
the media, when he could do no wrong ... up to about a year ago? His shine has
finally tarnished.
As "Honest" Abe Lincoln once observed, "You
can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Finneran's power to fool any of the people any
of the time has waned. The "fiscal conservative" label is now fading
from him along with the huge revenue surpluses that were squandered on his
watch. "The worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression" has become
Finneran's legacy, the albatross around his neck.
But that hasn't restrained his limitless lust for
power, so he's back with his plot to consolidate more of it with taxpayer
money, again attempting to seize even more to reward and punish loyalists and
opponents. We can only hope that House Republicans join with Democrat reformers
to frustrate Finneran's latest scheme. We wish Governor Romney would understand
that given this new power, it will be used against him and future governors.
Condemning the state's dropping of 36,000 chronically unemployed adults from
Medicaid, the Boston Globe editorial board today whines, "The Legislature voted last year to drop them to generate $32 million in savings between now and the start of the next fiscal year on July
1."
$32 million is the price tag of "snatching health coverage away from the needy,"
which the Globe abhors.
$32 million.
Yet of the 1,055,181 who voted against our income tax
rollback, only 504 of them have chosen to pay the old 5.85 income tax rate.
They've contributed just $55,636 more to caring for "the most vulnerable
among us."
Just think: If each of those who insisted that they
"didn't need of want a tax cut" chose our voluntary tax check-off, if
each of them contributed just an additional $32, then the Boston Globe's abhorrence
could be instantly alleviated.
Just thirty-two dollars: That's 63¢ a week
each -- far "less than a can of Pepsi" or "a
pizza a week."
With only fifteen days remaining before the tax filing
deadline, why isn't the Boston Globe and the rest of the tax-them-more Gimme
Lobby aggressively promoting our voluntary
tax check-off?
Why isn't the teachers union advocating it with its $2
million media blitz, instead of more tax hikes?
Why?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Monday, March 31, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Finneran's rule win the taxpayer's loss
Sometimes House Speaker Thomas Finneran's motives are as clear as mud. Other times they are as glaring as a Las Vegas billboard. Such is the case with Finneran's move to dispose of the gaming issue before budget deliberations begin.
Here's how the Mattapan Democrat's plan could play out: Today, the House Government Regulations Committee will hold a hearing on gaming bills. Word is that Finneran will allow a gaming bill to be released from committee, most likely with an adverse report. The released bill will be broad, like House Minority Leader Brad Jones' (R-North Reading) measure which authorizes three casinos and slot machines at the state's four racetracks.
Finneran has set aside April 15 for debate on the House floor. Gaming proponents have to first try to reverse, by majority vote, the adverse report. Unless they do, the substance of the measure can't be debated and amendments can't be considered. Finneran is betting that he'll win that fight and the gaming debate will end, almost before it begins.
Here's the problem: The budget proposed by Gov. Mitt Romney includes $75 million for blocking payments from out-of-state gaming interests who will benefit if Massachusetts stays out of the gaming arena. If the House votes down gaming, Romney's leverage is lost and those payments will never materialize. And that leaves a whopping $75 million hole in the budget.
Ah, but Finneran has another card to play. The same budget rule that excluded gaming revenues from being considered during the budget debate specifically included the consideration of new taxes. Under the rule, members can't tie new tax revenues to their spending amendments but can consider tax increases generally before the budget is debated. Since they'll know the impact of the House budget proposal on their pet programs - and since gaming and blocking payments will be off the table - House members will "be left with no choice" but to raise taxes.
And this, we're afraid, may be Finneran's real game.
House members need to call him on it. At a minimum they should demand to consider the gaming issue fully, without being hampered by procedural maneuvers. And they shouldn't allow Finneran to take gaming off the table prematurely, precluding either blocking payments or gambling revenue from helping solve the budget crisis, and worse, creating false pressure for higher taxes.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Critics label Finneran pay scheme a power grab
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran yesterday asked his loyalists to grant him free rein to boost legislative pay by creating new committees with extra bonuses.
Under the plan formally floated to lawmakers yesterday, House and Senate leaders would have unilateral control over which and how many lawmakers receive bonuses on top of their $53,380 base salary.
Critics said the move is a naked attempt by Finneran, who as speaker chooses who is in the leadership, to expand his power.
"It's a way for him to reward more friends and punish more enemies," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts.
State Rep. J. James Marzilli Jr. (D-Arlington), a frequent Finneran critic who gets no extra pay, said the speaker is likely to get his way tomorrow when a vote is expected. "The speaker has made it clear he expects every member of his leadership team to vote the way he tells them and in exchange he gives them extra pay. Now he'll have the capacity to give anyone he wants extra pay, but I expect he'll also demand that same level of obedience," he said.
Finneran could hold the bonuses - which currently range from $7,500 to $25,000 - over the heads of lawmakers as an added incentive for them to vote his way, she said: "It's another stick for him to get people to do what he wants."
Finneran called the criticism "the usual nonsense from the chattering classes."
The Democratic speaker said his plan simply eliminates outdated legislative committees and creates new ones, including a new panel devoted to tackling Medicaid and another on Homeland Security.
"It has nothing to do with power or anything else. It has to do with a recognition of the realities that this state and 49 other states face and I'm trying to do something about it ... I've gone the extra mile and wiped out committees," Finneran said.
Close to one-third of the House - 51 members out of 160 - get bonuses for serving on committees, as does most of the state Senate. The change would allow Finneran to create an unlimited number of leadership positions and pay them stipends without needing approval from the governor or Senate. The bonuses are paid out of the House operations budget, which is close to $30.9 million.
Angry Democrats shot down Finneran's last attempt at changing the rules on extra pay in early February - when the speaker tried to push the bill in a poorly attended informal session. The bill was sidetracked then because any one member can stop a proposal in informal sessions.
With yesterday's letter to House members laying out the plan, Finneran signaled he'll take the proposal to the full House - where his loyalists can easily pass any legislation.
Critics complained Finneran's only doing it now because the public is consumed with news of the war in Iraq and the ongoing state budget battle.
Gov. Mitt Romney continued to avoid the issue, saying the Legislature should have the latitude to spend its budget the way it wants to - just as he has jacked up the pay of some of his staff while others, including himself and Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, have forgone a salary.
"In general, the governor believes the House has the right to organize itself as it sees fit and Gov. Romney would expect the same courtesy," said spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
Elisabeth J. Beardsley contributed to this report.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Bill would raise pay of some lawmakers
Speaker seen poised to reward
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
A month after retreating in the face of heated controversy, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran is again pushing a measure that would give him more authority to increase the pay of select legislators.
Under a bill to be debated tomorrow, legislative leaders could hand out raises to members of their leadership teams without seeking changes in state law -- which require a signature of the governor. The raises would instead be decided by changes in the more informal House or Senate rules.
Tomorrow's will be Finneran's second attempt to get the measure passed: In early February, he tried to push it through the House in the waning minutes of an uneventful session. Outraged members stopped him when they realized what was happening, but it's not clear they will be able to block him tomorrow.
Critics say Finneran wants more power to reward allies with bonus pay, and make the House more autocratic.
"The speaker has made it clear he expects everyone on his leadership team to vote as he instructs them," said Representative J. James Marzilli Jr., an Arlington Democrat. "As he expands the number of people on his leadership team, by paying them extra he insists on loyalty to his agenda. By removing any gubernatorial or public oversight from this, he sets conditions that would allow him to raise pay at will."
Marzilli also questioned the awarding of stipends of $7,500 and $15,000 to legislators in hard economic times.
Finneran said his measure should not be characterized as a pay-raise bill. In a letter to members, the speaker said he is seeking a structural reorganization of the House. Initially, in addition to changing the means by which stipends are awarded, the bill would replace three House committees with three new, "more relevant ones, without radically altering our organizational structure," Finneran wrote.
Questioned by a reporter, he said: "There's no pay raise whatsoever. Read the proposed statute. Read the rules. End of my comments."
Currently, 51 of the 160 members of the House receive stipends of between $7,500 and $25,000 a year above their $53,380 base salaries. Eleven leadership posts were created by Finneran, who has used the system to reward loyal members and to punish those who fall out of line.
"In the House, it's a powerful tool of control, along with many other things," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of the government watchdog group Common Cause. "Losing a committee chairmanship means not only losing prestige, but also losing salary to the tune of $7,500 or $15,000, and that's a significant percentage decrease in salary."
One immediate change Finneran has proposed is new stipends for the chair and vice chair of a new House committee on Medicaid: That would add $15,000 to the base salary of Daniel F. Keenan, the Southwick Democrat who will chair the committee, and $7,500 to the base salary of Representative Thomas J. O'Brien, the Kingston Democrat and vice chairman. He would also increase by $7,500 the base salary of the ranking Republican member of the new committee, who has not been named.
Governor Mitt Romney is unlikely to oppose Finneran's changes. The rules change is organizational, the governor's spokeswoman said yesterday.
"We'll take a look at the legislation when it reaches our desk, but in general the governor believes the House should be able to organize themselves as they wish and he would expect the same courtesy in his restructuring proposal of the executive branch," said spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman.
"It's appropriate for the House to have control over how it structures itself," said House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., a North Reading Republican.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
Schools open, close as lessons learned
A Boston Herald editorial
Mayor Thomas Menino's fiscal chickens are coming home to roost. Before the handwringing begins over his proposal to close five schools as a cost saving measure, it is informative to read a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute on the millions of dollars the Menino administration wasted on bloated construction costs for three new schools.
The Boston think tank's study looked at 54 school construction projects in the greater Boston area and found that, on average, costs were driven up by 22 percent, or $37.88 per square foot because they were done under Project Labor Agreements
(PLAs). An estimated $17.6 million was added to the cost of building the three new Boston schools by the PLA requirement. Now 90 percent of that is state money, so to that extent we're all paying for Boston's profligacy.
PLAs require building contractors to hire union labor and conform with union work rules. The jurisdictional issues inherent in union labor contracts inevitably lead to higher labor costs. And since 78 percent of the construction industry is non-union in Massachusetts, PLAs artificially reduce competition for projects, driving up the cost of the bids.
The federal government found PLAs so wasteful that in 2001 the Bush administration banned them for projects using federal dollars.
But city leaders apparently had money to burn. (Hey, it was only 10 percent theirs.) So they spent an extra $5.4 million on the new Orchard Gardens school in Roxbury, an extra $5.5 million on the New Boston Pilot Middle School in Dorchester and a whopping $6.7 million more on the Mildred Avenue Middle School in Mattapan.
Now to save $5.8 million, Boston School Superintendent Thomas Payzant is recommending that two middle schools and three elementary schools be closed permanently at the end of the school year.
Clearly, if declining enrollment, master planning and other data support it, these schools should be closed, as disruptive as that will be for both children and parents.
But it's a shame that it took a fiscal crisis to drive that kind of cost/benefit analysis.
While the Menino administration lavished new spending on schools, increasing staffing by 20 percent or 1,392 new hires since 1995 according to the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, there was precious little effort made to control costs elsewhere in the school system.
Even if that increased spending brought wanted educational results, Menino and Payzant were doing Boston school children no favors if they were doing nothing to ensure the improvements could be sustained in an economic downturn.
Further layoffs and other education program cuts are expected.
But it would be helpful if the city's new fiscal realism extended to new school construction too.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
A sickening system
During his campaign for governor, Mitt Romney could not have been more emphatic about his resolve to reverse the state's plan to drop 36,000 chronically unemployed adults from Medicaid. But today is the day they will no longer be insured, and for most of them there is no safety net in place. The Legislature could help Romney make good his commitment by passing an eleventh-hour bill filed by the Senate Health Committee's chairman, Richard Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat, who calls on the state to use money from its rainy day fund or other sources to reinstate this benefit.
In addition to the 36,000, 6,500 are vulnerable if they do not qualify under different Medicaid categories, which include people who are disabled, HIV-positive, pregnant, or caring for a child. Some might also qualify for Medicaid by becoming clients of the Department of Mental Health. But the others have been put on notice by the state that they will have to fend for themselves, a disgraceful situation in a state that prides itself on being a national leader in medicine. The Legislature voted last year to drop them to generate $32 million in savings between now and the start of the next fiscal year on July 1.
One avenue for those losing Medicaid is delaying care, but untreated conditions often end up requiring costly hospitalizations later, which put additional pressure on hospitals' often beleaguered emergency rooms. Another alternative is seeking charity care from community health centers, hospitals, and doctors.
The state's free care pool reimburses hospitals that provide such care with money received from the state, other hospitals, and insurers. The pool, however, is facing a $165 million shortfall of its own this year. Requiring insurers and hospitals to contribute more to the pool would likely result in increased insurance premiums. These, in turn, could cause employers or employees to drop coverage, just adding to the total number of uninsured in the state.
Moreover, shifting patients from Medicaid coverage to hospitals drawing on the free care pool is a net loser for health funding in Massachusetts, since the federal government subsidizes Medicaid patients more generously than it does those in the free care pool.
According to Robert Restuccia, executive director of Health Care for All, there will be no more help from Washington for the free care pool this year; the state is at its cap. In his 25 years of advocacy for better coverage, Restuccia said, he has never seen "anything close to so many people" lose their coverage at once.
The governor's health and human services secretary, Ron Preston, has two working groups exploring a new version of Medicaid coverage in time for the new fiscal year. But there is no need to reinvent a wheel when the old one did exactly what it was supposed to do. Even in tough economic times, snatching health coverage away from the needy is indefensible.
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|