CLT
UPDATE
Friday, April 4,
2003
War and fiscal crisis deflect
attention
from plot to kill initiative petition process
Romney on Tuesday released figures compiled by the state Department of Revenue on the effect of last year's $1.14 billion tax increase on the average taxpayer.
The department says an average family of four making $70,000 will pay an additional $162 in state taxes for 2002. The reduction in the personal exemption for married couples filing jointly from $8,800 to $6,600 and axing of the charitable deduction account for the increase.
On top of that, the average taxpayer is paying about $140 more in 2003 than he would have if the income tax rate had fallen to 5 percent as called for by the voter-approved income tax cut law....
But the priority in this budget must be to cut spending to sustainable levels and fundamentally restructure state government. If lawmakers fail to do so, Romney argues, "the people of Massachusetts will have to accept yearly tax increases to pay for the inefficient, wasteful structure now in place." On all counts, Romney has the better argument.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, April 3, 2003
Romney: Tax hikes add up
The deficit for the 2004 budget will also be about $3 billion,
[Mass. Taxpayers Foundation president Michael] Widmer said, but reserve funds are now largely depleted, with only about $300 million left, he said.
So the only alternative is to cut programs and raise revenues with new taxes and fees, he said.
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
State's fiscal crisis seen as ongoing:
Tax group chief predicts tough times ahead
Governor Mitt Romney wants to expand the bottle law to include a 5-cent deposit on juice and water containers, just like beer and soda, and a 15-cent deposit on wine and liquor bottles. Here is a better idea: Kill the bottle law. Just take this whole antiquated, expensive, bureaucratic sacred cow out back and shoot it....
It is about one thing and one thing only: raising revenue to fill the state's desperate budget deficit. That is why the proposal is tucked away in the state budget, and not filed as a separate bill to be debated as it should be....
The bottle law is one tax we can do without.
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 4, 2003
Kill the bottle law
By Steve Bailey
"We're absolutely opposed to it," said Walgreen Co. spokesman Michael
Polzin. "Just because the state needs to save money doesn't mean the pharmacies should have to bear even more of the burden."
A federal judge issued an injunction on Tuesday as requested by the Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance....
The state posted the cut as an emergency regulation on a Web site in March. The change, expected to save about $26 million annually, would have gone into effect Tuesday. But a hearing on the new rate wasn't scheduled until May.
Already pharmacies are being charged a $1.30 tax on most prescriptions to raise $36 million a year.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 3, 2003
State to hold off Medicaid drug cut
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The usual battles are happening up on Beacon Hill, though the
war with Iraq is getting most of the media attention. What's getting no
attention yet is state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg's proposed constitutional
amendment to kill the citizens' initiative petition ballot process, and it is
steamrolling ahead.
This despotic bill, Senate Bill 362, will be heard before the
Legislature's Joint Committee on Election Laws on Thursday, April 10 at 10:00 am
in Room A1 of the State House.
Secretary of State Bill Galvin called Barbara this morning to
express his concern about SB 362. He said that Sen. Rosenberg is lobbying
vigorously for the bill, which the secretary also considers a serious threat to
the initiative petition process. Secretary Galvin's major concerns are: 1)
the increase in the number of signatures required to put a petition on the
ballot; and 2) the proposed requirement that the official title and summary, and
the yes/no summary statement on the ballot, be written not by the Attorney
General and Secretary of State, but by a commission designed by Sen. Rosenberg
(see Common
Cause's summary of the bill on our website).
This is the last vestige of democracy left to us citizens,
and Sen. Rosenberg is fixated on effectively removing it from us. This cannot be
permitted to be passed out of committee. We've heard that the Mass. Teachers
Association may be the power behind this assault, and this wouldn't surprise us.
You know well the millions of dollars that will be spent to kill the I&R
process, if this abomination ever reaches the ballot in 2006.
The fact that the Mass. Municipal Association (which is still
advocating a return to the 5.95 percent income tax rate) is specifically named
in Rosenberg's bill as a member of his fiscal impact statement group indicates
that tax-and-spend special interests will be given extraordinary power if this
constitutional amendment should ever become a reality. What more incentive will
the tax-and-spend deep pockets need to dig deep?
A couple weeks ago Barbara was called by Sen. Rosenberg's
staff and asked to meet with the senator to discuss his proposed constitutional
amendment. Barbara declined, saying "This amendment is intended to kill the
initiative petition process, and we intend to kill this amendment. What's to
discuss?"
There is nothing to discuss. There is nothing to improve
upon. There is nothing we will compromise. His bill must die.
Taxes remain a major concern this year. But if we're going to
have any impact on taxes in the years ahead, we must be able to use the
initiative process at least as a last resort.
Citizens have been able to depend upon this constitutional
right since 1918 ... for the past 85 years.
Why should we let Sen. Rosenberg change that now?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 3, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Romney: Tax hikes add up
Armed with paid radio ads, polling data and public relations strategies, advocates for higher state spending on everything from teacher salaries to prescription drugs have begun aggressive campaigns to convince Massachusetts lawmakers and voters alike to support raising taxes ... again.
But Gov. Mitt Romney, armed with some ammunition of his own on the impact of tax hikes, is fighting back and he won't need an ad campaign to convince voters he is right.
Romney on Tuesday released figures compiled by the state Department of Revenue on the effect of last year's $1.14 billion tax increase on the average taxpayer.
The department says an average family of four making $70,000 will pay an additional $162 in state taxes for 2002. The reduction in the personal exemption for married couples filing jointly from $8,800 to $6,600 and axing of the charitable deduction account for the increase.
On top of that, the average taxpayer is paying about $140 more in 2003 than he would have if the income tax rate had fallen to 5 percent as called for by the voter-approved income tax cut law.
Romney also is showcasing a February Cato Institute study on the negative long-term impact of high taxes on economic growth.
Of course, Democratic legislators were quick to pounce on Romney's assertions, pointing out, correctly, that Romney had not proposed cutting taxes in his budget, and instead incorporated the new revenue.
They neglect to mention that they left him little choice. By raising taxes last year, the Legislature papered over the state's significant structural deficit, exacerbating the budget crisis and leaving Romney with a $3 billion hole to fill. Romney has pledged to cut the income tax to 5 percent as the voters demanded and he should be aggressive about fulfilling that promise.
But the priority in this budget must be to cut spending to sustainable levels and fundamentally restructure state government. If lawmakers fail to do so, Romney argues, "the people of Massachusetts will have to accept yearly tax increases to pay for the inefficient, wasteful structure now in place." On all counts, Romney has the better argument.
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
State's fiscal crisis seen as ongoing:
Tax group chief predicts tough times ahead
By Jim Daly
Massachusetts has lost more of its work force than any other state in the past two years, deepening the recession and helping to ensure significant budget deficits for at least three years, the president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says.
Michael Widmer said the state is going through its "worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression."
A Northeastern University study released yesterday reveals that the state lost 157,000, or 4.7 percent, of its jobs in 2001 and 2002, the highest percentage of any state.
Widmer said Massachusetts lost 5,000 more jobs in February.
"What's made this so much worse is that we've continued to lose jobs and the (tax) revenues that go with that," he said last night during a presentation at Halifax Town Hall.
Widmer said the last time Massachusetts saw such significant job loss was from 1989 to 1992, when it lost 11.6 percent of its jobs.
He said the state will feel the full impact of the recession in fiscal 2003-04, which begins July 1.
The state is facing a $3 billion deficit this fiscal year, which state officials are addressing by raising taxes, cutting programs and using reserve funds - each accounting for about $1 billion.
The deficit for the 2004 budget will also be about $3 billion, Widmer said, but reserve funds are now largely depleted, with only about $300 million left, he said.
So the only alternative is to cut programs and raise revenues with new taxes and fees, he said.
Widmer said there is little the state can do in the short term to encourage job growth.
"The most important thing to do in the short term is present a fiscally solid plan," he said.
Job loss across the nation has been far more severe than previously reported, according to the Northeastern study.
"The vast majority of states' unemployment figures were dramatically undercounted, some grossly so," the study stated.
It said 40 states recently reported substantially more job losses from January 2001 to December 2002.
Ten states with the largest revisions in employment estimates - including California, New York, Ohio and Massachusetts - lost nearly 730,000 more jobs.
State Rep. Thomas O'Brien, D-Kingston, arranged for Widmer's presentation, which about 10 people - including selectmen, town accountants and private citizens - attended.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a non-partisan organization, focuses on state spending and tax policies.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, April 4, 2003
Kill the bottle law
By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist
Governor Mitt Romney wants to expand the bottle law to include a 5-cent deposit on juice and water containers, just like beer and soda, and a 15-cent deposit on wine and liquor bottles. Here is a better idea: Kill the bottle law. Just take this whole antiquated, expensive, bureaucratic sacred cow out back and shoot it. I have spent weeks researching this column. Every Friday morning, garbage day in my neighborhood, I walk the five blocks to the Red Line in Central Square. Here is what I see: Rows and rows of bright blue recycling bins overflowing with newspapers and water bottles and soup cans and wine bottles and beer cans and detergent containers. Here is what I do not see: I do not see very many of these bottles and cans cluttering my streets. If Romney really wants to clean up my neighborhood, he will put a deposit on all those McDonald's cups, and the trash like it, in the streets.
But cleaning up my neighborhood, or yours, is not what the expansion of the bottle law is all about. It is about one thing and one thing only: raising revenue to fill the state's desperate budget deficit. That is why the proposal is tucked away in the state budget, and not filed as a separate bill to be debated as it should be.
When first passed 21 years ago, the bottle bill may have made some sense. Then, community recycling programs were as close to zero as you could get; today, 85 percent of Massachusetts cities and towns have curbside or drop-off recycling programs. We have, in effect, created dual recycling programs. One is convenient; one is not. One allows you to put your empties in a bin on the sidewalk; the other forces you to lug them back to the grocery store or the recycling center. One is far more efficient than the other. The cost to recycle through the bottle bill's expensive machinery is about three times what it costs to recycle at the curbside.
The public has caught on, even if the governor and the goo-goos haven't. The redemption rate for bottle-law containers has dropped to 67 percent from 88 percent eight years ago. All beverage containers covered under the expanded bottle bill make up only 5 percent of the state's solid waste stream. Two studies, including one done for the state during the Weld administration, found that an expanded bottle-deposit law would increase the recycling rate by just one-half of a percentage point.
The irony of the bottle law is that the state has a financial incentive for it to fail. Every time you don't return a bottle, the state pockets the nickel. And those nickels add up. Last year the state cleared $35 million from the bottle law -- meaning 700 million containers were not returned. The Romney administration is looking for an even bigger take from the expanded bottle law: an additional $15 million, or another 300 million unredeemed containers.
Romney should not begin counting those nickels and dimes yet. In 1990, Maine expanded its bottle law, but five years later was forced to abandon the provision that turned over unredeemed deposit money to the state as Massachusetts does. With the expanded law, the fraud problem exploded in Maine, with containers pouring in from out of state and driving down the balance of the fund. Massachusetts already has a fraud problem -- put at 4 to 11 percent by the state auditor's office -- and would only get worse under the Romney plan.
Some states with the best recycling records in the country -- Minnesota, New Jersey, Missouri, Washington -- don't have bottle deposit laws. Rather than expanding its bottle law, Massachusetts should turn its efforts to improving its recycling programs. And it should insist that the food and bottling industry, which has been lobbying for years to end the bottle law, pick up a big piece of the bill. It would be good for the environment and good for consumers.
The bottle law is one tax we can do without.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, April 3, 2003
State to hold off Medicaid drug cut
by Jennifer Heldt Powell
The state called off a Medicaid reimbursement rate cut to all pharmacies this week after a federal judge ordered an injunction for those pharmacies that serve nursing homes.
Attorneys from several state agencies plan to meet with the attorney general's staff today to discuss the state's options, said an administration spokesman.
Pharmacies are pleased with the reprieve but angered that the state had planned to cut rates again. The rate was cut last fall after weeks of controversy that included pharmacies nearly pulling out of the Medicaid program.
"We're absolutely opposed to it," said Walgreen Co. spokesman Michael
Polzin. "Just because the state needs to save money doesn't mean the pharmacies should have to bear even more of the burden."
A federal judge issued an injunction on Tuesday as requested by the Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance.
The state posted the cut as an emergency regulation on a Web site in March. The change, expected to save about $26 million annually, would have gone into effect Tuesday. But a hearing on the new rate wasn't scheduled until May.
Already pharmacies are being charged a $1.30 tax on most prescriptions to raise $36 million a year.
Pharmacists said they are also losing money because of an increase in unpaid Medicaid co-payments. The co-payment was raised 50 cents to $2, but Medicaid recipients aren't required to pay it.
The April 1 change included a drop in payments for name brand drugs and a new formula for generic drugs that could mean a cut of up to 20 percent.
"It's really annoying. It's a major policy change," said Steve Grossman, owner of
J.E. Pierce Apothecary in Brookline.
In addition, prescriptions would have to be renewed every six months, instead of annually. That reverses a change made just months ago to bring the state in line with typical policies, he said, and it will mean more paperwork.
"Its more bureaucratic mumbojumbo," he said.
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
|