CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Proposed tax hikes are coming, as
predicted!
Citizens for Limited Taxation sent the following memo to House Democrats, and a similar memo to House Republicans, this morning....
CLT wishes that Governor Romney would recognize that this is not a discussion about the House simply setting its own rules independent of other branches, but the first vote on his entire reform agenda.
CLT NEWS RELEASE
Monday, April 14, 2003
Finneran (More) Power Grab
With the governor's apparent blessing, the House yesterday paved the way for bonus pay for more of its members and, critics say, strengthened House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's already firm grip on power....
"This was the most important vote of his administration," said Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "This is the vote on his reform package, on a tax increase. This vote determines whether anyone but Tom Finneran gets his way because now he will have the power to control enough legislators to make it impossible for Romney to sustain a veto."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Finneran loyalists defend new pay plan
Although Governor Mitt Romney did not explicitly raise the threat of a veto yesterday, his changed stance could shift the political equation. Support in the House fell short of the 107 votes needed to ensure a veto override, and the possibility of a gubernatorial veto and the publicity associated with it could change votes down the line....
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said the governor would be smart to use his veto power to stop what she called "Finneran's power grab" so he can hold together a coalition of House members later to buck the speaker on the administration's priorities.
"Governor Romney should veto because we might be able to sustain that veto," Anderson said. "If not, he won't be sustaining any vetoes on his reforms or taxes."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
House OK's pay bill; veto possible
Gov. Mitt Romney's young administration is at a turning point that could determine its ultimate success as Romney decides whether to let House Speaker Tom Finneran's brash move to shield leadership pay raises from public scrutiny become law. Romney should veto the measure if it reaches his desk and put the full force of his office behind upholding the veto....
But accepting Finneran's plan is too much of a capitulation. Not only are legislative pay raises potent symbols, but giving Finneran unfettered power to reward and punish his loyalists strengthens the speaker's hand in a way that probably dooms Romney's reforms.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Veto the pay raise, fight for reforms
Even if some savings don't materialize immediately, Romney said, that's "no excuse" for abandoning the reform proposals. "That's just an excuse to avoid something you don't want to do," Romney said. "This is the House leadership saying, 'give us taxes or give us cuts, but don't give us reform.'"
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Gov slams House for reform balk
The governor, who has won little support among lawmakers for his sweeping changes, called their criticisms "an excuse" for avoiding real government reform.
"What I'm fearful of is that House leadership wants to keep things the way they are, doesn't want to see change, wants the status quo," Romney said. "And the voters have made it clear they want change, they want reform, and nothing else is going to be satisfactory." ...
"I am very concerned by the letter sent out from House leadership over the weekend that suggests they're not interested in real reform," Romney said. "The House leadership is looking at Draconian cuts and potentially even taxes, but they're not serious about reform...."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Romney blasts budget critics
Says lawmakers ignore fiscal crisis
Let's hope Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), chairwoman of the Senate Taxation Committee, gets out to stretch her legs too. Creem sent a letter to the Department of Revenue last week asking for an analysis of how much money various tax increase scenarios would raise. Income taxes and corporate taxes were both on her "targets of opportunity" list.
Creem says she just wants to be a better source of information for her colleagues as they begin budget deliberations. Her letter to taxpayers asking them how they're going to come up with hundreds of millions of more dollars must have gotten lost in the mail.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Higher taxes mulled on booze, income ...
The final figures are not yet in, but it looks like the volunteer tax check-off plan allowing taxpayers to pay a higher income tax rate is a bust....
It seems the shock and dismay over the "devastating" budget cuts hasn't sunk in yet. Maybe next year. Only then, paying higher taxes may not be voluntary.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
... few high tax volunteers
There's a theory making the rounds within our Great and General Court that the best way to deal with the budget deficit is to squeeze services until taxpayers hurt....
Yet once parents have to figure out what to do with the kids because schools are open only four days a week; or citizens are put in fear of their safety due to cutbacks in police, fire and corrections budgets, the thinking goes, a clamor will rise throughout the commonwealth for more spending -- and higher taxes.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Legislative squeeze play
A House report due out Wednesday outlines how much the state could raise by hiking dozens of taxes from a bump in the sales tax to a jump in the gas levy.
Although authors of the report aren't recommending any tax hikes and House leaders say there is no public appetite for higher taxes the report could be seized on by lawmakers looking for a way to close an anticipated $3 billion spending gap in the state budget....
A draft version of the report was obtained by The Associated Press. The task force that produced the report was appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston....
The report outlines dozens of possible tax hikes.
Hiking the income tax rate back up to 5.6 percent from its current 5.3 percent would bring in an extra $685 million a year, while rolling it back to the old rate of 5.95 percent would raise an extra $1.3 billion annually....
Associated Press
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House report outlines dozens of possible tax hikes
The Massachusetts Municipal Association hits the radio waves Wednesday morning with an ad campaign aimed at raising awareness of the impact of local aid cuts and calling for the use of reforms, reserves and revenues to minimize the budget cuts. The association's revenue plan includes the options of raising the income tax to 5.9 percent or adding a penny to the five-cent sales tax.
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Municipal officials to launch ad campaign
[MMA news release below]
The lopsided vote came after a day of heated debate on the House floor between gambling boosters and opponents.
[State Rep. Brad] Jones, the House Republican leader, argued that rejecting expanded gambling may end up coming at the cost of higher taxes.
"I see expanded gaming as a legitimate alternative revenue source to expanded taxes," Jones said.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House votes down gambling bills:
Backers warn of spending cuts, tax hikes
The timing of the debate left gambling proponents grumbling that Finneran set the votes up to fail, perhaps to make the budget situation seem worse and increase public pressure to raise taxes. They noted that the House will debate taxes after the Ways and Means budget is released, meaning those votes will be after the public sees the extent of the state's fiscal woes.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House says no to slot machines
Direct democracy usually works better in theory than in practice. Still, for 85 years the initiative petition process has given Massachusetts voters a useful safety valve, a mechanism for challenging the political establishment when it becomes too high-handed. The process has flaws, but proposals circulating on Beacon Hill to change it -- through a constitutional amendment and a statute -- threaten more harm than good....
We opposed two major initiatives that passed in recent years -- the income tax rollback approved in 2000 and last year's question on bilingual education. Most often, such questions are better left to the Legislature. But the initiative process serves a useful purpose, and that purpose would be undercut by the proposed changes.
A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
The power of petitions
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Look what happens when just one day goes by without a
CLT Update. We're inundated, overwhelmed by the Legislature's
juggernaut for another huge tax hike by any and all means available; we
have to sprint to catch up.
I just don't believe that tax-and-spend legislators
like House Speaker Tom Finneran and Senate President Robert Travaglini
and their minions are anything but focused on hiking taxes again,
lusting for ever more revenue taken from taxpayers' pockets.
I don't believe for a moment that they "heard
the voters' message," or if they did, that they paused even for a
moment to consider it. Voters said "no new taxes" -- even
those who voted against our tax rollback but changed their minds and
kept the tax cut -- but the tax-and-spenders were already plotting
their next tax hike strategy ... just as we predicted in January.
Reforms and restructuring? "Forget about
it." Gaming revenue? "Don't need it, we've got a better
plan." Pork, perks and privilege? "Hey, nothing to worry
about. We can afford full speed ahead ... more, more, more for our
feeding trough!"
Travaglini has his chairwoman of the Senate Taxation
Committee out researching the best taxes to hike or add to taxpayers'
heavy burden, and Finneran's got his "task force" doing the
same ... but both assert that "there is no public appetite for higher taxes."
They're just engaging in a hypothetical exercise, we're supposed to
believe like blind fools. "Baghdad Bob" was a good teacher.
When was the last time they gave one whit about
"public appetite for higher taxes"?
The Massachusetts Teachers Association is running a
$2 million media blitz calling for tax hikes, and the Massachusetts
Municipal Association launches its tax hike media campaign today. Now I
know that the MTA raids its members' dues to fund their propaganda or
adds an "assessment" onto its members -- but who funds the
MMA's media buy, and how much is it spending?
The Massachusetts Municipal Association is funded by
the dues of each municipality, each city and town that is a member. Is
the MMA is using your local property and excise taxes, the fees
you pay to your local government, against you in a "public education effort"
to raise your taxes even higher?
In only a few weeks, the battle over another massive
tax hike will be joined. Sharpen your swords, taxpayers, "lock and
load."
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
CLT NEWS RELEASE
Monday, April 14, 2003
Finneran (More) Power Grab
Citizens for Limited Taxation sent the following memo to House Democrats, and a similar memo to House Republicans, this morning.
"The issue today is not creating new committees and adding committee bonus pay without the presently required statute.
"The issue today is whatever is important to any legislator, what is chosen for the campaign literature, what constituents want. In a democratic House, when the day comes that your issue is to be voted on, you have a chance to persuade other legislators to vote with you.
"In a leadership controlled House, with even more legislators beholden to the Speaker for extra pay, you have only the chance that the Speaker and those who follow the money allow you. If this proposal passes, many Democrats will be voting with the Speaker (even more than they do already), hoping to someday be a Finneran Favorite. If you don’t make the cut, your issues won’t matter.
"The first vote – on whatever you tell your constituents is important – happens today."
The memo to House Republicans stated that "Republicans who intend to vote against new taxes should also vote against making a bad situation worse, so they have at least a chance of sustaining Governor Romney’s veto. The first tax vote of 2003 happens today."
CLT wishes that Governor Romney would recognize that this is not a discussion about the House simply setting its own rules independent of other branches, but the first vote on his entire reform agenda.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Finneran loyalists defend new pay plan
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
With the governor's apparent blessing, the House yesterday paved the way for bonus pay for more of its members and, critics say, strengthened House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's already firm grip on power.
Finneran loyalists - dozens of whom already get extra pay on top of their $53,380 annual salaries - defended the change as "simple housekeeping" aimed at getting rid of outdated committees and replacing them with new ones.
"People who opposed this don't have the moral high ground," Rep. Stephen Tobin (D-Quincy) said. "People need to have a little more faith in the members of the Legislature."
But Rep. Patricia D. Jehlen (D-Somerville) said the leadership pay plan only adds to the public's disgust with Beacon Hill, especially since it comes just weeks before the House begins debate on how deeply to cut education, health care and other services to fix a $3 billion deficit.
"It's part of the dissatisfaction people have with us. They don't trust us to put their interests first and this adds fuel to that fire," she said. "The symbolism is terrible."
The pay raise plan gives the House and Senate unilateral power to increase leadership positions and the added pay that goes along with them. Almost one-third of House members already get between $7,500 and $25,000 a year on top of their base pay.
The plan approved 100-50 yesterday allows the House to add jobs with bonus pay without having to get the governor's approval - a provision Gov. Mitt Romney appeared to waffle on yesterday.
Romney, who campaigned on a government reform theme then steered a wide path around the House bonus pay scheme, said he still thinks the House and Senate should be able to organize themselves, including creating and eliminating committees, without interference from him.
But for the first time yesterday, Romney signaled he won't give the plan a free pass across his desk. Without acknowledging the bill will affect lawmakers' pay, Romney said "if it does," he wants to retain his power to review it.
The bill approved yesterday strips him and future governors of that ability.
Critics said Romney's chance to fight - and score points with voters fed up with what he has called a "business as usual" attitude at the State House - has long passed.
"This was the most important vote of his administration," said Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "This is the vote on his reform package, on a tax increase. This vote determines whether anyone but Tom Finneran gets his way because now he will have the power to control enough legislators to make it impossible for Romney to sustain a veto."
Pam Wilmot of Common Cause Massachusetts said, "People are hurting and they want their elected officials to share the pain. I think they'll see the symbolism here and I'm sure some people will be very angry."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
House OK's pay bill; veto possible
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
The Massachusetts House voted yesterday to hand legislative leaders vastly expanded powers to boost the pay of their colleagues, but the closeness of the victory and the governor's newly expressed opposition raised questions about the future of the bill.
The measure, which House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran had pushed for weeks, was approved on a 100-to-50 vote. It is expected to win Senate passage as well.
Although Governor Mitt Romney did not explicitly raise the threat of a veto yesterday, his changed stance could shift the political equation. Support in the House fell short of the 107 votes needed to ensure a veto override, and the possibility of a gubernatorial veto and the publicity associated with it could change votes down the line.
"I think the executive branch should be able to have the ability to review compensation matters," said Romney, who initially suggested that he would support the Legislature's effort to manage its own affairs. "I'll take a very careful look at that provision of this bill."
Fifty-one of 160 House members currently receive pay beyond their $53,381 base salary because they are considered members of "leadership" on the Democratic or Republican side. In 1997, shortly after becoming speaker, Finneran pushed through a bill creating 11 additional leadership posts; critics have accused him of using the leadership pay system to reward loyalists and punish dissenters.
The proposed bill would give House and Senate leaders more leeway to add new leadership jobs by allowing such posts to be created under legislative rules. Such rules are proposed by the House speaker and Senate president and are typically rubber-stamped by the Legislature without the input of the governor. Now, any measure to increase leadership pay must go through the regular legislative process and can be vetoed by the governor.
"We are being asked to change a longstanding tradition because we want to add compensation for some of our colleagues," said state Representative Michael E.
Festa, a Melrose Democrat who pleaded with House members to defeat the bill. "This change in the law will make it easier, will simply and plainly make it easier, to increase compensation under the radar screen of the public."
Finneran, who did not attend yesterday's debate, has sought virtually unfettered power since February to create additional paid posts as part of his effort to revamp the committee system in the Legislature. He has not publicly specified the extent of his plans for extra pay, but members of his leadership team have indicated that he would like to spread out an additional $55,000 a year among six to eight House members.
The bill's supporters said the measure was an attempt by the House to exert authority over its own operations. Finneran is looking to update the House's committee structure, abolishing two obsolete committees and creating committees on Medicaid and homeland security.
Putting all management functions under legislative rules would make those changes far easier, said Representative Robert M.
Koczera, a New Bedford Democrat. He noted the governor already has authority to create and abolish positions under his control and set pay of his staff within budgetary limits.
"This legislation enables us to be better responsive, and of course to be responsible," said
Koczera, chairman of the House Committee on Public Service. "I believe that this bill would enable us to do what the occupants of the corner office have been doing right along, from the time of Governor [William F.] Weld and certainly through Governor Romney."
Representative A. Stephen Tobin, a Quincy Democrat, said Finneran has saved $300,000 in the legislative budget for next year. He said extra pay for House members will still be debated openly when legislative rules are proposed.
The bill had originally been set for debate in early February, but Finneran abruptly dropped the matter after House members objected to it being discussed while lawmakers were grappling with a budget shortfall. He agreed to offer it at a more appropriate time.
Some House members said yesterday was just as poor a time to discuss the move because House leaders are set next week to propose deep cuts to education and health care programs.
"Bad timing, bad timing, bad timing," said Representative Philip Travis, a Rehoboth Democrat. "People outside this building will always realize what this is perceived to be."
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said the governor would be smart to use his veto power to stop what she called "Finneran's power grab" so he can hold together a coalition of House members later to buck the speaker on the administration's priorities.
"Governor Romney should veto because we might be able to sustain that veto," Anderson said. "If not, he won't be sustaining any vetoes on his reforms or taxes."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Veto the pay raise, fight for reforms
Gov. Mitt Romney's young administration is at a turning point that could determine its ultimate success as Romney decides whether to let House Speaker Tom Finneran's brash move to shield leadership pay raises from public scrutiny become law. Romney should veto the measure if it reaches his desk and put the full force of his office behind upholding the veto.
No, there isn't a lot of money at stake, and this isn't the most pressing policy issue ever. Romney's plans to fundamentally restructure government and close the yawning $3 billion budget gap while holding the line on taxes are far more critical to the future of the state.
And certainly there will be instances during Romney's tenure where he will have to make some unattractive deals with the Legislature to move his agenda forward. That kind of back and forth is part of the art of politics.
But accepting Finneran's plan is too much of a capitulation. Not only are legislative pay raises potent symbols, but giving Finneran unfettered power to reward and punish his loyalists strengthens the speaker's hand in a way that probably dooms Romney's reforms.
As he weighs his decision, Romney should keep in mind that Finneran has already signaled outright rejection of many of the proposals, so in deciding to take on the speaker he probably doesn't have a lot to lose.
But he does have a lot to gain. Former Gov. Bill Weld had a similar opportunity to determine the course of his first term just a few months after taking office. The issue at that time was the repeal of a sales tax on services which was strongly opposed by the House leadership.
Weld won the vote by appealing directly to rank and file legislators who were made aware of the public support for repeal. Weld's win sent shock waves through the State House and forced the leadership's cooperation on closing the budget gap without new taxes.
The analogy is not exact - tax fights are easier to win and legislators' direct financial interest was not involved. But Romney has the same opportunity to unlock the leadership's iron grip on the House and send a clear message that the Romney reform movement is a force to be reckoned with.
It's a battle well worth waging, and if Romney wins it, we all win.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Gov slams House for reform balk
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Gov. Mitt Romney accused lawmakers of using a "smokescreen" of criticism to hide their resistance to his reform proposals - and said he would gladly match his own private-sector budget-balancing record against legislative leaders' poor showing.
The governor stood by his assertion that $2 billion can be saved through restructuring state government - after House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers claimed over the weekend that Romney overstated his reform savings by $948 million.
Even if some savings don't materialize immediately, Romney said, that's "no excuse" for abandoning the reform proposals. "That's just an excuse to avoid something you don't want to do," Romney said. "This is the House leadership saying, 'give us taxes or give us cuts, but don't give us reform.'"
Rogers (D-Norwood) denied the governor's charge and insisted the House budget, slated for release next week, would include some variations on Romney's restructuring proposals.
But the House budget chief reiterated he's relying on "deeper cuts" to make up for money that he's discounting from Romney's plan, including $75 million from casino-blocking payments and a $90 million health insurer tax - ideas Romney has already abandoned.
"There is no resistance to reform in the House," Rogers said. "We'll be doing some of the governor's reforms, but let me be clear - we're not going to see the savings."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Romney blasts budget critics
Says lawmakers ignore fiscal crisis
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
Using his sharpest words to date, Governor Mitt Romney criticized legislators yesterday, saying that their opposition to his government overhaul reflects an unwillingness to deal with the state's budget crisis head-on.
The governor, who has won little support among lawmakers for his sweeping changes, called their criticisms "an excuse" for avoiding real government reform.
"What I'm fearful of is that House leadership wants to keep things the way they are, doesn't want to see change, wants the status quo," Romney said. "And the voters have made it clear they want change, they want reform, and nothing else is going to be satisfactory."
Romney was responding to statements from House Ways and Means chairman John H. Rogers criticizing the governor's budget proposal. In a letter to members yesterday, Rogers argued that $950 million of the savings claimed by Romney in his budget plan for next year were based on "false revenue assumptions."
In addition, separate House panels recently urged the rejection of his proposed overhaul of the judiciary, his higher education consolidations, and his push to require state workers to pay for more of their health insurance.
Romney's salvo yesterday appeared to signal the end of the honeymoon between the Republican governor and the Democratic-controlled Legislature. Until recently, Romney and legislative leaders took great pains to say they were willing to work together to close the estimated $3 billion budget gap for the next fiscal year. But yesterday's statement, and the House criticisms preceding it, marked a clear change of tone.
"I am very concerned by the letter sent out from House leadership over the weekend that suggests they're not interested in real reform," Romney said. "The House leadership is looking at Draconian cuts and potentially even taxes, but they're not serious about reform. If Chairman Rogers doesn't think the reforms are going to generate as much savings as we do, that's fine, but that's no excuse not to take them. Just give us the budget we've asked for, and we'll deliver the numbers over the coming year."
The escalating words came as Beacon Hill prepares for some pivotal decisions on state spending. Next week, the House begins debating its own version of the budget for fiscal 2004, which begins July 1, and during that debate lawmakers are likely to chart a very different course on spending and cutting than the governor did. Legislative leaders have already said their budget for 2004 will call for much deeper cuts than those made by Romney.
In addition, Romney, who unveiled most of his government reforms and cost-cutting proposals in his budget address in February, will submit legislation detailing the restructuring on May 1. The House and Senate will take an up-or-down vote on the entire package and a defeat there could be a significant setback for the governor.
The battle over the restructuring and cost savings is sure to be played out in the court of public opinion as well as in the chambers and marbled hallways of the State House, in coming weeks.
The House has taken the lead in reviewing Romney's proposals, and House members repeatedly complained that the governor failed to provide details about his plans. In a letter last month, Rogers accused the administration of omitting "basic information" on its proposals, and of delivering "vague ideas and press releases" instead.
Rogers and others have warned of deeper cuts than Romney has proposed. Some Republicans, like Romney, have suggested that Rogers and other lawmakers are eyeing tax hikes for this year, a claim that Rogers denied yesterday.
In coming weeks, the governor will be trying to reach beyond legislators to appeal directly to voters: In stepped-up public appearances, he will aggressively urge ordinary citizens to contact their state representatives and voice their support for his restructuring proposals. He appeared to use yesterday's news conference on his proposed increase in health insurance premiums for state employees, an idea he has previously rolled out, as a vehicle to kick off that campaign.
Under Romney's proposal, state employees (who currently pay 15 percent of their health insurance premiums) will be asked to pay at least 25 percent. That would save the state $62 million a year, he said.
"We think it's fundamentally unfair to ask the taxpayers to subsidize generous health care benefits for state employees which they're unable to obtain for themselves in the private sector," the governor said.
Romney argued that the state's premium costs had grown by 78 percent since 1991 and that employees' share of those premiums should be increased to help offset those costs. A Romney aide conceded yesterday that employees' contributions to those premiums had also increased by 78 percent in that time. However, the administration said it is the share that state workers pay that is too low, compared with private employees.
Massachusetts AFL-CIO chief Robert J. Haynes decried the proposal yesterday, calling it "just another attack on working families."
"To suggest that some of these state workers making $20,000 or $25,000 can afford these significant increases is ludicrous," Haynes said.
The employees' share of the insurance premiums is set by state law and legislators would have to vote to change it. In some cases, the premium is also covered by union contracts.
Rick Klein of the Globe Staff contributed to this story.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Higher taxes mulled on booze, income ...
Maybe the nicer weather will get Beacon Hill lawmakers out of their offices and help clear their heads because something in the air at the State House, particularly in the Senate side of the building, is causing their brains to muddle.
The first person needing a walk around Boston Common is Sen. Marian Walsh (D-Boston) who is proposing hiking the excise tax on beer, wine and liquor.
Her measure would raise the per-gallon tax on beer by 24 cents, increase the wine tax by 80 cents and add $2 to the hard liquor tax. Per drink, it's just a few cents difference, Walsh says.
Trade groups point out the impact is far greater: $150 million in sales lost and more Massachusetts customers headed to New Hampshire liquor stores, along with jobs cut and a burden on the "little guy."
Similar bills have gone nowhere in past years for fear of a backlash from a lot of beer-drinking little guys, but the additional $64 million might prove too intoxicating this time around.
"Even if I was an ice-cold-blooded Republican this is a sound decision," Walsh says. Clearly nothing good is associated with ice cold in Walsh's mind. The rest of us beg to differ.
Let's hope Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), chairwoman of the Senate Taxation Committee, gets out to stretch her legs too. Creem sent a letter to the Department of Revenue last week asking for an analysis of how much money various tax increase scenarios would raise. Income taxes and corporate taxes were both on her "targets of opportunity" list.
Creem says she just wants to be a better source of information for her colleagues as they begin budget deliberations. Her letter to taxpayers asking them how they're going to come up with hundreds of millions of more dollars must have gotten lost in the mail.
Speaking of the mail, Gov. Mitt Romney is going to be stretching his legs at the South Boston Postal Annex today, talking to last-minute tax filers - always a tricky position for a politician. But Romney's going to reiterate what may be the only good news taxpayers are going to get today - that his veto pen is ready no matter what the Legislature cooks up.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
... few high tax volunteers
The final figures are not yet in, but it looks like the volunteer tax check-off plan allowing taxpayers to pay a higher income tax rate is a bust.
As of yesterday, just 741 people, out of 1.6 million who have filed, had opted to pay the higher tax, generating a total of $83,638 in state revenue. That's a blow for tax and spend advocates who argue, even now, that taxpayers really really wouldn't mind paying more taxes to preserve government programs.
It seems the shock and dismay over the "devastating" budget cuts hasn't sunk in yet. Maybe next year. Only then, paying higher taxes may not be voluntary.
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Editorial
Legislative squeeze play
There's a theory making the rounds within our Great and General Court that the best way to deal with the budget deficit is to squeeze services until taxpayers hurt.
Forget about taking the difficult steps necessary to reduce expenses and keep them under control in the future: consolidating government agencies, improving personnel practices and even taking on a few sacred cows like Bill Bulger's higher education satrapy. That requires real sacrifice, which doesn't go down well with those who used their political connections to get that government job with its promise of liberal benefits and no heavy lifting.
It's those relative few who abuse the system that the voters have in mind when they enact a measure like Proposition 2 1/2 limiting property taxes; or, as happened last year, let their elected officials know they're good and ready to scrap the income tax as well.
Yet once parents have to figure out what to do with the kids because schools are open only four days a week; or citizens are put in fear of their safety due to cutbacks in police, fire and corrections budgets, the thinking goes, a clamor will rise throughout the commonwealth for more spending -- and higher taxes.
Suffer a little now, but in a year or two the lid will be off and it will be business as usual on Beacon Hill.
But Mitt Romney was elected by a solid majority last November on a platform calling for reform of the traditional means of doing business at the Statehouse and in city and town halls. Voters cannot allow a recalcitrant Legislature to interfere with that effort.
Yes, some of the claimed savings in the Romney reform program are exaggerated. But that does not justify scrapping his entire program. For example:
The Metropolitan District Commission is as outdated and patronage ridden as county government and deserves the same fate -- abolition. And there's little reason, in our view, to have a semi-autonomous "authority" maintain the Massachusetts Turnpike, leaving the rest of the state's roads and bridges in the care of the state Highway Department.
As for the courts -- a major target of the Romney reform initiative -- the Pioneer Institute did an analysis not that long ago and reported that between 1998 and 2001, the Legislature mandated the creation of 416 positions never requested by the judiciary at a four-year cost of $50.1 million.
How many of those court positions, do you figure, were filled based on need or merit? There may not be $2 billion to $3 billion worth of waste in state government, but even $1 million is too much.
Lawmakers unwilling to take part in crafting a solution are a big part of the problem, and should themselves be the object of taxpayers' wrath in the next election.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House report outlines dozens of possible tax hikes
By Steve Leblanc
A House report due out Wednesday outlines how much the state could raise by hiking dozens of taxes from a bump in the sales tax to a jump in the gas levy.
Although authors of the report aren't recommending any tax hikes and House leaders say there is no public appetite for higher taxes the report could be seized on by lawmakers looking for a way to close an anticipated $3 billion spending gap in the state budget.
A 1 percent hike in the sales tax (from 5 percent to 6 percent) would net an extra $750 million each year, according to the report. Each additional penny in the gas tax is worth $33 million to the state.
A draft version of the report was obtained by The Associated Press. The task force that produced the report was appointed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston.
Its authors caution the study is simply intended as "a list of state revenue options for members to consider when debating on how to best balance the state's budget."
But talk of any tax hikes so close to next week's release of the House version of the state budget could fuel critics, notably Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who says lawmakers are laying the groundwork for new taxes.
"This is really the House leadership saying 'Give us taxes or give us cuts, but don't give us reforms,"' Romney said Monday after House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood, sent a letter to House lawmakers criticizing Romney's budget plan.
Rogers has denied that the House is considering taxes. "Taxes are off the table in this budget," he said.
While House leaders, including Finneran, are rejecting new taxes, some individual House lawmakers say new taxes should be considered if they will help avoid deep cuts in state services.
The report outlines dozens of possible tax hikes.
Hiking the income tax rate back up to 5.6 percent from its current 5.3 percent would bring in an extra $685 million a year, while rolling it back to the old rate of 5.95 percent would raise an extra $1.3 billion annually.
The report also outlines a series of possible business and sales tax hikes.
Repealing a pair of tax breaks passed in the mid-1990s that benefited defense and mutual fund companies like Fidelity and Raytheon would save the state about $153 million a year, while eliminating a research and development tax credit would bring in an extra $96 million, according to the report.
Taxing beer and alcohol under the state's sales tax would raise $60 million, while eliminating the sales tax exemption for newspapers and magazines would bring in $34 million each year. Taxing items sold over the Internet could raise up to $300 million a year, the report said.
Yet another option to ease the fallout from deep budget cuts would be to give cities and towns greater freedom to raise local meals and entertainment taxes, the report said.
The report also suggested other ways to cushion the impending budget cuts without raising taxes, including dipping deeper into the state's dwindling reserves, letting cities and towns offer their own tax amnesty programs and borrowing up to $1 billion to be repaid over the next seven to 10 years.
The report also raised the possibility of hiking dozens of fees and fines, from pawnbroker licenses to parking ticket fines.
Return to
top
Massachusetts Municipal Association
News Release
April 15, 2003
MMA launches statewide public education effort
to protect local aid
Municipal Association Calls for
Balanced and Responsible Solutions to Crisis
The Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) today announced that it will immediately launch a series of statewide radio announcements to inform citizens of the damage to cities and towns caused by cuts in local aid, and calling for a balanced and responsible solution to the state fiscal crisis that includes new state revenues. The public education effort will begin on April 16th.
The Romney Administration has already reduced local aid by $140 million in fiscal year 2003, and is proposing $232 million in further cuts for next year. Legislative leaders are warning of much deeper reductions due to perceived shortfalls in the budget submitted by the Governor. "Cities and towns are on the edge of a fiscal abyss," said MMA Executive Director Geoff Beckwith. "Further local aid cuts will compromise the ability of local government to deliver essential services to the citizens of our state, and force communities to adopt regressive property tax hikes. That is why we are bringing our message directly to the people."
The MMA also announced a new website, www.mmaplan.org, to inform citizens of the impact of the proposed local aid cuts, and outline the Association's plan calling for a multi-year, multi-faceted solution to balance the state budget using a prudent mixture of revenues, reductions and careful planning. The website will be online on April 16, and will monitor the progress of solutions to the fiscal crisis.
The radio ads will call on Beacon Hill to stop raiding local aid and adopt a broader and more responsible approach to balancing the state budget that includes new revenues. The MMA supports restoring the state income tax rate to 1999 levels, a move that would raise $1 billion to offset a portion of the $3 billion state shortfall.
"Cities and towns rely on local aid to pay for core essential services that are delivered directly to the citizens of Massachusetts," said Beckwith. "These services include educating our children, policing the streets, fighting fires, responding to emergencies, caring for senior citizens, collecting the trash, maintaining safe roads, operating public libraries, providing health and safety inspections of businesses, providing safe drinking water and sewer services, and much more."
According to the municipal association, further reductions in local aid would force sweeping cuts in municipal services and cause fiscal uncertainty throughout the state. Unless the cuts are reversed, thousands of layoffs of police, fire, school, public works and general government personnel are inevitable.
"The next several weeks will be dominated by debate, discussion and information gathering," concluded Beckwith. "The MMA will work closely with local leaders, legislators and Administration officials to protect local government's ability to provide vital services to the people of Massachusetts."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House votes down gambling bills:
Backers warn of spending cuts, tax hikes
by Scott Van Voorhis
Backers of opening the Bay State to Las Vegas-style gambling were handed a devastating defeat yesterday, with the House spurning a proposal for thousands of slot machines at locations across the state.
With House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) still opposed to expanded gambling, House members rejected, 95-59, a proposal to roll out 9,000 slot machines at six locales.
The bill, put forth by state Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading), the House Republican leader, was a watered-down version of an earlier proposal that also called for three full-fledged casinos.
The House rejected a similar proposal, by a smaller, though still substantial, 87-to-65 margin that would have limited slots to the state's four racetracks.
The two votes were far short of the 70-plus members gambling backers hoped for in light of the state's deepening fiscal crisis.
"The biggest pathological gambler in the state - if we do this - will be the state," warned state Rep. Daniel Bosley (D-North Adams), chairman of the powerful Government Regulations committee, who led the drive to kill the gaming proposals.
"Once you are hooked on the revenue, you are hooked on the revenue," Bosley said.
The defeat of the bills could make it difficult for any other gambling proposals to be considered in the House during the remainder of the two-year legislative session.
And the margin of defeat may also make it more difficult for a more gambling-friendly Senate to resurrect the issue later this year, observers say.
The lopsided vote came after a day of heated debate on the House floor between gambling boosters and opponents.
Jones, the House Republican leader, argued that rejecting expanded gambling may end up coming at the cost of higher taxes.
"I see expanded gaming as a legitimate alternative revenue source to expanded taxes," Jones said.
Jones' arguments were echoed by other gaming boosters, who painted the vote as a choice between expanded gaming and dire cuts to a range of basic services in towns and cities across the state.
"Not only are our firemen and police being laid off, they are being put in danger," said state Rep. Kathleen Reinstein (D-Revere), who championed the proposal for slots at the tracks.
"How do you go back to these people and tell them 'You don't matter?' We are going to cut local aid 20 percent. Couldn't we lessen the blow a little bit?"
A longtime gambling critic, Bosley dismissed arguments that expanded gambling could raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
Instead, opening the state to slot machines could actually end up costing the state hundreds of millions in additional social costs caused by problem gamblers.
Bosley also argued that allowing slot machines would simply open the floodgates to gambling interests, setting the state for at least three Native American casinos.
"If we pass casinos, they will be with us for years, in good times and in bad times," Bosley said.
Still, Jones and other gaming boosters argued that vote totals were not a true indicator of support for gaming in the House.
Jones cited days of "polling" of House members that helped push some lawmakers, who had been sittion on the fence, into the anti-gambling camp. This push for votes, according to lawmakers, was led by Finneran's office and members of his leadership team.
"The suasion has been at play - quietly and softly and not so quietly and softly in some cases. That's OK, Mr. Speaker," Jones said.
Jones also complained that Finneran, in overseeing yesterday's debate, limited the number of proposals gaming boosters could bring to the floor for debate.
But Bosley, one of Finneran's committee chairs, dismissed such complaints as "nitpicking."
"We debated it for six hours and I think we said everything twice," Bosley said.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
House says no to slot machines
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
The House yesterday rejected two bills that would have brought slot machines to the state, reducing the chances of expanded gambling in Massachusetts but not closing out the possibility entirely.
While the House is now on record against gambling, Senate leaders and Governor Mitt Romney are still interested in the $300 million to $800 million it could bring the cash-strapped state annually. The issue could come up in budget negotiations later if slots or casinos are incorporated into the Senate budget.
On yesterday's votes, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran strongly opposed any gambling expansion, and his leadership team heavily lobbied rank-and-file members to kill the two measures. A bill calling for six sites with slots -- two in western Massachusetts and the rest at the state's four racetracks -- failed on a 95-59 vote, and the proposal for only slots at the horse and dog tracks went down 86-65.
"It's a lousy way to make money," said state Representative Daniel E.
Bosley, co-chairman of the Government Regulations Committee, which has authority over gambling matters and had recommended that both bills be defeated. "Our fiscal situation should have absolutely nothing to do with this debate."
Beverly Wright, chairwoman of the Wampanoag Tribe of Aquinnah on Martha's Vineyard, which is seeking to build a full-scale casino in Southeastern Massachusetts, said the House votes were "not unexpected." The votes probably mark just the "first in a series of critical fiscal debates" that will involve talk of expanded gambling, she said. "It has done nothing to dampen our optimism or our commitment to press forward and pursue our rights," Wright said in a prepared statement.
Proponents of expanded gambling initially sought approval for full-scale casinos in addition to slots. But they decided to withdraw mention of casinos from the bills considered yesterday, hoping to improve their chances of winning House support.
While the vote tallies were closer than typically seen in the Legislature, the negative recommendations by Bosley's committee set up procedural obstacles that gambling backers couldn't get around.
State Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Revere Democrat, said slot machines are crucial to the continued economic viability of the tracks. With deep budget cuts looming and the state facing a $3 billion budget gap in the fiscal year that begins July 1, the state needs the money more than ever, she said. "We have a proposal for revenue before us, the only one that's not going to cause taxes to be raised," she said. "Don't we have a responsibility to make these cuts as painless as possible?"
Reinstein agreed with the Romney administration's position that the state can authorize video slot machines without opening the door to full-scale Indian casinos. But Bosley disagreed, saying federal law generally allows Native American tribes to operate gambling facilities similar to those allowed anywhere else in a state.
"The debate here really is whether you want casinos plural in Massachusetts, or whether you don't," said
Bosley, a North Adams Democrat.
Senator Michael W. Morrissey, cochairman of the Government Regulations Committee, said the House's action yesterday makes the possibility of slot machines or casinos coming to Massachusetts more remote.
Romney has proposed auctioning from two to four licenses to operate video slot-machine parlors, with the licenses to expire after five years. A Romney spokeswoman said yesterday that the governor still believes his proposal is sound, but added that he will wait for the Senate's action on gambling before deciding how to proceed in terms of offering a bill.
While no formal Senate plan has been announced, Senate President Robert E. Travaglini has previously voiced support for slots at racetracks and the erection of at least one Indian-run casino, similar to those in Connecticut.
Republican leaders, who have favored expanded gambling for years, sought to delay the debate over gambling bills until after the House Ways and Means budget is released next Wednesday. They argued that casinos and slot machines should be considered only after House members realize the level of budget cuts that will be necessary without new revenue sources -- but their bid to delay the vote was rejected 122-28.
"This debate today would have a little more bearing and a little more context knowing what's in that document," said House minority whip George N. Peterson Jr., a Grafton Republican.
The timing of the debate left gambling proponents grumbling that Finneran set the votes up to fail, perhaps to make the budget situation seem worse and increase public pressure to raise taxes. They noted that the House will debate taxes after the Ways and Means budget is released, meaning those votes will be after the public sees the extent of the state's fiscal woes.
"I think we're being set up by the leadership of this House and the governor of this Commonwealth for more taxes," said state Representative David L. Flynn, a Bridgewater Democrat. While Romney has promised to veto any tax hike, Flynn suggested that the governor secretly wants taxes to pass, so he can continue to fight unpopular tax increases while benefiting from the lack of Draconian service cuts.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
The power of petitions
Direct democracy usually works better in theory than in practice. Still, for 85 years the initiative petition process has given Massachusetts voters a useful safety valve, a mechanism for challenging the political establishment when it becomes too high-handed. The process has flaws, but proposals circulating on Beacon Hill to change it -- through a constitutional amendment and a statute -- threaten more harm than good.
In particular, the proposed constitutional amendment would significantly increase the number of signatures needed to place a measure on the ballot. If implemented, the increase would make it difficult for true grass-roots movements to collect the necessary number of signatures. Instead, most questions that made it to the ballot would be the ones sponsored by deep-pocket advocates who could afford to hire professional signature gatherers.
Senator Stanley Rosenberg of Amherst, lead sponsor of the proposed amendment, argues that the higher signature threshold would actually work to the advantage of grass-roots organizations because it would compel them to do the statewide organizing they would need to win. But this view is countered by the fact that many grass-roots organizations from across the political spectrum -- from
Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government to Common Cause -- are opposing the changes. Indeed, Common Cause claims that the proposed changes "would eviscerate the citizen initiative process" by virtually requiring the use of paid help. Rosenberg argues further that Massachusetts has one of the lowest signature thresholds in the country, a figure below that originally intended. The requirement is based on the turnout of voters in the prior statewide election rather than on registered voters. Because turnout has declined, he says, the requirement for signatures has declined even while the population has gone up. But the bar still seems high enough based on the fact that there were only three questions on the 2002 ballot, though there were eight in 2000.
Another Rosenberg proposal would create a commission that could change the wording of a petition if it was misleading. Some wording can be deceptive, but giving a commission the power to change it would seem to open the way for worse abuse.
We opposed two major initiatives that passed in recent years -- the income tax rollback approved in 2000 and last year's question on bilingual education. Most often, such questions are better left to the Legislature. But the initiative process serves a useful purpose, and that purpose would be undercut by the proposed changes.
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
|