CLT
UPDATE
Monday, May 19, 2003
Prop 2˝ override pass/fail rates
are only conjecture
During the boom years of the 1990s, Massachusetts used much of its exploding income tax revenue to narrow the education spending gap between the state's richest and poorest communities. Now, many say, the increasing reliance on property taxes threatens to create a chasm once again....
"The cities and towns in the poorer communities now must turn to the property tax to preserve their schools, and that's certainly more regressive from their point of view than the income tax," said Michael J.
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed group. "It's not a sustainable course we're on -- and it's not the preferable course that we're on." ...
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said cities and towns across the Commonwealth spent during the 1990s as if the good times would never end.
"They negotiated with their unions as if they'd always have more money for pay increases," Anderson said. "We've seen this coming for two years, and they just shut their eyes and pretended it wasn't going to happen."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Poorer towns balk at overrides
About three-quarters of Proposition 2˝ override attempts in dozens of communities all suburbs have been approved so far this spring, allowing local leaders to balance budgets and offset state cuts for the new fiscal year.
Associated Press
Saturday, May 17, 2003
Towns turning to property taxes amid budget crunch
Between January and mid-April, almost half of all override and debt exclusion questions were successful.
Massachusetts Municipal Association
May 5, 2003
Communities seek override and exclusion votes
Marcia Liebman wants to make sure residents, including town employees, can vote at Town Meeting without feeling pressure from officials or neighbors.
She plans to propose that two spending-related articles be voted on by secret ballot this week at Town Meeting. One proposal calls for transferring unspent money from a Sharon High School renovation project in the mid 1990s to the School Committee to complete repairs and reconstruction work at the high school....
"If anyone perceives that they can't vote how they want, there is a problem," said
Liebman....
In response to Liebman's plan, a grass-roots group known as Better Education for Sharon's Tomorrow, or BEST, has been encouraging its members to attend Town Meeting, just to make sure their side is well represented.
"This is just simple politics," said BEST organizer Stephen Dill. "Whenever you identify an opposition, you have to rally and produce an equal and opposite reaction - plus one."
Dill said he opposes a secret ballot. "It sets the wrong precedent," he said.
The Boston Globe (South)
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Secret ballot sought on school issues at Town Meeting
Help us out here: Is the sky falling in Massachusetts or is it not?
If you have seen the television ads run by the Massachusetts Teachers Association — and they're hard to miss, being a daily occurrence — the only thing standing between a good education and classroom chaos is a tax hike. Yet, Brockton's school system is humming along just fine, despite an $8 million drop in this year's budget....
No one should be swayed by the teacher union ads. They are — as always
— misleading and self-serving. They refuse to recognize that every community has its own needs. The threat, "dig deep or else" has rung hollow for many years, as study after study has shown there is little correlation between money spent in education and the quality of that education.
A Brockton Enterprise editorial
Friday, May 16, 2003
The sky is not really falling on state's schools
Word from Beacon Hill is that legislative leaders will wait until fall before seriously considering any tax measures to help close the $3 billion budget gap -- the better to let the pain of budget cuts sink in. This kind of talk is reminiscent of the early 1980s, when the property tax-capping Proposition
2˝ abruptly starved cities and towns of revenue and communities faced laying off police and teachers by the score....
In 1981 the late senator Jack Backman, an unrepentant liberal, was among the strongest voices on behalf of the state's responsibility to help cities and towns. "We can't wait until the blood is on the streets," he said. So, too, in 2003.
A Boston Globe editorial
Sunday, May 18, 2003
The unkindest cuts
A new budget analysis released by the Massachusetts Taxpayers' Foundation will probably be greeted by the Senate like a skunk at a garden party. That's because, just as Senate leaders are set to unveil their reform-laden fiscal 2004 budget this week, it serves as a warning that their plan will likely fall short of the goal of producing a balanced budget. But they're not alone. The report says the administration and House plans do, too....
But the foundation report makes clear there is no substitute for cutting spending. The Senate would be setting the standard for fiscal responsibility if the budget they approve restructures government, cuts spending deeply, avoids new taxes and borrowing, and relies on as few fees as possible. In other words, a budget that is truly balanced.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, May 19, 2003
Ball in Senate court to balance budget
Pay hikes and perks have made getting elected to the Legislature a $67,000-a-year part-time dream job.
Taxpayers are now forking over $13.5 million a year to pay lawmakers - about $37,000 a day, state payroll records show....
The average state senator now pockets $70,500 a year, including a daily travel allowance and $600-a-month "expense" allowance. That is well above the $53,800 base salary set by law.
The average House lawmaker pulls in more than $66,000 annually, including travel and expense perks.
Lawmakers defend their pay, which dwarfs the salaries of legislators in most other states. Many lawmakers also earn money moonlighting in the private sector, including some who make six-figure salaries....
Every one of the 40 state senators gets a leadership stipend. Nearly one-third of House members get the leadership boost.
Despite the rising pay levels, Finneran is now ramming through legislation to award "leadership" raises to his loyalists without the approval of the governor.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Pols' gross salaries: Bonuses balloon base pay
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Proposition 2˝ overrides are sweeping the
commonwealth like a plague so naturally they are in the news. As we've
recently witnessed, local taxpayers seem not to be very receptive to
many if not most of them.
But why are recent reports of statewide pass/fail
rates so conflicting?
Overrides were shot down by the voters of Plymouth,
Saugus, Danvers, Braintree, Randolph, Hampden and Hamilton. An override
proposal was recently defeated by town meeting in Longmeadow, and there
may be more that fall into that category. There may be more that we
don't know about that were defeated .
Overrides recently were passed in Wilbraham,
Wellesley, Southborough, and Weston. There may be more that that we
don't know about that were passed.
Overrides are coming up soon in Marblehead,
Lancaster, Taunton, Plainville, Wrentham, Norfolk, East Longmeadow,
Pembroke, Arlington and
Boxford, though certainly there are or will be many more.
There are two primary sources that, to one degree or
another, track data concerning overrides: the state Division
of Local Services, and the Massachusetts
Municipal Association.
The Division of Local Services -- established by
Proposition 2˝ to oversee implementation of it -- is tasked with
holding municipalities to their property tax limit of 2.5 percent plus
growth. Cities and towns that pass overrides must report passage to DLS;
the agency sets the tax rate and must then adjust it accordingly.
Municipalities in which overrides fail are less motivated to report the
failure to DLS, thus this data is often sketchy or even non-existent.
The MMA website is considerably more
restrictive: one must first be "a member" -- meaning an
elected or appointed public official with a password -- to fully access
its information. This is a perverse restriction considering that funds
for membership in the MMA are derived from municipal taxpayers,
appropriated within the city or town budget. Why are those citizens who
publicly fund membership in the MMA through their taxes locked out of
its website?
Neither of these sources provide complete
information, thus neither are absolutely accurate. To the best of our
knowledge, such a single source does not exist, therefore any
conclusions concerning override pass/fail rates are only conjecture.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Poorer towns balk at overrides
Yet state aid cuts hurt them more
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
Last Tuesday was Election Day in Wellesley and Braintree, and town leaders in both communities were asking voters for the same thing: permission to break through the state's property tax limit to avoid cuts in schools and police and fire departments.
The results of those elections were as different as the towns themselves. In Wellesley, where the median household income, nearly $114,000 in the 2000 census, is among the highest in the state, voters approved an increase for the sixth time since 1990. In working-class Braintree, which has a median household income about half of Wellesley's, residents rejected a hike -- again. That town has never approved one.
Facing steep cuts in state aid, cities and towns across the Commonwealth are more often asking voters to override the property tax limits imposed by Proposition
2˝. Already this year, at least 65 communities have tried, or say they plan to try, an override, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association. But last week's results demonstrate the pitfalls of relying on local voters: Poorer communities often balk at raising their own property taxes -- which, compared with income taxes, place a disproportionate burden on lower-income homeowners -- and yet they are the communities most reliant on state help and will suffer most from the cuts.
During the boom years of the 1990s, Massachusetts used much of its exploding income tax revenue to narrow the education spending gap between the state's richest and poorest communities. Now, many say, the increasing reliance on property taxes threatens to create a chasm once again.
"The cities and towns in the poorer communities now must turn to the property tax to preserve their schools, and that's certainly more regressive from their point of view than the income tax," said Michael J.
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed group. "It's not a sustainable course we're on -- and it's not the preferable course that we're on."
Boston, by far the largest recipient of state aid, has never even tried for an override, believing the effort would be fruitless. And Springfield officials say they wouldn't dare attempt another one after voters only narrowly approved a modest increase in 1995.
Some communities, such as Cambridge, still have room to raise taxes under the cap, which limits local tax increases to 2.5 percent, unless voters OK going higher. But Boston, which has been more aggressive in raising taxes, doesn't have that luxury.
In Braintree, the override would have given the town an additional $2 million to spend on town services, while costing the owner of a home valued at $300,000 about $122 more in fiscal 2004. Reaching out to voters through cable television and at senior citizens' homes and rotary club events, town leaders warned that without the extra money they would be forced to lay off 75 teachers, 14 firefighters, and nine police officers. Emergency response times would increase, and class sizes would grow, they said.
"We're going to lose a lot of town services," said Marybeth Forbes, a 20-year resident and mother of children in public schools who stood outside Town Hall on Election Day, holding a sign urging people to vote for the override. "If you're going to lay off 75 teachers, I truly believe there isn't a lot of fat in this budget."
Still, Braintree voters didn't bite, defeating the measure 50.2 percent to 48.6 percent. The day after the election, however, the Board of Selectmen approved an even more regressive measure: a garbage pickup fee that will cost each household, regardless of income or home value, $162 per year. The new fee will allow the town to put $1.2 million back into a budget it had cut by $6.7 million, according to the town clerk. But there will still have to be layoffs.
Wellesley voters were asked to approve a $2.9 million override that will translate into an annual tax increase of about $254 for a home valued at $631,000, the town median. Officials warned that without the extra money, they would have to cut 29 teaching positions, up to six firefighters, and as many as five police officers.
Richard Berry knew he was voting `yes' as soon as his daughter, a junior at Wellesley High School, called him on Election Day to urge him to cast a vote to save the job of her favorite teacher.
"I think it's important to keep the schools top-notch," Berry said as he emerged from the polling place at the Schofield School.
But Wellesley residents who voted no, many of them senior citizens, said the town hasn't tried hard enough to tighten its belt. One 74-year-old man, who declined to give his name, said the tax hike would eat up his annual Social Security increase. Another, who also declined to identify himself, said it's "about time we begin to observe the New England tradition of living within our means -- even if they are contracting means."
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said cities and towns across the Commonwealth spent during the 1990s as if the good times would never end.
"They negotiated with their unions as if they'd always have more money for pay increases," Anderson said. "We've seen this coming for two years, and they just shut their eyes and pretended it wasn't going to happen."
Governor Mitt Romney, who has vowed not to raise state income taxes to bail out cities and towns, points out that state aid grew steadily during the last decade, and that property tax revenue in many communities continues to be robust, thanks to rising real estate values. Shawn Feddeman, a Romney spokeswoman, said most cities and towns shouldn't have to resort to overrides to provide basic services. And the communities that do are putting the question in the hands of people who know best, she said.
"They're well-positioned to know whether their city or town is well-managed or not," Feddeman said of local voters.
But critics say the property tax is inherently less fair than the income tax, because it places a heavier burden on retirees with fixed incomes and people who are out of work. Geoff Beckwith of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which lobbies for cities and towns on Beacon Hill, said that "of all the major taxes, the property tax is the worst tax, the most regressive tax."
"In spite of what Beacon Hill is saying, taxes are on the table this year," Beckwith said. "All state leaders should know that the property tax burden is increasing in Massachusetts, and it's a direct result of their cutting local aid."
Return to
top
Associated Press
Saturday, May 17, 2003
Towns turning to property taxes amid budget crunch
By Ken Maguire
Communities from Edgartown to Williamstown, fearing state budget cuts will lead to police, fire, and teacher layoffs, are raising their property taxes to maintain their quality of life.
About three-quarters of Proposition 2˝ override attempts in dozens of communities all suburbs have been approved so far this spring, allowing local leaders to balance budgets and offset state cuts for the new fiscal year.
"On Beacon Hill, the governor and the Legislature are saying that taxes are 'not on the table,' but taxes are on the table," said Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
"Property tax is the tax of choice for Beacon Hill," he continued. "Cutting local aid and refusing to deal with revenue needs simply shifts the burden down."
State law prohibits cities and towns from raising property taxes more than
2˝ percent each year, but communities can increase it further if they vote to override the law.
Some towns say they have no choice because state lawmakers and Gov. Mitt Romney are proposing up to 20 percent cuts in aid. In addition, Romney and leaders in the House and Senate have pledged that they'll resolve the state's $3 billion gap without raising taxes.
As of mid-week, voters across the state passed 55 of 74 override attempts in three dozen communities, according to statistics compiled by the Department of Revenue and the
MMA. Many more votes are scheduled this month and next. In most cases, an override means tax bills go up by $200 or $300 annually.
"Some of these services cannot be ignored," said Jerry Wasserman, a member of the Needham Board of Selectmen.
Needham voters last month approved three general overrides totaling $2.4 million to pay for schools and public safety. They also passed a "debt exclusion" override of nearly $16 million to renovate the town's 99-year-old library. Debt exclusions increase property taxes temporarily, decreasing annually until the debt is retired.
"We have an obligation to maintain town services," Wasserman said. "There were over 20 teachers at stake, police and fire positions, too. Response times would have been slowed."
Yarmouth, Cohasset, Reading, Rockport, Nahant, Acton, Auburn, Harvard, and Monson are among the towns that have passed overrides, ranging from $100,000 (Monson) to $4.5 million (Reading), and several worth tens of millions in debt exclusion overrides for school construction projects.
The high point was 1991, when about 600 votes were taken during the peak of a recession, and less than a third passed. There were 86 votes in fiscal 2003 53 passed and 73 the year before, with 54 passing, according to the
DOR.
"We're going to see a major swing, a major increase," said Michael
Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation. "The only alternatives in many cases are to cut services and programs."
Local planners have another six weeks to set their budgets before the new fiscal year starts in July, so observers predict the '04 override attempts likely will top 100.
But others point to the numbers, as compared to the early 90s, and say local communities are exaggerating the effects of state cuts.
"These cities and towns are crying wolf where there is no wolf," said Chip Faulkner, associate director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "A lot of them have just spent the money away and now they're going to have to tighten their belts a little bit. In the good times, they spent it all."
Braintree has never passed an override since the law was adopted in 1980 and voters Tuesday rejected two ballot questions that would have raised $4 million for fiscal 2004.
Next door, Randolph officials expect to be $5 million in the red after state cuts, but voters still rejected two override attempts. One was for $2.5 million for trash services.
Voters also rejected a four-part question that allowed them to choose from amounts between $5.2 million to $2.5 million to pay for schools, police, fire and public works. All four options lost in every precinct in town.
"If they lay off one more fireman, it means the second of two ambulances we have in town doesn't run," said Suzanne
Choumitsky, who headed a group that fought for passage. "They're talking about 1971 levels of staffing. We have 2003 problems."
Other towns that have defeated override attempts include Chelmsford, Danvers, Saugus, Wayland, West Newbury, and Westport.
Cities rarely attempt overrides. They generally have more budget flexibility than towns, have more room under the Proposition
2˝ limit to increase residential tax, and have more commercial property to tax. Boston never has attempted one, and Lawrence voters defeated the only four attempts in that city, all in 1990. Springfield passed five overrides in 1990, and Worcester passed just one of five, all in 1991, according to the
DOR.
The towns of Wilbraham, Hampden and Hanson vote on override proposals Saturday. East Longmeadow, Pembroke and Arlington are among communities facing votes in June.
Return to
top
Massachusetts Municipal Association
May 5, 2003
Local Finance News
Communities seek override and exclusion votes
By Katie Spino, MMA Intern
Dozens of cities and towns are attempting property tax override and exclusion ballot questions this spring to help balance local budgets next year and keep local capital spending plans moving forward.
The MMA is tracking ballot question plans in more than 65 municipalities and expects the number to rise significantly before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.
Many of these proposals are in response to urgent school and operational needs in cities and towns, particularly in light of dramatic cuts to local aid that are expected. Many local leaders are concerned about the prospect of municipal employee and teacher layoffs and budget constraints affecting the quality of public safety and education services.
Of the cities and towns that have scheduled ballot questions or that are considering one, almost 40 are override votes intended to support local services, including public safety and schools. Most of the questions to date have been to support all municipal departments or have been earmarked for schools. These override amounts range from $200,000 to $4 million; most cities and towns are seeking between $200,000 and $400,000.
So far more than a dozen cities and towns are looking into the possibility of a debt exclusion, with most discussing debt exclusions related to school renovation and/or expansion projects.
Between January and mid-April, almost half of all override and debt exclusion questions were successful.
The town of Paxton passed a debt exclusion that will cover the town’s share of a regional high school renovation project.
Harvard voters approved an override ballot question for $550,000 to balance the town’s budget for fiscal 2004.
Scituate passed an override for $989,000 for the school budget.
Holbrook passed a $4.6 million override to upgrade the town’s water distribution system.
Reading passed a $4.5 million override to fund the town’s operational budget.
Override or debt exclusion questions were defeated in Cohasset, Stoughton, Wayland, Wellesley, Winchester and Westport.
Cohasset sought a debt exclusion to bury utility lines in the downtown area.
Stoughton voters rejected a debt exclusion that would have provided $1.1 million to purchase an 83-acre farm property.
Funds amounting to $38.2 million for school renovations were denied in Wellesley when voters rejected a debt exclusion ballot question.
Voters in Wayland rejected a similar ballot question seeking $375,000.
Winchester sought an override for $800,000 for operational needs.
Westport voters rejected three ballot questions: a $3 million school override, a $300,000 debt exclusion question, and a $884,000 general override.
There are two common ways to present an override question to voters. One is a general override, where voters decide on only a single ballot question not dedicated to pay for one specific local government service. The other is a menu override, which separates individual issues and allows voters to choose from various options.
In some cities and towns, menu overrides may be more practical, as the municipality is more than likely to gain approval on a least one of the options. The downside is that it is rare that all options are successful. Menu overrides are not always predictable in terms of which options will be successful.
General overrides appear to be most successful in cities and towns with large populations, such as Framingham, Newton and Belmont.
Municipalities that have had success at the polls use similar tactics to garner the votes needed. Most assemble a team of volunteers to assist in presenting the need for an override or debt exclusion to the public. These people expand the ballot operations and are automatic approval votes.
Communities that win override votes have a well-organized strategy for educating the public. They use mailings, e-mails, Web sites, the local newspaper, and phone banks. And they make sure to present factual information to the voters, including any statistics or data pertinent to the vote.
Keeping a close eye on what is important to town voters allows officials to assess the likelihood of a ballot question’s success.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe (South)
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Secret ballot sought on school issues at Town Meeting
By Judith Forman, Globe Staff Correspondent
Marcia Liebman wants to make sure residents, including town employees, can vote at Town Meeting without feeling pressure from officials or neighbors.
She plans to propose that two spending-related articles be voted on by secret ballot this week at Town Meeting. One proposal calls for transferring unspent money from a Sharon High School renovation project in the mid 1990s to the School Committee to complete repairs and reconstruction work at the high school.
The other asks voters to authorize the borrowing of $518,446 for capital expenditures for the schools, to purchase such items as computers, furniture and kitchen equipment.
Liebman, who does not have children enrolled in the district, said she is not
"antischool."
"If anyone perceives that they can't vote how they want, there is a problem," said
Liebman.
A secret ballot has never been used at Sharon Town Meeting, according to Town Clerk Marlene
Chused. Calling for a secret ballot is complicated. If a motion is made and voted upon, the moderator must explain the process to Town Meeting, said
Chused. With the majority's backing for a secret ballot, election workers re-register all voters, who are given slips of paper that read "yes" and "no." Voters drop the slip holding their viewpoint into a sealed box, and the other goes into a trash can. The ballots in the sealed box then are counted by hand in the auditorium, Chused said.
In response to Liebman's plan, a grass-roots group known as Better Education for Sharon's Tomorrow, or BEST, has been encouraging its members to attend Town Meeting, just to make sure their side is well represented.
"This is just simple politics," said BEST organizer Stephen Dill. "Whenever you identify an opposition, you have to rally and produce an equal and opposite reaction - plus one."
Dill said he opposes a secret ballot. "It sets the wrong precedent," he said.
"I am one of those people who's very concerned about their taxes increasing," Liebman said. "It's something that's bothered me and this seems to be the year that I'm speaking out."
Return to
top
The Brockton Enterprise
Friday, May 16, 2003
Editorial
The sky is not really falling on state's schools
Help us out here: Is the sky falling in Massachusetts or is it not?
If you have seen the television ads run by the Massachusetts Teachers Association — and they're hard to miss, being a daily occurrence — the only thing standing between a good education and classroom chaos is a tax hike. Yet, Brockton's school system is humming along just fine, despite an $8 million drop in this year's budget.
School Superintendent Joseph Bage said there will be just five layoffs next year, thanks to good fiscal management and retirements. But across the border in Abington, there could be more than 40 layoffs and a school may close. A few miles away in the Bridgewater-Raynham school district, 94 teachers will be getting pink slips, although that may well change by the time school begins in September.
So what is going on here? Why are the situations seemingly so different in neighboring communities?
Part of the equation is that Brockton was not as hard hit as other cities and towns when the Legislature made its cuts in local and school aid. School officials are not necessarily smarter or more efficient in Brockton than in Abington, Bridgewater and Raynham. Every community is different. There are different union contracts, different budgets, different aid formulas.
There is no guarantee than any teachers will be laid off in the suburbs; but, legally, in order to lay off a teacher or most other school personnel, notification has to go out by a certain date, usually May 15 or June 15. Years ago, in uncertain times, Brockton often sent out layoff notices to teachers who ended up keeping their jobs. But it must certainly be scary to a teacher who receives the notice.
There also is a certain scare tactic that may be in play in some cases. Abington voters are being asked to approve a Proposition
2˝ override in three weeks. School Superintendent John Aherne said 16 school employees are being let go anyway and, if the override fails, another 27 people, including 21 teachers, will be let go and a school will be closed. But that is a prediction, not a promise and Abington voters will need a lot more information before they vote to raise their own taxes.
No one should be swayed by the teacher union ads. They are — as always — misleading and self-serving. They refuse to recognize that every community has its own needs. The threat, "dig deep or else" has rung hollow for many years, as study after study has shown there is little correlation between money spent in education and the quality of that education.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 18, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
The unkindest cuts
Word from Beacon Hill is that legislative leaders will wait until fall before seriously considering any tax measures to help close the $3 billion budget gap -- the better to let the pain of budget cuts sink in. This kind of talk is reminiscent of the early 1980s, when the property tax-capping Proposition
2˝ abruptly starved cities and towns of revenue and communities faced laying off police and teachers by the score. Then, too, the Legislature was wary of taking action until there was public outcry. "All the Legislature wants is blood on the floor," said a bitter aide to Kevin White, the mayor of Boston. After hundreds of municipal layoffs, shuttered libraries, and fire stations with skeleton crews, Beacon Hill finally stepped in with massive infusions of state aid for cities and towns. But just because a tactic worked doesn't make it right. Two decades later, state leaders facing the same kinds of choices ought to be above this kind of manipulation.
Unlike the feckless Governor Romney, most legislators live close enough to the ground in their communities to know precisely how state tax dollars are spent. They are the ones who get the call when one of their constituents needs an emergency placement in a nursing home for a widowed mother, or a visit from a social worker for a terrified victim of domestic violence, or a hot meal for an elderly shut-in or AIDS patient.
The legislators know better, and they should be talking to taxpayers about what the state does and why it is worth paying for. At a minimum, they ought to be explaining how complex and painful an exercise cutting government really is.
Anyone who has taken a close look at the state budget -- as Globe readers are invited to do on the back page of this section -- will see that fully 95 percent of government programs are in only five areas: education, health care, public safety, human services, and aid for cities and towns. The truth is, the budget has already been cut by $1.9 billion over the past year, including $350 million by Governor Romney in January. Almost half of the state's human service programs have already been privatized. The state's rainy day funds have been tapped for more than $2 billion; only about $300 million is left.
The Massachusetts tax system is relatively fair: There is no tax on necessities such as grocieries or most clothing, and the first $12,700 of income is exempt. What is missing from the public debate today is a sense of "There but for the grace of God go I," the idea that everybody pays for government as a kind of social insurance against the day they or their loved ones may need it. Meanwhile, the state income tax cut of 2000 has given lopsided benefits to the wealthy, saving ordinary taxpayers little.
In 1981 the late senator Jack Backman, an unrepentant liberal, was among the strongest voices on behalf of the state's responsibility to help cities and towns. "We can't wait until the blood is on the streets," he said. So, too, in 2003.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Monday, May 19, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Ball in Senate court to balance budget
A new budget analysis released by the Massachusetts Taxpayers' Foundation will probably be greeted by the Senate like a skunk at a garden party. That's because, just as Senate leaders are set to unveil their reform-laden fiscal 2004 budget this week, it serves as a warning that their plan will likely fall short of the goal of producing a balanced budget. But they're not alone. The report says the administration and House plans do, too.
First, the foundation study points out that spending in both the House and administration blueprints will go up by about $300 million over this year's whopping $22.9 billion. And despite making a good run at reform, House spending still outstrips expected revenues by at least $335 million, just a bit more than the Romney administration's spending of $320 million more than the state is expected to take in.
In fairness to the governor, some of his plan's shortfall is due to measures not adopted thus far by the Legislature, but he has also withdrawn some ideas that saved or raised money - like $75 million in blocking payments from out-of-state casinos - on his own.
Both the House and governor's plans heavily rely on new and increased fees. But the fact that a structural deficit survives like Friday the 13th's Jason underscores the folly of increasing revenues when you should be cutting spending.
But the good news for the Senate is they have had a lot more information, and a bit more time, to help put together their plan. And they've made a decent start at it, if some of the proposals rolled out in advance of the complete filing on Wednesday are any indication.
The Senate's embrace of the consolidation of the health and human services bureaucracy for one shows that rational delivery of services trumps the usual cherished legislative prerogative of control by line item. And their approach to court reform is a strong step toward much-needed management improvements in that branch of government.
But the foundation report makes clear there is no substitute for cutting spending. The Senate would be setting the standard for fiscal responsibility if the budget they approve restructures government, cuts spending deeply, avoids new taxes and borrowing, and relies on as few fees as possible. In other words, a budget that is truly balanced.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Pols' gross salaries: Bonuses balloon base pay
by Joe Battenfeld
Pay hikes and perks have made getting elected to the Legislature a $67,000-a-year part-time dream job.
Taxpayers are now forking over $13.5 million a year to pay lawmakers - about $37,000 a day, state payroll records show.
The top legislative earner - House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) - is on the books for more than $95,000 this year. The numbers are even more stunning considering legislators normally are required to show up for votes just a few weeks a year.
If they were being paid for just the time they were in formal session, lawmakers would earn about $400 an hour - about the same rate as a high-priced lawyer.
The average state senator now pockets $70,500 a year, including a daily travel allowance and $600-a-month "expense" allowance. That is well above the $53,800 base salary set by law.
The average House lawmaker pulls in more than $66,000 annually, including travel and expense perks.
Lawmakers defend their pay, which dwarfs the salaries of legislators in most other states. Many lawmakers also earn money moonlighting in the private sector, including some who make six-figure salaries.
"I think I'm paid fairly - absolutely," said House Republican Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., who makes $75,881 a year in salary because of his leadership post. That doesn't include his monthly expense allowance and $3,402 he claimed last year for traveling to the State House from his North Reading home.
Jones said the perception that legislators have part-time jobs because they rarely meet in formal session is inaccurate.
"It gets viewed as that's all there is to the job and that's sadly mistaken," he said, pointing to the constituent calls he makes.
Lawmakers got their most recent raise earlier this year, a $3,259 cost-of-living boost triggered by a controversial referendum approved by voters. That brought the base pay level to $53,800.
Due to a public outcry over the state budget deficit, about half the lawmakers either declined the raise or "furloughed" the money this year - a way of preserving the salary for their pensions.
But lawmakers find plenty of other ways to boost their pay.
A growing number of House and Senate back-benchers now earn $7,500 or $15,000 extra, respectively, for committee leadership posts.
Every one of the 40 state senators gets a leadership stipend. Nearly one-third of House members get the leadership boost.
Despite the rising pay levels, Finneran is now ramming through legislation to award "leadership" raises to his loyalists without the approval of the governor.
"The speaker feels they (the stipends) are fair amounts of money for the extra responsibility and work they do," said Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen.
Lawmakers doubled their expense allowance last year from $3,600 to $7,200, arguing they needed the money because the Clean Elections law limited the use of their campaign accounts to cover expenses. But when legislators refused to fund the campaign public financing law, they kept the expense increase intact.
Although the perk is ostensibly for office expenses, lawmakers can put the $600 monthly checks straight in their pockets.
The per diem travel allowance can be even more lucrative for some lawmakers. Members who live in Western Massachusetts get up to $100 a day for travel to the State House, even on days when no legislative business is scheduled.
"It's on the honor system," said Karen Sharma, spokeswoman for Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, whose office dispenses the travel money.
Records show a huge disparity in the number of travel days lawmakers claim.
State Sen. Guy W. Glodis (D-Auburn) is the travel allowance king of the Legislature, putting in for 232 days in 2002. At the Senate rate of $36 a day, Glodis boosted his $60,881 salary by $8,352 last year. State Rep. Peter J. Larkin (D-Pittsfield) received $12,420 last year.
Larkin and Glodis also can take advantage of a federal law giving them a massive tax break for living more than 50 miles away from Boston.
But even legislators who live just a few miles from the State House take advantage of the travel allowance. State Rep. Martin J. Walsh (D-Dorchester) claimed 222 travel days, giving him $2,220 last year.
Not surprisingly, Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini (D- E. Boston) make the most in the Legislature, with their base salaries at $88,381 and $85,123 respectively. Finneran's rate is higher because Travaglini declined his cost-of-living raise this year, while the speaker chose to furlough his pay hike.
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
|