CLT
UPDATE
Friday, May 30, 2003
Celebrating two big wins ... and
moving
A measure to strengthen the state's seat belt law was killed yesterday when House members refused to reconsider the matter after a deadlock on Wednesday.
Yesterday's vote, unlike Wednesday's 73-to-73 tie, wasn't even close, with only 59 legislators supporting a reconsideration, 89 opposing it, and 12 members absent.
Twenty of the legislators who had voted in favor of the measure Wednesday voted against reconsidering it. Members had had a full and fiery debate, the matter had been given fair consideration, and should be put to rest, they said.
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 30, 2003
Bid to reconsider stricter seat-belt law fails
House refuses a second vote on stricter plan
The perennial effort to strengthen the enforcement of the state's seat belt laws has died for another legislative session, following the House's decision Thursday not to revisit its tie-vote defeat of the measure a day earlier.
The House voted 89-59 against reconsideration of the rare deadlock that defeated the measure on Wednesday. This marks the second legislative session in a row that the seat belt law has died on a tie vote 76-76 on May 29, 2001, and 73-73 on Wednesday.
Lawmakers could recall few tie votes in the House in the past decade and certainly never two on the same issue.
Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2003
House votes not to revisit seat belt law
Because 14 members of the House did not vote Wednesday, the House voted to reconsider the vote yesterday, said state Rep. Jennifer Callahan, D-Sutton. That vote denied reconsideration, 89-59. That means the tie stands. Since a majority vote is needed, the bill was killed.
"I do think it will probably be back," Callahan said of the bill.
The MetroWest Daily News
Friday, May 30, 2003
Tied to seat belt decision: House votes down measure
It's strange that after all these months of thumbing their noses at the public,
deep-sixing referendum votes and demanding new Prop
2½ override elections, the hacks finally backed down yesterday.
And all it required was turning on the lights for once....
Somewhere, Jerry Williams is smiling, but not Gov. Mitt Romney. On Tuesday, he became the first governor since Dukakis to endorse mandatory seat belts, and the next day 15 of the 23 GOP reps voted against him. And yesterday, on the vote to reconsider, 21 of the 23 bolted the reservation.
One was Rep. Mary Rogeness of Longmeadow. Does her husband Dean still work for Mass Mutual? It was only professional courtesy, to vote for the car-insurance industry relief act of 2003. The other solid GOP vote was the former colonel of the state police, Rep. Reed Hillman of Sturbridge....
Then Hillman mentioned a Ch. 4 "tracking poll" on the issue of mandatory seat belts.
"They surveyed 500 people and found support for this law by a 2-1 margin."
Isn't that impressive? This is a body that routinely deep-sixes laws that over a million people voted in favor of, in a real election, and suddenly 300 people's opinions are sacrosanct?
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 30, 2003
Click it? Ticket? At long last we can just can it
by Howie Carr
Seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems that if you're elected to the Legislature, you have one essential responsibility, and that is to vote.
The few hundred times a year that a roll call occurs, you come to the chamber and say yea or nay on behalf of the voters who sent you. Couldn't be more basic.
And the taxpayers make it easy. They pay lawmakers a per diem to get to Boston. They give each one an office on Beacon Hill. They provide staff. All so that legislators can do their job.
I bring this up in the wake of Wednesday's tie vote on whether police should be allowed to stop motorists who aren't using seat belts. The count was 73 to 73. The House has 160 members.
That's 14 people, nearly 10 percent of the body, who didn't see the need to cast a ballot, even though the vote had been scheduled last week. Put aside the pros and cons of the seat belt issue while we ask just one question: Where were they?
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 30, 2003
Missing something
By Brian McGrory
A slew of nasty budget cuts threatened during the bone-cold days of January are melting away at the soggy start of summer.
A budget plan unveiled by the Senate last week sets aside money for dozens of those services, from a popular prescription drug insurance program for seniors to a Talking Book program for the blind. The plan even pumps $18 million into tourism.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this....
To be sure, all three versions of the budgets include deep reductions in spending, including cuts to local aid, school funding and other state services. But relying on one-time money, state savings, reform measures, higher fees and other budgetary maneuvers, lawmakers are hoping to step back from the worst-case scenarios unfurled during the winter.
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Budget ax getting a little duller
Voter ambivalence regarding the override question is understandable considering the fiscal climate in Massachusetts and the economic uncertainty that many households are facing, said
Barbara Anderson, executive director of the Peabody-based Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
"On one hand, people who pass overrides generally feel good about what they've done, because they believe they're supporting a good cause, such as the local school system," said Anderson. "On the other hand, people are sick of hearing constant threats that civilization is coming to an end because the state declared a fiscal crisis. Many people have lost their jobs, or haven't gotten a pay raise. For most people, it's a pocketbook issue. They simply can't afford to pay more taxes." So far this year, at least 65 communities statewide have tried, or said they would try, an override, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association. By comparison, just 44 cities and towns sought overrides during all of fiscal year 2002 (July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002), state Department of Revenue records show.
The results of the votes cast this fiscal year in the northern suburbs illustrate the difficulty in depending on local voters to voluntarily boost their tax burden.
The Boston Globe (North edition)
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Voters cool on override proposals
We've all heard about the $3 billion budget gap. What we haven't heard is that the proposed budgets -- House, Senate, governor -- for the fiscal year starting July 1 call for spending the same or more money, not less, than the current year.
We have all heard that nobody is calling for tax increases. What has not been explained is how a host of new and increased fees are different in any substantive sense from taxes.
One of the most outrageous examples is a surcharge on homeowner's insurance. Supposedly, fees are for services one can choose. But homeowners don't have a sensible choice about homeowner's insurance. If they carry a mortgage, they have no choice at all....
That is not a revolution. That is more of the same old political rigmarole.
An Eagle Tribune editorial
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The rigmarole of state budget reform
That members of the Senate's Ways and Means Committee thought better of a measure to increase the burden on property owners through a 2.3 percent surcharge on insurance policies is encouraging.
Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, vice-chairman of Ways and Means, said the proposal to raise $40 million for local police and fire departments was "well-intentioned" but impossible to shepherd through.
That's darn right. It's astounding anyone could have sought more funds through property owners, already choking on higher local taxes....
Give credit to Sen. Panagiotakos and other legislators, who've come to realize the surcharge would do more harm than good, and look for its speedy demise.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Friday, May 30, 2003
A fee too far
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Winning sure beats the alternative, and today we
celebrate two big wins!
Again we've defeated primary enforcement of the state
mandatory seat belt law, defending again at least that much freedom in
the Peoples' Republic ... until the threat inevitably resurfaces in
2005. But until then, let freedom ring!
And the "fee" on homeowners insurance
disappeared from the Senate budget today! We got word yesterday from
state Sen. Sue Tucker's (D-Andover) office that it was failing on life
support and was about to expire; she and others had prepared amendments
to kill it. It has been graciously exiled to a "study
committee" to save its drafters from as much embarrassment as
possible. It's almost too bad, almost: it made for the perfect
challenge of unconstitutional taxes disguised as "fees" to
take back to court.
The Lowell Sun late today reported: "Sen. Steven C.
Panagiotakos, vice-chairman of Ways and Means, said the proposal to raise $40 million for local police and fire departments was
'well-intentioned' but impossible to shepherd through." Yes, this
is the same Sen. Panagiotakos who attacked CLT last Sunday morning on
Jon Keller's TV-56 political affairs program "Talking
Politics" for calling fees and taxes interchangeable, the same
senator to whom we immediately responded with a letter
charging him with making false statements.
Our message that there is no "fiscal
crisis," no $3 billion budget cut -- that the budget under debate
is level-funded at least or will ease upward despite all the dire
warnings to the contrary -- is finally being picked up and related. The
Lawrence Eagle Tribune's editorial, "The rigmarole of state budget reform,"
not only highlights this commonly-unrecognized little detail, and points
out the fallacy of "no new taxes" -- that state revenue again
will increase under all three branches' proposed budgets by some
half-billion dollars but called "fees" this year.
Righteous cynicism is on the rise, Proposition 2½
overrides are failing, legislators are backing down, and they're fooling
very few of their constituents any more.
It just might be that their game is up, that they've
finally played-out their hand.
We'll have to wait for the 2004 election to see just
how much damage they've done to themselves ... and how much more they'll
do before then. Yesterday the state Senate anonymously killed the Clean
Election Law with a voice vote, along with imposing a moratorium on new
Charter Schools and weakening the English immersion ballot question that
was overwhelmingly adopted as law by voters last November. How
much more damage will some legislators inflict upon themselves in the
months ahead, and at what point will frustrated voters finally reach
critical mass from too often receiving what former Senate President
Thomas Birmingham termed "the middle finger salute"? My
suspicion is we're getting close, very close now.
Perhaps, just perhaps, a new day is dawning in
Massachusetts, and none too soon.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 30, 2003
Bid to reconsider stricter seat-belt law fails
House refuses a second vote on stricter plan
By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
A measure to strengthen the state's seat belt law was killed yesterday when House members refused to reconsider the matter after a deadlock on Wednesday.
Yesterday's vote, unlike Wednesday's 73-to-73 tie, wasn't even close, with only 59 legislators supporting a reconsideration, 89 opposing it, and 12 members absent.
Twenty of the legislators who had voted in favor of the measure Wednesday voted against reconsidering it. Members had had a full and fiery debate, the matter had been given fair consideration, and should be put to rest, they said.
"It would have been nice if we'd had the votes yesterday, but we had our day," said Demetrius J.
Atsalis, a Hyannis Democrat who voted in favor of the measure Wednesday but against a reconsideration yesterday.
The measure would have allowed police officers to pull motorists over for not wearing seat belts. Current law says police can cite a motorist for not buckling up only if the officer stops the vehicle for another reason.
Yesterday's tied vote followed almost three hours of impassioned debate in which supporters told emotional stories of people whose lives they said could have been saved by seat belts and opponents railed against what they called an unwarranted intrustion by government in a matter of personal freedom. A tie vote defeated the measure. A similar bill was also defeated by a tie, 76-to-76, in 2001.
Minutes after voting closed Wednesday, one Representative, Colleen M. Garry, arrived in the chamber and asked to have her vote counted. Garry, a supporter of the law, was blocked by Representative James H. Fagan, a staunch opponent, who objected to the late vote, excluding it under House rules.
If Garry had been allowed to cast her late ballot, the measure would have passed the House. Jay R. Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat, immediately called for a vote to reconsider the measure. A total of 14 legislators did not vote yesterday, including House Ways and Means Chairman John H. Rogers, who would have voted against the measure, but said he also arrived too late to cast a vote. Garry said she wasn't able to make the vote on time because she was caught on a phone call with an elderly constituent who had "a serious issue." Rogers said he was outside the chamber grappling with Medicaid issues and was unable to make it back in on time.
"I'm asking for reconsideration," Kaufman said yesterday. "For us to have respect for our 14 colleagues who did not get to exercise their rights and responsibilities as members, who did not get to speak, [not] only for themselves, but for their constituents as well."
Kaufman was rebuffed by most of his colleagues, however, including the 20 who had supported the measure yesterday. The defeat means the bill cannot come up again until 2005.
House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. encouraged his 23 Republican members to vote against a reconsideration yesterday and all but two of them acceded to that request.
"We had a free and open vote yesterday. We didn't have 12 members here today. How many times do we keep doing this?" Jones said.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2003
House votes not to revisit seat belt law
By Jennifer Peter
The perennial effort to strengthen the enforcement of the state's seat belt laws has died for another legislative session, following the House's decision Thursday not to revisit its tie-vote defeat of the measure a day earlier.
The House voted 89-59 against reconsideration of the rare deadlock that defeated the measure on Wednesday. This marks the second legislative session in a row that the seat belt law has died on a tie vote 76-76 on May 29, 2001, and 73-73 on Wednesday.
Lawmakers could recall few tie votes in the House in the past decade and certainly never two on the same issue.
The bill, which has been adopted in 18 other states and the District of Columbia, would allow police officers to pull over drivers solely because they are not buckled up. Currently, they can only cite motorists for not wearing a seat belt if they first pull them over for a different offense, such as speeding or reckless driving.
While Wednesday's bitterly fought debate centered on the conflict between personal freedoms and government's commitment to public safety, Thursday's focused on the democratic process and whether lawmakers should be given a second chance to vote when they miss a roll call.
"All of those who wanted to ... had more than enough opportunity to vote at that time," said Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, a fervent opponent of the bill. "This matter lost. A vote to reconsider ... is not necessary and should be defeated."
Rep. Colleen Garry, D-Dracut, who walked into the chambers Wednesday just after the vote was closed, said that the vote to reconsider would determine "whether democracy exists here in the House of Representatives."
Garry said she was on the phone with an elderly constituent when the vote was called and could not get off in time to cast her vote. In the House, the vote is generally left open for at least four minutes to allow lawmakers time to get back to the chamber. A House officer bellows outside the doorway of the chambers to let lawmakers know that a vote has been called.
Several members who voted in support of stronger enforcement of the seat belt laws on Wednesday voted against reconsideration on Thursday, leading to a much more lopsided decision.
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Friday, May 30, 2003
Tied to seat belt decision: House votes down measure
By Danielle De Pari / News Correspondent
Carney Austin feels his civil liberties are going down the tubes.
"First, they are trying to get you to stop smoking in restaurants and now they want to make us wear our seat belts," the Bellingham resident said yesterday.
The state House of Representatives voted yesterday not to consider a bill that would allow police officers to pull over drivers just because they aren't wearing a seat belt, thereby denying the proposal.
The law currently allows an officer to cite someone for not wearing a seat belt only if another law has been violated. The proposal called for changing the law from a secondary offense to a primary offense.
The House voted on the bill Wednesday, ending up with a tie, 73-73. Because 14 members of the House did not vote Wednesday, the House voted to reconsider the vote yesterday, said state Rep. Jennifer Callahan, D-Sutton. That vote denied reconsideration, 89-59. That means the tie stands. Since a majority vote is needed, the bill was killed.
"I do think it will probably be back," Callahan said of the bill.
As a former orthopedic trauma nurse who has seen the results of accidents in which people didn't wear seat belts, she supported the bill.
"I think there was support there for the bill ... They (the majority at yesterday's session) may have had the votes, but they didn't have the political maneuvering."
Callahan explained how many groups ranging from public safety, health and transportation backed the bill, citing financial and safety impacts it carries.
For instance, Callahan said, 3,000 to 4,000 brain and spinal cord injuries could be prevented if more people wore seat belts. And with $80 million spent in insurance, health care and related taxes nationally for injuries sustained because people weren't wearing seat belts, Callahan said the state cannot afford not to adopt the bill.
But Bellingham's Austin believes wearing a seat belt should be a motorist's choice.
"My sister was in an accident and she was able to dive to the floor on the passenger side because she wasn't wearing a seat belt. If she was wearing a seat belt, she would have been dead."
Still, Austin understands the reasons why seat belts should be worn.
"It has some good points. I agree little kids she would be forced to wear it. Cops have enough to do without another reason to stop you. Most people who go flying out of a car in an accident were driving 90 mph. Wearing a seat belt should be a choice, and they are taking all rights away," he said.
According to Arthur Moriarty, president of the Massachusetts Safety Council, 51 percent of the state's drivers wore seat belts last year as opposed to a national average of 75 percent.
Moriarty said the Northeast region of the country's seat belt use average is 69 percent, the lowest of all the regions. With 51 percent of Massachusetts drivers wearing seat belts, "we're not even keeping up with our region," he said.
State Rep. Marie J. Parente, D-Milford, voted against the bill.
Parente said when the issue originally came up, she voted for seat belt violations as a secondary violation. Parente added that she voted for it then because it would serve as a warning or advice. She said proponents said it would never come up as a primary violation, but it has.
"Districtwide people felt there are enough violations to be stopped for. The general feeling is that people would be stopped at every opportunity," she said.
Parente said bicycle laws should be enforced instead.
"We need to talk about and protect bicycle riders. People can buy a bicycle without a registration or insurance, and can sue a motor vehicle driver who hits them," she said.
Parente said another reason she chose to vote against the bill is because she fears the courts would be filled with people fighting seat belt tickets.
"The message is out there. You know you should wear one," she said.
However, some residents think the law should have passed.
Supporters such as Sheryl Robert, a Rhode Island resident who works in Milford, said the law would get people into the habit of being safer.
Alison Linkkila, of Franklin, said she believes in the rejected bill.
"If it can save lives, why not?" she said.
John Iacovelli, of Milford, agreed. "It is a great law. More people should abide and wear seat belts. It is a fair law and should be nationwide," he said.
Still others are skeptical. Kathleen MacEwen, of Hopedale, said the proposed law was not one she particularly liked, because she does not wear her seat belt. "But maybe it is good because it would make people like me wear it," she said.
Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin was indifferent to the lawmakers' decision.
"People should use seat belts. I don't believe making it a primary violation would have the impact on numbers that policy makers would like to see. So, if it is a secondary violation, so be it," he said.
O'Loughlin said he heard on the radio there are already 1,300 reasons in the books that he could stop someone.
"I don't see that the number of people pulled over would increase. It would probably increase initially, but in the long term it would level off," he said.
Callahan said the bill wasn't intended to pull more people over. She cited statistics that show an increase in seat belt use when the law is considered a primary offense.
"If more people buckled up, fewer people would be killed," she said. "It's really that simple."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 30, 2003
Click it? Ticket? At long last we can just can it
by Howie Carr
Trooper McNulty, you're fired.
Yes, the voice of those obnoxious Click It or Ticket radio ads will no longer be needed, not this year anyway. At least for awhile longer, the cops in Massachusetts can't stop you and ticket you just because your seat belt was unbuckled.
They can't do it legally, anyway. But I'd still watch myself in Seekonk.
It's strange that after all these months of thumbing their noses at the public,
deep-sixing referendum votes and demanding new Prop
2½ override elections, the hacks finally backed down yesterday.
And all it required was turning on the lights for once.
That, and the fact that the House speaker, Tommy Taxes, had such a great investment in the issue that he apparently wasn't even in the building yesterday. The 73-73 tie of Wednesday turned into an 89-59 stampede overnight.
Somewhere, Jerry Williams is smiling, but not Gov. Mitt Romney. On Tuesday, he became the first governor since Dukakis to endorse mandatory seat belts, and the next day 15 of the 23 GOP reps voted against him. And yesterday, on the vote to reconsider, 21 of the 23 bolted the reservation.
One was Rep. Mary Rogeness of Longmeadow. Does her husband Dean still work for Mass Mutual? It was only professional courtesy, to vote for the car-insurance industry relief act of 2003. The other solid GOP vote was the former colonel of the state police, Rep. Reed Hillman of Sturbridge.
When Hillman took to the floor, it took the retired statie approximately five seconds to wave the bloody shirt. He can't help himself. His younger brother's son, he said, knew one of the victims in the Marlboro crash yesterday. The accident was just hours old and they were using him as a campaign prop. The crash occurred when the car struck a utility pole - why don't we ban telephone poles too while we're at it?
Then Hillman mentioned a Ch. 4 "tracking poll" on the issue of mandatory seat belts.
"They surveyed 500 people and found support for this law by a 2-1 margin."
Isn't that impressive? This is a body that routinely deep-sixes laws that over a million people voted in favor of, in a real election, and suddenly 300 people's opinions are sacrosanct?
Really, all you need to know about the seat belt vote yesterday was that reconsideration was proposed by Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington), whose last moment in the spotlight came when he basically declared himself president of the Judge Maria Lopez Fan Club. This is a solon with his finger truly on the pulse of the electorate.
Poor Rep. Tim Toomey (D-Cambridge), who gets to carry this bill every other year. He attributed the Wednesday upset to the fact that several reps "arrived late through no fault of their own."
Yeah, how dare they schedule the vote for the afternoon. That's practically the crack of dawn.
And then there was Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), who made it all possible by not quite making it to the House floor in time to save Trooper McNulty's bacon. She's 40 years old, and first started working at the State House in 1986, but somehow she just figured out how to time her appearance on the floor.
"How many of you have been caught in the elevator?" she said. "In the restroom?"
Or at a toga party, for that matter.
It's been a long time since motorists and working people won one on Beacon Hill, and it may be awhile before we notch our next W. But for now, we can all say, Trooper McNulty, get lost.
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO-AM 680,
WHYN-AM 560, WGAN-AM 560, WEIM-AM 1280, and WXTK 95.1 FM.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 30, 2003
Missing something
By Brian McGrory, Globe Columnist
Seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems that if you're elected to the Legislature, you have one essential responsibility, and that is to vote.
The few hundred times a year that a roll call occurs, you come to the chamber and say yea or nay on behalf of the voters who sent you. Couldn't be more basic.
And the taxpayers make it easy. They pay lawmakers a per diem to get to Boston. They give each one an office on Beacon Hill. They provide staff. All so that legislators can do their job.
I bring this up in the wake of Wednesday's tie vote on whether police should be allowed to stop motorists who aren't using seat belts. The count was 73 to 73. The House has 160 members.
That's 14 people, nearly 10 percent of the body, who didn't see the need to cast a ballot, even though the vote had been scheduled last week. Put aside the pros and cons of the seat belt issue while we ask just one question: Where were they?
We begin with Representative Christine Canavan, a Brockton Democrat. She couldn't be reached because, as an aide said, "She's out of the country."
On vacation? "Yes." Where? "I can't tell you that." Pause. "I don't think I should."
The House takes a week off every February and April, all of August, part of September, and the entirety of December, and Canavan takes another vacation during the budget season?
Next up, Cheryl Rivera, a Springfield Democrat, who was also out of the country. On vacation? "Not that I'm aware of," her chief of staff replied. So where is she? "I'm not sure."
That's right, her chief of staff isn't sure.
Representative Brian Knuuttila, a Gardner Democrat and lawyer, said he hung around the chamber until late in the afternoon, but had to leave for what he said was a "mandatory" training seminar in a Worcester court. In Knuuttila's world, the lawyer seminars are mandatory, the House votes optional.
Then there's Colleen Garry of Dracut, who was late getting to the floor because, she said, she was on the phone with a constituent. But according to her, that's an incomplete version.
"The real story," she said, "was that a member was in the chamber moments after the roll call and was not allowed to vote, meaning democracy was blocked."
When asked what she was discussing with the constituent, she refused to give an answer or even a hint. Instead, she asked if I was questioning her integrity. Well, yes.
Representative Dan Bosley said he stayed home in North Adams because his wife had a migraine.
"She was sick as a dog and I didn't want to leave her," he said. "It's my 21st wedding anniversary ... I couldn't ... tell her that I was going to leave."
A few legislators who didn't bother voting didn't bother returning phone calls, either, among them, two members of Tom Finneran's leadership team, Sal DiMasi and John Rogers. That's quite an example for their followers. Likewise, Thomas Kennedy of Brockton failed to vote or return a call to explain his absence, as did Ellen Story of Amherst. Perhaps an opponent in their next election might get a response.
There were some legitimate reasons offered. Mary Jane Simmons, a Leominster Democrat, has a chronic medical ailment that has kept her off Beacon Hill. Brian Golden, a Boston Democrat, was on active military duty. Harold Naughton was bringing his wife and newborn home from the hospital. Smitty Pignatelli was attending the funeral of a soldier. Peter Koutoujian of Newton was observing an election in Armenia.
But if you get the sense that there's a haphazard nature to the way business is done on Beacon Hill, you're absolutely right. Sometimes they swill beer during key votes. Sometimes they pass bills in the dark of the night. And sometimes they don't bother showing up at all.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Budget ax getting a little duller
By Steve LeBlanc
A slew of nasty budget cuts threatened during the bone-cold days of January are melting away at the soggy start of summer.
A budget plan unveiled by the Senate last week sets aside money for dozens of those services, from a popular prescription drug insurance program for seniors to a Talking Book program for the blind. The plan even pumps $18 million into tourism.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this.
Back in February, Senate President Robert Travaglini warned that the fiscal crunch would test the mettle of Beacon Hill leaders "as only few generations of leaders are tested."
The Boston Democrat wasn’t alone. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney called for "immediate, hard action" to close a $3 billion spending gap. And as recently as April, House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood, compared the deficit to a "300-pound fullback steaming through the line of scrimmage."
But as lawmakers lumber toward a final budget — the Senate began its budget debate Wednesday — many are hoping to avoid some of the harshest cuts.
The House began the trend during its budget debate earlier this month. The original version of the budget slashed money for dozens of health services, from anti-smoking programs to breast and prostate cancer education. But on the final day of debate House leaders unveiled a plan to take $13.2 million from a fund to help the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority run the new Big Dig roadways, and use the money instead to partially restore funds for the health programs.
House lawmakers also restored, on the final day of debate, a pared-down version of the Prescription Advantage program, which provides prescription drug coverage to the elderly and disabled.
The Senate version of the budget goes farther, restoring an insurance program for the chronically unemployed, and pouring more money into some of the programs only partially restored by the House.
Even Romney, who helped set the budget-slashing tone with the release of his spending plan in February, indicated he would be willing to negotiate on some of his recommended cuts, including his recommendation to eliminate the Prescription Advantage program.
So what happened to the fiscal crisis?
To be sure, all three versions of the budgets include deep reductions in spending, including cuts to local aid, school funding and other state services. But relying on one-time money, state savings, reform measures, higher fees and other budgetary maneuvers, lawmakers are hoping to step back from the worst-case scenarios unfurled during the winter.
The Senate plan uses $175 million in savings, boosts fees by $500 million, and taps $430 million in one-time funds, including a plan to transfer the Hynes Convention Center and Boston Common Garage to the state pension fund in lieu of a $145 million payment.
The task of closing the spending gap got a little easier, too, on Friday when officials announced that Massachusetts would receive $550 million in aid as part of a federal tax cut approved by Congress.
But Romney budget chief Eric Kriss, say streamlining government is the best way to spend less while protecting vital programs, and must be part of the final budget equation.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe (North edition)
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Voters cool on override proposals
Local tax hikes seen as way to offset cuts
By Brenda J. Buote, Globe Staff
Facing steep cuts in state aid, communities throughout the northern suburbs -- in numbers not seen since the economic downturn of the early 1990s -- are asking voters to spare their local schools, police departments, and firehouses from layoffs by passing Proposition
2½ overrides.
The override question has divided residents in 25 of the region's 37 municipalities, where homeowners have been asked to absorb increases in their property tax bills or face a decline in vital services.
In most area communities, the proposed overrides would mean that owners of average homes would pay roughly $200 to $500 a year in new property taxes -- a burden that many voters are unwilling to shoulder.
"The message we're hoping to send is: 'You can't spend what you don't have,'" said Susan Kelleher, who organized the Melrose Taxpayers Alliance in March to oppose the city's push for a $5.3 million override to cover city and school spending for fiscal 2004, which begins July 1. Voters will decide the issue at the ballot box next Tuesday.
"We can't blame the mayor, the selectmen, or the aldermen for not knowing what the cuts from the state would be, but they've known for a long time that something was coming and they made no provision for it," said Kelleher, who has served on both the local School Committee and Board of Aldermen. "People in this community just don't have the money to make up for their lack of foresight." Melrose Mayor Robert Dolan said, "The devastating reduction in state aid that we sustained earlier this year, including cuts to Chapter 70 [direct state aid to local schools], made it impossible for me to present a balanced budget without making painful cuts." He based his spending proposal for fiscal 2004, which includes roughly $5 million in cuts, on the Senate's version of the state budget.
Dolan noted that the extra money in the $5.3 million override proposal -- nearly $400,000 -- would provide a buffer for future planning, "so if additional cuts come down from state aid, we'll be able to absorb them." The budget does not include capital expenses, such as a new snow plows or police cruisers, Dolan said, noting that the additional money might be used for such purchases.
Melrose is one of six communities in the region that will decide the override issue in the coming weeks. Voters in Essex, Georgetown, Groveland, Manchester-by-the-Sea, and Marblehead are also facing override questions in June. In Amesbury, officials are waiting until November to seek permission from voters to pass an override for renovations at the high school.Voters in 18 northern suburbs have decided the question so far this fiscal year, with mixed results. Six communities -- Boxford, Nahant, Newbury, Rockport, Swampscott, and Wenham -- passed overrides, giving local leaders permission to raise the tax levy in excess of 2.5 percent of property value, the limit set by the state tax cap law. The majority of those tax hikes sought to raise less than $1 million. The largest successful override was passed in Swampscott to support construction of a $47 million high school. The town expects to secure a 56 percent reimbursement from the state for the project.
Some of the tax hikes sought this fiscal year were debt exclusions, which are temporary increases to pay for particular projects, while others, known as general overrides, are permanent increases usually earmarked for the day-to-day expenses of local government and/or the school district.
Ten communities -- Danvers, Groveland, Hamilton, Haverhill, Ipswich, Merrimac, Middleton, Saugus, West Newbury, and Winthrop -- rejected override proposals, most of which were sought to pay for multimillion dollar school construction projects, or to fund school operating budgets. In essence, voters in those municipalities ordered their local leaders back to the drawing board, demanding that they find another way to balance the books for fiscal 2004.
"This was the first year that voters have turned down anything the schools have asked for," said Janet Bruno, chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen in Merrimac, who noted that voters there approved override requests for the Pentucket schools in 2002 and 2001, as did Groveland and West Newbury, the other district communities. "It's a tough year. People are saying enough is enough."
In Merrimac, voters earlier this month rejected three override proposals: a $431,394 override to supplement the Pentucket Regional School district's operating budget; a $259,480 override that would have helped the town meet its base assessment for the schools; and a $44,000 override to fund a position in the Police
Department.Meanwhile, other communities are passing overrides for certain causes, while rejecting others. Two communities, Rowley and Topsfield, made a split decision on the tax hike question. Rowley voters on May 13 approved a $25,000 override request for a new generator for the Fire Department, but rejected a proposal seeking $130,00 for a new brush truck.
In Topsfield, voters on May 8 approved an override proposal seeking $850,000 to pay for town services and Topsfield's share of the Masconomet Regional School District budget, but rejected a second override that would have imposed a temporary tax hike to make Town Hall handicapped accessible. Voter ambivalence regarding the override question is understandable considering the fiscal climate in Massachusetts and the economic uncertainty that many households are facing, said
Barbara Anderson, executive director of the Peabody-based Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
"On one hand, people who pass overrides generally feel good about what they've done, because they believe they're supporting a good cause, such as the local school system," said Anderson. "On the other hand, people are sick of hearing constant threats that civilization is coming to an end because the state declared a fiscal crisis. Many people have lost their jobs, or haven't gotten a pay raise. For most people, it's a pocketbook issue. They simply can't afford to pay more taxes." So far this year, at least 65 communities statewide have tried, or said they would try, an override, according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association. By comparison, just 44 cities and towns sought overrides during all of fiscal year 2002 (July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002), state Department of Revenue records show.
The results of the votes cast this fiscal year in the northern suburbs illustrate the difficulty in depending on local voters to voluntarily boost their tax burden.
Override critics say communities' increased dependence on property taxes threatens to create a chasm between poor and rich communities -- the kind of abyss that lawmakers on Beacon Hill sought to eliminate in 1993, when they ushered in the era of education reform and began pumping millions of state dollars into poorer communities in an effort to close the education spending gap.
"Generally, it is more difficult for communities with lower incomes to pass a Proposition
2½ override," said Geoffrey C. Beckwith of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which lobbies for cities and towns on Beacon Hill. "As a result, there will be an increased disparity in services between communities. That's why local aid is so important; it evens out the disparities in essential services."Melrose officials put the override question on the ballot with some unease, after voters rejected five override proposals in October 1990 and only narrowly approved an increase in the property tax rate two years later. In 1992, 15,133 votes were cast; the override proposal, seeking $3 million to fund the city and school budgets, passed by 363 votes.
Dolan, the Melrose mayor, said, "Overrides bring out the best and worst in the city -- the best because it gets people involved; the worst because it gets very personal." He said the tax hike is needed to avoid layoffs that would likely devastate the city's Police Department, firehouses, and schools."We believe the vote will be very close, as it was in 1992," Dolan said. "If it's a no vote, people are going to have to be more involved in the community, to pick up the loss. If it's a yes vote, people are going to have to make sure we're held accountable, from the PTO to the Board of Aldermen and my office. No matter the outcome, we're urging people to stay involved in city government, in good times and bad."
Today, property taxes pay for 48 percent of all local budgets statewide, Beckwith said. "The state budget debate does put taxes on the table -- unfortunately, it's the property tax, the most regressive of the major taxes," he said. "We believe the state should consider fairer taxes as part of a comprehensive solution to the budget crisis." Beckwith and other critics say the property tax is inherently less fair than the personal income tax because it places a greater burden on folks living on fixed incomes and people who are unemployed.
But given Governor Mitt Romney's vow to veto any state income tax increase that reaches his desk, and the Legislature's apparent unwillingness to push for one, many community leaders feel they have no choice but to turn to voters for an override to provide basic services.
Return to
top
The Lawrence Eagle Tribune
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
Editorial
The rigmarole of state budget reform
The people of Massachusetts voted for revolution, not evolution. That means devolution of state government, not the status quo.
State officials, from the governor's office through the Legislature, should keep that in mind as they debate the budget for the coming year.
We've all heard about the $3 billion budget gap. What we haven't heard is that the proposed budgets -- House, Senate, governor -- for the fiscal year starting July 1 call for spending the same or more money, not less, than the current year.
We have all heard that nobody is calling for tax increases. What has not been explained is how a host of new and increased fees are different in any substantive sense from taxes.
One of the most outrageous examples is a surcharge on homeowner's insurance. Supposedly, fees are for services one can choose. But homeowners don't have a sensible choice about homeowner's insurance. If they carry a mortgage, they have no choice at all.
That is not a revolution. That is more of the same old political rigmarole.
Legislative leaders have spent considerable time in recent weeks declaring that if they can't maintain a certain level of spending, vulnerable citizens will suffer injury or death, and critical services like education and health care will be destroyed.
That is not the revolution for which the people of Massachusetts voted, nor is it the devolution this state needs. Voters know, and agree, that critical services must be maintained. That is why they already pay the taxes they do.
But they did vote for a revolution in other areas:
This revolution would end the packing of the state's courts with hundreds of patronage positions that court leaders say they don't want or need. It would end the political gamesmanship that gives one court twice the budget of another, even though it has half the case load.
This revolution would consolidate state departments like the Highway Department and the Turnpike Authority, agencies that remain separate only to preserve political turf and political jobs.
It would put an end to giveaways to public employees like the Quinn Bill, which costs the state and municipalities more than $100 million a year for dubious to nonexistent educational achievement by police officers. It would eliminate the so-called Pacheco Law, which effectively prevents government services from being contracted out to the private sector, no matter how significant the savings.
It would control the runaway cost of Medicaid, which now provides better benefits than most private health plans.
Legislators say they heard the message from voters. Now is the time to prove it, by doing more than nibbling at the edges of government luxuries.
Now is the time to start the revolution the taxpayers want and need. And the first step requires rolling back the size and cost of state government.
Return to
top
The Lowell Sun
Friday, May 30, 2003
Editorial
A fee too far
That members of the Senate's Ways and Means Committee thought better of a measure to increase the burden on property owners through a 2.3 percent surcharge on insurance policies is encouraging.
Sen. Steven C. Panagiotakos, vice-chairman of Ways and Means, said the proposal to raise $40 million for local police and fire departments was "well-intentioned" but impossible to shepherd through.
That's darn right. It's astounding anyone could have sought more funds through property owners, already choking on higher local taxes.
Consider, too, that a national trend toward steep increases in property insurance is affecting insurance-holders already.
But the surcharge measure, included in the final Ways and Means budget, must be expunged through a legislative amendment.
Panagiotakos and other senators are correct to believe that the surcharge will be viewed as a tax in disguise. This budget season, Gov. Mitt Romney and the Legislature have had a field day in proposing new fees (we call them "pseudo-taxes") to feed the state's general revenues account, where spending for a designated purpose cannot be regulated.
But people who pay a tax expect to get a direct service in return. They get nothing tangible from a property insurance surcharge, especially when their local taxes are already supporting public safety.
While we welcome creative revenue-raising proposals, this one doesn't fit the bill.
Give credit to Sen. Panagiotakos and other legislators, who've come to realize the surcharge would do more harm than good, and look for its speedy demise.
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
|