CLT
UPDATE
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
A Legislature out of control ... or
is it?
(and three CLT Memos)
Faced with the possibility of defeat, members of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's leadership team are considering watering down a bill that seeks to expand legislative leaders' authority to dole out extra pay to their colleagues....
A large bloc of Democrats and Republicans, including some who supported the bill's initial passage, appears reluctant to oppose Romney over the measure if he forces a showdown. Some rank-and-file members may pressure House leaders to avoid an override vote, lest Romney portray them as trying to raise lawmakers' pay in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
In April, the bill received initial approval in the House by a 100-to-50 vote, precisely two-thirds. But it appears uncertain whether House leaders could maintain that margin of support.
The bill would allow legislative leaders to establish new committees and additional posts that carry extra pay and increase pay for such posts, through changes in legislative rules, which would only have to be approved by their members and would not be subject to review by the governor....
Thirteen Republicans backed Finneran initially by voting in favor of the bill, and House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading has said that many of those Republicans may back Romney if the governor issues his first veto on this bill....
With the help of Republican members, Finneran's critics in the House are confident they can sustain the governor's veto and block the bill from becoming law. The critics argue that handing the speaker and Senate president more authority to reward loyalists with additional pay will solidify their tight control over legislation.
"If this passes, you might as well put a padlock on the door and say, Let Tom Finneran do whatever he wants,'" said Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat. "We will be sliding very fast down a slippery slope that will not be in the interests of Massachusetts. It is very crucial to the future of democracy in the House that this be defeated."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
House leaders edge toward pay deal
The Massachusetts Senate has an opportunity this week to improve a "municipal relief bill" passed by the House to provide fiscal help to cities and towns. The Senate needs to add measures that will raise significant new revenue....
The best way to provide relief to the cities and towns would be a statewide boost in the income tax. If senators are unwilling to go this far, they at least ought to approve local option taxes or the auto excise change. Communities need substantial new money, not long-term liabilities or nuisance fees.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Municipal hope
A judge's finding that a Massachusetts tax on prescriptions is illegal and that the state must refund the $18 million so far is an excellent example of the hazard of enacting significant legislation as "outside sections" tacked onto the state budget....
Citing lapses in the legislative and regulatory process, Judge Allan van Gestel declared that outside sections "are hardly the most appropriate way to adopt legislation, particularly important tax legislation."
He's right. For 30 years, outside sections have been used as a detour around the open legislative process, but the practice has spun out of control in the past decade.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Monday, June 9, 2003
Outside the process
Judge's ruling slams spate of budget add-ons
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
It's been a busy day here in Taxpayerland, fighting
off the dark forces coming from so many directions it's getting hard to
keep up with the nonsense. We should have known better than to think the
Legislature's "responsible" approach to the "fiscal
crisis" praised by so many so many pundits in recent weeks wasn't a
new trend, not with all those "fee" increases tucked away in
so many outside sections of the various budget proposals.
The devil is in the details, and the details are
coming out. As you can see from our memos below -- and I believe
delivering three memos to each legislator at the State House in one day
is a record for CLT -- we're doing our best to stay on top and ahead of
events.
Finneran's power grab through unilateral pay raise
authority is moving ahead like a bulldozer, and the so-called Municipal
Aid proposals in both the House and Senate are intent in eviscerating
Proposition 2½ by a thousand cuts.
Never has it been more important to keep an eye on
Beacon Hill every moment of the day and night. Numerous things are
simultaneously happening all too rapidly that, if passed, will have a
major impact on how government operates and how we are governed by it
from here on out.
Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
– CLT MEMO –
To:
Members of the General Court
June
10, 2003
Re: Finneran Power Grab
Citizens for Limited Taxation is grateful
for Governor Romney’s decision to veto the Finneran power grab/pay raise
bill, and hopes that members of the House Republican leadership will come to their senses this week and support the governor.
If at any time the House or Senate needs a
different committee structure, this should be debated, voted on by both
branches, and be scrutinized by the governor on behalf of the people. The
present bill, which removes these safeguards, is a blatant attempt by the
Speaker to solidify his control by letting him give favored legislators more
pay. "Favored legislators" is defined as those who vote with the
leadership, putting his preferences ahead of what their constituents might
want.
The voters gave the Legislature
automatic constitutional pay raises, after being told it would no longer vote
for its own pay hikes. This bill violates that agreement. It also represents
the only place in state government where taxpayer money can be spent by a few
legislative leaders, with no input from the other branch or the governor, no
checks or balances. This is very bad policy.
The vote on this bill is the first vote on a
possible new tax package. Once the leadership controls almost 2/3 of the
House, with either existing extra pay or the potential for extra pay, then the
ability to override any veto is weakened. Governor Romney, to his credit, can
see this; it’s time for legislators who support democracy and representative
government to see it too and act accordingly. We hope you will vote to keep
the present system in place.
– CLT MEMO –
To: Members
of the Massachusetts Senate
cc:
Massachusetts House
June
10, 2003
Re:
Overlay exclusion from Proposition 2½ –
Enough already with the overrides
Though CLT has generally not opposed the creation of
overrides that depend upon a referendum vote, we are opposed to this because:
enough is enough.
The Proposition 2½ Overlay exclusion, which raises
property taxes by the amount in a community’s abatement account, is so
unfamiliar and complicated that it is hard to explain to the media, and I am
at least trying – unlike what will happen when supporters try to slip it by
local voters.
Aside from the usual scare tactics on existing overrides,
there are new trends in attempts to get voters to pass them. Local officials
go back to the ballot immediately after losing, spending more scarce money for
another election hoping to wear voters down.
As House Minority Leader Brad Jones said during debate on
this amendment to the municipal package, cities and towns can seek an override
for the amount of money in the overlay account, so this exclusion is
unnecessary.
The Overlay exclusion is different than other overrides for
general spending or specific projects. Proponents of it exclude the amount set
aside for abatements by making the argument that "the money goes back to
taxpayers." Well, yes; but only if they are first over-assessed. In order
to get more money to spend, a town would be tempted to over-assess more
people, in order to build up an abatement history on which the exclusion is
based. After costing and inconveniencing many taxpayers who have to appeal the
over assessment, the town would have its slush fund, raised outside of the
Prop 2½ levy limit. Then, though the ballot language gives the impression
that this is for one year only, the Overlay account could automatically
increase by 2.5% every year.
If you do not understand this, call me and I will explain
it further. Then imagine yourself a local reporter explaining it to your
readers so they can make an informed decision on the new override.
At present, there are overrides for general government
expenditures, debt exclusions, equipment, open space and affordable housing.
Enough already. The Senate has been supportive of Prop 2½ over the years, and
we ask you to ignore this House foolishness now. If it comes out of conference
committee, we will ask the governor for a veto on the grounds that this is
meant to trick the voters.
– CLT MEMO –
To: Members
of the General Court
June
10, 2003
Re: House bills 1215 and 1217 on
Proposition 2½
Whereas: the Overlay exclusion from Prop 2½ was passed by
the House as a floor amendment and we didn’t get a chance to contact members
about it, we are delivering a memo in opposition to it today hoping that the
Senate and then conference committee will reject it.
We are delivering this memo on the two proposed Marzilli
bills at the same time, just in case they pop up unexpectedly.
House 1215 excludes the local contribution for chapter 70
from the Prop 2½ levy limit. There is no requirement for voter approval and
even if there were, as we said about the Overlay exclusion, there are enough
different kinds of overrides already.
House 1217 is another scheme to exempt some taxpayers from
the results of an override election so that they will vote for higher property
taxes or stay home.
Naturally we are concerned about people who cannot afford
their property taxes; this was why we put Proposition 2½ on the ballot in the
first place. But passing overrides and pushing the lower-income homeowner’s
share of the new taxes onto other local taxpayers is not the answer, since
some of them can’t afford the override either. Local officials cannot tell
from home value or income what extraordinary expenses some homeowners may
have: health expenses, parental care, children’s college costs – and now
their neighbor’s share of an override.
The regressive property tax is still over-used in
Massachusetts, though Prop 2½ helps control it and the Legislature (except
for the House Overlay vote) has done a good job over twenty years of
supporting it. This is another good year to leave it alone.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
House leaders edge toward pay deal
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff
Faced with the possibility of defeat, members of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's leadership team are considering watering down a bill that seeks to expand legislative leaders' authority to dole out extra pay to their colleagues.
Finneran and his top lieutenants say the measure is crucial to allowing the Legislature to organize its own affairs. But given Governor Mitt Romney's promise to block the bill as it is currently written, the House leaders are exploring other means of shifting committee responsibilities and revamping pay for members.
"We're looking at our options, and we'll respond to what the governor does," said Representative Lida E. Harkins, House majority whip and a Needham Democrat.
Finneran declined to comment yesterday through his spokesman.
If the speaker retreats, it would give the governor a badly needed political victory. Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Romney's plans to restructure the executive branch and to eliminate the president's post at the University of Massachusetts.
Harkins said that no decision has been made on how the Legislature should proceed in light of Romney's opposition. Unlike most battles pitting the Democrat-dominated Legislature and the Republican governor, there's a real chance that House leaders would be unable to attract the two-thirds vote necessary to override a gubernatorial veto.
A large bloc of Democrats and Republicans, including some who supported the bill's initial passage, appears reluctant to oppose Romney over the measure if he forces a showdown. Some rank-and-file members may pressure House leaders to avoid an override vote, lest Romney portray them as trying to raise lawmakers' pay in the midst of a fiscal crisis.
In April, the bill received initial approval in the House by a 100-to-50 vote, precisely two-thirds. But it appears uncertain whether House leaders could maintain that margin of support.
The bill would allow legislative leaders to establish new committees and additional posts that carry extra pay and increase pay for such posts, through changes in legislative rules, which would only have to be approved by their members and would not be subject to review by the governor. Such changes now must go through the regular legislative process and can be vetoed by the governor. Romney has said he wants to maintain the current system.
Lawmakers are considering crafting a narrower bill that would specifically set up two new legislative committees, on Medicaid and homeland security, and several additional paid posts, but would not expand legislative leaders' power to establish extra-pay posts in the future. Romney has indicated that he would sign such a measure.
House Republicans are floating a proposal that would keep the substance of the original bill, but require approval by two-thirds or even four-fifths majorities. It is not clear how Romney views such an option; he has said he believes the governor should have a check on legislators' power to provide extra pay to committee chairmen.
Thirteen Republicans backed Finneran initially by voting in favor of the bill, and House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr. of North Reading has said that many of those Republicans may back Romney if the governor issues his first veto on this bill.
With the help of Republican members, Finneran's critics in the House are confident they can sustain the governor's veto and block the bill from becoming law. The critics argue that handing the speaker and Senate president more authority to reward loyalists with additional pay will solidify their tight control over legislation.
"If this passes, you might as well put a padlock on the door and say, Let Tom Finneran do whatever he wants,'" said Representative Paul C. Demakis, a Back Bay Democrat. "We will be sliding very fast down a slippery slope that will not be in the interests of Massachusetts. It is very crucial to the future of democracy in the House that this be defeated."
Currently, 51 of 160 House members receive pay beyond their $53,381 base salary because they hold committee chairmanships or vice chairmanships or other leadership posts on the Democratic or Republican sides. Most of those members receive an additional $7,500 or $15,000 a year, and Finneran aides have said that the speaker wants to spread out about $50,000 in extra money among six to eight House members.
House Republicans are trying to head off a clash between Romney and Finneran. Jones is trying to broker a compromise that would keep Finneran's idea of giving the Legislature exclusive control over its own affairs, but raise the threshold for compensation matters on any proposed changes.
"It would be nice to work out something and not have this being the issue that sends everyone to marriage counseling," Jones said.
The Senate is scheduled to give the bill final approval Thursday, a procedural vote that will probably not be controversial. That vote will deliver the measure to Romney, and he has said he would send it back to the Legislature within 10 days with a formal message indicating that he disapproves of the part of the bill that would allow legislative leadership pay to be set without the consent of the governor. Legislative leaders will then determine how to proceed, probably in close consultation with Romney's office.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
A Boston Globe editorial
Municipal hope
The Massachusetts Senate has an opportunity this week to improve a "municipal relief bill" passed by the House to provide fiscal help to cities and towns. The Senate needs to add measures that will raise significant new revenue.
The House shunned the local option taxes proposed by Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston in favor of inconsequential fees. These include surcharges on tickets to local fairs and camping fees at state forests, with the money remitted to the affected communities. This makes sense in regard to forests, on which the state pays no local taxes, but why single out fairs, which already defray costs to towns? Optional increases in fees on firearms, fire department permits, and school transportation are not long-range solutions to the problems of municipal finance.
The House leadership is particularly proud of one provision that would allow communities to defer two-thirds of their annual payments for unfunded pension costs. Brockton, for instance, would have to pay only $4 million instead of $12 million. This is better than nothing for communities facing deep cuts in local aid, but Boston, the largest payer, wants nothing to do with the plan because it only pushes off costs into the future.
The local option taxes proposed by Menino on meals and other activities make sense for Boston, but more comprehensive solutions are needed in communities that are not business or entertainment centers. Yet the House turned backed a proposal that would have increased revenue for all 351 cities and towns by adjusting the auto excise tax to better reflect the retained value of automobiles. Over seven years, the tax on a $20,000 car would rise from $1,425 to $1,675, paid to the community where it is garaged.
Ultimately, the Legislature needs to consider long-range changes in the rules that govern the awarding of construction contracts by cities and towns. The Massachusetts Municipal Association contends that archaic rules inflate the cost of this work by 10 to 20 percent. And the Legislature ought to examine how state law can help rein in the increasing cost of health insurance for municipal employees.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee will unveil its version of the municipal aid bill today, and early indications are that it will not include local option or auto excise taxes. Senators ought to give this bill more impact by offering revenue-enhancing amendments.
Communities are in trouble because of state reductions in local aid provoked by the $3 billion revenue shortfall. The best way to provide relief to the cities and towns would be a statewide boost in the income tax. If senators are unwilling to go this far, they at least ought to approve local option taxes or the auto excise change. Communities need substantial new money, not long-term liabilities or nuisance fees.
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Monday, June 9, 2003
Editorial
Outside the process
Judge's ruling slams spate of budget add-ons
A judge's finding that a Massachusetts tax on prescriptions is illegal and that the state must refund the $18 million so far is an excellent example of the hazard of enacting significant legislation as "outside sections" tacked onto the state budget.
Struck down was a law requiring pharmacies to pay a $1.30 "fee" for each private-payer prescription they filled - in effect forcing people who buy medicines to subsidize Medicaid with higher prices at the drug store as well is in taxes. More than 100 pharmacies challenged the prescription tax in Suffolk Superior Court.
Citing lapses in the legislative and regulatory process, Judge Allan van Gestel declared that outside sections "are hardly the most appropriate way to adopt legislation, particularly important tax legislation."
He's right. For 30 years, outside sections have been used as a detour around the open legislative process, but the practice has spun out of control in the past decade.
The Senate, which passed a $22.5 billion budget last week, was faced with 609 outside sections, including many on major policy issues. On a simple voice vote, senators nullified the Clean Elections Law, passed by a voter referendum in 1998. Also tacked onto the budget were proposals affecting MCAS rules, bilingual education, the Quinn Bill and drunken driving. The House faced 469 outside sections in its budget deliberations.
The Legislature's backsliding on outside sections is especially troubling at a time when revenue growth has come to a virtual standstill. Momentous decisions about which programs grow and which are cut should be made in a deliberate and open way, not via hasty voice votes during frantic budget sessions.
In 2000, the House Ways and Means Committee fiscal 2001 budget had an incredible 1,433 outside sections, leading to the notorious all-night "Animal House" session, during which, lawmakers later admitted, many rank-and-filers had no clue about what some of their votes signified.
While not all outside sections are silly or politically suspect, none of them is subjected to the study, public disclosure or debate that is needed. The practice undermines the democratic process by bypassing the usual legislative and public scrutiny.
Reducing the number of outside sections would be one small step toward making the annual budget process significantly more open, accountable and efficient. It certainly would be a way to avoid costly mistakes such as that precipitated by the pharmacy fee vote.
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
|