CLT
UPDATE
Friday, June 27, 2003
Democracy
... or "Finneran Rules"?
Calling it "unacceptable," Gov. Mitt Romney on Friday vetoed a bill sponsored by House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would have given House and Senate leaders the power to hike pay for their committee chairmen, without the governor’s approval. The governor said the bill would also deny the public input on legislative pay.
State House News Service
Friday, June 27, 2003
Breaking News: Romney vetoes Finneran pay bill
To understand Tom Finneran's Legislature, to understand just how little has changed during this supposed season of reform, consider just one key fact about your friends on Beacon Hill.
At the same time that the Legislature decided it couldn't afford to pay money that had been promised to public school teachers, that same Legislature has paved the way to give some of its members a raise....
Finneran's allies have said he intends to divide $50,000 or so among six or eight members -- retroactively. Of course, we believe him. I mean, why wouldn't we? Their word is always good.
In all, there are 68 members in the 136-person Democratic caucus who could be construed as being in the leadership -- a term, of course, that I'm using loosely. The potential raises could enrich any one of them, or add more people to their ranks....
But that's not going to be the final word. House leaders are already pushing dissident Democrats to rally behind the cause and override any veto. Some rank- and-file members already report getting two and three calls from committee chairmen pushing and prodding them in the right direction.
And the men and women of Beacon Hill wonder why they don't get more respect. Actually, they don't really care. They just want more money.
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 27, 2003
Promises, promises
By Brian McGrory
The enemy has won.
And it was a damned easy victory, too....
"I'm very pleased that we held the line on taxes," Romney said last week - one day after a compromise $23.14 billion budget was approved by the House and Senate.
Romney's blind eye to nearly $100 million in new tax revenues the budget actually contemplates suggests the Republican governor wields a selective description of the word "tax."
But it also illustrates a sad and sorry reality that has settled on Beacon Hill: There is precious little appetite these days - in the Romney administration, among so-called watchdogs and even in the media - to hold legislators accountable for much of anything save for their predictable grab for regular pay raises.
But every consumer who drives a car and fills a prescription with any regularity is about to take a hit, unless there is a breakout of soul searching at the State House....
Passing new taxes is one thing.
Choosing taxes that cut directly into the bottom line of so many middle-class households is another.
But doing so while basking in the limelight of a "no new taxes" boast is, well, it's downright wrong, that's what it is.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 27, 2003
State budget plain and simple fraud
by Cosmo Macero Jr.
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Governor Romney did as we hoped late today and vetoed
House Speaker Finneran's pay-raise power-grab. Now all that stands
between democracy and autocracy are votes in the House and Senate in
Finneran's all-out effort to override the governor's veto and again have
his way.
Thanks to those who've contacted us relating their
calls and e-mails to state reps and senators. The upcoming vote to grant
Finneran unlimited power to buy with taxpayer money a bigger
"leadership" team that will always vote his way is going to be
close. A vote or two one way or the other is going to decide the future
of government in The People's Republic for all time.
Finneran's leadership capos are strong-arming the
rank and file. This is a scorched-earth war for Mr. Speaker. Nobody will
get in his way and be left standing.
If you don't act now and contact your state
rep and senator, demand that they vote to sustain the governor's veto,
don't blame anyone later when there's nothing we or anybody else can do
to stop "Finneran's Rule."
Your rep and senator need to know you oppose this
power grab and will not forget how they vote.
This is a critical turning point in Massachusetts
history, a point that will define our very form of government.
Don't let it pass by without voicing your opinion. Find
your rep and senator now, and let him or her know where you stand:
for democracy or for a "Finneran Rules" autocracy.
When you call, just tell whoever answers the phone
that you're a constituent and would like the representative or senator
to sustain the governor's veto on the Finneran Power-Grab. If there's a
question, refer them to the CLT
memo that was delivered Wednesday.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
State House News Service
Friday, June 27, 2003
Breaking News
Romney vetoes Finneran pay bill
Calling it "unacceptable," Gov. Mitt Romney on Friday vetoed a bill sponsored by House Speaker Thomas Finneran that would have given House and Senate leaders the power to hike pay for their committee chairmen, without the governor’s approval. The governor said the bill would also deny the public input on legislative pay.
"I had serious concerns with this legislation because it took away forever the say of future governors and the public in matters dealing with legislative compensation - that is unacceptable to me," Romney said in a statement.
An aide to Speaker Finneran declined comment.
Finneran has said the measure would allow him to set up new committees on Medicaid and Homeland Security and chairman-level pay for the heads of those panels. Chairmen and other members of legislative leadership earn between $7,500 and $35,000 on top of the legislative base salary of about $52,000. The state is facing a $3 billion budget shortfall.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 27, 2003
Promises, promises
By Brian McGrory, Globe Columnist
To understand Tom Finneran's Legislature, to understand just how little has changed during this supposed season of reform, consider just one key fact about your friends on Beacon Hill.
At the same time that the Legislature decided it couldn't afford to pay money that had been promised to public school teachers, that same Legislature has paved the way to give some of its members a raise.
At issue are the $20,000 signing bonuses promised to a few hundred teachers who, midcareer, gave up other jobs, moved families, and entered some of the neediest public school systems across Massachusetts, all as part of the most innovative hiring plan in the nation.
Those bonuses were to be paid to teachers over four years, with the money being spun from a $70 million endowment within the state Department of Education. The plan was lauded by many, criticized by some, but either way, it was a promise. Recruits were told in no uncertain terms that if they signed up for Massachusetts public schools and stuck with the program, they would be given $20,000, clear and simple.
Four years later, the Legislature has unceremoniously pulled the rug out from the proposal -- and the teachers who were a part of it. You were promised the money? Doesn't matter. You uprooted your life? Hey, don't believe everything you read. This, after all, is Massachusetts, where a politician's word isn't worth the breath with which it's delivered.
Even if you accept lying as a way of life on Beacon Hill, what's really hard to swallow is the nominal cost of the bonus program. Last year, the state spent just $1.1 million on it. To make it clear, that's $1.1 million in a $23 billion budget. I don't know if there's a calculator outside of MIT that shows what an infinitesimal percentage that really is.
But what's hardest to comprehend is the brazenness. This is a Legislature that's just gutted Clean Elections -- again. It's a Legislature that's patting itself on the back so hard for passing an on-time budget that it may need a chiropractor's care.
And it's a Legislature that has sent the governor a bill that would allow its in-House deity, Finneran, to dole out more pay raises to his most faithful apostles.
Finneran's allies have said he intends to divide $50,000 or so among six or eight members -- retroactively. Of course, we believe him. I mean, why wouldn't we? Their word is always good.
In all, there are 68 members in the 136-person Democratic caucus who could be construed as being in the leadership -- a term, of course, that I'm using loosely. The potential raises could enrich any one of them, or add more people to their ranks.
The money, again, is negligible. The symbolism is nothing short of stunning, even in a climate where it's virtually impossible to be stunned. The legislators are saying that they can't keep a promise to teachers, but are always able to -- wink, wink -- help themselves.
The shard of good news in all this comes from the governor's office. An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Mitt Romney plans to propose an allocation of $4 million "to make good to the teachers who were already promised bonuses." The hiring program would end, but the teachers already within it would be paid what they're owed.
Of the bill that would lead to legislative raises, Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said unequivocally, "We're going to veto it."
But that's not going to be the final word. House leaders are already pushing dissident Democrats to rally behind the cause and override any veto. Some rank- and-file members already report getting two and three calls from committee chairmen pushing and prodding them in the right direction.
And the men and women of Beacon Hill wonder why they don't get more respect. Actually, they don't really care. They just want more money.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 27, 2003
State budget plain and simple fraud
by Cosmo Macero Jr.
The enemy has won.
And it was a damned easy victory, too.
House and Senate budget writers - thrilled with their performance in actually passing a budget before Thanksgiving - emerged last week with twisted limbs and arthritic fingers from patting themselves on the back.
In past years the budget process has been known to resemble everything from the balcony scene in "Romeo and Juliet" to a Delta House fraternity kegger.
This year, however, with a "no new taxes" theme adopted from Gov. Mitt Romney, it was a plain and simple fraud.
"I'm very pleased that we held the line on taxes," Romney said last week - one day after a compromise $23.14 billion budget was approved by the House and Senate.
Romney's blind eye to nearly $100 million in new tax revenues the budget actually contemplates suggests the Republican governor wields a selective description of the word "tax."
But it also illustrates a sad and sorry reality that has settled on Beacon Hill: There is precious little appetite these days - in the Romney administration, among so-called watchdogs and even in the media - to hold legislators accountable for much of anything save for their predictable grab for regular pay raises.
But every consumer who drives a car and fills a prescription with any regularity is about to take a hit, unless there is a breakout of soul searching at the State House.
Bay State motorists have quietly been forced to swallow a 2-cent hike in the gas tax since April, after the Romney administration signed off on a 400 percent increase in an obscure petroleum cleanup fund.
Last week, the House and Senate killed the fund as part of their budget plan. But the $60 million in annual revenue will keep flowing into state coffers, just like black gold from a geyser.
"Now, by anyone's definition, this is a tax," says Stephen Dodge, of the American Petroleum Council. "This is treated as a tax and collected as a tax and passed down to consumers like a tax."
If you can't muster sympathy for your SUV-driving neighbor, then think of the poor slob just trying to make ends meet - with his not-so-late-model jalopy the only ride he's got between the day job, the moonlight shift and home again, probably long after the kids have gone to bed.
Or try thinking of the average grandmother on a fixed income with a slotted pill box for every day of the week.
Maybe the target of lawmakers was Big Pharmacy when they retooled an illegal prescription drug tax to pass judicial muster.
But count on this: It's the endangered mom and pop drugstores that will suffer the most, along with grandma and Uncle Ned and, God forbid, any middle-class family with a sickly child.
Don't think for a moment that consumers will be shielded from this $36 million tax. If it goes into effect, it will be passed right along - 65 cents at a time.
"I think that would potentially be an option," says Dan Haron, vice president of pharmacy for Rhode Island-based Brooks Pharmacy, which has 168 stores in Massachusetts. "If the $36 million is in the system, one way or another ... the (consumer) ends up paying."
Passing new taxes is one thing.
Choosing taxes that cut directly into the bottom line of so many middle-class households is another.
But doing so while basking in the limelight of a "no new taxes" boast is, well, it's downright wrong, that's what it is.
So Romney has some decisions to make as he prepares his menu of vetoes for next week.
The first one ought to be a quick and firm rejection of the pharmacy tax.
After all, his own policy advisers and press secretaries have repeatedly called it bad policy.
The problem is, until Superior Court Judge Allen van Gestel killed the tax earlier this month, the Romney administration hadn't said boo.
Now is the time for Romney to speak up, and show the commonwealth he has muster behind his no-new-taxes bluster.
The hidden gas tax, alas, is a tad more difficult for Romney to negotiate.
Because not only was it his administration that first hiked it by 2 cents, it was Romney's budget plan that first proposed killing the cleanup fund.
That was the last flimsy cover Romney could have used to get away with calling the tax a "fee."
But the cover is gone from Mitt's "no new taxes" pledge.
Who thought nobody would care?
Go to www.cosmomacero.com.
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
|