CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, July 10, 2003
CLT battles to save democracy for
future generations
Currently, legislative pay raises must be approved by the Legislature and the governor. The House and Senate approved Finneran's plan this spring, but Romney vetoed the measure and has said he will go to court to block the move if the Legislature overrides his veto.
Finneran seemed unfazed by that threat yesterday, as a parade of legislators -- both Democrats and Republicans -- made their way into his office for one-on-one meetings to discuss the speaker's compromise plan....
Rep. Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover, one of those who went to Finneran's office, appeared to be on the fence following the speaker's lobbying efforts.
"He's working everybody very hard," she said, adding that she couldn't promise to vote for his pay raise package, even if he agreed not to grant the raises this year.
"I'm not sure that's good enough," she said....
Yesterday, however, support for sustaining the veto seemed to be wavering. According to state Rep. James Marzilli Jr., D-Boston ...
Marzilli calculated that as many as 20 more people could receive $7,500 to $15,000 more in annual salaries as a result of being part of Finneran's leadership team. Plus, he said, those committee leaders would be part of Finneran's voting bloc, which the speaker could count on during close, important votes.
"This would expand the ranks of his leaders," said Marzilli.
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran makes new power bid
An unlikely coalition of conservative and liberal reform groups said they'll declare political war on House members who go along with Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's pay raise plan.
Common Cause, Citizens for Limited Taxation and CPPAX are considering joining forces to put a repeal referendum on the pay-raise plan on the 2004 ballot if the plan is passed, and waging an unprecedented campaign aimed at ousting lawmakers who vote for it.
"It would be right there on the ballot along with the same reps who voted for it," said anti-tax crusader
Barbara Anderson. "If they think they can take the vote and walk away, they are sadly mistaken."
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Pols' pay plot draws fire from both flanks
Outraged voters rights groups yesterday warned they might challenge a legislative pay raise bill at the ballot box next year if lawmakers approve the measure over Governor Mitt Romney's objections.
The referendum, which would allow voters to discard the law, was proposed one day after House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran missed hours of House debate to lobby a dozen colleagues for the bill, which would give him power to hand out extra pay to loyal lieutenants....
Common Cause Massachusetts, along with Citizens for Limited Taxation and Citizens for Participation in Political Action, worked yesterday to deprive the speaker of the votes he needs to override Romney's veto of the measure. The groups e-mailed all representatives in the House, and a few activists came to the State House to lobby a handful of key legislators. The e-mails said that grass-roots organizations could either mount a legal challenge to the bill or bring it to the ballot box for a referendum....
One legislative staffer last night said Finneran is so keen to create the new committees and promote his loyalists that he may consider simply erasing the bill language that Romney frowns upon, and resubmit the bill -- an embarrassing defeat for the powerful speaker.
"This is what happens when people get focused on power for power's sake," said
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "They go too far, and it's obvious to everybody that he can no longer count on the automatic support of as many people as he thought."
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Voters groups fight Finneran
At issue is power to increase pay of key leaders
Lame is the best word to describe House Speaker Tom Finneran's offer of a compromise to win support for overriding the governor's veto of his pay raise plan.
Finneran is reportedly 12 votes away from victory but needs to switch votes of some Democratic members, now that House Republicans have come to their senses and are sticking with Gov. Mitt Romney.
The Mattapan Democrat is promising not to use his unprecedented new power until 2005, after the next election, to turn the tide in his favor. This promise offers such thin political cover for lawmakers that it's practically transparent. Voters - and challengers to Democratic incumbents - will understand the consequences of cutting the public out of leadership pay raise decisions forever, no matter when the raises are first granted.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Lame excuse for pay raise
The proposal to tap into the settlement money was a sharp turnabout for Finneran, who has championed the preservation of the trust fund for the commonwealth's long-term health care needs....
"This may be a relaxation of the original commitment," Finneran said. "The Legislature is always free to change its mind. That's not a violation of a pledge or of a promise. That's a recognition that times change."
Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Speaker's job growth plan would tap into tobacco trust fund
After outlining his economic development plan to reporters in South Boston Wednesday, House Speaker Thomas Finneran said he had "no idea" how many more overrides the House will entertain.
"We have plenty of time for overrides," said Finneran. "We'll be doing overrides probably into the fall."
Formal sessions are scheduled to end this year on Wednesday, Nov. 19.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 10, 2003
Finneran: Overrides will likely continue into the fall
[Excerpt]
Democratic leaders in the House have abandoned efforts to revive a $1.30 tax on pharmacy prescriptions after deciding they don't have the votes to overturn a veto by Gov. Mitt Romney.
The failure to garner enough support for an override gave Romney a rare victory in the ongoing budget debate....
Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Lawmakers abandon effort to revive pharmacy prescription tax
Imposing higher fees and fines on everything from parking violations to leaving a pedestrian high and dry in the crosswalk echoes the state's own fee-happy budget strategy. But so long as citizens can avoid paying the fees and the charges reflect the true cost of the service provided, fees are preferable to taxes....
The Legislature's surprise retreat from support for local option taxes should confirm for Romney the value of the gubernatorial bully pulpit. His veto threat and strong stand against new taxes clearly influenced the debate on municipal relief.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
New taxes avoided, bad drivers beware
While they aren't tax increases, some critics say it is clear taxpayers are nonetheless paying more to balance the budget.
"As part of the budget process they have turned to fees as a general revenue-raising measure," said Cam Huff, a senior research associate for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "... To a large extent the fees seem indistinguishable from a tax increase, and that is a concern." ...
Huff said some of the fees included in the budget are excessive and stretch laws that require fees to be connected to the actual cost the state incurs in providing the services....
"Almost all of that is going into the general fund and is being used for the general purposes of state government," Huff said.
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Fee hikes more than nickels and dimes
We have a new state motto this morning: Live Fee or Die.
Tommy Taxes has a new name today as well. From now on you may refer to the Speaker of the House as Fees Finneran.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Beacon Hill solons declare a fee-for-all
by Howie Carr
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Yesterday we held off Finneran's Pay-Raise
Power-Grab onslaught for another day, but the siege on democracy
continues. Evidently he still doesn't have the override votes so
hasn't brought it up yet ... but he continues twisting arms, applying
the considerable power already at his disposal. This one issue, and
confidence that his sheep would fall into line as usual, has now
become his defining moment.
Already some wandered from the flock over the
governor's veto killing the Legislature's second bogus prescription
drug "fee" on those who pay their own way and don't depend
on taxpayer-funded hand-outs. Too many of them heard loud and clear
from too many constituents in January and February when consumers were
ambushed by the tax upon filling their first prescriptions after the
law took effect.
Finneran is promising those legislators who still
cling to their independence and self-respect that he will not use this
new power until 2005 if they bow to his will. But what is a promise
from the scheming Caligula actually worth?
Look no further than his statement yesterday
concerning his abrupt position switch on tapping the tobacco
settlement fund for another of his grand plans:
"This may be a relaxation of the original commitment," Finneran said. "The Legislature is always free to change its mind. That's not a violation of a pledge or of a promise. That's a recognition that times change."
In other words, he won't be held to any
"original commitment," as "times change."
Some assurance his schizophrenic position must be
for the fence-sitters in the House! Surely now they must recognize
that he will say and do anything in his lust for power at any cost.
What to the average citizen is clearly breaking a
promise, to Finneran is simply not ... because he has so decreed.
How long will it take for time to change before he reneges
on his latest "promise" and leaves his vassals in the lurch?
Not very, if it interferes with his grand scheme.
Legislators usually look first to their
self-interest and reelection prospect. In their best interests and in
ours, let's hope in this instance that they continue doing so with
this white-hot potato. Surely they're aware of the risk to their
political future if they rollover on this one, grant Finneran even
more power in this climate.
All they need to remember is ... former-state Rep
and Finneran loyalist Maryanne Lewis, may she rest in peace in the
Dreaded Private Sector.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your state rep and senator need to know
you oppose the Finneran Pay-Raise 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 to their offices on June 25.
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Finneran makes new power bid
By Bill Kirk, Staff Writer
House Speaker Thomas Finneran tempted lawmakers with a compromise pay raise package yesterday, offering to hold off on giving committee chairmen raises this year if the Legislature gives him the power he is seeking, local legislators say.
Some lawmakers appeared willing to consider his offer. Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly, for example, who voted for the pay raise in April but vowed last week to vote against it, said she might consider changing her vote if Finneran puts his new plan in writing. "I hope it's different" from the original, she said. Finneran wants the power to abolish some committees and set up three new ones. He also wants sole authority to grant pay raises, or stipends, to committee chairmen and vice chairmen.
Currently, legislative pay raises must be approved by the Legislature and the governor. The House and Senate approved Finneran's plan this spring, but Romney vetoed the measure and has said he will go to court to block the move if the Legislature overrides his veto.
Finneran seemed unfazed by that threat yesterday, as a parade of legislators -- both Democrats and Republicans -- made their way into his office for one-on-one meetings to discuss the speaker's compromise plan.
Rep. Barbara L'Italien, D-Andover, one of those who went to Finneran's office, appeared to be on the fence following the speaker's lobbying efforts.
"He's working everybody very hard," she said, adding that she couldn't promise to vote for his pay raise package, even if he agreed not to grant the raises this year.
"I'm not sure that's good enough," she said. "I'm unconvinced this (legislative pay raises) should be a priority, when we're cutting legal aid, health care, and kindergarten and literacy grants."
By the end of business yesterday, the pay raise veto never made it to the House floor for a vote.
"Either he doesn't have the votes yet, or he just didn't want to do it this evening," said state Rep. Douglas Petersen, D-Marblehead, who has consistently voted against the pay raise plan and has organized an effort against it. He said the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party, about 17 people, would all vote against the pay raise.
Members of the House Democratic Council, made up of 15 members, have also opposed the pay raise. Grant, an HDC member, said the group doesn't vote as a bloc.
The 23 Republicans, meanwhile, many of whom originally voted for the raise, recently said they would all stick with Romney and vote to sustain his veto. The total of those three voting blocs is 55 -- enough votes to sustain Romney's veto.
Yesterday, however, support for sustaining the veto seemed to be wavering. According to state Rep. James Marzilli Jr., D-Boston, an ardent opponent of the pay raise plan, at least two Republicans had switched their votes after being lobbied in Finneran's office. Another House source said as many as four Republicans had agreed to override the veto.
Finneran spokesman Charles Rasmussen refused last night to speculate on what happened behind closed doors throughout the day, saying the speaker meets with House members all the time about various issues. He did say in a formal statement that the proposal "makes a statutory change" that eliminates "obsolete committees in order to create more relevant ones: committees on Medicaid and homeland security and federal assistance."
Rasmussen added the new committees "reflect the reality and necessity of today's society without radically altering the organizational structure of the House."
Others aren't so sure. Marzilli said the change would "allow Finneran to set, without a limit, the number of paid, premium positions in the House. He could pay all his leaders" instead of just the chairmen and vice chairmen of the most important committees, as is current practice.
Marzilli calculated that as many as 20 more people could receive $7,500 to $15,000 more in annual salaries as a result of being part of Finneran's leadership team. Plus, he said, those committee leaders would be part of Finneran's voting bloc, which the speaker could count on during close, important votes.
"This would expand the ranks of his leaders," said Marzilli.
Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, said the pay raise plan is a Finneran power grab.
"This is a classic example of how egos get involved and distort the process," she said. "At least one ego."
The House has not scheduled debate on the pay raise, but the issue may come up during today's debate.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Pols' pay plot draws fire from both flanks
by Elizabeth W. Crowley
An unlikely coalition of conservative and liberal reform groups said they'll declare political war on House members who go along with Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's pay raise plan.
Common Cause, Citizens for Limited Taxation and CPPAX are considering joining forces to put a repeal referendum on the pay-raise plan on the 2004 ballot if the plan is passed, and waging an unprecedented campaign aimed at ousting lawmakers who vote for it.
"It would be right there on the ballot along with the same reps who voted for it," said anti-tax crusader
Barbara Anderson. "If they think they can take the vote and walk away, they are sadly mistaken."
Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed the measure, which would give Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini nearly unfettered power to hand out bonus pay to loyalists.
But the speaker is waging an all-out effort to override that veto. So far, opponents of the plan said, Finneran doesn't have the two-thirds majority support he needs in the House.
Finneran refused to talk about the issue yesterday, saying it wasn't the "appropriate time."
The speaker spent much of Tuesday lobbying members to vote with him. Romney followed suit yesterday with House Republicans, taking time out from his vacation to urge them by phone to stand firm against the pay plan.
"He expressed to them that the last thing the Legislature should be considering right now is a pay raise," Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said.
Meanwhile, the House yesterday overrode more Romney budget vetoes, including a $698,000 cut to the Fernald School for the mentally retarded in Waltham, which the administration wants to shutter and sell.
Lawmakers also restored a provision that the school won't close until October 2004. And they restored another early retirement incentive program which they've capped at 5,000 state employees.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Voters groups fight Finneran
At issue is power to increase pay of key leaders
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Outraged voters rights groups yesterday warned they might challenge a legislative pay raise bill at the ballot box next year if lawmakers approve the measure over Governor Mitt Romney's objections.
The referendum, which would allow voters to discard the law, was proposed one day after House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran missed hours of House debate to lobby a dozen colleagues for the bill, which would give him power to hand out extra pay to loyal lieutenants.
Pamela Wilmot of Common Cause Massachusetts, one of three organizations threatening to fight the pay raise bill if it passes the House and Senate, said she was "outraged but not surprised" that Finneran would spend so much effort consolidating his own power while so many in the state were suffering under budget cuts.
"He twists arms and applies pressure to get his agenda forward, and that's the process of the House," she said. "It all comes down to one person's opinion."
Common Cause Massachusetts, along with Citizens for Limited Taxation and Citizens for Participation in Political Action, worked yesterday to deprive the speaker of the votes he needs to override Romney's veto of the measure. The groups e-mailed all representatives in the House, and a few activists came to the State House to lobby a handful of key legislators. The e-mails said that grass-roots organizations could either mount a legal challenge to the bill or bring it to the ballot box for a referendum.
When the pay raise measure first came up for vote in the House in April, it passed by a two-thirds majority. It would take that margin to override Romney's veto, but 10 members were either absent or abstained the day of the original vote, and most of the 13 Republicans who initially backed the bill are now saying they will support the governor. Finneran is thought to still need about a dozen votes.
The activists said they were reasonably confident last night that Finneran still lacks the votes for an override in the deeply divided House, and they did not expect to see a vote on the House floor anytime soon.
"If it doesn't come up, we see that as a win, of course," said Eric Weltman, of CPPAX.
If both the House and Senate successfully override the veto, the measure would go into effect immediately. But if activists collect about 33,000 signatures, they could put the question to voters, who have traditionally been cool toward ballot questions about legislative pay raises.
It's not clear whether the state attorney general's office would agree to place the question on the ballot. According to Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William F. Galvin, certain legislation cannot be subject to a repeal referendum, including any having to do with appropriations.
While Finneran's pay raise bill is not a budget measure, it does relate to the spending of state money. A spokesman for Thomas F. Reilly, state attorney general, did not return a call seeking comment.
But Wilmot, of Common Cause, said she was confident that the bill was not immune to a repeal effort, should that be necessary.
"This is not a budget matter ... so it is subject to a referendum repeal," Wilmot said. "We're hoping to win on a vote, but I think there are several groups that would push forward with such a referendum if we lost."
Finneran, speaking at an unrelated press event in South Boston yesterday, declined to answer any questions on the pay raise issue, at one point brushing off a reporter by saying, "Don't worry about it."
In the past, House and Senate leaders have said the bill is necessary to create important new committees, such as ones to deal with Medicaid and homeland security. Finneran's spokesman, Charles Rasmussen, has said on several occasions that the bill would merely allow the House and Senate to organize themselves without any input from another branch.
But the bill would also give the Senate president and the House speaker the ability to reward committee chairmen with pay hikes without the governor's signature, a power that Romney said would erode the checks and balances inherent in the current system.
Finneran has been promising potential backers that he would forswear creating any new extra-pay positions in the current session, which ends next year, if they support the measure now.
One legislative staffer last night said Finneran is so keen to create the new committees and promote his loyalists that he may consider simply erasing the bill language that Romney frowns upon, and resubmit the bill -- an embarrassing defeat for the powerful speaker.
"This is what happens when people get focused on power for power's sake," said
Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "They go too far, and it's obvious to everybody that he can no longer count on the automatic support of as many people as he thought."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 10, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Lame excuse for pay raise
Lame is the best word to describe House Speaker Tom Finneran's offer of a compromise to win support for overriding the governor's veto of his pay raise plan.
Finneran is reportedly 12 votes away from victory but needs to switch votes of some Democratic members, now that House Republicans have come to their senses and are sticking with Gov. Mitt Romney.
The Mattapan Democrat is promising not to use his unprecedented new power until 2005, after the next election, to turn the tide in his favor. This promise offers such thin political cover for lawmakers that it's practically transparent. Voters - and challengers to Democratic incumbents - will understand the consequences of cutting the public out of leadership pay raise decisions forever, no matter when the raises are first granted.
But the political consequences for House members is clearly of little importance to Finneran. This has become a grudge match between Finneran and Romney, and the speaker is determined to win no matter the price.
The price for taxpayers is beginning to look even higher too. Finneran, implicitly at least, is holding support of lawmakers' pet projects out as leverage to win their votes.
So restoring funds to a court or closing a local landfill, among other rank and file priorities, may get crucial leadership support, if the legislators go along on the pay raise.
Horse-trading for votes is a tradition in politics, but the Democratic principle at risk here is too big to sacrifice in return for a few dollars sent back to the district.
However, there has been no need for horse-trading to win overrides of the governor's budget vetoes.
In willy-nilly fashion, Finneran has been bringing one override vote up in the House after another, winning the votes in a walk.
The juxtaposition of cutting reimbursements to financially strapped pharmacies that fill Medicaid prescriptions, and restoring $400,000 to two state-run golf courses speaks volumes about Beacon Hill's priorities.
Just as a vote to override the pay raise veto will. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high last month. In every legislator's district, families are spending sleepless nights wondering if they'll make the mortgage payment. Those who represent them on Beacon Hill are worrying whether they'll fall out of favor with a powerful speaker. There's something very wrong with this picture.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Speaker's job growth plan would tap into tobacco trust fund
By Jennifer Peter
An economic growth package unveiled Wednesday by House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, would drain $110 million out of the state's tobacco settlement trust fund to spur job creation and ease the cost of doing business in Massachusetts.
The proposal to tap into the settlement money was a sharp turnabout for Finneran, who has championed the preservation of the trust fund for the commonwealth's long-term health care needs.
"The speaker was the lead guardian of the tobacco settlement fund," said Lori Fresina of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. "I find this to be a very surprising decision from his offices. It's wildly divergent from promises made just four years ago to first and foremost use the tobacco settlement to protect our kids from tobacco."
Finneran acknowledged a change of heart, but said his program, a revision of another initiative announced earlier this year, would reap hundreds of millions of dollars for the commonwealth over the next decade, allowing the Legislature to expand health care coverage and restore funding to other programs that have been cut over the past year.
"This may be a relaxation of the original commitment," Finneran said. "The Legislature is always free to change its mind. That's not a violation of a pledge or of a promise. That's a recognition that times change."
Under Finneran's plan, which would have to be approved by the Legislature, the state would invest $110 million in a variety of established programs designed to encourage investment and redevelopment in Massachusetts.
Finneran proposed dedicating $55 million to the Emerging Technology Fund, to create more high-tech development and manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts. Another $40 million would be invested in the John Adams Innovation Enterprise, which provides matching funds for collaborative public-private academic research centers.
He has also proposed creating a special commission to investigate ways of developing a specialized science and technology work force and a special office that would streamline permitting and zoning issues for businesses who want to locate or expand in Massachusetts.
Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, was on hand in South Boston Wednesday for Finneran's announcement, but said his chamber will reserve judgment on the particulars of the plan.
Earlier this year, Finneran announced a similar plan that proposed raising $100 million for economic development by restructuring the state's $13 billion in general obligation debt. He proposed investing the money in the Emerging Technology Fund, which is a quasi-public economic development authority that makes loans to businesses.
Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said Wednesday that the governor will carefully review any proposal that comes his way.
"Creating jobs is the governor's top priority and it is going to require all of us in government to work together to make that happen," Feddeman said. "We are willing to accept good ideas wherever they came from."
The state's Health Security Trust Fund was created after the national tobacco settlement. It set aside money for future health care costs associated with tobacco use. The Legislature agreed to dedicate a certain amount of money each year to the fund, while using a smaller percentage for smoking cessation programs.
The fund, which Finneran has ferociously protected in the past, currently contains about $450 million.
The American Cancer Society and other groups who have fought to restrict the use of the tobacco money see Finneran's proposal as further erosion of the state's commitment to tobacco control. In recent years, the amount the state has spent on smoking cessation programs has slipped from $48 million to possibly less than $2 million in the budget currently under consideration.
"The intent of the settlement has always been health care," said Diane Pickles, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition for a Healthy Future. "And this certainly isn't health care."
Return to
top
Associated Press
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Lawmakers abandon effort to revive pharmacy prescription tax
By Steve Leblanc
Democratic leaders in the House have abandoned efforts to revive a $1.30 tax on pharmacy prescriptions after deciding they don't have the votes to overturn a veto by Gov. Mitt Romney.
The failure to garner enough support for an override gave Romney a rare victory in the ongoing budget debate.
The tax, which applied to all non-Medicaid and non-Medicare prescriptions, was approved by the Legislature as a way to pump an estimated $36 million in the ailing state budget. It was signed into law last year by former acting Gov. Jane Swift.
Pharmacies battled the tax, appealing to the Superior Court.
Last month, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel agreed with the pharmacies, ruling that the state hadn't received the necessary federal approval for the new law. He also said the state agency implementing the law erred in broadening the scope of the tax to include pharmacies based in hospitals and clinics.
Lawmakers in the House and Senate responded by rewriting the language of the tax and adding it to the compromise budget they sent to Romney, hoping to answer the concerns of the court.
Romney vetoed the measure.
During a recent closed-door Democratic caucus, House leaders figured out they didn't have the two-thirds vote needed to override the veto, according to representatives who attended the caucus.
Overriding a gubernatorial veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
Republican lawmakers, who have seen the House and Senate overturn a slew of Romney vetoes, said they were pleased that the pharmacy tax veto will likely stand.
"It's clearly a tax on something most people need," said House Republican Leader Brad Jones, R-North Reading. "I think it puts our pharmacies, particularly our independents ... in a more precarious financial situation."
The tax also hurt consumers, according to Carmelo Cinqueonce, executive vice president of the Massachusetts Pharmacists Association.
"We've been saying from day one that taxing prescriptions is poor public policy," he said. "Ultimately all costs of doing business in the state trickle down to consumers."
The subject of controversy since it was first imposed, on Jan. 1, the tax was initially passed on to consumers by many of the pharmacies. When Attorney General Tom Reilly questioned the legality of this, the pharmacies stopped the practice and issued rebates to consumers.
After the court ruling outlawing the tax, Romney opted to issue pharmacies an $18 million refund of taxes paid over the previous five months.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
New taxes avoided, bad drivers beware
The cost of being an imperfect driver is going up but taxes aren't under a municipal relief legislative package heading to Gov. Mitt Romney's desk. Romney ought to sign it but continue to press for substantial reform of public construction and procurement rules.
Imposing higher fees and fines on everything from parking violations to leaving a pedestrian high and dry in the crosswalk echoes the state's own fee-happy budget strategy. But so long as citizens can avoid paying the fees and the charges reflect the true cost of the service provided, fees are preferable to taxes.
Those drivers who sneak through a traffic light at the last second only to get stuck in the intersection might think otherwise when they're paying a whopping $150 fine. But if the choice is between driving a bit more carefully or having a new meals tax added to the bill at a local restaurant, we'll take our chances.
And big ticket and towing fees aren't likely to drive tourists away like higher taxes will.
The Legislature's surprise retreat from support for local option taxes should confirm for Romney the value of the gubernatorial bully pulpit. His veto threat and strong stand against new taxes clearly influenced the debate on municipal relief.
Romney should now turn his megaphone to municipal reform. Every legislator should be held to account for layoffs and service cuts that could be avoided if cities and towns had the advantage of more efficient procurement and public construction rules, potentially saving millions of dollars.
The Legislature consigned such measures to a study - which will be piled on top of the dozens of others done over the years concluding such reforms make sense.
But they seem to finally get it on taxes. With a predicted budget deficit of at least $1 billion next year, and a little push from our persuasive governor, perhaps real municipal reform is next.
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Fee hikes more than nickels and dimes
By Casey Ross
The fee for a marriage license goes from $4 to $50, and it is even going to cost you $10 for the state certificate if you are blind.
It will now cost you $20 to appeal a speeding fine, while the charge for a firearms identification card to buy a rifle or handgun increases from $25 to $100.
The new and increased fees are in the fine print of the $22 billion state budget for the fiscal year that started July 1. Gov. Mitt Romney and legislative leaders refused to increase taxes, but want to collect an additional $400 million in charges and fees from individuals and businesses.
On the business side, all retailers will now need a $200 state license, it will cost $400 to have an elevator inspected and the license to sell beer or wine increases from $2,500 to $5,000.
While they aren't tax increases, some critics say it is clear taxpayers are nonetheless paying more to balance the budget.
"As part of the budget process they have turned to fees as a general revenue-raising measure," said Cam Huff, a senior research associate for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "... To a large extent the fees seem indistinguishable from a tax increase, and that is a concern."
The budget being finalized by the Legislature this week will increase fees for recording a mortgage, and will charge sex offenders $75 to register with the state - a proposal that was vetoed by Romney but overridden by lawmakers yesterday.
The governor's office and top lawmakers defended the fee increases yesterday, saying that many of them had not been updated in years and that the additional revenues were needed to help close a $3 billion deficit.
"In a great economy we wouldn't have had to raise these fees," said Sen. Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, who is the Senate's chief budget writer. "The fees go to pay for services that we provide, and government costs money."
A spokeswoman for Romney said raising income taxes would have been more harmful to residents than the fee hikes proposed by the governor.
"We did not want to raise taxes. We believe it's not the right time as families are facing a tough economy," said the spokeswoman, Nicole St. Peter. "Some of these fees have not been raised in decades, and to provide the service, we believe we need to charge the appropriate amount."
Huff said some of the fees included in the budget are excessive and stretch laws that require fees to be connected to the actual cost the state incurs in providing the services.
He cited as an example increases charged for services at the Registry of Deeds that are expected to raise an additional $150 million in revenue this year. The cost of filing a deed or conveyance has risen from $25 to $100; the fee for recording a 10-page mortgage has gone from $46 to $88; and recording a 10-page trust has increased from $36 to $200.
"Almost all of that is going into the general fund and is being used for the general purposes of state government," Huff said. "The dollar increase compared to the value of the overall transaction of (buying a house) is modest, but the state's cost to do the processing is even more modest."
Also drawing criticism is quadrupling of fees charged to gun owners this year. Under the budget, fees will rise from $25 to $100 for both a firearms identification card and a license to carry firearms, which are required by state law.
"In general, the government has failed to meet its obligations and now it's passing the buck," said Michael Yacino, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, which has opposed the fee increases. "It just shows they don't have any answers."
The fee increases, which will make Massachusetts one of the most expensive places in the nation to own a gun, are expected to yield an additional $3.6 million this year, said David Shaw, a spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety. Shaw said one-third of the money will pay for national FBI fingerprint checks of gun owners.
Sen. Robert Hedlund said changes to the licensing process for gun owners should have instead focused on reducing the amount of paperwork local police departments must complete to process applications and renewals.
"I've spoke to licensing officers in my district who feel like the requirements are ridiculous," Hedlund said, adding that he feels that legislative leaders got "very creative in finding ways to squeeze revenue out of fees."
In addition to fees at the state level, lawmakers have approved a financial relief package that allows cities and towns to increase fees and fines for towing, fire department inspections, parking violations and a host of other traffic infractions and local services.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Beacon Hill solons declare a fee-for-all
by Howie Carr
We have a new state motto this morning: Live Fee or Die.
Tommy Taxes has a new name today as well. From now on you may refer to the Speaker of the House as Fees Finneran.
They were thirsting to pick our pockets last night at the State House. And so they did, with "fees galore," as Sen. Stanley Rosenberg from the People's Republic of Amherst put it.
This Rosenberg, he has a fee fetish. He's a fiend for fees. Rosenberg is president pro tempore of the Senate, whatever that is. Being from Amherst, it's only natural he enjoys vacationing in the old Soviet Union, and last night he felt like an apparatchik. Uncle Joe would have been proud, the way our local Politburo socked it to the petit bourgeoisie.
As far as the solons see it, last night was payback for the ornery way the taxpayers have been acting these last few months. First, we almost repealed the income tax last November in a referendum.
All spring, the cities and towns were voting down Prop 2 1/2 override questions as if the voters were broke, which they are.
And finally, when given the opportunity to voluntarily pay higher income taxes, only one-twentieth of 1 percent of the filers opted to do the right thing . . . for the children.
So, if income and property taxes were off the board, that left ... fees. As the giant in Jack and the Beanstalk said, "Fee fi foe fum...."
I smell the blood of more people registering their cars in New Hampshire.
"I'm one of those scofflaws," one guy said last night. "I moved down from New Hampshire and I went down to town hall to register my car, and they said, that'll be $900 sales tax. And I said, but I bought the car a year and a half ago. They told me to call the DOR, and they told me it wasn't really a sales tax, it was a user's tax. ..."
Who can blame him for keeping New Hampshire tags on his car? Fee fi foe fum....
"You know what they've got planned in my town?" said a woman named Betty. "It's going to cost $200 for my kid to park his car in the high school lot."
So just let him ride the bus - oh, I forgot, the cities and towns may well be charging for that now, too.
"That's OK," said Betty, "I only pay $5,000 in property taxes."
Funny thing about these new fees. When the Legislature agreed to allow higher health-insurance premiums for state hacks, many of whom are related to the solons, they put in a provision to "sunset" the increase after two years.
These new fees on all of the rest of us - they're not "sunsetted." They're going to be around forever.
So here's what happens next, now the municipalities have gotten the OK to jack up fees on everything from graveyards and rental cars and towing fees, not to mention increasing the cost of getting arrested for falling into arrears on your taxes.
The mayors and aldermen and selectmen will all wait a week or two, until the heat dies down and they figure most people are on the Cape, or getting pulled out of Lake Winnipesaukee by the governor. Then they'll jack up as many as they think they can get away with.
Fees Finneran wasn't around the podium much yesterday. His floor leader, Sal DiMasi, had the gavel, and it fell to the combover from the North End to announce the birthday of Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton) who turned 53.
"There will now be a registration fee for all birthdays," he said.
Then DiMasi mentioned it was also the birthday (41st) of Rep. Mark Carron of Southbridge.
"That's another fee," said Sal.
Live Fee or Die.
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
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
|