CLT
UPDATE
Sunday, August 31, 2003
The Bacon Hill culture of entitlement
Ousted UMass President William M. Bulger yesterday moved to pad his state pension in his final minutes on the job, pushing to bolster his annual take to $300,000 a year on top of his nearly $1 million severance deal, records show.
Bulger, already in line for a $240,000 a year pension, asked retirement officials to factor in his lucrative housing allowance and a separate pension set-aside he's been paid as part of his salary - adding as much as $60,000 a year....
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer, who previously defended Bulger's right to a pension, said the add-on request goes too far by trying to factor in the annuity payment - which itself is a form of pension.
"The pension based on his salary and years of service will already be among the highest, but to base your retirement on an annuity is clearly doubling up," Widmer said. "From an equity point of view and a taxpayers point of view, that's clearly a stretch." ...
UMass spokeswoman Robert Connolly defended Bulger's right to a pension, saying Bulger deserves to be compensated for four decades on the public payroll.
"People who work in state government, as he has for 42 years, when they reach the end of their service, applying for one's pension would be pretty much expected," Connolly said.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Back for more:
'Greedy' Bulger grabs for extra $60G in his pension
"You're going out the door, grabbing everything but the pictures on the walls," said UMass trustee Lawrence Boyle, who voted against Bulger's severance package earlier this month. "It's supposed to be public service, not self-service, and it just reflects very poorly on the university.... We don't have enough money to fund employee raises, we're laying people off, we're cutting programs, and then he's taking good care of himself." ...
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said that Bulger's large pension is an argument for reining in the entire system.
"Our pension system is a disgrace," Anderson said. "It's a problem, but it's not just a Billy Bulger problem. It's a systemic problem. I can't think why the perks of the position would be part of the determination for the pension. It wouldn't even be considered in the private sector, and I think if there's any possible way to avoid doing this, they should."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Bulger seeks to augment state pension
As promised, there are no new taxes in the new Massachusetts state budget. Keeping that pledge is a testament to a new economic philosophy in this commonwealth: give the poor less and make them pay more....
The modern way of assigning budgetary pain is away from the haves and toward the have-nots. Let the oldest and most vulnerable with the fewest assets give up more of the little they have. If they can't afford prescription drugs or groceries after their rent increase, that is their problem, not yours or the government's. Only one policy matters in politics today: No new taxes.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
The price of "no new taxes"
By Joan Venocchi
We already pay our share, and can only hope, with the poor, that our elected representatives do a better job someday of setting priorities.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Letter to the editor, by Barbara Anderson
The price of " no new taxes"
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
James "Whitey" Bulger as a kid should have
followed in his younger brother William's footsteps, listened to Billy's
advice and gone straight.
Straight into politics like brother William. Then
he could have legally stuck up and extorted citizens, without a
gun or violence. He would have made his fortune the old-fashioned
Bulger way -- at the public trough. He could be sitting fat and happy
today instead to topping the FBI's "Most Wanted" list, just
as brother Billy is doing in his golden years at the public's expense
for the rest of his natural life.
When you come from Massachusetts there's no need to
wind up on the "Most Wanted" list for running an organized
mob. Instead of running from, as "Whitey" now is
doing, you run for. Get elected then move up in the Beacon Hill
Gang until you control it. Forget about the Winter Hill Gang and
organized crime. Pursue "public service" and live happily
ever after as a "public servant."
But who can blame Billy for taking advantage of
every perk and privilege a life at the public trough provides ...
after all, he spent most of his life insuring they were there when his
time came. He's earned his reward the old fashioned way -- he
worked for it.
And there lies the problem. How many states do you
think dole out such generous retirement packages to their former
public servants? How many other states hand out million-dollar golden
parachutes on top of $300,000 annual pensions? And it's not just the
Billy Bulgers who profit. Oh no, the Beacon Hill Gang has graciously
spread around the opportunity to live fat off the taxpayers.
On April 8, 2002, a Boston Herald editorial
once again exposed the long-running pension scam in "Beacon Hill insiders bilk the taxpayers"
demonstrating that when it comes to feeding exquisitely off the sweat
of the taxpayers' brow, it is truly a bipartisan effort on
Bacon Hill:
Governmental malpractice in Massachusetts is like an onion - layers beneath layers.
So it is with early retirements for state employees, an outrage the investigation of which Treasurer Shannon O'Brien is oddly reluctant to extend back before her accession to office in 1999.
The outrage first came to attention in February with the denial of a pension to Peter Forman, chief of staff for acting Gov. Jane Swift, when he joined the campaign of Patrick Guerriero. (At the time Guerriero was seeking the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor.) Somebody apparently doubted that Forman really had been fired, even though he presented the Retirement Board a letter from Swift that he had been.
Taxpayers learned that state law permits an employee with 20 years service, if fired, to claim a special pension of one-third the average of his three best-paid years. The payments last until age 55, when eligibility for a regular pension begins. For Forman, this would would have been worth $420,000 over 12 years.
Nothing changed.
In the May 19, 2002 edition of North Shore Sunday, Elizabeth Dinan
reported ("The platinum parachute"):
Since serving as elected county treasurer, [former state Rep. Timothy] Bassett has been collecting his own government pension of $3,201.61 a month, or $38,419.32 a year. A Democratic state rep for his former home turf of East Lynn, Bassett served as a legislator from 1973 until 1985, when he resigned under a Republican majority.
Just 47 years old, Bassett was sent packing from the Land Bank office with what he says was a year's salary, or $100,000, in severance pay and $15,000 to look for a new job (other published reports have quoted the severance as three times higher, while Bassett denies this).
And soon after, someone at the state retirement board gave the thumbs up to his Section 10 application, paving the way to $38,419 a year, beginning Feb. 17, '95 and based on an average of his three highest years' earnings of $98,480....
"I didn't use the law for my own gain," Bassett says. "I was forced to do it."
A year later, in 1996, Bassett was elected treasurer of Essex County. And while the county was officially dismantled on July 1, '99, he's still on the job, he says, managing a $2 million budget to accommodate 5,000 county retirees....
Nothing changed, and nothing will -- because any
change has to come from those vested in the gravy train. They're not
about to rock their own boat when that fat pension awaits at the end
of a short cruise.
State employee "early retirements" are
now the rage, and well they should be. Where else can you walk off
into premature retirement with your fat pension ... then the next day
be hired back "part-time" on the same job with the salary on
top of your monthly retirement kiss in the mail?
Only in the public sector are pension benefits so
generous. Only "public service" guarantees that you'll live
fat and happily ever after retirement. The rest of us peons must
depend on our 401(k)s and the vicissitude of the stock market to live
out our old age, as we support former "public servants" in
the style to which they've become accustomed while immersed in the
Bacon Hill culture of entitlement.
James "Whitey" Bulger never grasped the
character of a successful crime spree in Massachusetts. You can get
away with murder so long as you get elected to commit it. Best of all,
nobody's going to come after you in your old age ... because all the
other bandits and stickup artists are anxiously awaiting their turn at
the teller's window.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Back for more: 'Greedy' Bulger grabs for extra $60G in his pension
by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Ousted UMass President William M. Bulger yesterday moved to pad his state pension in his final minutes on the job, pushing to bolster his annual take to $300,000 a year on top of his nearly $1 million severance deal, records show.
Bulger, already in line for a $240,000 a year pension, asked retirement officials to factor in his lucrative housing allowance and a separate pension set-aside he's been paid as part of his salary - adding as much as $60,000 a year.
Critics called the move "greedy" and a UMass trustee who has criticized Bulger in the past dubbed it "ungodly."
"Something done on Friday before Labor Day weekend when he's grabbing everything but the pictures on the wall is not good leadership," said UMass trustee Lawrence Boyle. "It's reflective of somebody who's not in it for public service, but in it for self service."
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer, who previously defended Bulger's right to a pension, said the add-on request goes too far by trying to factor in the annuity payment - which itself is a form of pension.
"The pension based on his salary and years of service will already be among the highest, but to base your retirement on an annuity is clearly doubling up," Widmer said. "From an equity point of view and a taxpayers point of view, that's clearly a stretch."
Bulger filed the pension just before 5 p.m. on his last official day on the job, leaving Retirement Board officials scurrying to analyze the details.
With 42 years of state service - including a decade as a state representative, 25 years in the state Senate, much of it as Senate president and seven years at UMass - Bulger is in line to receive 80 percent of his top three-year average income - wages that topped out at $309,000.
But Bulger argued that his $29,000 housing allowance and a $19,520 annual pension annuity should also be factored in his pension.
"We believe that there may be a basis for appropriately including the annuity payments and the housing allowance in the calculation of President Bulger's highest three years ...," UMass Director of Human Resources Roy S. Milbury wrote to the Retirement Board.
The documents said Bulger has already earned a total of $159,464 from the housing allowance and $133,733 for the annuity.
In the filing, Bulger sought to take care of his family upon his death, asking for the payment option in which 20 percent of his pay - as much as $60,000 - would be held until after he dies.
Treasurer Tim Cahill's spokeswoman Karen Sharma said she couldn't immediately determine whether annuity or housing allowances have ever been used to add to pension allotments in the past.
Regardless of whether the add-ons are allowed, Bulger will receive the highest-ever state pension. The average pension last year was $18,000, officials said.
Good government groups said the payout will only undercut public trust.
"Golden parachutes of this size are just another nail in the coffin of distrust of government," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Adequate compensation for public servants is a worthy goal but keeping up with top level private CEOs is inappropriate."
Gov. Mitt Romney, who pushed Bulger from office under criticism of his mobster brother James "Whitey" Bulger's ties to the FBI, declined comment.
But Romney's state Republican Party called on Cahill to reject Bulger's "greedy grab."
"(Cahill) has a clear choice - side with the taxpayers or side with outgoing President Billy Bulger," said GOP Executive Director Dominick Ianno.
UMass spokeswoman Robert Connolly defended Bulger's right to a pension, saying Bulger deserves to be compensated for four decades on the public payroll.
"People who work in state government, as he has for 42 years, when they reach the end of their service, applying for one's pension would be pretty much expected," Connolly said.
Sharma said Bulger's bid will likely be placed before the board at its October meeting.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Bulger seeks to augment state pension
By Rick Klein and Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff
As he leaves the University of Massachusetts, President William M. Bulger is looking to sweeten his annual pension deal, already expected to top $200,000, by about $32,000.
In a request filed yesterday, Bulger asked that his annuity and housing allowance be considered as income when his future pension payments are calculated. That would boost Bulger's final salary for pension purposes by about $50,000, to approximately $360,000 a year. While the details are yet to be worked out, the 69-year-old Bulger's annual pension would probably jump to about $230,000, according to the state treasurer's office. His wife would be entitled to two-thirds of that amount after his death. The request must be reviewed by the state pension board, likely in October.
The attempted pension change comes on top of Bulger's $960,000 severance package, which Governor Mitt Romney described as "excessive." Bulger's last day as the president of the UMass system is Tuesday, and his last-minute attempt to receive a larger pension came under immediate fire.
"You're going out the door, grabbing everything but the pictures on the walls," said UMass trustee Lawrence Boyle, who voted against Bulger's severance package earlier this month. "It's supposed to be public service, not self-service, and it just reflects very poorly on the university. . . . We don't have enough money to fund employee raises, we're laying people off, we're cutting programs, and then he's taking good care of himself."
In a letter submitted on Bulger's behalf to the State Board of Retirement, UMass human resources director Roy S. Milbury asked that, for the purposes of calculating his pension, the $21,000 paid annually to Bulger's annuity and his $29,000 yearly housing allowance be added to his $309,000 annual salary.
Milbury wrote that Bulger is entitled to have them count toward his pension because they were deemed by his UMass contract to be "part of [his] regular compensation."
"We believe that there may be basis for appropriately including the annuity payments and the housing allowance in the calculation of President Bulger's highest three years for purposes of determining his retirement allowance," he wrote.
Unlike his regular salary, Bulger never contributed a percentage of his housing allowance and annuity to the state pension fund. In fact, to clear the way for the retirement board to grant his request, Bulger attached to his application a check to the state for $14,659.85, 5 percent of the $293,197 he received since 1996 for the annuity and housing allowance. Bulger's action is known as a "buyback" and is a fairly common strategy by retirees who want to include all their compensation toward their pension calculations.
A Bulger spokesman at UMass, Robert Connolly, said Bulger has a right to have his benefits included in his state pension.
"Whatever he has submitted is [what] he believes is reasonable, and his legitimate retirement benefit after 42 years of state service," he said.
Bulger's long public service makes him eligible for the maximum state pension benefit, which is 80 percent of his average salary over his three highest-paid years. But because Bulger chose to have his wife, Mary, continue to receive a portion of his pension payments upon his death, his annual payments will be 20 percent less.
The final decision on whether to grant Bulger's request rests with the five-member State Board of Retirement, which is chaired by state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill. Such requests are typically reviewed based on a range of factors, on a case-by-case basis, said Karen Sharma, a Cahill spokeswoman.
The retirement board often receives letters similar to Bulger's, asking for special consideration when calculating pension benefits, she said. But few precedents exist for whether to grant Bulger's requests, because so few state employees have contracts that provide annuities and housing allowances, she said.
"The deal that he had with UMass was certainly unique in many ways," Sharma said.
The retirement board will probably consider Bulger's request at its October meeting, she said. Republican Party officials said Cahill should stand up against the move, to limit the already large amount of tax dollars Bulger is receiving.
"I call on Treasurer Cahill to reject this greedy, last-minute pay grab," said Dominick Ianno, executive director of the state Republican Party. "The treasurer has a clear choice: Side with the taxpayers, or side with outgoing President Bulger."
Sharma said last night that the treasurer had not yet decided how to proceed. Besides Cahill, the pension board includes one member appointed by the treasurer, two elected by public retirees, and one selected by the other members of the board.
Cahill "is reviewing Bulger's application and his letter," Sharma said. "He can't comment on this until his general counsel and his legal team look at this."
Earlier this month, Bulger announced his resignation from the UMass post he had held since 1996, bringing to a close a colorful four decades in Massachusetts political life. His career began with his installation as a state representative in 1961 and extended through his leadership of the state Senate for a record 17 years.
This year, Governor Mitt Romney fought unsuccessfully to have the UMass president's job eliminated, and later joined Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly's call for Bulger to resign, as a congressional committee investigated Bulger's ties to his fugitive brother, James "Whitey" Bulger.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said that Bulger's large pension is an argument for reining in the entire system.
"Our pension system is a disgrace," Anderson said. "It's a problem, but it's not just a Billy Bulger problem. It's a systemic problem. I can't think why the perks of the position would be part of the determination for the pension. It wouldn't even be considered in the private sector, and I think if there's any possible way to avoid doing this, they should."
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
The price of "no new taxes"
By Joan Venocchi
As promised, there are no new taxes in the new Massachusetts state budget. Keeping that pledge is a testament to a new economic philosophy in this commonwealth: give the poor less and make them pay more.
One example of this emerging fiscal philosophy, is a state welfare department plan to cut assistance to 16,000 of the state's poorest citizens by 11.5 percent a month, or about $35. Last week, however, a Superior Court judge ordered the state to put its cutback plans on hold, saying the state Legislature should have a chance to appropriate more money.
Another example is the plan by the state Department of Housing and Community Development to eliminate a longstanding deduction for senior and handicapped citizens of state-subisidized public housing. The so-called "rent restructuring" plan affects 32,000 tenants who are handicapped or 60 years old or over. The extra $10 a month these tenants are scheduled to pay as of Oct. 1 will squeeze a not-so-glorious, extra $3.8 million a year out of them and into state budget coffers.
Unlike the welfare assistance cuts, advocates see no legal avenue for challenging the rent increases. Deductions such as the one slated for elimination are discretionary, according to Judith Lieben, a lawyer who specializes in housing law for the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. "They giveth, they taketh," she says, of the state's decision to eliminate the deduction. "In terms of a legal challenge, it is difficult," she said.
During recent budget deliberations, state legislators passed a large part of Governor Romney's proposed rent increases for state public housing tenants.
But the Legislature did not go as far as Romney wanted and refused to raise rents for handicapped and elderly public housing tenants.
Asked about the rent increases for the elderly and senior citizens, state Representative Paul Demakis, a Democrat from Boston who sits on the legislative committee on housing and urban development, said, "I am of the opinion that if we had to generate new revenue, we should have done it with broadbased taxes, where everyone shared the burden. We look foolish trying to generate revenue by increasing things like this, just so we can say we didn't raise taxes."
However, legislative resistance, such as it is, is not much of an obstacle these days. In July, the state Department of Housing and Community Development proposed the change, via administrative order. A hearing was held on Aug. 11. Public housing tenants from across the state - including Amherst, Arlington, Boston, Brookline, Brockton, Cambridge, Greenfield, Needham, Stoneham, and Wellesley - gave testimony about how the increase would put them over the edge of their fixed incomes.
A panel of state officials sat and listened for about three hours, saying virtually nothing, said Amy Cooperman, another lawyer from the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, who attended the hearing. A few letters of protest from state legislators were read into the official record. Tenants testified, but could not ask questions. This was not a question-and-answer session, they were told.
Apparently, it was not much of a "hearing," either, since their testimony appears irrelevant to the decision. According to Beth Bresnahan, a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Community Development, the new rents will be effective Oct. 1.
Public comment from the hearing has yet to be published. Justifying the increases, Bresnahan says state public housing rents are lower than federal rents. Given the combination of housing and fiscal pressures, "we provide a service and in exchange we make some slight changes."
Here is the underlying truth of these "slight changes": Poor people are paying more, so the wealthy and middle class don't have to pay any more to subsidize them. Whenever possible, state government will try to shift the burden to those with the least, even though each new fee or cost increase mandated by government policy already hits them proportionately harder than those in upper- or middle-income brackets.
The modern way of assigning budgetary pain is away from the haves and toward the have-nots. Let the oldest and most vulnerable with the fewest assets give up more of the little they have. If they can't afford prescription drugs or groceries after their rent increase, that is their problem, not yours or the government's. Only one policy matters in politics today: No new taxes.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, August 30, 2003
Letter to the editor
The price of "no new taxes"
Joan Venocchi writes that the price of no new taxes is making the poor pay more in fees and lost services ("The price of 'no new taxes'", op ed, Aug. 26). Maybe, in Massachusetts. But as anyone who also reads Globe news items and exposes, the price of no new taxes could be cuts in political power, perks and pensions; systemic reforms; and more accountable government. For the fifth highest per capita tax burden, we could have fewer fees, a stronger economy, well-run basic services, a well-maintained infrastructure. Instead, we taxpayers are told to pay more or feel guilty because some politicians, union and business leaders, and other connected individuals put their own privilege first, ahead of providing services.
No new taxes means we taxpayers aren't going to play that game any more.
We already pay our share, and can only hope, with the poor, that our elected representatives do a better job someday of setting priorities.
Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Marblehead
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
|