CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Thanksgiving: MTF exposed again
What a stupid comparison. Did the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation throw a dart at a wall, or use the tried and true
"eeney, meeney, miney moe" method to come up with its study showing state spending on prisons and jails outstripping support for public higher education? ...
Around the country, a retreat from such policies is indeed being talked about in the "smart on crime" circles that MTF leaders must travel in.
What a shame if Massachusetts joined the ranks of other states looking to save a buck any way it can, even if it means putting public safety at risk.
And what a shame MTF has supplied the advocates of such backsliding with a study to hang their misguided hats on.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
MTF spending study pointless and wrong
The Democratic-controlled Legislature, the prime beneficiary of labor campaign donations on Beacon Hill, has decided that taxpayers should pay for administering the collection of payroll deductions for unions' political action committees.
A provision buried deep in the recently passed supplemental budget would undermine a recent ruling by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, which decided that taxpayers should not subsidize the managing of payroll deductions for PACs, including staff time, printing costs, and office supplies.
Governor Mitt Romney had sought the ruling, and his aides discovered the provision that overturned it after the spending bill passed last week. A Romney spokesman said yesterday that Romney would veto that section of the emergency spending plan, saying that it violates the basic premise that government should not pay for political activity....
But Chip Ford of Citizens for Limited Taxation applauded Romney for taking a stand against the public subsidizing of political activity.
"I don't think the state should be paying for any political activity, even if it's to support us," Ford said.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Romney to veto measure on PACs
Lawmakers voted union deductions
The Democratic leaders of the state Senate are trying to "rig" the outcome of the race to replace state Sen. Cheryl Jacques by holding the special election for her seat on the same day as the presidential primary, Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday.
Romney said scheduling the election on March 2 -- a day when Democratic voters are expected to vote in droves for a candidate to oppose President Bush -- appears to be a transparent effort by Democrats to preserve their overwhelming majority in the Senate....
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party yesterday threatened to take legal action unless the state Senate reschedules the election.
Mass. GOP Chairman Darrell Crate said it was unconstitutional for the Senate to set a date for the election before Jacques, a Needham Democrat, leaves office.
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
GOP fights election date
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
When the Boston Herald attacks it then I conclude
that the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation has lost its
luster; it has tarnished its former "highly-respected" status
too often. It appears CLT has finally cracked the MTF's polished image,
exposed it for what it is and has been for far too long: little more
than a shill for the tax-and-spenders, cover and concealment for the
Bacon Hill and Gimme Lobby crowd. MTF has begun its downward spiral with
self-inflicted wounds, its once-august facade steadily eroded away ...
by us, and by its own arrogance.
It's been a long road, but today -- the day before
Thanksgiving -- we have something else to be thankful for.
Leave it to the sneakiest and "Best Legislature
Money Can Buy" to bury another feather nest in the supplemental
budget it passed in the middle of the night before legislators raced
home for another couple of months off. Before they slipped off Beacon
Hill they slipped in a provision that allows state employees to continue
making donations to union PACs at the expense of taxpayers -- even
though it was forbidden by the state Office of Campaign & Political
Finance. After filing a request with the OCPF ("CLT requests equal treatment in fundraising from OCPF,"
we thought we'd won one back
in September, but we should have known better with this crowd.
In truth, it certainly is not "The Best
Legislature Money Can Buy" ... but it is surely the most
self-serving at any price.
Which is why we can also be thankful that Gov. Romney
and the Republican State Committee are not taking the fixing of an
election quietly, are looking into a court challenge of the
election-rigging scam just adopted by partisan state senate Democrats to
fill Sen. Cheryl Jacques' seat. Why does everything in Massachusetts
apparently need to be litigated before the courts? Why can we not simply
elect honest, law-abiding legislators like most other state electorates
can and do?
Folks, it's simply not like this elsewhere.
Why is government so dysfunctional only here?
While recognizing Thanksgiving Day tomorrow, it's
extremely important to remember that what the Pilgrims celebrated on the
first occasion was property rights -- the social benefit realized
from letting citizens keep more of what they earn. Socialism, communalism,
collectivism, communitarianism -- call it what you will -- was an abject
failure that led to the deaths of over half the population of nascent
Plymouth Plantation settlers. It was only after instituting a radical
new policy of property rights that the survivors finally found something
for
which to be thankful.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
MTF spending study pointless and wrong
What a stupid comparison. Did the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation throw a dart at a wall, or use the tried and true
"eeney, meeney, miney moe" method to come up with its study showing state spending on prisons and jails outstripping support for public higher education?
The business-backed MTF might as well have but it's more likely it chose the study's subjects purposely, knowing media headlines and days of angsting amongst the chattering classes about "priorities" and that old liberal faithful "the root causes of crime" would follow.
Was the MTF study attention grabbing? Yes. Pointless? Yes, again.
The impact of budget cuts on public higher education, the appropriate level of taxpayer support, a rethinking of public colleges' missions in a state heavy with leading private institutions are all issues that deserve a reasoned discussion.
But what does that have to do with spending on prisons and jails? Absolutely nothing. Sure, state revenues are finite. Priorities must be set. If more should be spent on higher education (and that's hardly a settled question), then the money must come from somewhere. In a $23 billion budget, there are plenty of targets to choose from.
Why would any business-backed group in its right mind start with public safety spending? We know memories are short, but it wasn't that long ago that crime rates were soaring, and businesses were fleeing.
The reversal of that trend and successive years of a falling crime rate didn't just happen by itself. And it certainly didn't happen because those who would otherwise turn to a life of crime were instead admitted to
UMass-Boston.
Crime rates fell because there was a sea change in criminal justice policy in this state. Repeat violent offenders were finally subject to long prison sentences. They were taken off the streets so those streets could flourish with commerce, not criminal activity. And yes, that policy shift required the building of more prison cells.
Around the country, a retreat from such policies is indeed being talked about in the "smart on crime" circles that MTF leaders must travel in.
What a shame if Massachusetts joined the ranks of other states looking to save a buck any way it can, even if it means putting public safety at risk.
And what a shame MTF has supplied the advocates of such backsliding with a study to hang their misguided hats on.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Romney to veto measure on PACs
Lawmakers voted union deductions
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
The Democratic-controlled Legislature, the prime beneficiary of labor campaign donations on Beacon Hill, has decided that taxpayers should pay for administering the collection of payroll deductions for unions' political action committees.
A provision buried deep in the recently passed supplemental budget would undermine a recent ruling by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, which decided that taxpayers should not subsidize the managing of payroll deductions for PACs, including staff time, printing costs, and office supplies.
Governor Mitt Romney had sought the ruling, and his aides discovered the provision that overturned it after the spending bill passed last week. A Romney spokesman said yesterday that Romney would veto that section of the emergency spending plan, saying that it violates the basic premise that government should not pay for political activity.
"It's bad policy, the campaign finance office said it was bad policy, and it's still bad policy today," said Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's communications chief. "The public employee unions want to stop reform and raise taxes. Taxpayers shouldn't be asked to subsidize their political activity, particularly when it's in opposition to their interests."
Union representatives say they are flabbergasted by Romney's vow to veto the offending legislation, saying it provided an opportunity for public employees to make political donations via payroll deductions for any political action committee of their choosing. That includes Republican PACs, he said.
"I don't even understand how they could interpret that section [of the spending plan] as being against anyone's interests," said David J.
Holway, president of the National Association of Government Employees, whose union represents 12,000 state workers in Massachusetts.
Romney, a Republican, has been sparring with public employee unions from the start of his governorship, and his decision to veto the PAC legislation will no doubt exacerbate the tensions between his administration and the organized labor groups, who overwhelmingly back Democrats on Beacon Hill.
The payroll deductions, in particular, rankle Romney because, while the state pays to set up and administer the deductions, which range from 50 cents to a few dollars a week, the estimated $435,000 collected annually goes largely to Democrats, who dominate the Legislature.
In September, the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance ruled that such deductions were fine, as long as the state was reimbursed for adminstrative costs and as long as the unions did not solicit the deductions on state property.
The supplemental budget, however, allowed the deductions to take place "without charge to any person or entity," freeing the unions of their obligation to reimburse the state.
Representative Salvatore F. DiMasi, the House majority leader, said Romney is vetoing the legislation only because unions don't support him and not because of an objection to the expenditure of taxpayer money for political purposes.
"We think it's fair and equitable for [unions] to raise money to help put forth their agenda," the Boston Democrat said. "If I had a chance to override the governor's veto, I would, and I would recommend that to my colleagues, too."
Pamela H. Wilmot, executive director of the watchdog group Common Cause Massachusetts, said she sees merits in the arguments of both the unions and the governor, but fears that the fight will inevitably lead to the courts, in which case the taxpayers will end up footing a much higher bill.
But Chip Ford of Citizens for Limited Taxation applauded Romney for taking a stand against the public subsidizing of political activity.
"I don't think the state should be paying for any political activity, even if it's to support us," Ford said.
Romney will probably use his line-item veto powers to strike the PAC language from the supplemental budget today or Friday, Fehrnstrom said. He said he was uncertain how much the deduction plans cost the state, but added that, whatever the cost, taxpayers should not pay for it.
State Senator Michael W. Morrissey said that was unfortunate, because the state already allows for so many payroll deduction for medical and child care expenses, tax shelters, and so on that "it's one more character on a computer screen."
Return to
top
The MetroWest Daily News
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
GOP fights election date
By Michael Kunzelman
The Democratic leaders of the state Senate are trying to "rig" the outcome of the race to replace state Sen. Cheryl Jacques by holding the special election for her seat on the same day as the presidential primary, Gov. Mitt Romney said yesterday.
Romney said scheduling the election on March 2 -- a day when Democratic voters are expected to vote in droves for a candidate to oppose President Bush -- appears to be a transparent effort by Democrats to preserve their overwhelming majority in the Senate.
"The efforts to try and rig the election outcome by timing it with the Democratic primary is really not well-founded," Romney told reporters. "I think it has the potential to backfire - not only in this race, but in other races across the state."
Meanwhile, the chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party yesterday threatened to take legal action unless the state Senate reschedules the election.
Mass. GOP Chairman Darrell Crate said it was unconstitutional for the Senate to set a date for the election before Jacques, a Needham Democrat, leaves office.
"It's impossible for a vacancy to exist while a sitting senator is receiving a paycheck and a pension credit," he said yesterday during a press briefing outside the Senate chamber.
Jacques, who is moving to Washington, D.C., to serve as head of the nation's largest gay-rights political group, announced last Tuesday that Jan. 4 will be her last day in office.
Senate President Robert Travaglini picked March 2 as the date for the election, a decision that the Senate approved by a vote of 31 to 7. Only one Democrat, Sen. Brian Joyce of Milton, joined the six Republican senators in dissenting.
"Beacon Hill cannot have it both ways," Crate said. "Either Cheryl Jacques needs to resign immediately or Senate President Travaglini needs to withdraw the order setting the special election for March 2."
Jacques rejected Crate's entreaty, and said she has no intention of leaving office before Jan. 4.
"My timeline has never wavered," she said yesterday. "In fact, I've plotted and planned around that timeline in order to serve the needs of my district."
Travaglini spokeswoman Ann Dufresne said the scheduling of the election was designed to save money and fill the seat quickly, but wasn't politically motivated.
"Why should we delay in getting someone in there?" she asked. "We believe it's incumbent that (Jacques' constituents) have representation during the budget process."
The primary for Jacques' seat is scheduled for Feb. 3.
Dufresne said piggybacking the special election on the presidential primary instead of holding them on separate days would save up to $200,000 she said.
Crate, who accused the Democrats of using "fake numbers to divert attention from their actions," said it would have been just as cheap to hold the primary for the special election on the same day as the presidential primary and hold the general election at a later date.
"If these Senate Democrats were interested in saving taxpayer dollars, they should be instituting some of the reforms Gov. Romney put forward," he said.
The Republican Party has hired John Montgomery, an attorney from the prestigious Boston-based Ropes & Gray law firm, to explore its legal options.
Montgomery represented Romney last year when the Democratic Party unsuccessfully challenged his Massachusetts residency.
Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin, said he is not aware of any instances where a special election has been scheduled before the public official who is being replaced has left office.
"That doesn't mean it hasn't happened before because they've been at this for 200 years or more," McNiff said.
State Rep. Scott Brown of Wrentham is running for Jacques' seat and has the Republican Party's backing. Brown could face a primary opponent, however. Earl Henry
Sholley, a North Attleboro whom Jacques defeated twice, reportedly plans to enter the race.
The list of Democrats who have announced their candidacy includes Angus
McQuilken, a Millis resident and Jacques' longtime chief of staff; Dan Matthews, chairman of the Needham Board of Selectmen; Wellesley resident Democrat Jim
Klocke, executive vice president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce; and Needham Selectman Jerry Wasserman.
Jacques' Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex District includes Millis, Sherborn, Wayland and parts of Natick, Franklin and Wellesley.
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
|