CLT
UPDATE
Friday, November 28, 2003
"The Legislature really has no
shame" nor does MTA
The Legislature really has no shame. But the extent of their gall still has the capacity to stun even the most jaded among us....
So they snuck a provision into a supplemental spending measure to reverse Romney's reform, ensuring the taxpayers, not the unions, foot the bill for the political activity.
Romney's veto of the move is sure to be overridden. In a smelly business, this one really reeks.
The Boston Herald
Friday, November 28, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Shameful union PAC move
Gov. Mitt Romney took a pre-Thanksgiving carving knife to the Legislature's $100 million economic stimulus package yesterday, slashing nearly half of its funding while allowing year-round liquor sales on Sundays.
Romney said a looming budget deficit next year and the questionable economic impact of some of the bill's provisions led to his decision to pare the package.
"While it may be OK at this time of year to overstuff a turkey, it's not OK to overstuff a budget," said Romney, who also slashed spending within the state's supplemental budget appropriations passed by the Legislature earlier this month.
But Democratic lawmakers vowed yesterday to override the governor's line-item vetoes of the economic package when they return to the State House in January.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Gov nearly halves package:
Rebellious legislators vow to override stimulus vetoes
Romney said "fairness" compelled him to sign the UMass contract money - but warned in the next breath that he's treating the extra cash like a one-time bonus that won't be calculated into workers' base pay for the next round of negotiations that starts in January.
"Next year's budget, we take out a clean sheet of paper," Romney said.
"Working families in Massachusetts haven't seen a 15 percent increase over these three years, and state employees that work in institutions of higher learning shouldn't see a 15 percent increase either,"
the governor said.
The one-time nature of the pay raises means that UMass workers face the prospect of a pay cut when the emergency money runs out in July, unless lawmakers move to make the raises permanent.
"Apparently the state's promise is not worth the paper it's printed on," said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Katherine Boudreau.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Gov turns UMass pay raise into one-time bonus
A majority of Massachusetts voters favor legalizing casino gambling and doubt that Governor Mitt Romney can craft a fail-proof death-penalty system, a new University of Massachusetts poll shows....
In other findings, voters surveyed were split over whether the state should pursue taxes or service cuts. Antitax sentiment is alive and well, but anger at the cutbacks, particularly in local education, runs strong. Asked if the state is headed in the right direction, 42 percent said yes, 46 percent no....
By 48 to 24 percent, respondents favored raising taxes over cutting more services to deal with the state's $2 billion budget deficit. Voters seemed more comfortable with the Democratic lawmakers making the final decision on taxes and service cuts. Some 54 percent said they trust the Legislature to make the right decision about taxes and cuts; only 35 percent trusted Romney....
Over half, 54 percent, opposed any new state or property taxes, but 35 percent said they would prefer state taxes, such as income, sales, or gas taxes. Only 4.5 percent preferred an increase in property taxes.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Poll suggests Mass. voters back changes
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"No Shame"? Of course the
Legislature has no shame. Dog bites man. The Legislature has had no
shame since it decided it could do anything and still be reelected. That
must change first.
And the state teachers union has none either and
hasn't for a long time. Another dog bites man story.
Can you believe Katherine Boudreau. president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association?
"Apparently the state's promise is not worth the paper it's printed
on," she now decrees, apparently just having suddenly waken up.
The MTA and its national affiliate, the National
Education Association, combined with its within-state subsidiaries,
unsuccessfully spent near-$2 Million in 2000 to defeat our
Question 4 tax rollback, which enforced the legislative promise
that the 1989 tax increase would be "only temporary."
But now its president, Katherine Boudreau, wants to
use a "promise" as her bulwark to advocate for teacher raises?
Is there no shame at all left in the body politic, none
whatsoever? Cannot even alleged "educators" recognize
bald and blatant hypocrisy any more? Are they this totally
ignorant ... ignorant?
"Apparently the state's promise is not worth the paper it's printed
on" she doth protest too much.
Thanks to the likes of the teachers unions, of course
a state's promise isn't "worth the paper it's printed on."
Legislative promises are worth nothing, because MTA created the
climate, vehemently advocated and defended that position already ... so
why now her shock? Voracious self-interest and the shameless abandonment
of all credibility is the only explanation for such transparent
hypocrisy.
We recognized this long ago, so now the cost to the
ilk that's upset by "what goes around comes around" is
deliciously satisfying -- and why we now laugh at their self-induced predicament.
"Apparently the state's promise is not worth the paper it's printed
on."
Amen, sister. Thanks to you it's now possible ... no,
probable. You enabled it, now live with your fruits.
Source: Office of Campaign & Political Finance
Ballot Committee - OCPF #: 95286
The Campaign for Massachusetts’ Future
Dec. 21, 1999 - Nov. 15, 2000
$5,000 - 2/09/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$50,000 - 6/26/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$5,000 - 2/09/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$30,000 - 6/26/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$75,000 - 9/03/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$170,000 - 9/13/00 - Mass. Federation of Teachers
$50,000 - 9/15/00 - Boston Teachers Union
$350,000 - 10/10/00 - National Education Association
$425,000 - 10/05/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$425,000 - 10/16/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$75,000 - 10/19/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$50,000 - 11/02/00 - Mass. Teachers Association
$50,000 - 11/03/00 - Boston Teachers Union
MTA TOTAL: $1,050,000
Combined teachers unions total: $1,760,000
Spent to keep a broken promise broken!
And there goes that silly UMass
polling group again, as usual trying to
put the best spin possible on public support for another tax increase. Do
I really have to warn you about its self-interest again?
Still, isn't it interesting that, despite their best efforts, they
couldn't get a better result this time than "Over half, 54 percent, opposed any new state or property
taxes"?
I wonder how hard that is to wrap one' s mind around?
"Antitax sentiment is alive and well."
You can bet on it.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Friday, November 28, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Shameful union PAC move
The Legislature really has no shame. But the extent of their gall still has the capacity to stun even the most jaded among us.
Gov. Mitt Romney stopped the egregious practice of charging taxpayers for the cost of administering the solicitation of donations to state employee unions' political action committees, after seeking a ruling from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance on its propriety.
OCPF allowed the union practice of deducting contributions from the state payroll to continue but said the unions must reimburse the state for the cost of administration and couldn't solicit participation on state property. End of story.
Ah, but lawmakers weren't going to let a little thing like an official ruling from the state's top campaign watchdog get in the way of the flow of some $435,000 a year of PAC funds to their campaign
warchests.
So they snuck a provision into a supplemental spending measure to reverse Romney's reform, ensuring the taxpayers, not the unions, foot the bill for the political activity.
Romney's veto of the move is sure to be overridden. In a smelly business, this one really reeks.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Gov nearly halves package:
Rebellious legislators vow to override stimulus vetoes
By Jay Fitzgerald
Gov. Mitt Romney took a pre-Thanksgiving carving knife to the Legislature's $100 million economic stimulus package yesterday, slashing nearly half of its funding while allowing year-round liquor sales on Sundays.
Romney said a looming budget deficit next year and the questionable economic impact of some of the bill's provisions led to his decision to pare the package.
"While it may be OK at this time of year to overstuff a turkey, it's not OK to overstuff a budget," said Romney, who also slashed spending within the state's supplemental budget appropriations passed by the Legislature earlier this month.
But Democratic lawmakers vowed yesterday to override the governor's line-item vetoes of the economic package when they return to the State House in January.
"We believe the intent of the Legislature will prevail," said Rep. Peter Larkin (D-Pittsfield), who negotiated the compromise economics package with the Senate last week.
Romney insisted the stimulus plan was still a "good, solid bill" even after his vetoes.
Besides approving the year-round Sunday liquor sales provision in the bill, Romney also OK'd making permanent the state's 5 percent investment tax credit; providing tax rebates for biomedical companies that build manufacturing plants in Massachusetts; and holding a one-day sales-tax holiday on Aug. 14.
But the Republican governor also pulled out a cleaver and hacked about $45 million from the $100 million allocated last week by lawmakers.
He chopped in half - to $12.5 million - the amount of money earmarked from the state's tobacco settlement fund for a new "Emerging Technology Fund." That proposal had been pushed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan).
The governor wiped out all of the $5 million set aside for the Massachusetts Development Corp.
Romney, a venture capitalist before becoming governor, said that $5 million would have been wasted, because there's already enough VC firms making investments in young high-tech companies in Massachusetts.
Finneran's Emerging Technology Fund also has VC-like components in it. But Romney said lawmakers inserted provisions into it that he liked, such as providing bridge loans to companies that land federal contracts and matching research grants for universities and foundations.
He said he approved the year-round Sunday liquor sales provision out of a sense of fairness, not economic necessity. Currently, Massachusetts stores on the borders of states that have Sunday liquor sales are allowed to operate on Sundays, he said.
He also approved the one-day "sales-tax holiday" on Aug. 14 because, he said, he never misses an opportunity to cut taxes. The sales-tax exemptions applies to items valued at $2,500 or less.
But it was his funding cuts that upset lawmakers yesterday.
"Massachusetts is (economically) hurting," said Sen. Steven Panagiotakos (D-Lowell), the Senate's chief negotiator on the economics package.
"Giving the state a half a dose of economic stimulus isn't prudent," he said. "A full dose is better."
He added some economists had praised the Legislature's bill as "one of the most pro-business packages ever passed by lawmakers."
Like Larkin, Panagiotakos predicted the Legislature will override most, if not all, of the governor's vetoes.
"We worked very hard on this legislation," Larkin said. "You would think a Republican governor would want to grow the economy."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Gov turns UMass pay raise into one-time bonus
By Elisabeth J. Beardsley
University of Massachusetts faculty members are in line for a whopping 15 percent pay raise - with a major catch that's left them howling - after Gov. Mitt Romney signed an $81.1 million emergency spending bill yesterday.
The $34.1 million UMass infusion will cover three years' worth of pay raises for about 13,000 faculty and staff, who have gone without the promised salary hikes for three years as lawmakers refused to fund the contract because of the state's dire fiscal straits.
Romney said "fairness" compelled him to sign the UMass contract money - but warned in the next breath that he's treating the extra cash like a one-time bonus that won't be calculated into workers' base pay for the next round of negotiations that starts in January.
"Next year's budget, we take out a clean sheet of paper," Romney said.
"Working families in Massachusetts haven't seen a 15 percent increase over these three years, and state employees that work in institutions of higher learning shouldn't see a 15 percent increase either,"
the governor said.
The one-time nature of the pay raises means that UMass workers face the prospect of a pay cut when the emergency money runs out in July, unless lawmakers move to make the raises permanent.
"Apparently the state's promise is not worth the paper it's printed on," said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Katherine Boudreau.
UMass faculty, who have picketed the State House for months, were taken aback at Romney's actions, saying the one-time raise, combined with Romney's veto of $10 million for general UMass operations, would make it harder to attract a top-notch university president.
"It cannibalizes the institution," said UMass-Amherst faculty senate head Ernest May. "Governor, think how you're going to spin that in a telephone conversation (with a presidency candidate)."
UMass chiefs shrugged off the $10 million veto, saying they're grateful for the faculty raises after enduring $80 million in systemwide cuts.
"This represents a major step forward for the University of Massachusetts," said UMass interim president Jack M. Wilson.
The emergency spending bill also contains small piles of cash to prevent layoffs at the Department of Social Services, to forestall closings of rape crisis centers and programs for violent young criminals, and to launch the state's new DNA database for felons.
But the governor also vetoed $30.2 million - whacking $6.9 million out of an $8.6 million account to upgrade the Legislature's information technology system.
"I just can't in good conscience, in a time when schools are struggling, when we need more police on the street, when fire departments are closing down certain operations, justify a 16 percent, $8.6 million, increase in spending in the Legislature," Romney said.
House leaders declined comment yesterday, and Senate leaders could not be reached. Lawmakers can still override Romney's vetoes.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Poll suggests Mass. voters back changes
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
A majority of Massachusetts voters favor legalizing casino gambling and doubt that Governor Mitt Romney can craft a fail-proof death-penalty system, a new University of Massachusetts poll shows.
The survey of 401 registered voters, taken Nov. 15 to 19, also found most voters opposed giving in to demands by the law firms demanding $1.3 billion in legal fees from the state's tobacco settlement fund.
As lawmakers contemplate changes in a handful of major social policies, the poll results suggest that Massachusetts voters are open to changes in the state's prohibitions against casinos, the death penalty, and Sunday liquor sales.
The UMass poll shows that 56 percent of voters who were questioned support allowing casino gambling to operate in Massachusetts, while 43 percent oppose it. Only 1 percent had no opinion. An effort to bring two resort-style casinos and slot machines to state racetracks failed in the Senate earlier this month.
On another issue that could soon come before the Legislature, 54 percent of those questioned said they support the death penalty. A significant minority, 45 percent, expressed opposition to reinstating capital punishment in Massachusetts.
However, a strong majority, 62 percent, expressed skepticism about Romney's proposal to create a fail-proof system for imposing the death sentence, according to the poll.
Romney wants to craft a death penalty bill that would use cutting-edge science to ensure that only the guilty face capital punishment. A commission he named is to come up with recommendations that he hopes to unveil early next year.
In another issue -- a plan recently approved by the Legislature -- 64 percent of voters who were questioned said liquor stores should be open Sundays, while 33 percent opposed the idea. Romney signed a bill yesterday to legalize the Sunday openings.
The poll also gauged public opinion toward lawyers who are currently in court trying to enforce a contingency contract for work on the tobacco settlement. Only 37 percent of respondents said state officials should follow through with the agreement to pay the lawyers a percentage of the settlement. However, 57 percent said state officials should resist their demands.
The lawyers, who are suing Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly to force him to pay a 25 percent contingency fee, had already received $775 million from a special arbitration panel.
The poll, most of which was conducted before the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling on gay marriage on Nov. 18, also found Romney popular among voters, with a 66 percent approval rating and 33 percent disapproval.
But that result sharply contrasted with surveys taken after the ruling and Romney's high-profile opposition to it. A
Globe/WBZ-TV survey of 400 residents (as compared to voters) indicated that only 45 percent viewed him favorably, and 39 percent unfavorably.
Lou DiNatale, the UMass poll director, said the differences in Romney's standing in the two polls could be attributed to, among several factors, the timing around the court's decision and the governor's positioning against the ruling. He said Romney's base among suburban independents, who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, may well have been put off by his stance.
"It appears that Romney's intuitive reaction to the court ruling put him at odds with those unenrolled voters who elected him and have supported him," DiNatale said. The poll was taken from Nov. 15 to 19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Romney said he opposed the court's ruling but would support a civil-union system for gay couples. He is also pushing for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. A Globe poll taken in the two days following the ruling showed 50 percent of Massachusetts residents supported the court's opinion, with 38 percent opposed.
In other findings, voters surveyed were split over whether the state should pursue taxes or service cuts. Antitax sentiment is alive and well, but anger at the cutbacks, particularly in local education, runs strong. Asked if the state is headed in the right direction, 42 percent said yes, 46 percent no.
Forty-five percent said they have felt some impact of the service cuts, while 54 percent suffered little or no effect.
A solid majority of voters surveyed, 54 percent, said they have seen their property taxes rise significantly, while a third of respondents said their taxes have not gone up by any significant degree. The economy was blamed by 28 percent; local officials, 27 percent; the Legislature, 20 percent; Romney was blamed by 11 percent.
By 48 to 24 percent, respondents favored raising taxes over cutting more services to deal with the state's $2 billion budget deficit. Voters seemed more comfortable with the Democratic lawmakers making the final decision on taxes and service cuts. Some 54 percent said they trust the Legislature to make the right decision about taxes and cuts; only 35 percent trusted Romney.
Asked what state or local service cuts affected them most, 37 percent cited school funding; 17 percent said they were laid off; 12 percent cited loss of health care; and 11 percent noted reduced hours of service.
Over half, 54 percent, opposed any new state or property taxes, but 35 percent said they would prefer state taxes, such as income, sales, or gas taxes. Only 4.5 percent preferred an increase in property taxes.
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
|