"Is it time yet for the state income tax cut we were promised ... in 1989?"
Of course it is -- it's far past due -- but you'd
never know that up in the thin air of Bacon Hill.
It's MINE now (More Is Never Enough) and they won't
part with our money without a fight -- even another fight. And
one after that.
But, of course, the majority of the electorate
reelected our opponents despite, this time, having an alternative. So
perhaps the regardless of the will of the voters in 200o -- their mandate!
-- instead some are still talking about another tax increase.
The hogs at the trough aren't done with us yet. The
teachers unions aren't going away and remains one of the most powerful
lobbying interests on Bacon Hill. Former Senate president Billy Bulger
hasn't thrown in the towel yet; he's next expected to challenge this
ruling in superior court.
The question remains, in his retirement how much
control does he still have? Actually, none any more. For once, Billy
Bulger screwed up by leading with his greed. But, he'll still pocket
$166,664 a year thanks to us generous taxpayers who'll count on Social
Security for our retirement.
"Is it time yet for the state income tax cut we were promised ... in 1989?"
-- when Billy Bulger was still the senate president.
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 18, 2005
It's about time we got that state tax cut - isn't it?
By Howie Carr
Is it time yet for the state income tax cut we were promised ... in
1989?
The Democrats at the State House always have an excuse, of course, as to
why they can't "afford" to keep the promise they made in the
last century. Earlier this year, the hacks claimed the state couldn't
keep its word because tax revenues were supposedly way down.
They weren't.
Their next excuse was, well, the crackpot judges on the SJC are going to
rule that the state has to pay billions more to the greedy teachers'
unions - er, the children in the under-performing school districts.
They didn't.
So it must be time now for that tax cut, right?
Take your time, solons. If you get it done by Patriots Day, that'll be
fine. And while you're at it, make the cuts retroactive to Jan. 1, just
the way you always make the tax increases retroactive.
Remember when the state income tax was 5 percent? It was 1989 when the
Legislature jacked it up to 6.25. The Democrats had to, they whined, to
pay for what Dukakis had wrought - welfare for illegal aliens, hair
transplants for gangsters, sex-change operations for New Hampshire
residents in Montreal, etc. etc.
But as soon as the "emergency" ended, the solons swore up and
down, the rate would go back down to 5 percent.
Sixteen years later, we're still waiting.
Five years ago, the voters got fed up and, by a 59-41 percent margin,
cut the rate themselves in a statewide referendum. The legislators,
though, stopped the cutting, at 5.3 percent.
So, with the SJC decision now in, what will their next excuse be?
Actually, they'll probably dust off a fallback position they've used
before. They'll say, if you make $50,000 a year and we reduce your
income taxes to the rate we promised in 1989, you'll "only" be
getting an extra $150 a year.
Call it the "only" argument. Oddly, though, the same people
who argue that you're "only" going to get an extra $3 a week
also have the option on the state tax forms to pay their Mass. income
taxes at the old 5.85 percent rate.
Of the 607,000 Mass. taxpayers who have filed so far this year,
"only" 238 have decided to pay at the older, higher rate. What
makes the stinginess of the liberals even more perplexing is that so
far, those 238 people who've opted to pay at the higher rate have
"only" chipped in an extra $22,100.
That works out to "only" $92 extra per person.
Apparently, the liberals want your $150, but if you try to pry that
extra $92 out of their wallets, be prepared to use the Jaws of Life.
We have so many unmet needs here in the commonwealth. Why, it's been
three or four days since the last ex-state rep got a public job, as the
new superintendent of Essex Aggie. It was a nationwide search, and don't
even ask if he has a teacher's license. He's taking the test next month,
so lay off him, OK?
Consider all the proud liberals out there who still won't peel the Kerry
bumper stickers off their Lexuses. There must be at least 50,000 of
those spoiled trust-fund types who supported the gigolo so strongly that
they refuse to Move On.
So I've got an idea. If all you Kerry supporters would finally agree to
put your money where your mouth is, by voluntarily paying the higher
taxes you wanted to impose on those of us who don't have trust funds,
maybe the working people of Massachusetts could finally get our tax cut.
If you want to talk the talk, liberals, then you'd better learn to walk
the walk. After all, it's "only" money.
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard weekday afternoons on WRKO-AM
680, WHYN-AM 560, WGAN-AM 560, WEIM-AM 1280, and WXTK 95.1 FM.
Return to top
The Salem News
Thursday, February 17, 2005
A Salem News editorial
Education isn't only about money
It appears the $30 billion in additional state funds spent on schools in
Massachusetts since 1993 was enough to put cities and towns on the road
to providing all students with reasonable access to a good education.
That was the commendable finding of the Supreme Judicial Court this week
in rejecting a recommendation that the state be required to spend even
more money on schools in lower-income communities. The judges, by a 5-2
margin in the so-called Hancock case, determined that the state indeed
is currently meeting its constitutional duty to provide a decent public
education to all students.
Students in 19 poorer communities, including Lynn and Lowell, brought
the lawsuit charging that the state was shortchanging them. Superior
Court Judge Margot Botsford had agreed and recommended the SJC order
additional funding.
But Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the high court's
majority, noted that while there are still some inequities in education
across Massachusetts, the state is moving to address them. She's right.
The decision means choices about state spending on education will remain
where they belong — with the governor and the Legislature as they
haggle over the budget each year.
It also means we can all breathe a sigh of relief. The looming decision
had frozen the Legislature and Gov. Mitt Romney into inaction on
education as they waited to see what they would be ordered to do. Had
the SJC accepted Botsford's recommendations, it would have meant less
money for public safety, social services and other programs the state
budget subsidizes.
Romney's budget for the coming year — which must still be acted on by
the House and Senate — provides Chapter 70 education aid increases
only for the poorer urban areas. The more affluent communities were
expecting only level funding. Perhaps now that the Hancock decision has
passed, the governor and Legislature can find a way to provide modest
increases to more districts in both urban and suburban areas.
The Education Reform Act of 1993 that opened the money spigot for
education in Massachusetts was the result of an earlier court order. Yet
for all that spending, gains in academic achievement statewide have been
modest at best.
This suggests that the amount of money spent is not the only factor
determining the quality of education provided our children. In rejecting
the recommendation that it order further spending increases, the Supreme
Judicial Court has shown it recognizes that principle.
Among the reforms implemented over the past decade was the creation of
the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System which helped schools
focus their curricula on skills deemed most important to those they were
educating, and also brought some accountability to the system. Clearly,
those MCAS scores show that some school systems still need to improve
the quality of education they are providing.
As this week's SJC decision acknowledged, however, such improvements are
a matter not only of money, but of leadership and commitment on the part
of school administrators, teachers and parents.
Return to top
The Patriot Ledger
Saturday, February 19, 2005
A Patriot Ledger editorial
Wise decision on school spending
Heading into the case decided by the state Supreme Judicial Court this
week, it seemed unlikely the state would be found negligent in
funding public schools.
For more than a decade, education reform has been a top priority for governors and the Legislature.
More than $30 billion has poured into the schools, according to formulas that are criticized by both city
and suburban school districts.
The heart of the Hancock case was the allegation that poorer communities were being shortchanged.
And education activists were confident another court mandate was about to drop.
But the court was sensible. It cited those billions in increased state spending and noted that the four
school systems cited by plaintiffs had had "striking increases" in school spending. Those communities
are Springfield, Brockton, Lowell and Winchendon.
The court acknowledged that while discrepancies between poor and wealthy cities and towns persist,
the state is diligently addressing the quality of education provided in public schools.
It is painfully clear that money alone will not make better students. The formula for good schools is
more than simple math with a dollar sign.
MCAS scores demonstrate, among other things, the difference a good teacher makes. Look at
test scores for three classrooms in one grade in the same school and the results may be far from close. The
key variable is the teacher.
Involved parents beget better students. Parents who make sure their children are doing their
homework, and help them with it, are telling their children that school is important. They expect pupils
to do well.
Where those expectations and oversight are lacking, poor performance results.
Gov. Romney proposes to spend an additional $100 million on schools in the next fiscal year. He favors
more after-school programs and a longer school day - both ideas worth pursuing. And the Legislature
last year approved a new early childhood education program.
The court decision should help shape a dialogue on
education that goes beyond more-money-equals-good-schools. While
education remains a priority, the state has other needs as well,
and a budget shortfall. Meeting those needs would have been far more
difficult if the court had issued a mandate where none was needed.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Monday, February 21, 2005
Legislators praise ruling on poor districts
By Michael Levenson and Jonathan Saltzman
Globe Correspondent and Globe Staff
Representative Robert Correia, a 29-year veteran of the Massachusetts
Legislature, is no fan of the chief justice of the state's Supreme
Judicial Court, Margaret H. Marshall. He opposed her ruling legalizing
gay marriage, and when she and her colleagues ordered the Legislature to
publicly finance campaigns, he groused.
But last week, Marshall wrote a decision that turned Correia's grumbling
to muted praise. Siding with the 5-to-2 majority, Marshall rejected a
lawsuit by families seeking millions in additional funding for school
districts in poor communities. In her opinion, Marshall lauded the
Legislature for making schools "a fiscal priority . . . even
amidst one of the worst budget crises in decades."
Correia could hardly believe the ruling. "Perhaps I should find it
and frame it," the Fall River Democrat said yesterday. "That's
significant. She's been butting heads with the Legislature and, finally,
she says, 'Wow' -- at least we're not completely worthless in her
eyes."
Correia is among the state lawmakers and court watchers who have been
buzzing about the case, Julie Hancock v. the Commissioner of Education.
They see the ruling as an about-face for a court that has, over the
years, boldly trod into the Legislature's territory, telling lawmakers
how to set policy on marriage, taxes, elections, and other issues.
David L. Yas, publisher and editor-in-chief of Massachusetts Lawyers
Weekly, said Marshall's opinion has the state's tightknit legal and
political communities trying to read between the lines.
"Can anyone put their finger on it and say for sure there is some
political wrangling going on here? No," Yas said. "But there
certainly are whispers and theories and chatter that there might be
exactly something like that going on -- that somewhere in the analysis
of this decision, some of the SJC justices thought it might not be the
wisest thing to start another ... standoff with the Legislature."
Jeffrey M. Berry, professor of political science at Tufts University,
said studies have clearly indicated that powerful courts that shape
public policy, such as the US Supreme Court and the SJC, are affected by
public opinion.
"We do know that, believe it or not, justices are influenced by
matters other than law and precedent," he said. "So it's
plausible that that happened in this case."
But what makes drawing such conclusions difficult in the Hancock case,
Berry said, is the fact that school funding is well-traveled territory
in the state and US courts, leaving little room for even an activist
court to maneuver.
"The confounding element is that there is already so much law in
this area that it is really hard to claim that this is a move dictated
by public opinion," he said. "You have to analyze this against
the backdrop of the constraints of what they can do and how far they can
deviate from existing law."
Some legislators say the court appears chastened by its critics and
willing, at least for the moment, to allow lawmakers to set policy.
"I'm very happy that the court is doing what it should be doing
constitutionally and not overstepping its bounds," Correia said.
"In fact, if they keep this up, they'll get to the point where I
can actually praise the court. I'm not there yet."
Correia has been among the Beacon Hill lawmakers who take to the floor
to denounce the SJC as activist. Their criticism heightened in the 2002
battle over publicly financed campaigns, when the court ordered
lawmakers to either fund or repeal the Clean Elections Law. And it
reached fever pitch when the court legalized gay marriage last year.
Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg, filed a bill to
remove Marshall after the gay marriage ruling. Yesterday, Goguen said
the ruling in the Hancock case reflected a pleasing "shift,"
adding, "I'm sure the entire Legislature is happy about it."
The case involved Julie Hancock, a Brockton High School junior, who
contended that poor districts needed additional funds to match affluent
districts in the quality of their libraries, classroom computers, and
opportunities for early childhood education. She and other plaintiffs
sued the state commissioner of education.
In her opinion, Marshall noted that "serious inadequacies in public
education remain." Yet she found "the Commonwealth is moving
systemically to address those deficiencies and continues to make
education reform a fiscal priority." Marshall called the billions
spent on schools over the last decade "significant."
Representative Philip Travis, Democrat of Rehoboth, said the court's
opinion made him think there were other forces at work behind the ruling
besides argument and case law. "The decision was so distinctly
written," Travis said. "I thought there might be that twist in
there, that they had gone a bit too far in the past and that they were
coming back into the fold. And I commend them for that."
The House minority leader, Representative Bradley H. Jones Jr., a
frequent SJC critic, said the facts of the case were strong. But Jones,
Republican of North Reading, said he believes the gay marriage backlash
might have influenced the justices' decision.
"They're human," Jones said. "They're sensitive to how
the judiciary is perceived both in the public and within the legislative
and executive branches."
Ralph Ranalli of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, February 18, 2005
Board reduces Bulger pension
voids claim based on housing payment
By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff
Former University of Massachusetts president William M. Bulger, who
demanded upon retirement that his housing allowance count toward his
state pension, had his retirement check slashed by an appeals board
ruling yesterday.
The 2-to-1 decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board not only
dashed Bulger's hopes of counting toward his annual pension nearly
$50,000 in housing allowance and annuity payments, but it also found
that his $309,000 annual salary when he retired in August 2003 was
inflated by merit payments and bonuses that should not count as part of
his pension.
"We view it as a bonus because it is a payment contingent upon
meeting certain performance criteria," said Assistant Attorney
General Richard C. Heidlage, a member of the board who wrote the
decision. "That is the classic definition of a bonus."
In addition, the board found that Bulger should not have been allowed to
claim his car, driver, and a parking space as compensation, costs that
were probably negligible in calculating his pension, but that should be
corrected on principle, Heidlage said.
As a result of the ruling, Bulger's $179,148 annual pension could be
trimmed to $166,664, the State Retirement Board estimated. The added
payments he had requested would have boosted his pension to $208,356 a
year.
The 71-year-old former state Senate president is expected to appeal the
ruling to Superior Court. His lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, said last night
he had not yet read the ruling and could not comment.
Return to top
The Salem News
Monday, February 21, 2005
A Salem news editorial
Bulger decision a win for taxpayers
Finally, a state agency has ruled in favor of the taxpayers and against
an attempt by a former public employee to pad his pension.
Of course, unlike many, this one was unlikely to get by without some
public notice. It involved the former president of the University of
Massachusetts and, before that, the Massachusetts Senate, one William
Bulger.
He was making in excess of $300,000 when he left his UMass post in the
fall of 2003 and had enough years in the system to entitle him to an
annual pension of $166,664. But this apparently wasn't enough.
Bulger claimed the money he received from the state for housing and,
believe it or not, the cost of the annuity he took out to supplement his
pension, ought to be used in calculating his state retirement benefit.
That would have given him an additional $30,000 a year.
Bulger and his attorney convinced the state Division of Administrative
Law Appeals of the logic of their argument; but they did not fare as
well with the Contributory Retirement Board, which found last week that
not only was Bulger wrong in claiming the value of his annuity and
housing allowance, but that his basic pension had been mistakenly
inflated by counting certain merit increases he had received.
The result? What began as a $179,148-a-year pension, and which Bulger
had sought to have increased to $208,356, was cut back to $166,664.
The result, according to State Treasurer Timothy Cahill: "It ...
sends a message to the taxpayers that we are not here to give benefits
to people who don't deserve them or who don't pay into the system."
Even someone as powerful as Bulger.
It's about time.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Democrats vie to succeed Finneran
Debate death penalty, gay marriage, elections
By David Abel, Globe Staff
A field of five Democrats debated last night in the race to succeed
former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, with Dorchester lawyer Eric
Donovan trying to break out by portraying himself as a social
conservative in a crowd of largely liberal rivals.
The 34-year-old spoke vigorously against same-sex marriage, public
financing of state elections, and same-day voter registration and spoke
in favor of the death penalty.
By contrast, all but one of the other four candidates spoke in support
of same-sex marriage or avoided the issue, and all the others came out
strongly against the death penalty and for same-day voter registration.
When asked to compare their positions to those of the former speaker,
they all found kind words to say about the conservative Democrat whose
shadow hung over much of the two-hour debate.
"I'm most similar to him on the gay marriage issue," Donovan
said. "He had the courage of his convictions. He took the heat for
the whole House, because he was the captain of the ship.... I'm going to
be just as straightforward."
About 200 people filled nearly every seat in an auditorium at the
Mildred Avenue Community Center in Mattapan, where the five candidates
sat on stage for the first of two debates sponsored by MassVOTE, a
nonpartisan voting rights group. With no Republican challenger, the
primary on March 15 will decide who succeeds Finneran, who last
September announced his retirement after years of dominating state
politics. Voters from the 12th Suffolk House district first elected him
in 1978.
Three of the five candidates are Haitian Americans, in a district where
about 70 percent of more than 38,000 residents are members of minority
groups. The district includes parts of Milton, Mattapan, and Dorchester.
In a special election, where most of the candidates maintain little
difference in their positions and turnout may not be heavy, the
candidates sought to distinguish themselves by citing their experience.
Kerby Roberson, 47, a lawyer from Milton who said he has spent years
serving the public as a science teacher and as counsel to the Department
of Social Services, was loudly applauded when he agreed with Donovan
about banning same-sex marriage and disagreed with him on the death
penalty. "I'm a Christian, and I stand on principle," he said
about his position against same-sex marriage.
On the death penalty, he said: "We need to abolish it, period. As a
black man, there's no way.... Mark my words, I would never support the
death penalty.
All the candidates said they support bolstering the state's low-income
mortgage assistance program, reining in the district's lenders of
subprime loans, improving access to a new park in Neponset Circle, and
attracting new business to the community.
All said they support restoring the state tax rate to 5.95 percent from
the current 5.3 percent -- Governor Mitt Romney has proposed cutting it
to 5 percent -- though Donovan said, "It's the last option for
me."
Linda Dorcena Forry, 31, an aide to city housing chief Charlotte Richie
who recently received endorsements from Suffolk Sheriff Andrea Cabral
and state Representative Marie P. St. Fleur, described herself as a
"public servant."
"I'm about helping people, and my campaign is about a new
partnership ... about everyone coming together for affordable housing,
education, health care, and public safety," she said, adding that
she also supports public financing of elections but thinks there must be
"minimum thresholds" for candidates.
Touting her experience in promoting affordable housing, she said,
"I think it's important that all cities and towns are required to
meet the [requirement] of 10 percent affordable housing."
Emmanuel A. Bellegarde, a 28-year-old Mattapan resident who served as an
aide to state Senator Jack Hart, said voters should elect him because he
"knows the issues personally," having had guns and knives
pulled on him, gone without health care, and moved years ago because his
family couldn't afford a Boston mortgage.
"When it comes to quality of life issues, they will not be
compromised," he said.
Asked about the effort to build a safe passage to the park in Neponset
Circle, he said: "There doesn't need to be any other study.... When
people complain, I'm going to return their calls. We don't need
political advisers; we need to fix our problems."
Stacey Monahan of Dorchester, a 32-year-old aide to US Representative
Stephen F. Lynch, said she wanted to expand on her work with several
neighborhood civic associations. "I will be the kind of state rep
who you can call and say my kid needs a summer job or my [relative]
needs substance abuse treatment," she said.
When asked about restoring the tax cuts, she agreed, saying: "I'm a
Democrat. I believe that government is here to help people."
And when asked to compare herself to Finneran, she said: "One thing
I share with him is that you always know where he stood. That's
something I really respect.... But from day one, I have been in favor of
gay marriage, unequivocally."
Return to top
