CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The common denominator
Besides demanding no new taxes, taxpayers also should be asking how much are they receiving in services for their tax dollars.
Are they getting a good deal? I argue that while taxes have not gone up, the return to taxpayers is dropping precipitously. The deal is getting worse for taxpayers. As government costs such as employee health insurance and Medicare increase, outpacing revenues, elected officials reduce other government services while keeping tax rates constant....
Clearly, fewer services for the same number of dollars equals a tax increase....
The fantasy world of no new taxes while maintaining services will not go on forever. Eventually citizens will realize that are getting less and they will want more and they will be willing to pay. A few more incidents of closed libraries, improperly tested drugs, contaminated food, increased crime due to more high school drop-outs or increased poverty among the elderly should do the trick.
The Boston Globe
Monday, February 28, 2005
The lie of 'no new taxes'
By Larry Overlan
Fees have crept into every aspect of student life in school systems across the state. As many as two-thirds of the state's school districts now charge students a fee, up from just 15 percent five years ago, according to a survey by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees....
Superintendent Claudia Bach said she proposed the fee increases reluctantly to avoid cutting programs and laying off teachers....
Governor Mitt Romney has proposed adding nearly $100 million to school districts' budgets next year, a 2.7 percent increase. But officials in many school systems say that the increase is not enough and that they're barely making ends meet, especially when it comes to providing the extras that parents and students love, from music lessons to sports and afterschool clubs....
Presidents of the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the state PTA urged parents to lobby their lawmakers for more money for public schools....
"This just widens the gulf between the haves and the have-nots in public schools," said Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
On the rise, school fees worry many
If the town has learned anything from the past four years, it is that its expenses are going up faster than its income. The Finance Committee is among several departments which believe that the "structural deficit" inherent in the budget might find a savior in the Pay-As-You-Throw program, which it projects would bring in $1,077,000.
Hailed as economically and environmentally sound by its proponents and a tax-by-any-other-name by its critics, Pay-As-You-Throw will have its day in the court of public opinion on Wednesday, March 16 when Special Town Meeting voters decide whether they wish, among other things, to pay $2 for a 33-gallon bag and $1 for a 15-gallon bag for curbside trash removal....
"It is not a tax. It is a fee, a fee that people can control by being diligent in the amount of trash they recycle," said Finance Committee Chairman David Harris....
Residents don't see that they already are paying for trash removal because it is part of their general tax bill, but proponents of Pay-As-You-Throw suggest that taxes actually may go down - although perhaps not in the first year or two - because of a savings in trash removal.
However, Harris acknowledged that the $2 and $1 cost per bag residents pay could go up....
Officials say Pay-As-You-Throw opponents are operating under a misperception that a general override passed two years ago was designed to address all aspects of trash collection and disposal on an ongoing basis. Officials counter that only about $400,000 of that override was earmarked to retain curbside pickup, which is just one aspect of the service of trash and recycling collection and disposal. The remainder of the $1.4 million override in 2003 was designed to avoid layoffs, including two in the police department and nine in the school department, along with other service cuts.
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Pay-As-You-Throw seen as financial savior to some
Does the Federal Government have a Deficit Problem or an Overspending Problem? ...
As long as the word "deficit" dominates and monopolizes the way that Americans think about and talk about government budgets, Big Government will keep growing.
But once we introduce the distinction between "deficit" and "overspending," Americans have a choice in how they think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
As more and more Americans think about, talk about, and act on the basis of the "overspending" distinction, more of us will choose to reduce government spending.
Small Government News
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
"Deficit" or "Overspending": The difference one word makes
by Michael Cloud
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
There is much to find agreement with in perennial
contrarian Larry Overlan's analysis, "The lie of 'no new
taxes,'" but he stops short of comprehending what we have long
recognized as the obvious problem. He doesn't acknowledge that one even
exists.
The problem is not a lack of revenue: the problem is
profligate spending -- specifically on public employee unions and
"education," which almost always translates into the rapacious
teachers unions.
What recurring theme do all these news reports have,
what common denominator runs through them?
"As government costs such as employee health insurance and Medicare increase, outpacing
revenues ..." Overlan observed.
"Superintendent Claudia Bach said she proposed the fee increases reluctantly to avoid cutting programs and laying off
teachers," the Boston Globe noted.
"The remainder of the $1.4 million override in 2003 was designed to avoid layoffs, including two in the police department and nine in the school
department," The Marblehead Reporter pointed out.
The problem was starkly exposed in the Jan. 25 CLT
Update ("Property taxes skyrocket while Public Employees swim in
salaries") , inspired by Charles Chieppo's Boston Herald column
of Jan. 24 ("When unions fail
children"). He noted:
"About 90 percent of Massachusetts state employees are unionized, compared to 35 percent of state employees across the country....
From 2000, the last year before the most recent recession, to 2003, total private sector wages in Massachusetts actually decreased. But state and local government employees had a very different experience. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that their wages grew by nearly 12 percent, and a 2003 BLS report found that public employee wages in eastern Massachusetts were also 12 percent higher than those of private employees doing comparable jobs.
During the same period, as private sector wages fell, total wages paid to employees of K-12 public education in Massachusetts jumped an astonishing 19 percent. Some of the increase was due to growth in the number of positions, but the vast majority came from pay raises. Understandably, teacher layoffs made headlines as the recession worsened. But if unions had been willing to accept slightly smaller raises, the 19 percent increase in total wages would have covered enough employees to avoid layoffs entirely.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the divide between public and private sector employment occurred in January 2003. As the incoming Romney administration scoured the budget for another $600 million in emergency cuts, the Brockton School Committee negotiated a contract under which any teacher with fewer than nine years of service could expect 25 percent to 37 percent raises over three years."
In Governor Romney's Jan 13 State of the Commonwealth address, he proposed
his "Education Reform Act of 2005," which in part promised "Paying our best teachers more."
The immediate response from Massachusetts Teachers Association President Catherine A. Boudreau
was to call it "a good first step." But what else have we come to
expect -- except their worn-out mantra that they're only "doing it
for the children"?
Still, we taxpayers are supposed to suspend belief
and buy one more time -- really! -- that her concern is "for the
children" when she whines about widening "the gulf between the
haves and the have-nots in public schools" -- and not her union's
further aggrandizement?
"But if unions had been willing to accept slightly smaller raises, the 19 percent increase in total wages would have covered enough employees to avoid layoffs entirely."
Now that for once would have been actually
doing something "for the children," but as Mr. Chieppo noted
in closing his column:
"Albert Shanker, late president of the American Federation of Teachers, said,
'When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school
children.'"
The Education Industrial Complex, with "the
children" as hostages, consumes far more than its share of
profligacy at the expense of everyone else. But I haven't even touched
on the countless other "unmet needs" of government in
Massachusetts: the vast wasteland of patronage, foolish police
details, sweetheart health insurance deals state and municipal
employee unions "negotiate" along with whatever other perks
they can extort, ad nausea.
The problem isn't "not enough revenue" and
never has been. Just look at the state budget, or that of your city or
town. Compare it to ten years ago, five years back -- or just last year!
Only two years ago in Marblehead, for example, a $1.4
million override was sold as the sole alternative to halting all trash
pickup -- holding that historic taxpayer-funded municipal service
hostage to teacher pay raises or else. Because a majority wanted their
trash to continue being picked up, the override passed, along with $1
million in pay raises. Now that they have our money, they're scheming for more of it
using the same threat in a shameless bait-and-switch scam. This time they're
intent on ramming it through town meeting, generally populated by
tax-and-spend special interests; keeping it
off the ballot where it's anticipated it would fail by proponents and
opponents alike.
More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never will be
so long as it's available for the taking. Under whatever name they
disguise that taking, it's still more money coming from our pockets and
going into theirs.
The problem is that government spends our money
faster on itself than however much floods into its coffers. The more that pours
in the faster it's squandered and the tax-and-spenders are back for more, more, always
more -- if we expect even basic government services in return for what we've already paid.
Larry Overlan was largely correct: he just doesn't
have a clue why or what to do about it.
Michael Cloud of Small Government News, who along
with Carla Howell sponsored the 2002 Massachusetts ballot
initiative (Question 1) to End the Income Tax,
is 100 percent correct and -- unlike Mr. Overlan -- knows
exactly why. Below he presents a simple way to start
solving the real problem honestly, whether on the federal, state, or
local level.
Quoting Thomas Pynchon, he demonstrates how "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the
answers." He suggests that we take back the language and thereby
change the debate and its outcome.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Monday, February 28, 2005
The lie of 'no new taxes'
By Larry Overlan
All levels of government continue to reduce services in keeping with the voter mandate of no new taxes. Raising taxes has replaced Social Security as the third rail of politics, even though the United States ranks below more than 20 other industrialized countries in terms of taxes as a percent of GDP and Massachusetts ranks 36th in state and local tax burden as a percentage of personal income.
Besides demanding no new taxes, taxpayers also should be asking how much are they receiving in services for their tax dollars.
Are they getting a good deal? I argue that while taxes have not gone up, the return to taxpayers is dropping precipitously. The deal is getting worse for taxpayers. As government costs such as employee health insurance and Medicare increase, outpacing revenues, elected officials reduce other government services while keeping tax rates constant.
For example, suppose you are paying $100 in property taxes and the only local government service you receive is access to the town library for 50 hours per week. The return on your $100 tax investment is 50 library hours. If the town decides to reduce the hours of the library to 40 per week and keeps the property tax at $100, you are now receiving 10 fewer library hours while you are paying the same taxes. Your return on investment has gone down.
Taking this example to the extreme, if the library completely closed while taxes remained constant at $1OO, you would be receiving a huge tax hike since now you receive nothing for your invested tax money.
Many cities and towns have in fact reduced their library hours as well as reducing police and fire personnel and closing fire stations. As a result, emergency response times, a critical government service, have worsened. Increasing the number of students per classroom results in less teacher time for each student. Students are now charged to play sports and ride the bus, government services that were formally covered by existing taxes.
At the state level, local aid has been cut, MBTA bus service is being reduced, roads and bridges are not being repaired, which causes traffic woes (time is money) and in some cases necessitates auto repairs. There have also been reductions in job search and training programs, state college funding, HIV screenings, and smoking prevention programs while tax rates remain constant.
Clearly, fewer services for the same number of dollars equals a tax increase.
At the federal level, Social Security is the next major benefit that will probably be cut with no reduction in taxes. Future benefits may be decreased anywhere from 9 to 25 percent, but recipients will continue to pay the same payroll taxes. In other words, the same taxes for fewer benefits. Another tax hike!
Taxpayers paradoxically demand no new taxes while keeping current levels of government services. This naive wish is obviously being violated but incrementally, quietly, and slyly -- which hasn't disturbed the herd as yet. The elected class claim they are keeping the mandate of no new taxes but as we can see that's a half truth. Taxes are going up every day at every level of government as citizens receive fewer and fewer services for their money.
The fantasy world of no new taxes while maintaining services will not go on forever. Eventually citizens will realize that are getting less and they will want more and they will be willing to pay. A few more incidents of closed libraries, improperly tested drugs, contaminated food, increased crime due to more high school drop-outs or increased poverty among the elderly should do the trick.
Larry Overlan is a professor of government at Bentley College.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
On the rise, school fees worry many
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff
ANDOVER -- Every year for the last three, the school system has increased the amount students must pay for a burgeoning menu of activities, and parents have paid up. But tonight, when the School Committee debates the latest increases, the school superintendent expects a protest over a tripling of the parking fee.
Next year, Andover students may have to pay $325 to park in the high school lot, more than three times the current amount.
Parents and students have complained about the fee in e-mails to school officials and in letters to local newspaper editors. Three years ago, students paid $25 to park. Now, they pay $100. If the School Committee approves the superintendent's proposal, Andover students will pay nearly as much as their peers in Newton, where the charge is $360.
Fees have crept into every aspect of student life in school systems across the state. As many as two-thirds of the state's school districts now charge students a fee, up from just 15 percent five years ago, according to a survey by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. The association can offer only an estimate, because the state doesn't track the fees or regulate them.
Critics say the abundance of fees is increasing the gap between the haves and have-nots within a school system. They fear that poorer students won't sign up for activities because they can't afford to.
School officials argue that the fees are necessary to prevent cuts to the popular programs and that the funds make up for state budget cuts over the past few years. At Andover High, the proposed parking fee increase would raise about $113,000 a year and help pay for supplies, such as paper and pencils, that the budget won't cover, school officials said.
Many parents and students are upset about having to pay for things they once took for granted.
"It's kind of ridiculous," said Tiana McQuade, 16, a junior, after she parked her blue Nissan Altima in the parking lot. "I don't understand how you can call it a public school when you have to pay for all these fees."
The frustration in Andover is boiling over as parents face steep increases in several areas. Full-day kindergarten costs $3,750, and it could jump to $4,350 next year. The school bus fee may leap to $700 next year for families with two or more children; if there's just one child, the fee could rise from $300 to $350.
Superintendent Claudia Bach said she proposed the fee increases reluctantly to avoid cutting programs and laying off teachers.
"I agree with the students; we have raised fees for so many items across the board," Bach said. "We really are now trying to save the programs from being further cut. I saw no other alternative than raising fees."
School districts across Massachusetts are making similar calculations, weighing whether to charge families more or cut beloved popular programs or teachers. Winchester recently voted to increase athletic fees $100, to $275 per sport. Reading parents already pay $4,000 a year for full-day kindergarten. Duxbury is charging $360 per family for bus service this year.
In Duxbury, parent Molly Schaeffer avoids the fee by walking her two children through the woods to school in the winter, a 15-minute trek, and they ride their bikes in warm weather.
With the fee at $360, "I couldn't justify that," she said. "I could find other uses for that."
Adria Fichter, 16, a junior at Duxbury High, wrote an article last semester in the Dragon Flyer, the high school newspaper, saying students are smothered in fees. Students in other towns call the town
"Deluxbury" for its affluence, she wrote, but not all students can afford the fees. She, for instance, paid $125 to play field hockey and another $125 to join a club. Her family pays the $360 a year bus fee. And because a friend drives her to school, she pitched in $25 to help cover the $100 parking fee.
"It was just a lot hitting us at once," she said. "Some people are wealthy ... but it's very hard for everyone to do all these activities if you don't have a job. It just starts to add up."
Governor Mitt Romney has proposed adding nearly $100 million to school districts' budgets next year, a 2.7 percent increase. But officials in many school systems say that the increase is not enough and that they're barely making ends meet, especially when it comes to providing the extras that parents and students love, from music lessons to sports and afterschool clubs.
"There's a huge effort to try to achieve an adequate level of public support for the schools, so that you don't have to charge fees," said Glenn
Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. "But these are challenging economic times. When you have a whole bunch of districts that have less money than they had two to three years ago, this is what happens."
Winchester recently raised its athletic fee by $100.
"It's not what we want to do," said Samuel Kounaves of the Winchester School Committee. "You either cut the programs or you ask for fees. Neither one of those I approve of. That's the problem. I don't see where this is going to end."
School districts offer discounts or waivers to students who cannot afford to pay the fees. Some parents have raised money to help students from poorer families pay the fees.
But teachers and parent advocates say they worry that some students are too embarrassed to ask for waivers and instead miss out on athletics and clubs, a way to connect to school.
Presidents of the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the state PTA urged parents to lobby their lawmakers for more money for public schools. They said it is hard to fight fees on a statewide level because they vary so much by city -- Boston charges nothing for the bus, while Winchester charges $475 a year -- and because the state doesn't track the fees.
"This just widens the gulf between the haves and the have-nots in public schools," said Catherine Boudreau, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association.
Even as Andover and Duxbury raise fees, some school systems are reducing them because of concerns about equity.
Nashoba Regional School District -- which covers Bolton, Lancaster, and Stow -- charged each student $328 to play sports during a budget crisis two years ago, but lowered the charge to $150 after 82 fewer students signed up for teams. The district rolled back the charge in the middle of the 2003-04 school year and sent refunds to parents.
"We lost people who wanted to play sports more casually, who simply said, I'm not going to play casually for $328," said Assistant Superintendent John
Antonucci.
Bach, of Andover, said the debate in her town and others is coming to a decision point. As a community, she said, Andover is taking a hard look at what it expects from public schools and what it can afford.
"I hope this is a question that we will actually have a great deal of discussion around," she said. "What should be included in a public education?"
Return to top
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Pay-As-You-Throw seen as financial savior to some
By Bette Keva
If the town has learned anything from the past four years, it is that its expenses are going up faster than its income. The Finance Committee is among several departments which believe that the "structural deficit" inherent in the budget might find a savior in the Pay-As-You-Throw program, which it projects would bring in $1,077,000.
Hailed as economically and environmentally sound by its proponents and a tax-by-any-other-name by its critics, Pay-As-You-Throw will have its day in the court of public opinion on Wednesday, March 16 when Special Town Meeting voters decide whether they wish, among other things, to pay $2 for a 33-gallon bag and $1 for a 15-gallon bag for curbside trash removal.
"It is not a tax. It is a fee, a fee that people can control by being diligent in the amount of trash they recycle," said Finance Committee Chairman David Harris. If residents throw out less trash and instead recycle more goods, that will reduce the cost the town pays for trash removal.
Residents don't see that they already are paying for trash removal because it is part of their general tax bill, but proponents of Pay-As-You-Throw suggest that taxes actually may go down - although perhaps not in the first year or two - because of a savings in trash removal.
However, Harris acknowledged that the $2 and $1 cost per bag residents pay could go up. The Special Town Meeting article only states that the Board of Health will set the fee per bag, not what that fee will be. Harris said the cost of the bags relies heavily on what the town pays to get trash hauled away. It is now $98 per ton and probably will go higher.
Harris explained that the Pay-As-You-Throw article would change the way the Health Department is operated. It would remove the waste and recycling activities out of the Health Department into a new entity called the Solid Waste and Recycling Enterprise Department. Each would have its own budget but would still have one director overseeing its operation.
By being an enterprise department, all revenues from Pay-As-You-Throw plus other fees would be used to pay for the department's operation. The enterprise department would not rely on tax revenues.
Officials say Pay-As-You-Throw opponents are operating under a misperception that a general override passed two years ago was designed to address all aspects of trash collection and disposal on an ongoing basis. Officials counter that only about $400,000 of that override was earmarked to retain curbside pickup, which is just one aspect of the service of trash and recycling collection and disposal. The remainder of the $1.4 million override in 2003 was designed to avoid layoffs, including two in the police department and nine in the school department, along with other service cuts. That $400,000 of tax revenue generated by the permanent override will continue to be designated for trash pickup, even if Pay-As-You-Throw is approved.
What Pay-As-You-Throw is designed to address is the more expensive disposal portion of the trash process, the $98 per ton that the town pays to have trash hauled away, which is estimated to cost $1,082,802 in Fiscal Year 2006.
More than 100 communities in Massachusetts have instituted Pay-As-You-Throw, said Harris, quoting from a Department of Environmental Protection newsletter of January 2005. Eleven of those communities will get Pay-As-You-Throw assistance. If Pay-As-You-Throw passes here, Marblehead will get a $34,000 grant from the DEP to initiate the program.
"The Finance Committee sees it not only as a fiscally responsible solution to some of our structural deficits, but it's also environmentally the right thing to do. It promotes recycling and reduces the amount of trash put into landfills," said Harris.
Return to top
Small Government News
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
"Deficit" or "Overspending": The difference one word makes
by Michael Cloud
Does the Federal Government have a Deficit Problem or an Overspending Problem?
Your answer to this question makes a profound difference in how you think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
Almost all politicians, news outlets, and political commentators agree that it’s a deficit problem.
Here are the words and phrases they use to describe the gap between government income and spending: "deficit," "budget deficit," "expanding budget deficit," "face a large deficit," "solve the deficit problem," "bridge the deficit gap," "close the deficit," "cut
thedeficit," "projected deficits," "deficit reduction," "running a deficit," and even"deficits as far as the eye can see."
"What can we do about the federal deficit?" they ask.
The Deficit Assumptions
"Deficit" is defined as "the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount." It indicates a lack, a shortage, or deficiency. Not enough money.
"Deficit" rests on the premise that the proposed budget is the standard of judgment.
"Deficit" means that proposed government spending is right, but income is too low.
"Deficit" assumes and takes for granted that the proposed government budget is necessary, and that we have a tax shortfall.
"Deficit" implies that we are under-taxed. That perhaps taxpayers are stingy, selfish – and not paying their fair share.
The Overspending Assumptions
"Overspending" is defined as "spending in excess of one’s income." It indicates unwarranted, unnecessary, or too much spending.
"Overspending" rests on the premise that income is the standard of judgment.
"Overspending" means that government is trying to live beyond its means.
"Overspending" assumes and takes for granted that government has a spending problem, not an income problem.
"Overspending" implies that the elected officials are irresponsible, reckless, extravagant money wasters.
Deficit VS Overspending Questions
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers," wrote Thomas
Pynchon.
But what if we can get Americans asking the right questions?
Compare deficit questions to overspending questions.
"How do we solve the federal deficit problem?" VS
"How do we solve the federal overspending problem?"
"What should we do about this year’s federal deficit?" VS
"What should we do about this year’s federal overspending?"
"How can we resolve the budget shortfall?" VS
"Where should we cut back the government overspending?"
"How can we make up the $XXX Billion revenue deficiency?" VS
"Where can we best reduce and remove these $XXX Billions in overspending?"
How to Shift the Language from "Deficit" to "Overspending"
CONVERSATIONS. Pretend you’re in a political conversation with someone. She brings up this year’s federal "deficit". Just say, "Before we get too far into this conversation, can we get clear on the difference between government ‘deficits’ and government ‘overspending’?"
Most people will ask: "What’s the difference?"
Tell her the Deficit Assumptions and Overspending Assumptions. Then ask, "Which word best describes the way you think we should think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures – ‘deficit’ or ‘overspending’?"
Many people will stop and think about it. Some will ask questions. Some won’t. Some will be receptive. Some won’t.
You can use the "overspending" questions above with receptive listeners. Have a lively discussion!
You can also ask them whether they want you to email them more information. If they say "yes", get their email address and send it to us. We’ll send them Small Government
News.
Whether your conversation is short or long, you’ve just planted these new questions in your listener’s mind. And if we can get people asking the right questions, we don’t have to worry about the answers.
That’s all it takes to set the process in motion.
TALK RADIO. Call in and make the same distinctions between "deficit" and "overspending". Ask the same questions. Your short phone call may plant these questions in hundreds and hundreds of fertile minds.
EMAIL. Why not forward this issue of Small Government News* to a dozen of your friends – with an introductory note from you? Tell them how you felt when you read it. And ask them to take 3 minutes and read it.
Why One Word Can Make a Difference
As long as the word "deficit" dominates and monopolizes the way that Americans think about and talk about government budgets, Big Government will keep growing.
But once we introduce the distinction between "deficit" and "overspending," Americans have a choice in how they think about, talk about, and deal with government revenue and expenditures.
As more and more Americans think about, talk about, and act on the basis of the "overspending" distinction, more of us will choose to reduce government spending.
And that’s one important step toward small government.
Reprinted with permission from Small Government News, the voice of small government published by Carla Howell and edited by Michael Cloud, sponsors of the 2002 Massachusetts Ballot Initiative (Question 1) to End the Income Tax
http://www.SmallGovernmentAct.org
To subscribe to Small Government News, send an email to:
subscribe@smallgovernmentact.org (no message or subject is needed).
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
|