CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Progressive absurdity:
the burden of Bay State taxpayers
Saying Massachusetts compares poorly to other states,
municipal police officials called on lawmakers Wednesday to begin
hitting up motorists to pay for police training.
Under legislation supported by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police
Association, state funding for municipal police training would be
supplemented by a new charge on auto insurance policies equal to one
quarter of 1 percent of all premiums collected. The funds would pay for
training, and overdue facility and equipment upgrades, officials said.
Sixty-four lawmakers have signed on to the bill, sponsored by House
Speaker Pro Tem Thomas Petrolati (D-Ludlow), and heard today by the
Legislature's Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.
Bill supporters say the charge would generate $13 million and add
between $2 and $3 to the average auto insurance premium.
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Dozens of lawmakers support auto insure charge
to fund police training
[Wellesley Police Chief Terrence M. Cunningham] connected
better police training to lower insurance premiums, arguing that putting
officers with better traffic enforcement training on the streets will reduce
accident rates, and thus insurance pay-outs....
Barbara Anderson, who heads Citizens for Limited Taxation, said
she doesn't understand why legislators are singling out auto insurers, who have
no more need for police protection than anyone else.
"What is the connection here?" Anderson said. "If the insurance companies are
being charged a fee for special investigators to investigate insurance fraud,
which has a direct effect on them, then maybe you could make a case for it. But
just for general police training, there is no connection. There is no reason to
charge insurance companies any more than you'd charge a grocery store."
"Besides, that's what our property taxes are for -- police -- and it should be a
priority for our state taxes as well," she said.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Lawmakers eye $15m in surcharges on auto insurers
Surcharges on auto insurers eyed to fund police training
The proposal to allow children of illegal immigrants who have
lived in the state for three years and graduated from high school here to
receive taxpayer-subsidized tuition breaks was vetoed last year by Gov. Mitt
Romney. That the measure wasn't even brought up for an override vote is a pretty
good indication lawmakers understood its controversial nature. It's no less
controversial now, providing plenty of reason to subject the plan to more
legislative scrutiny than the budget debate allows.
Such scrutiny, we believe, will conclude that spending limited state resources
to reward lawbreaking is wrong. But if legislators believe otherwise, they
should be willing to say so in a stand alone up or down vote.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
House budget errs on policy change
“Things never cease to amaze me on Beacon Hill. In the same
budget that told school districts that we cannot afford to reform Chapter 70
funding and informed taxpayers that we cannot afford to roll back their income
tax to the level of 5%, which they approved at the ballot box (2000), the same
budget calls for subsidizing the college education of illegal immigrants” said
Representative Perry from his Sandwich Office this morning....
In 2000, voters approved an initiative petition to roll back the income tax from
5.95% to 5.0% by a wide margin. The rollback was scheduled to be complete by
2003, but the Democrat controlled Legislature has frozen the rate at 5.3% since
2002. According to Representative Perry, “The State enjoyed a $700 million
surplus this year and with a projected cost of the income tax rollback being
$225 million in the first year and a mandate from the voters, the Legislature
has an obligation to roll back the State’s income level. It is not only morally
correct, but it makes good economic sense as lower taxes will lead to increased
consumer spending, and ultimately higher sales and employment tax collections by
the State.”
Representative Perry further clarified his position on taxpayer subsidized
college education for illegal immigrants, “To be clear, I am not against
immigration in the United States or the government providing a helping hand to
those in need. What I am strongly opposed to is providing benefits to those who
are in the United States illegally.”
State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry
Fifth Barnstable
PRESS RELEASE
April 18, 2005
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The Bacon Hill pols raised the the income tax rate
sixteen years ago, "temporarily," but still haven't gotten around to
rolling it all the way back. When the voters did, the Legislature gave
taxpayers the middle-finger Beacon Hill Salute and "froze" the rollback.
Meanwhile, they've doubled state spending. More Is Never Enough (MINE).
Next, they raised all kinds of fees into the
stratosphere -- that's not a "tax increase," they claimed. And the state
budget kept climbing. More Is Never Enough.
Now they're scheming to take even more of our money
by subterfuge, this time calling it "a new charge." Oh, it's only on the
auto insurance companies, the few that remain in Massachusetts, as if
insurers are going to simply absorb the burden and not pass it on to
their customers as every business does. More Is Never Enough.
To make matters more absurd, according to the
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association "putting officers with better
traffic enforcement training on the streets will reduce accident rates"
thus lower insurance premiums.
Then how is it that Massachusetts has one of if not
the highest auto insurance costs in the nation -- yet it is also
the only state with paid police "details," cops at every
construction site? How much more absurd can
things get?
It gets better. The commonwealth can't afford to
train its police, "critical because police are often the first
responders" a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers told the committee yesterday, reminding it of the 9/11 attack
on the World Trade Center. The state can't afford to train its "first
responders"-- but it has money to educate illegal aliens with
taxpayer-subsidized college tuition!
I call this progressive absurdity, a way of life in
the Bay State. What was unthinkably absurd only a short time ago
gradually evolves a step at a time into today's status quo, from which
the next and greater absurdity will grow. Most taxpayers have become
used to older absurdities adopted, have assimilated them and lost their
context. When the next absurdity comes along it's just piled onto a
now-accepted precedent.
First the Legislature imposed a "charge" on homeowner's
insurance for firefighter training, and got away with it. Most forget
how absurd that seemed only a few years back, so now it's time to impose
another "charge."
Soon taxpayers will be programmed for a "charge" on office supply
stores like Staples and OfficeMax. Following the same legislative logic, somebody's
got to pay to train the state's army of bureaucrats. The Legislature
will need the money to transport more illegal aliens into Massachusetts
from their native lands to take advantage of full taxpayer-funded
college and graduate school scholarships.
The Legislature of course still won't be able to
afford rolling back the by-then 18- or 20-year old "temporary" income
tax hike, to thaw the voters' rollback they temporarily "froze" way back in
2002.
By then the state will have collapsed under
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation's "structural deficit" and there will
be nothing else to tax, fee, or charge -- or anyone left in
Massachusetts but illegal aliens lining up in droves for their diplomas.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Dozens of lawmakers support auto insure charge
to fund police training
By Michael P. Norton
Saying Massachusetts compares poorly to other states, municipal police
officials called on lawmakers Wednesday to begin hitting up motorists to
pay for police training.
Under legislation supported by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police
Association, state funding for municipal police training would be
supplemented by a new charge on auto insurance policies equal to one
quarter of 1 percent of all premiums collected. The funds would pay for
training, and overdue facility and equipment upgrades, officials said.
Sixty-four lawmakers have signed on to the bill, sponsored by House
Speaker Pro Tem Thomas Petrolati (D-Ludlow), and heard today by the
Legislature's Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee.
Bill supporters say the charge would generate $13 million and add
between $2 and $3 to the average auto insurance premium. The proposal
would mirror one in existence for firefighters whose training academy in
Stowe, as well as the state fire marshal's office, are funded by an
additional charge tacked onto homeowner's insurance policies.
Police recruits presently must pay $2,700 out of pocket to cover a
portion of the costs of municipal police training.
Braintree Police Chief Paul H. Frazier, president of the Massachusetts
Chiefs of Police Association, said training for municipal police
officers is "limited" due to state and local budget cuts that have
occurred in recent years.
Retired Chief George J. DiBlasi, director of government affairs for the
chiefs association said state funding for municipal police training has
ranged between $2 million and $4 million in recent years. He says $6
million is needed. "You can't take $2 million and train 17,000 police
officers," said DiBlasi.
Association officials say the new charge is warranted because police
provide millions of dollars worth of accident investigation reports to
insurers and, by enforcing laws, prevent accidents that lead to
insurance company claims. They point out that the Legislature years ago
revoked a training surcharge imposed on criminal offenses because
lawmakers wanted to move police training funding onto the state budget.
It hasn't worked out, officials said.
Barnstable County Sheriff James M. Cummings, testifying before the
committee for the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, said local law
enforcement agencies desperately need a source of training funds.
Harbormasters and campus police "are not getting any training," Cummings
said.
"Money is always a problem," said Weymouth Harbormaster Paul Milone,
president of the Massachusetts Harbormasters Association.
Rep. Christopher J. Donelan, a committee member and former police
officer, applauded the police officers for their innovation and recalled
his own training at the Western Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training
Center in Agawam. "The most important thing a police officer will
receive is that initial training," Donelan said.
Ray McGrath, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers and a former Worcester police officer, told lawmakers training
is critical because police are often the first responders. Recalling the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, McGrath said it was not members of
the Armed Forces who were the first on the scene at the World Trade
Center. "It was the police officers and firefighters of the City of New
York," McGrath said. "Without training, we have no recourse," McGrath
said. "This would be a tremendous asset for the police departments and
the officers involved."
No one testified against the legislation (H 1880), although Frazier
expects resistance from the insurance industry.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Lawmakers eye $15m in surcharges on auto insurers
Surcharges on auto insurers eyed to fund police training
By Raphael Lewis and Scott S. Greenberger
Beacon Hill lawmakers are seeking to impose $15 million in new
surcharges on auto insurers, costs that would probably be passed on to
consumers, to pay for police training.
The move is being fiercely opposed by the auto insurance industry, which
argues that the state is already inhospitable to insurers and the new
fee would drive more companies out of the state.
"The amount we commit to the tax revenue and additional assessments in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts probably exceeds any other regulated
industry," said James Harrington, executive director of the
Massachusetts Insurance Federation. "We intend to use all the energy
available to defeat this ill-conceived measure."
The bill would require companies to pay a charge equal to one-quarter of
1 percent of all premiums collected.
Backed by several dozen lawmakers, the bill is a response to complaints
from police chiefs, who say recent state budget cuts have left municipal
police departments without training in key areas. They say some officers
are forced to personally pay $2,300 for their mandatory basic training
course.
"I don't want to be overly dramatic, but I have to be honest, I don't
think people understand how critical the situation has become," said
Wellesley Police Chief Terrence M. Cunningham, the Massachusetts Chiefs
of Police Association's legislative committee chairman, who testified in
favor of the bill at a State House hearing yesterday.
Insurance companies would almost certainly seek to pass on the new
surcharge to drivers, according to Daniel Johnston, president of the
Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts, an industry group. He
estimated that the cost for each driver would be about $4 per year.
The state Division of Insurance, which is a part of Romney's
administration, criticized the idea of increasing auto insurance
premiums at a time when bills in Massachusetts are already sky-high. The
average driver in the state pays about $1,100 a year for insurance.
Governor Mitt Romney and Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly have been
working on plans to lower auto insurance rates, and Romney has been
emphasizing reducing state regulation to entice more companies to write
policies here. The companies have long complained the state's heavily
regulated rates make it difficult to make money here.
"With a broken auto insurance system in Massachusetts, we're all about
trying to fix it and ultimately reduce the costs that consumers pay,"
said Christopher Goetcheus, a spokesman for the Division of Insurance.
There are 19 auto insurance companies operating here, compared with 60
to 100 companies in surrounding states, according to Goetcheus. He said
any increase in insurers' costs may induce more of them to leave.
"If you're asking the auto insurers to fund police training, that would
be built into their costs, which would be built into their filing for
forthcoming rate cases, which ultimately could lead to an impact on
consumers," he said.
For the past two years, the Legislature has earmarked $2.4 million a
year for police training courses, but that figure was substantially
higher prior to the fiscal crisis of 2002 to 2004, Cunningham said. At
current funding levels, he said, the state has been unable to provide
specialized training to officers in the areas of traffic enforcement.
In addition, several types of non-municipal law enforcement officers who
once qualified for training, such as harbormasters and sheriff's
deputies, are no longer offered classroom space.
Cunningham connected better police training to lower insurance premiums,
arguing that putting officers with better traffic enforcement training
on the streets will reduce accident rates, and thus insurance pay-outs.
"If we can get the insurance industry to partner with us on this idea,
we can guarantee them that the number of claims will be reduced and the
end user would see a little bit of relief," Cunningham said.
The measure mirrors a surcharge now imposed on homeowner insurance that
helps pay for firefighter training.
Critics, however, said the connection between police training and auto
insurance is tenuous at best.
"Police protection is a public function, and it should be paid for by
city and town taxpayers, not the insurance companies or people who buy
insurance policies, for that matter," Johnston said.
Barbara Anderson, who heads Citizens for Limited Taxation, said she
doesn't understand why legislators are singling out auto insurers, who
have no more need for police protection than anyone else.
"What is the connection here?" Anderson said. "If the insurance
companies are being charged a fee for special investigators to
investigate insurance fraud, which has a direct effect on them, then
maybe you could make a case for it. But just for general police
training, there is no connection. There is no reason to charge insurance
companies any more than you'd charge a grocery store."
"Besides, that's what our property taxes are for -- police -- and it
should be a priority for our state taxes as well," she said.
House Speaker Pro Tempore Thomas M. Petrolati, the Ludlow Democrat who
authored the bill, did not return calls seeking comment.
But a prominent cosponsor of the bill, Senate Public Safety Committee
chairman Jarrett T. Barrios, a Cambridge Democrat whose committee held
the hearing yesterday, said the measure would fill a crucial gap while
creating minimal pain for drivers. He added that legislative Democrats
were only stepping in where Romney hadn't.
"The problem of adequately funding training for our first-responders has
persisted through the Romney years, and while the governor has failed in
his budgets to fund training for these men and women who put their lives
on the line every day, this bill seems to provide a reasonable solution
at a minimal cost, less than a penny a day to those who are insured to
drive in Massachusetts," Barrios said.
"For anyone who seeks to oppose this bill, I would expect them to
provide an alternative source of revenue for this critical source of
training," he said.
Romney last year appointed a task force to revamp the state's auto
insurance laws.
Material from State House News Service was used in this report.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
A Boston Herald editorial
House budget errs on policy change
Tacking major policy changes onto the state budget has been as
commonplace as, well, illegal immigrants slipping across our borders.
But this year House Speaker Sal DiMasi promised a "clean" budget,
meaning changes in welfare, health care and education will see the light
of day only after a thoughtful committee review.
So what gives with DiMasi including the major policy change of granting
illegal immigrants the same tuition breaks at public colleges and
universities as legal state residents? Both procedurally and
substantively, this is a bad move.
DiMasi surprised Beacon Hill insiders - and pleased fiscal conservatives
and good government advocates alike - with his decision to restrict
outside sections to language changes relating specifically to line-item
spending, reducing the number of budget riders to just 34. It will take
the steely discipline of House leaders to keep rank and file members
from growing that number substantially during floor debate. But DiMasi's
upper-hand there has already been diminished by being the first to muck
up the House's straightforward spending blueprint.
The proposal to allow children of illegal immigrants who have lived in
the state for three years and graduated from high school here to receive
taxpayer-subsidized tuition breaks was vetoed last year by Gov. Mitt
Romney. That the measure wasn't even brought up for an override vote is
a pretty good indication lawmakers understood its controversial nature.
It's no less controversial now, providing plenty of reason to subject
the plan to more legislative scrutiny than the budget debate allows.
Such scrutiny, we believe, will conclude that spending limited state
resources to reward lawbreaking is wrong. But if legislators believe
otherwise, they should be willing to say so in a stand alone up or down
vote.
Return to top
State Representative Jeffrey D. Perry
Fifth Barnstable
PRESS RELEASE
April 18, 2005
Representative Perry moves to eliminate college tuition payments
for illegal immigrants and to reduce State Income Tax to 5%
“Things never cease to amaze me on Beacon Hill. In the same budget that
told school districts that we cannot afford to reform Chapter 70 funding
and informed taxpayers that we cannot afford to roll back their income
tax to the level of 5%, which they approved at the ballot box (2000),
the same budget calls for subsidizing the college education of illegal
immigrants” said Representative Perry from his Sandwich Office this
morning.
In an effort to provide some level of common sense, on April 14, 2005,
Representative Perry filed a budget amendment to the State Budget to
strike "Outside Section 5," which will allow illegal immigrants to
obtain in-state, discounted tuition, subsidized by the taxpayers of
Massachusetts. Representative Perry also filed an amendment to reduce
the income tax level back to the 5% level as the voters have required
the Legislature to do more that four years ago.
In 2000, voters approved an initiative petition to roll back the income
tax from 5.95% to 5.0% by a wide margin. The rollback was scheduled to
be complete by 2003, but the Democrat controlled Legislature has frozen
the rate at 5.3% since 2002. According to Representative Perry, “The
State enjoyed a $700 million surplus this year and with a projected cost
of the income tax rollback being $225 million in the first year and a
mandate from the voters, the Legislature has an obligation to roll back
the State’s income level. It is not only morally correct, but it makes
good economic sense as lower taxes will lead to increased consumer
spending, and ultimately higher sales and employment tax collections by
the State.”
Representative Perry further clarified his position on taxpayer
subsidized college education for illegal immigrants, “To be clear, I am
not against immigration in the United States or the government providing
a helping hand to those in need. What I am strongly opposed to is
providing benefits to those who are in the United States illegally.”
In fact, the United States is properly admitting approximately 900,000
legal immigrants every year, and annual immigration is swelled by
another 300,000 people who illegally cross the borders of the United
States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that about
5 million illegal aliens currently reside in the United States.
Massachusetts ranks 7th highest in the Nation with an estimated 311,000
illegal citizens.
Representative Perry commented on the financial impact an unknown number
of illegal immigrant students could have on our university system, “The
funding for the Massachusetts University System has been significantly
reduced over the past few years. To add an unknown number of students to
a struggling and overburdened system does not seem fiscally prudent.”
“Outside Section 5” does not provide an estimate as to the number of
illegal immigrant students who would take advantage of this entitlement
or what that cost would be to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth.
According to recent statistics, the net cost difference between an
in-state and non-resident student at UMASS is $8,000 per year. With a
potentially large number of illegal immigrants expected to take
advantage of this program, it is easy to see how the costs can quickly
add up.
By providing a greater level of benefits (education, welfare, or
drivers' licenses) to illegal immigrants in Massachusetts, it is
reasonable to assume that a number of illegal immigrant families will
choose to locate or relocate to the Commonwealth to take advantage of
our generous benefits.
“Our State Legislature should not be in the business of promoting
illegal behavior or encouraging illegal immigrants to relocate to
Massachusetts. Beyond the potentially huge financial impact on a variety
of State programs, these individuals will also be competing against
Massachusetts citizens for space in our university system, State
programs, housing, and in the employment market. This is not good public
policy” said Representative Perry.
Regarding the use of the budget to change public policy, Representative
Perry commented, “The use of an outside section of the State's $25
billion budget is not the appropriate place to offer changes to State
Government policy. The issues related to the benefits and costs of
programs for illegal immigrants are controversial and deserve a full and
fair hearing in the public’s view with an opportunity for citizen
comment. This issue should be sent to the appropriate legislative
committees, such as the Committee on Higher Education as well as the
Ways and Means Committee where supporters and opponents can be heard. By
using the "back pages" of the State Budget, the people of Massachusetts
lose the opportunity to be heard and the Legislature further opens
itself up to the public perception of “back room deals” in the State
House.”
Representative Perry concluded his comments by stating, “By allowing
discounted tuition for illegal immigrants, we are putting these
individuals ahead of American citizens who happen not to live in
Massachusetts. We are also putting illegal immigrant students ahead of
students from foreign countries that choose to educate themselves in the
United States legally. The common theme I hear from the lobbyists
pushing this measure is an argument based on sympathy and that it is
“for the children.” We are supposed to be a Nation of Laws and not one
where the sympathy for someone allows government to ignore the
violations of law. By promoting State benefits for those who are in the
Commonwealth illegally, we are taking yet another step away from not
only common sense, but from the respect for law and order in America.”
####
The rollback amendment is #774 and the amendment to
strike Outside Section 5 is #126.
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
|