CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
MTF column is ammunition for tax-and-spend
"TEAM"
South Shore legislators are proposing more than $21 million in
additions to the state budget for pet projects and hometown needs.
They range from $25,000 for the Plymouth Boys and Girls Club to $12
million to purchase land for open space in Braintree. In between, there
is $50,000 for a boat ramp in North Quincy, $500,000 for crime lab
equipment for the Plymouth County sheriff and $2.5 million for sea wall
repairs in Hull....
But lawmakers defend the practice, saying they have a responsibility to
fight for spending items and programs important to their
constituents....
Budget watchdogs frown upon legislators tacking spending projects onto
the state budget, and add that many items amount to legislative pork.
"In a better world, the amendments would all make sense and be worth
debating," said Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "This
is simply pork, they go in and get as much money as they can for their
districts."
The Patriot Ledger
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
South Shore pols' pet projects pad state budget
After resisting pressure from rank and file lawmakers to add money for pet
projects, House budget leaders relented yesterday, tacking dozens of local
initiatives onto the proposed $23.7 billion state spending plan.
The funding maneuver, known as an “earmark” in Beacon Hill lingo, sets aside a
certain amount of a budget line item for a specific local program — typically at
the request of the lawmaker who represents the city or town where the program is
located....
In the first two days of debate, House lawmakers added about $13 million to the
budget....
But lawmakers say earmarks are often the one sure way to bring home money for
important local projects.
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Local earmarks in $23.7B state budget
The Democrats in the Legislature wanted to give you that tax
cut they promised you in 1989 and that you voted for in 2000, but they just
couldn't "afford" it.
By a 135-21 vote Monday, the hacks in the House decided to keep the money ...
for the children. Their children, not yours, unless your name is Donovan....
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
So many mouths to feed at public trough
By Howie Carr
Despite the widespread perception that improving revenues
signal the end of the Commonwealth's financial woes, largely uncontrollable
spending in a handful of major programs is outpacing revenue growth, leaving
next to nothing for restoring budget cuts, funding new initiatives, or enacting
major tax cuts.
While this "growth gap" will sharply limit the state's budgetary flexibility in
2006, the larger story and more difficult lesson in fiscal reality is that the
Commonwealth faces similarly tight budgets for years to come.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, April 24, 2005
State budget squeeze play
By Michael J. Widmer
Michael Widmer's lucid op-ed "State budget squeeze play"
(April 24) explained how difficult it will be to reverse the $3 billion in
painful budget cuts.
What caused this crisis? During the 1990s Massachusetts became one of the most
aggressive tax-cutting states in America, cutting taxes by more than $3 billion.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Letter to the editor by Noah Berger
Repeal some of state tax cuts
For the third consecutive year, Governor Romney has
proposed significant changes in the tax laws affecting corporations
doing business in Massachusetts. Although some of the 168 sections of
the Governor’s bill simplify and modernize the Commonwealth’s tax laws,
the proposed changes in tax policy and administrative discretion are
actually more sweeping than the administration’s previous two "loophole
closing” packages combined and continue a major reversal of the progress
that Massachusetts made during the 1990s in improving its tax climate.
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
Bulletin - February 17, 2005
Proposed Business Tax Increases:
"Taxachusetts” Revisited?
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
You might believe we were right about the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation when its president, Michael
Widmer, has a column published in the Boston Globe just days before the
House debate over whether to keep the 16-year broken promise broken or
finally roll back the "temporary" income tax hike. His op-ed provided
MTF's usual cover for tax-and-spend legislators. They in turn gave the
middle-finger Beacon Hill salute to taxpayers and 59 percent of the
voters and could justify it by quoting the alleged "nonpartisan MTF."
But you know we are right when today his column is
praised as "lucid" by Noah Berger, executive director of the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center -- formerly known as TEAM ("Tax
Everything And More") -- and provided Berger with an excuse to call for
higher taxes.
"Formed in 1987 as a liberal counterweight to
Citizens for Limited Taxation, the Tax Equity Alliance for
Massachusetts has made the case for public spending and progressive
taxation with the same zeal its foes have brought to their anti-tax
crusades. But after 15 years in the tax-battle mosh pit, TEAM is
getting a makeover. Shedding its name -- and well-known acronym -- for
a wonkier moniker, the organization-formerly-known-as-TEAM has recast
itself as the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center....
"Citizens for Limited Taxation executive director
Barbara Anderson, who says the TEAM acronym should have stood
for "tax everything and more," sees the name change as an effort to
camouflage the group's left-wing image. "I think they're trying to get
away from TEAM because people aren't into liberals anymore," says
Anderson."
(CommonWealth magazine, Fall 2002: "Changing
their name, but not their stripes," by Michael Jonas)
Can this be the same Michael Widmer and MTF whose
February "bulletin" complained about proposed state tax policy and
suggested that the Bay State is headed for the "Taxachusetts" mantle
again? You'll notice MTF's concern in its bulletin is raised over
proposals to eliminate "loop holes" on Widmer's fat-cat patrons. It must
be embarrassing to be such a transparent hypocrite and shameless
corporate shill.
I was just thinking. Back in 1989 when the
Legislature debated and passed the income tax hike, we know it was
promised to be only "temporary." We have the quotes to prove it (see "Was
it a Promise or wasn't it? You decide." --
a PDF file; requires Acrobat Reader).
But I recently recalled, besides "temporary" it was
also sold as being for "only 18 months" on a number of occasions. On
July 9, 1989, for instance, the Middlesex News (now the MetroWest Daily
News) reported: "In defending his vote, Rep. David P. Magnani yesterday
emphasized that the hikes would only be in place for 18 months and that
revenue generated would only go towards past bills."
"Only in place for 18 months"? "Revenue generated
would only go towards past bills"?
In but another two years, those "18 months" will
become -- 18 YEARS!
And they wonder how we ever got this cynical, why
legislators can't be believed, trusted or respected?
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Editorial cartoon by David Hitch
The Patriot Ledger
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
South Shore pols' pet projects pad state budget
By Tom Benner, State House Bureau
South Shore legislators are proposing more than $21 million in additions
to the state budget for pet projects and hometown needs.
They range from $25,000 for the Plymouth Boys and Girls Club to $12
million to purchase land for open space in Braintree. In between, there
is $50,000 for a boat ramp in North Quincy, $500,000 for crime lab
equipment for the Plymouth County sheriff and $2.5 million for sea wall
repairs in Hull.
The original $23.6 billion House spending plan for the fiscal year
starting July 1 was unveiled two weeks ago. It sought to drop so-called
"earmarks," or money for local projects added to the budget. But many of
the earmarks have since been revived as proposed budget amendments.
The overwhelming majority of the 1,309 budget riders filed this year
will be dropped by the time representatives finish debating the budget
this week. But others will make their way into law, meaning more money
for the districts of successful lawmakers.
Gov. Mitt Romney has been critical of the time-honored practice of
legislators using the budget to tell state agencies how and where to
spend their money. Romney has the ability to veto specific line items
from the budget once it reaches his desk.
But lawmakers defend the practice, saying they have a responsibility to
fight for spending items and programs important to their constituents.
"Our job is to advocate for our district," said Rep. Thomas O'Brien, a
Kingston Democrat who along with Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth, wants
$70,000 for new lights and to resurface Elmer Raymond Field in Plymouth.
"We certainly don't want to have other communities receive earmarked
funds and find out we missed an opportunity to secure funds for projects
that are important for our communities."
Budget watchdogs frown upon legislators tacking spending projects onto
the state budget, and add that many items amount to legislative pork.
"In a better world, the amendments would all make sense and be worth
debating," said Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "This
is simply pork, they go in and get as much money as they can for their
districts."
Rep. Walter Timilty, a Milton Democrat, proposes spending $100,000 to
bring the mounted ranger unit back to the Blue Hills Reservation. The
amendment would reverse a decision by the state Department of
Conservation and Recreation to disband the unit.
While many proposed amendments concern specific projects in cities or
towns, others target specific constituencies.
Rep. Louis Kafka, a Stoughton Democrat, wants to restore a $5 per day,
per resident subsidy to nursing homes that serve kosher foods.
Because serving kosher foods involves a cost, the state Division of
Medical Assistance has traditionally paid a subsidy to nursing homes
with kosher kitchens. Kafka said the subsidy - which adds up to just
under $1 million a year - was mistakenly dropped from the House budget
proposal and needs to be restored.
The South Shore's most frequent filer of budget amendments is Rep.
Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham, with 29. Rep. Frank Hynes, D-Marshfield, has
none because he missed a filing deadline, an aide said.
Kim Haberlein, spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, said that
while the amendments will be considered on their merit, many will be set
aside.
"We have finite resources, there's not a lot of room for growth in this
budget," she said.
Return to top
The Associated Press
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Local earmarks in $23.7B state budget
After resisting pressure from rank and file lawmakers to add money for
pet projects, House budget leaders relented yesterday, tacking dozens of
local initiatives onto the proposed $23.7 billion state spending plan.
The funding maneuver, known as an “earmark” in Beacon Hill lingo, sets
aside a certain amount of a budget line item for a specific local
program — typically at the request of the lawmaker who represents the
city or town where the program is located.
Each earmark doesn’t necessarily add to the bottom line of the budget.
In the first two days of debate, House lawmakers added about $13 million
to the budget.
Some of the earmarks approved yesterday included $104,123 for a teen
parenting program in Framingham, $50,000 for a transitional housing
program in Lynn, $30,000 for a Big Brothers and Big Sisters program on
Cape Cod, and $50,000 for an Alzheimer’s program in Springfield.
Other earmarks include $12 million for school nurses and school-based
health centers; $150,000 for a children’s anti-obesity school nutrition
pilot program; $81,000 for a statewide Lupus database; and $120,000 to
combat domestic violence among gay men.
When House Democratic leaders initially unveiled the stripped-down
budget, they urged fellow lawmakers to resist the urge to add earmarks
to the spending plan.
Critics say the practice undermines the integrity of the budget by
siphoning money away from state agencies and departments. They say
department heads should have a freer hand to decide how to spend the
money allotted to their agencies.
But lawmakers say earmarks are often the one sure way to bring home
money for important local projects. They say they know what’s best for
their communities, and point out the earmarks are often relatively small
amounts of money compared to the entire budget.
The earmarks were approved as the House entered the second day of budget
debate, with much of the action taking place off-stage.
During the course of the day, lawmakers met in closed-door sessions to
hash out differences and consolidate dozens of amendments into a single
document. They then emerged to approve the mega-amendment, often with
little debate, before returning to the private sessions.
Other earmarks added to the budget yesterday include:
• $15,000 for an anti-violence program in Saugus;
• $50,000 for a homeless women’s shelter in Cambridge;
• $250,000 for a safe neighborhoods program in the Dorchester
neighborhood of Boston.
The House is expected to continue debating the budget for several days.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
So many mouths to feed at public trough
By Howie Carr
The Democrats in the Legislature wanted to give you that tax cut they
promised you in 1989 and that you voted for in 2000, but they just
couldn't "afford" it.
By a 135-21 vote Monday, the hacks in the House decided to keep the
money ... for the children. Their children, not yours, unless your name
is Donovan.
If you'd like to get some idea of the kind of "children" who are cashing
in on a budget awash with billions of dollars, consider the case of Matt
Donovan.
You may not know the name, but you've seen him on TV, over and over and
over again. He's the idiot in the stands at Fenway last week who threw
the beer on Yankees outfielder Gary Sheffield. He's going to have a
hearing soon in the BMC, and remember, everyone is considered innocent
until proven guilty, especially a hack with beer on his breath.
And be assured, Matt is a hack's hack, a second-generation payroll
patriot. He is a $68,280.90-a-year "assistant clerk magistrate" in the
juvenile court in Cambridge, picked after a nationwide search that had
absolutely nothing to do with the fact that his father, Michael Donovan,
is the $88,675.50-a-year clerk of the Superior Court, civil, across the
river in Boston.
This is how it works in the hackerama. Your rotten kid doesn't work
directly for you. You get somebody else to hire the young nitwit, and
then, when your son's benefactor has some churlish youth of his own in
need of gainful unemployment ... well, one hand washes the other, shall
we say.
But the two Donovans, father and son, are merely the beginning of the
Donovans slurping at the public trough. And there are scores - make that
hundreds - of layabout clans just like them, larded, in more ways than
one, across every state payroll.
Think Matt Donovan and multiply him by 10,000, and remember that after
20 or 30 Bunker Hill Days, his pension will be five or six times larger
than yours.
Matt did not return a call yesterday; neither did his father; and
neither did a woman reliably reported to be Matt's wife, who is also
employed in the court system of Suffolk County, for $36,341.32 a year.
More of the Donovan family tree: Mike has a $68,280.90-a-year assistant
clerk on his payroll named Steve Donovan. That would be his brother.
Clerk Donovan also has a $30,412.71-a-year assistant named Kathy Noone;
that would be Mike's wife, cleverly using her maiden name so no one will
ever figure out who she's married to. She is Matt's stepmother.
Kathy Noone has a sister named Peggy. Peggy is married to John Nucci,
who is the $97,544-a-year clerk of the Suffolk Superior Court, criminal
division.
Small world, isn't it?
Nucci used to be on the City Council, where he served with Richie
Iannella, who has also moved to the courthouse, where he is the register
of probate. His father, Chris, was on the City Council, and his brother,
Chris Jr., is on the Governor's Council, where he serves with Kelly
Timilty, whose brother is a state senator (as was her father, before he
went to prison).
Kelly also has a cousin who is a state rep, and whose uncle is a ...
court clerk, in Norfolk County.
I mention this only so that you can understand why you can't get the tax
cut you were promised and voted for. Your money is going to the children
- the children named Donovan and Timilty and Iannella.
One final question: do you think Matt Donovan will be able to get a fair
shake in the halls of justice?
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 Boston Globe
Sunday, April 24, 2005
State budget squeeze play
By Michael J. Widmer
As a sizeable number of Beacon Hill leaders working to craft the 2006
state budget already know and others are quickly discovering, the
reality of the state's finances is far different from the expectations
that accompany an economic recovery.
Despite the widespread perception that improving revenues signal the end
of the Commonwealth's financial woes, largely uncontrollable spending in
a handful of major programs is outpacing revenue growth, leaving next to
nothing for restoring budget cuts, funding new initiatives, or enacting
major tax cuts.
While this "growth gap" will sharply limit the state's budgetary
flexibility in 2006, the larger story and more difficult lesson in
fiscal reality is that the Commonwealth faces similarly tight budgets
for years to come.
This austere outlook is counterintuitive. The state has painfully worked
itself out of the severe fiscal crisis triggered by the 15 percent
plunge in tax revenues in fiscal 2002, generating a small operating
surplus at the end of fiscal 2004. While job growth remains anemic,
personal income in the state is increasing at a healthy pace, and tax
revenues are on the rise.
For those with memories of the fiscal crisis of 1988-1992, and the
decade-long economic surge that followed, there are expectations that
the state can begin to reverse the large spending cuts of the past few
years, and take on major new initiatives as well. Unfortunately, the
fiscal landscape the state confronts today is vastly different from a
decade and a half ago:
Largely unavoidable increases in some of the biggest areas of state
spending Medicaid and other health care, capital investments, school
building, and other education aid, among others are now requiring almost
a billion dollars of additional spending each year, compared with likely
revenue growth of about $700 million in both fiscal 2005 and 2006. For
much of the 1990s, the state had to deal with only one major financial
commitment: to increase dramatically its contributions to local schools
as part of education reform. At the same time, Medicaid spending was
close to flat.
While annual revenue growth is likely to be healthy over the next
several years, the expected performance is a far cry from the
double-digit increases of the late 1990s. Based on history, the state
can expect economic and revenue growth of about 5.5 percent, or $850
million, a year on average. At this level, the budget squeeze will
continue beyond 2006 $850 million is only slightly more than the revenue
growth assumed for the 2006 budget and is still not enough to pay for
all of the mostly non-controllable growth in spending.
Contrary to popular impressions, the Commonwealth is not awash in huge
budgetary surpluses. After accounting for one-time funds and deferred
costs, fiscal 2004 revenues exceeded expenditures by only $200 million,
a minuscule 0.9 percent. While fiscal 2005 revenues are on track to
exceed the forecast by as much as $500 million, the budget relies on
almost a billion dollars of nonrecurring revenues and savings to pay for
ongoing program costs, leaving a roughly $500 million structural gap
going into fiscal 2006.
What emerges is a picture of extremely tight finances in the coming
year, confirmed by the "bare bones" budgets proposed by the governor and
the House Ways and Means Committee, and, more important, a set of
longer-term forces that allow almost no relief from the fiscal squeeze
for the foreseeable future. With largely nondiscretionary growth in
annual spending consuming most, if not all, revenue growth, the state
will have little capacity to restore any significant portion of the
roughly $3 billion of spending cuts imposed during the fiscal crisis or
to finance expensive new initiatives, such as the $1 billion commitment
to early child education and the unknown, but surely large, costs of
expanded healthcare coverage.
This spells big trouble for higher education, public health, and other
important programs that have been decimated by the recent spending
reductions, for municipalities who have had to lay off teachers, reduce
services, and raise taxes and fees to offset cuts in state aid, and for
those who want an increased state commitment to help fulfill the promise
of education reform. Any hope of addressing these concerns will depend
on reining in the growth in healthcare costs, which now account for
one-third of state spending, and restoring the more than 200,000 jobs
lost during the recession.
Michael J. Widmer is president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Letter to the editor
Repeal some of state tax cuts
by Noah Berger
Michael Widmer's lucid op-ed "State budget squeeze play" (April 24)
explained how difficult it will be to reverse the $3 billion in painful
budget cuts.
What caused this crisis? During the 1990s Massachusetts became one of
the most aggressive tax-cutting states in America, cutting taxes by more
than $3 billion.
When the recession came, Massachusetts paid for these tax cuts by
cutting higher education funding by 24 percent in real terms and by
leading the nation from 2002 to 2004 in state cuts to K-12 education.
The state also ended healthcare benefits for thousands of low-income
people and underpays the providers that care for them.
To grow our economy, we need new priorities:
1. We must insure that our people are the best educated and trained in
America.
2. We must invest in healthcare to protect all and strengthen the
healthcare and life sciences sectors that could power our economy.
As Massachusetts led the nation in job losses during the recession, it
appears that cutting taxes was not an effective job policy. Perhaps it
is time to repeal some of those tax cuts so we can afford to build a
strong economic future.
Noah Berger
Executive director
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center
Boston
Return to top
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
Bulletin - February 17, 2005
Governor’s 2006 Budget: Continued Lean Times;
Medicaid Accounting Change Key to Balance
Sidebar: Proposed Business Tax Increases:
"Taxachusetts” Revisited?
For the third consecutive year, Governor Romney has proposed significant
changes in the tax laws affecting corporations doing business in
Massachusetts. Although some of the 168 sections of the Governor’s bill
simplify and modernize the Commonwealth’s tax laws, the proposed changes
in tax policy and administrative discretion are actually more sweeping
than the administration’s previous two "loophole closing” packages
combined and continue a major reversal of the progress that
Massachusetts made during the 1990s in improving its tax climate.
The most far-reaching provisions would give the Commissioner of Revenue
unprecedented authority—broader than that available to the IRS or any
other state revenue commissioner—to increase the tax liability of many
of the state’s largest employers, undercutting the predictability that
is central to a fair and equitable tax system.
Under the banner of "loophole closing,” other provisions expand existing
taxes or impose new ones, including extending the sales tax to
prewritten or "canned” software that is delivered electronically to the
purchaser, applying the deeds excise tax to the transfer of ownership of
a business that owns real property in the state, and imposing the
corporate income tax on some income of non-profit organizations, and
establish several new penalties which would be imposed largely at the
discretion of the Commissioner.
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
|