CLT
UPDATE
Monday, September 19, 2005
Can they stop just the lying,
please?
Communities around the state are relying more heavily
on property taxes to fund basic services, according to the report by the
Municipal Finance Task Force, a group of representatives from the
private and public sectors and academia.
"This is not only not healthy but it's not sustainable, and something
will have to give," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation and a task force member.
In 1990, property taxes represented 48 percent of total municipal
revenues; in 2004, the percentage jumped to 53 percent, according to the
task force, which conducted a comprehensive analysis of trends in
municipal finance over the past 25 years....
The state's Proposition 2½ tax-limiting law is supposed to rein in
tax increases. But in many communities, residents have approved
overrides of the law so more money can be raised. Also, many say that
with rising home values, the burden of property taxes has shifted toward
homeowners, rather than businesses.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation,
said the tax increases would be even greater if it weren't for the law.
She said that when her group pushed for the law, it envisioned
communities overriding the tax limits only for unexpected costs such as
court settlements.
"It was unthinkable that people would be passing overrides for operating
budgets to pay salaries," Anderson said.
Local officials said the high cost of providing health insurance
coverage for current and retired town employees is the biggest problem.
A recent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report found that municipal
health insurance premiums have increased by more than 60 percent since
2001....
Local officials can do little to curb healthcare costs because insurance
is negotiated as part of union collective bargaining agreements.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Weston is tops in state for property-tax increases
With a federal deadline fast approaching, liberal state
lawmakers and social services advocates are gearing up for a fight this week
over efforts by Governor Mitt Romney and a House panel to dramatically increase
the number of welfare recipients who have to work ...
Some 46,300 families are on welfare in Massachusetts, which has work
requirements and time limits for benefits that are among the most lenient in the
nation. About 11,600 recipients are required to work....
"The principle of encouraging work with welfare is so clearly established that
Massachusetts shouldn't run from it, but should embrace it," Romney said. "The
rest of the nation embraced welfare reform, including work, some years ago. It's
time for us to do the same thing."
But in an interview with the Globe last week, House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi
said Romney's proposal "cuts [welfare recipients] off at the knees." ...
When the Massachusetts welfare overhaul was signed into law in February 1995,
there were about 103,000 families getting $693 million per year in cash
assistance. Today, 46,300 families get about $313 million per year.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 18, 2005
New fight brewing on welfare overhaul
Liberals oppose Romney job plan
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Can we please have rational policy discussions
without the lying, even for once?
How stupid do they think their constituents are? I
guess we know the answer without waiting for it: pretty stupid.
"Local officials can do little to curb healthcare
costs because insurance is negotiated as part of union collective
bargaining agreements," the Boston Globe reported -- as if these
negotiated bargaining agreements are passed down from on high like Moses
with his Commandments. Just who is doing the negotiating?
Who is agreeing with the contracts, making them into
law -- the Holy Ghost?!?
And we're going to simply ignore the federal mandate
for welfare reform, and suffer no consequences? That's not what they
were arguing about federal highway funds if we didn't adopt a mandatory
seat belt law only a few years back, as the feds "encouraged," as with
so many other federal "mandates."
"'Presently we are spending state money on welfare,
and we are getting money from the federal government,'" the Boston Globe
reported State Rep. Cynthia Creem declared. "'We can do this without
spending any more money. We just have to make sure that some 14,000
people who are exempt now are funded through the state.'"
Uh, just how do we state taxpayers do that "without
spending any more money"?
Can we all just approach these major policy issues
using taxpayer dollars for once with truthfulness, not with the usual
deceptions? Is this too much to ask? We're continually lectured that
"we're all in this together." Must it always be winning-at-any-cost
including integrity, or what passes for it these days?
Can't we have for once at least an honest
discussion?
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Weston is tops in state for property-tax increases
By Jennifer Fenn Lefferts, Globe Correspondent
Residents in Boston's western suburbs have been saddled with some of the
biggest property tax bill increases in the state in the past few years,
and there's no relief in sight, analysts say.
From fiscal 2000 to fiscal 2005, average tax bills rose more than $1,000
overall in 25 out of the 34 communities for which data were available.
The average increase statewide was $910.
Nine communities saw increases of more than $2,000. And affluent Weston
had the highest dollar increase in the state, $3,703, bringing the
typical bill in that town to a staggering $11,767, according to data
from a recently released study.
The cities and towns saw percentage increases in their tax bills that
ranged from 28 percent in Maynard to 66 percent in Southborough.
Communities around the state are relying more heavily on property taxes
to fund basic services, according to the report by the Municipal Finance
Task Force, a group of representatives from the private and public
sectors and academia.
"This is not only not healthy but it's not sustainable, and something
will have to give," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation and a task force member.
In 1990, property taxes represented 48 percent of total municipal
revenues; in 2004, the percentage jumped to 53 percent, according to the
task force, which conducted a comprehensive analysis of trends in
municipal finance over the past 25 years.
With rising expenses, state aid stalled, and population on the rise,
communities have also been forced to increase fees and cut services,
experts said.
"The report underscores the fact that local communities are facing a
long-term fiscal squeeze. The problem is getting worse and gets more
difficult over time," Widmer said.
The state's Proposition 2½ tax-limiting law is supposed to rein in
tax increases. But in many communities, residents have approved
overrides of the law so more money can be raised. Also, many say that
with rising home values, the burden of property taxes has shifted toward
homeowners, rather than businesses.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
said the tax increases would be even greater if it weren't for the law.
She said that when her group pushed for the law, it envisioned
communities overriding the tax limits only for unexpected costs such as
court settlements.
"It was unthinkable that people would be passing overrides for operating
budgets to pay salaries," Anderson said.
Local officials said the high cost of providing health insurance
coverage for current and retired town employees is the biggest problem.
A recent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation report found that municipal
health insurance premiums have increased by more than 60 percent since
2001.
"Health insurance is a huge budget-buster," said Donna VanderClock,
Weston's acting town manager.
Local officials can do little to curb healthcare costs because insurance
is negotiated as part of union collective bargaining agreements.
VanderClock said there is state legislation pending that would allow
health insurance to be negotiated outside the union contracts, which
would give cities and towns more control.
David Lunny, chairman of the Upton Board of Selectmen, where the average
bill rose from $2,498 in 2000 to $4,119 in 2005, said strong population
growth in town forced higher taxes to pay for additional services.
He said the board increased nonunion employee contributions to health
insurance from 10 percent to 25 percent over the next three years and
wants the unions to go along with a similar increase.
The report stated that local government has been working hard to control
costs and is not to blame for the rising cost of services and rising
taxes.
Since 1981, per capita annual growth for municipal budgets has averaged
only 1.1 percent after adjusting for inflation. The report also found
that Massachusetts communities have cut workers more steeply than
municipalities in any other state.
John P. Hamill, chairman of Sovereign Bank New England and the leader of
the task force, said the current trend will only force cities and towns
to make further cuts in services -- and residents will lose faith in
local government.
"Town by town, we're seeing a growing discontent among citizens because
they see their taxes going up but services going down," Hamill said.
The largest hikes in the western suburbs tended to come in the most
affluent communities where bills were already high in 2000.
The report didn't focus on percentage increases in bills or examine the
relationship between the bills and the ability of the people in the
community to pay them.
The report does lay out a series of recommendations.
They include:
l Adopting a policy that guarantees that a fixed
percentage of state taxes will flow to to cities and towns each year;
l Revamping the formula that determines how much state
aid each community receives;
l Directing all money raised through the state lottery
to communities;
l Reviewing and revising the formula for state
education aid to communities;
l Granting communities greater flexibility to increase
revenue -- through meal taxes, parking excise taxes, rental car
surcharges, and other means;
l Changing the formula used to calculate motor vehicle
excise tax;
l Addressing rising healthcare costs.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 18, 2005
New fight brewing on welfare overhaul
Liberals oppose Romney job plan
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
With a federal deadline fast approaching, liberal state lawmakers and
social services advocates are gearing up for a fight this week over
efforts by Governor Mitt Romney and a House panel to dramatically
increase the number of welfare recipients who have to work, including
thousands of disabled people, mothers with young children, and women in
the last stage of pregnancy.
Some 46,300 families are on welfare in Massachusetts, which has work
requirements and time limits for benefits that are among the most
lenient in the nation. About 11,600 recipients are required to work.
Romney's plan would roughly double that number, eliminating exemptions
for pregnant women in the third trimester, mothers with children between
1 and 2 years old, and about 5,600 people who are considered disabled
under state standards but not under federal ones. The House Ways and
Means Committee cleared a plan last week that also would force many more
recipients to work, though not as many as Romney's plan would.
Romney said Friday that "denying people the opportunity and obligation
to work is shortsighted."
"The principle of encouraging work with welfare is so clearly
established that Massachusetts shouldn't run from it, but should embrace
it," Romney said. "The rest of the nation embraced welfare reform,
including work, some years ago. It's time for us to do the same thing."
But in an interview with the Globe last week, House Speaker Salvatore F.
DiMasi said Romney's proposal "cuts [welfare recipients] off at the
knees."
In 1995, when the Bay State shifted to a welfare system requiring some
recipients to work, it was a pioneer. But a year later Congress
overhauled the federal welfare law, and Massachusetts has been operating
under a waiver from federal rules since then. That waiver expires at the
end of this month, forcing Beacon Hill to act.
John Wagner, the commissioner of the Department of Transitional
Assistance, said Romney's plan represents a change in attitude that will
help many people with disabilities. He argued that the state is not
helping recipients by exempting them from work requirements, since those
that rely solely on benefits are virtually guaranteed to live in
poverty. Annual welfare benefits total less than $8,000 for a family of
three.
Like Romney's plan, the House version would impose work requirements on
mothers with children between 1 and 2 and for pregnant women in the
third trimester. But unlike Romney's plan, which would exempt only those
people whom the federal government considers to be severely disabled,
the House plan would give state caseworkers some discretion in
determining who is able to work, and how much.
Both the Romney proposal and the House plan would impose a five-year
lifetime limit for receiving benefits. Under current law, families only
can receive benefits for two years in any five-year period.
"I don't think this is a soft cushion for them," DiMasi said of the
House plan. "It's basically giving them the tools they need so they can
create a better life and be better prepared for independence."
Liberal Democrats, who are exerting greater influence in the House since
the departure of former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, will try to
amend the bill to preserve at least some of the current exemptions.
Representative Robert A. DeLeo, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee,
said Friday that he plans to meet with some of the panel's leading
liberals tomorrow, and he predicted that if the bill is changed it will
move in the direction of the status quo, not Romney's plan.
Representative Marie St. Fleur, a Dorchester Democrat who serves on the
committee, said she is a strong supporter of requiring welfare
recipients to work, and she likes the idea of a five-year time limit on
benefits as long as there is a hardship exemption. But St. Fleur is
opposed to forcing all women in their last stage of pregnancy to work.
"I have three kids, and I've worked to the very day that I've had to
give birth," she said. "But I've had access to quality healthcare. I
have plenty of assistance. I have a husband, I have support."
St. Fleur also questioned whether welfare caseworkers are qualified to
determine which recipients are too disabled to work. Under the current
system, the University of Massachusetts Disabled Evaluation Services
sets the state standard.
Senate President Robert E. Travaglini also is pledging to act quickly on
a welfare bill. Senator Cynthia S. Creem of Newton, the author of a plan
that would preserve the current exemptions, predicted that her approach
would prevail in the Senate.
Romney says the changes he is proposing are necessary to put
Massachusetts in compliance with stricter federal law. The Republican
governor, who is mulling a run for president, also might benefit
politically from pushing tougher rules, even if he loses in the
Legislature.
But two-dozen states have avoided some federal work requirements and
time limits by setting up separate state-funded programs to provide cash
assistance to families who would not qualify under federal rules. Under
Creem's proposal, Massachusetts would do the same thing.
"Presently we are spending state money on welfare, and we are getting
money from the federal government," Creem said. "We can do this without
spending any more money. We just have to make sure that some 14,000
people who are exempt now are funded through the state."
Jack Tweedie, a welfare specialist for the National Conference of State
Legislatures, confirmed that states following Creem's approach have not
had to spend additional state dollars.
When the Massachusetts welfare overhaul was signed into law in February
1995, there were about 103,000 families getting $693 million per year in
cash assistance. Today, 46,300 families get about $313 million per year.
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
|