CLT
UPDATE
Friday, March 17, 2006
What's wrong with us?!?
Caught between his support for expanded health
coverage and his opposition to tax increases, Governor Mitt Romney is
being urged by fiscal conservatives to veto part of a sweeping
healthcare proposal because they say it includes a tax on businesses....
Romney is also facing pressure from the state's leading antitax group,
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which has denounced the health
bill's financing proposal. The group also opposes the $295 assessment
the plan would impose on firms with more than 10 employees that don't
offer insurance.
"The $62 is a tax, a bad tax," said Barbara Anderson, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "Adding a new $295 tax for
companies that do not provide health insurance is adding another bad tax
to an existing bad tax, so Massachusetts should repeal the $62 and not
assess the $295."
Anderson said that healthcare reform should be addressed on a national
level and not by individual states. "If the final bill looks like the
bill that is presently being floated, Governor Romney should veto it,
then address it as President of the United States," she said.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 17, 2006
Romney is urged to veto health fee
Conservatives hit employer assessment
The reason Boston is losing population is that it’s become a
lot like New York: a nice place to visit, but who’d want to live here? ...
No, the reason homeowners are disturbed about the real estate market is that
they suspect that the supply of real estate suckers has finally failed, and that
they’re not going to be able to cash out and move down to Spartanburg to be
nearer to the kids.
Only 10,000? Wait until they repeal Prop 2½.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 17, 2006
Small wonder folk fleeing in droves
By Howie Carr
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
If you've read the
Update from Wednesday, and our follow-up
News Release, then you know where CLT stands in this debate.
The $62-per-employee "assessment fee" on employers who actually
provide healthcare insurance for their workers is no less obscene
than the $10.99-per-day "assessment" on those who pay for their
own nursing home costs. What's with this entire paradigm: if
you pay, you should pay twice?
Barbara just commented to me: "Grover's and
CLT's opinion don't actually diverge. He and I discussed this and
agreed that the only way the $295 could be acceptable was if, instead of
an additional tax, it was substituted for the existing outrageous $62
tax on employers which already provide health insurance. Though the Legislature
has not yet passed the bill, we are hearing that it will not drop the
$62, therefore the entire package becomes a tax increase."
Or an "assessment," or whatever; they're
craftier than us. They keep coming up with new names, definitions for
what's extracted from your wallet by and for government.
Here in the People's Republic, is it any wonder that
the exodus has begun?
|
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 17, 2006
Romney is urged to veto health fee
Conservatives hit employer assessment
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff
Caught between his support for expanded health coverage and his
opposition to tax increases, Governor Mitt Romney is being urged by
fiscal conservatives to veto part of a sweeping healthcare proposal
because they say it includes a tax on businesses.
Grover Norquist -- an influential antitax advocate who is president of
Americans for Tax Reform, based in Washington, D.C. -- called on Romney
yesterday to resist a proposal to continue an assessment on businesses
that the state charges to help finance the free-care pool used to
reimburse hospitals.
The healthcare plan, written by the Democrat-dominated Legislature,
would keep the current $62 per employee assessment and add a $295 per
employee assessment on certain companies that do not provide health
coverage for their workers.
"I hope we can avoid the Democratic desire to turn this into a tax
increase," said Norquist, who is often described as an architect of
President Bush's massive federal tax cuts.
As the legislation heads to his desk, Romney, who is exploring a
presidential campaign, is being forced to weigh a delicate political
decision: accept the Democratic plan and open himself to attacks from
the Republican right or veto a plan that he wants to tout as a legacy of
his tenure as governor.
Norquist suggested that Romney use his line-item veto power to reject
the appropriation that would be funded by the assessment. That would
allow Romney to avoid potential political fallout among tax-cut
advocates that he would face on the campaign trail. The veto would
probably be easily overridden in the Legislature. Those involved in the
negotiations in Massachusetts say they have suggested a similar
strategy.
"That would be the best of both worlds," Norquist said, asserting that
the governor would get his healthcare bill while standing up to the
Democrats.
"It's not his responsibility that the Republicans are in the minority in
the Legislature," Norquist said. "If he gets overriden, that is not his
fault. It could be a centerpiece of how he governs in a state with
strong opposition party."
Romney is also facing pressure from the state's leading antitax group,
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which has denounced the health
bill's financing proposal. The group also opposes the $295 assessment
the plan would impose on firms with more than 10 employees that don't
offer insurance.
"The $62 is a tax, a bad tax," said Barbara Anderson, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. "Adding a new $295 tax for
companies that do not provide health insurance is adding another bad tax
to an existing bad tax, so Massachusetts should repeal the $62 and not
assess the $295."
Anderson said that healthcare reform should be addressed on a national
level and not by individual states. "If the final bill looks like the
bill that is presently being floated, Governor Romney should veto it,
then address it as President of the United States," she said.
Norquist diverges from Anderson's position in that he supports the $295
assessment on firms that do not provide insurance to workers. "We
encourage the Legislature to drop that [the $62 per worker assessment]
tax in return for the tax on those people who don't provide insurance,"
he said. Norquist said other changes are also necessary, including tort
reform to cut down on malpractice cases.
Romney and his Republican allies failed this week to persuade Democratic
leaders to reduce or eliminate the $62-per-worker fee on companies that
already provide health insurance to their workers. The governor wants
the business assessment restructured so that it does not raise new
revenue and therefore could not be characterized as a new tax.
GOP lawmakers say Romney is waiting to see what the Legislature
produces. Negotiators are putting the final touches on the bill, which
may be considered next week.
"We got 90 to 95 percent of what the administration wanted," said Senate
minority leader Brian P. Lees. "I respect the governor waiting to see
what the final version says."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 17, 2006
Small wonder folk fleeing in droves
By Howie Carr
The reason Boston is losing population is that it’s become a lot like
New York: a nice place to visit, but who’d want to live here?
Or maybe we’re more like a reality TV show. You know, tolerable enough
to check out every once in awhile, but you always want to keep the
remote control handy, because you never know when the next 18-wheeler is
going to get stuck under a pedestrian bridge over Storrow Drive.
So 10,000 people have checked out of Boston in the past year. Most
readers saw the headline yesterday and said, "Only 10,000?"
Yes, I know the news came as a shock to the mayor, Mumbles Menino. But
then, he’s often surprised. Just the other day, someone told him "youse"
is not the plural of you.
Let me spell out three of the many reasons residents of Boston - and the
rest of Massachusetts - are fleeing:
It’s too cold.
The cost of living, including taxes, is way too high.
All the local amenities that used to somewhat alleviate the two above
problems are now available everywhere, in warmer, cheaper states.
Boston used to be the land of the Bean and the Cod; now it’s the land of
the $55 parking ticket. It’s Sodom and Begorrah, as William Buckley once
said. Mumbles’ spokesman claimed City Hall doesn’t believe the numbers,
and that the population of Boston is on the rise.
Earth to Mumbles: the people leaving here are American citizens who pay
taxes.
The people moving here are illegal aliens, who don’t. We have a boom
economy, if you’re a court translator, or an auto-insurance fraud
investigator, or work in a hospital emergency room.
If you’re anybody else in Massachusetts, forget about it. How bad is it
when Fidelity decides it’s better off doing business in Rhode Island?
And now that the Legislature has driven out most of the state’s heavy
industry, they’re going to beggar whatever’s left of small business with
this new "health-care" tax.
Here’s the way they think around here:
Problem: Nobody’s coming into the city to eat anymore. What are we going
to do?
Proposed solution: Let’s put a local options meal tax on every
restaurant, so we can drive even more people away.
Problem: Nobody can afford to live here anymore. What are we going to
do?
Proposed solution: Let’s override Prop 2½ to raise property taxes so
even more middle-class people will have to sell their homes and move to
New Hampshire or Florida. And then let’s vote for the town to buy up
some more "open space" so the housing prices will go up even higher.
Problem: Too many illegal aliens.
Proposed solution: Tuition breaks for illegal aliens at state colleges.
Right now, the real-estate market in Massachusetts is moribund. This is
going to be a sleeper issue in the campaign for governor, but the
problem isn’t what the pols say: people worrying that their children
aren’t going to be able to afford a house in their hometown.
That concern is over. Everybody under the age of 35 who doesn’t have a
trust fund has long since left for South Carolina, except for the loser
kids who never did move out, and are now just waiting for their parents
to kick off.
No, the reason homeowners are disturbed about the real estate market is
that they suspect that the supply of real estate suckers has finally
failed, and that they’re not going to be able to cash out and move down
to Spartanburg to be nearer to the kids.
Only 10,000? Wait until they repeal Prop 2½.
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
|