CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The New Socialism roars down from
Beacon Hill
Nearly 450,000 Massachusetts taxpayers could see a
new tax break of up to about $300 a year under a proposal unveiled
yesterday by Senate President Robert E. Travaglini to help working
Massachusetts residents who care for children or elderly relatives.
Travaglini, casting the tax-relief plan as the Senate's answer to calls
to lower the state income tax rate to 5 percent, estimated that his plan
would cost the state up to $70 million a year.
"Now that we have weathered the fiscal crisis of the past years, we can
afford these reasonable measures," Travaglini said in detailing the plan
before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce....
The broadest portion of the tax break would increase the standard
deduction for taxpayers making $75,000 or less with dependents who are
younger than 12, older than 65, or disabled.
The deduction, which would apply to about 400,000 taxpayers, would
increase to $5,000 from $3,600 for those with one dependent, and to
$10,000 from $7,200 for those with two or more.
For a family of four with an income of $60,000, the increased deduction
would mean a savings of just under $150.
The proposal would also more than double the maximum state income-tax
deductions for expenses for child and dependent care -- the cost of
preschool, for example, or the cost of a home healthcare aide for an
elderly parent....
The proposal Travaglini outlined yesterday is part of a broader bill
Senate leaders intend to file this week that would also establish a new
family and medical leave plan for every worker in the state. While an
income-tax rate reduction would affect everyone, Travaglini's approach
targets working families with young children, aging parents, or a sick
spouse....
A spokesman for Governor Mitt Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, said: "We're all
for tax cuts." But he added, "The one we're focused on is the one that
the people voted for, which is the rollback in the income tax to 5
percent."
Romney, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, and several of her opponents
in the governor's race have called on the Legislature to roll back the
income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, a reduction voters
approved at the polls in 2000.
Lawmakers, however, have thus far resisted, saying the state cannot
afford to lose an estimated $700 million in revenue every year....
But Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said the Senate's new deduction proposal hardly
amounts to sufficient relief for Massachusetts taxpayers.
"They're trying to use the money so they won't ever have to do the
income tax rollback, and this is not an acceptable solution," Anderson
said, referring to the state budget surplus.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Travaglini proposes tax break for families
Recognizing a growing number of residents who are working
while trying to care for young and old dependents, Senate President Robert
Travaglini on Tuesday announced the Senate will push to more than double the
income tax deduction for child and dependent care expenses.
The proposal, which Senate leaders plan to file as legislation this week, would
cost the state up to $70 million in year in lost tax revenue, but would strike
"the right balance" between work and family, according to Travaglini, an East
Boston Democrat....
The Senate leader said the cost to the state is affordable and appropriate,
given the benefit it would bring to families. "Now that we have weathered the
fiscal crisis of the past years, we can afford these reasonable measures," he
said....
Speaking to reporters after the event, Travaglini said his newest proposal could
be viewed as a way to counter calls for an income tax cut. "There's a reasonable
connection," he said....
The developing Senate plan also includes a proposal to guarantee workers up to
12 weeks of paid time for a family or medical leave, funded solely by mandatory
employee contributions of between $1.50 and $2 a week, and offer a worker their
full salary, or up to $750 a week during that time. The paid leave plan mirrors
a similar, less expansive law in California passed in 2002....
If the demand grew, [Randy] Albelda said, the state could opt to increase the
worker's contribution to cover the growing need. "That's really not an issue,"
she said. "I would see that as a technical problem, not a flaw." ...
The Senate proposal would create the most generous system of paid leave in the
nation, going further than California's law by guaranteeing up to 12 weeks of
job-protected paid leave, compared to six weeks. The proposal would also pay the
employee's full salary up to $750 a week, whereas the California law pays
employees 55 percent of their salary, up to $840 a week.
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 25, 2005
Tax cuts part of developing "working families" plan,
senate chief says
Now, when a Democratic leader on Beacon Hill says we can well
afford a tax cut - after we pick ourselves up off the floor, he gets no argument
from us.
But an increase in the personal exemption and higher deductions for dependent
care expenses for some individuals - while most helpful - do not an
across-the-board tax cut make.
Asked if his tax plan could be seen as an alternative to an income tax rollback,
Travaglini said "There’s a reasonable connection."
But try telling that to the voters, who we assume will see no connection
whatsoever between the plan floated yesterday, and their 2000 vote to reduce the
income tax rate to 5 percent.
It’s hard to believe that nearly six years after the voters demanded it, Trav
and his colleagues say we still can’t afford to roll back the income tax rate to
5 percent - even though the state is posting revenue surpluses....
But time and again, through good times and bad, it is the Legislature that has
failed utterly to keep faith with the electorate on this issue.
Sure, overburdened families could use a tax break like the one Travaglini
proposed yesterday and who would turn it down? But voters have demanded - and
they deserve - much more.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Not all tax cuts are created equal
Why stop now?
That has become the mantra of the newly energized Massachusetts Legislature....
Yesterday Travaglini was before the Greater Boston Chamber of
Commerce pushing his next groundbreaking initiative: legislation that would
offer all workers up to 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborn and
adopted children or sick family members. The plan, which would be the nation's
most generous paid leave policy, would be financed by an employee payroll tax of
$2.50 a week.
That's not all. Well-placed sources tell me that is just the beginning of an
ambitious agenda DiMasi and Travaglini are developing designed to distinguish
Massachusetts from the rest of the nation....
In pushing the family-leave allowance and the rest of the package, Travaglini
and DiMasi are trying to turn the conventional wisdom on its head. Rather than
seeing Massachusetts' high costs as a barrier, the goal is to make them a
virtue....
Even the French can't match that. You can only get it in Massachusetts.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Only in Mass.
By Steve Bailey
It's budget season on Beacon Hill.
With state legislators beginning their budget deliberations this week, local
lawmakers are joining their colleagues in submitting hundreds of spending
proposals ...
The proposals — in the form of 1,600 budget amendments — seek to provide funding
for local road projects, overhaul the way the state funds public education, and
just about everything in between....
But Barbara Anderson of Marblehead, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said there is far too much spending and far too few people
saying "no."
"Raising taxes and giving everybody a free trip to Disneyland would help people,
and be great fun besides," Anderson said. "But every cent they spend to help
somebody is being taken from somebody."
Anderson is supporting one amendment: a move to roll back the state income tax
to 5 percent.
"It's a game we play," Anderson said. "You try to get the money before they do."
...
Could some of the increased activity be due to election-year politics, as
Anderson suggests? Most local representatives didn't reject the possibility.
"Politics is always going to play a part of it, and I guess in some ways that's
what we do," Keenan said. "You can't be shocked if there's gambling in
Casablanca."
The Salem News
Tuesday, April 24, 2006
Lawmakers fight for money for local projects
More than 90 percent of the roughly 250 Massachusetts public
schools built or renovated in the past decade were bigger than state rules
dictated, as communities took advantage of soaring revenues to erect sometimes
sprawling campuses at taxpayer expense.
The review of the costs, by the state School Building Authority, is the first
detailed examination of the school building boom of the 1990s, when communities
sought -- and the state often approved -- large schools, which sometimes
included Olympic-sized swimming pools, senior centers, or field houses with
seating for 3,000 people.
In other examples, communities built schools only to find out later that they
erred in their projections -- and few students enrolled....
State taxpayers picked up the tab for most of the spending. On average, the
state paid 72 percent of the construction costs.
State officials attribute the out-of-control spending to a lack of oversight and
a poorly-staffed Department of Education that simply didn't enforce basic
standards for school size....
But Boston, like other communities, makes no apology for building bigger than
state regulations because it says it wanted more than just a school -- and at
the time, the state gave its blessing....
Massachusetts at one point covered up to 90 percent of the cost of school
projects, but it now plans to drop its maximum share to 80 percent and reduce
its average contribution to 62 percent of the cost, down from 72 percent....
The state has not evaluated the size of the schools on the wait list. The
authority inherited the wait list, which was worth $4.1 billion at the time.
Because of the rising costs of construction and other factors, the projects are
now $1.4 billion over budget, [State Treasurer Tim] Cahill said.
The Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents acknowledges that many
schools exceeded state regulations, but it is urging the Building Authority to
be flexible.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Many schools grew beyond state size limits
Officials fault lax oversight
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
This is really getting to be too much to bear.
It's perhaps time to throw in the towel, sell the house, pack up a
moving van and the family. Get out before the border crossings are
erected to keep productive citizens from escaping into the United States
of America.
Senate President Travaglini and his cabal of New Socialists on Beacon
Hill are finally completely out of control.
Yesterday not only did he announce his "most generous
in the nation" paid family leave plan, but he sweetened the socialist
pot with his proposed progressive tax cut; one that targets and selects
who's included and who's not.
In her Boston Globe column of yesterday, "Family
leave bill benefits both sides," Travaglini's socialist
architect and advisor
Randy Albelda openly termed their senate scheme "redistribution,"
twice. Travaglini's proposed tax cut is no better. He's on a
bizarre roll.
Personally, I'm getting pretty fed up with heavily
subsidizing other people's children -- be it through property taxes for
their Taj Mahal schools, education, sports and other extra-curricular
activities, bussing the obese little darlings a few blocks, or paying
for their other alleged "needs." I'm single and have no brood; not
one of us in the small universe that composes CLT's staff will ever
benefit from either paid family leave or Travaglini's proposed tax cut.
How can this pompous socialist ass think that he can legitimately take
more of my money to further benefit the parents-only of Massachusetts --
how dare he?
I can understand him wanting to rid himself of me and
the rest of CLT -- but what about the productive everyone else?
The new game on Beacon Hill -- as we warned years ago
-- has been to switch the revenue paradigm. Don't raise taxes per
se, raise "fees" and "assessments." This worked very well for the
tax-and-spenders starting with the nursing home bed "fee" for those
paying their own way, to support those on Medicaid and unable to pay.
Next came the prescription drug "fee." We predicted back then that
this was the coming wave to generate new state revenue.
In her column of May 30, 2003, "Taxpayers
should beware the latest in legislative fashion," Barbara wrote:
The trend we must note, however, is that of
increasing fees — really taxes in disguise — which began with former
governor Swift's proposal to tax self-paying nursing home beds, which
was followed by the Legislature's tax on prescriptions. Then there was
Governor Romney's plan to make hospitals and health insurance
companies pay a new fee to care for the sick, charge higher tuition to
some students to provide financial aid to others, and expand the
bottle bill to include juice bottles.
Our ruling sovereigns on Beacon Hill have now devised
an even more sinister scheme: mandates.
So far this year our lords and masters have proposed
removing $325/month from everyone's pay check who doesn't have health
care insurance, though they have "no
idea what affordable means right now," according to an MIT economist
who advised the governor and the House of Representatives on health
reform.
Moving quickly along, they're next proposing to
remove an additional "between $1.50 and $2.50 a week" for paid family
leave from our pay checks, with the caveat from its architect, socialist
Randy Albelda, which today's Boston Globe reported: "[T]he state
could opt to increase the worker's contribution to cover the growing
need. 'That's really not an issue,' she said. "I would see that as a
technical problem, not a flaw.'" Bet on it increasing -- as everything
the state government touches does over time.
Every one one of these "mandates" equals a pay cut, a
tax disguised as something else. The new paradigm: "fees,"
"assessments," and "mandates" -- were once simply termed taxes and
utilized to expand government, create and grow government programs.
But at least they were funded by a clear name we all recognized and
could debate. Even they now recognize that "tax" is a bad word
among us serfs.
When it comes to cutting taxes, the voters be damned
-- as always, with everything. We serve only to reelect them into
their exalted positions to provide legitimacy for their pronouncements
from on high, and pay their bills. They -- and only they -- will decide who is
worthy of consideration.
Actually, I suspect their secret agenda is a
long-range goal of solving the "housing crisis," the "lack of affordable
housing" in the Socialist Workers Commonwealth the only way the
"professional" legislators know how. I suspect they're quietly
pushing out productive workers and businesses until all that remains are
those in need, those whose votes they can depend upon. I have no
idea how they expect to support the "needy," or even themselves in the
fashion to which they've become accustomed, once we've all joined the
Massachusetts Diaspora, when the Socialist Workers Commonwealth of
Massachusetts is reduced to one congressman representing the state in
the U.S. House of Representative, for as long as the state can hold onto
even one.
Once the mass exodus begins in earnest, home values
will begin to drop, then plummet. Once the pols realize that the
best and brightest among its population, the most productive individuals
and businesses, are bailing out then the border crossings will need to
be erected to keep us in. (As it is, if an insurance company
wishes to leave Massachusetts, it must first pay a hefty fine.)
As Boston Globe business columnist Steve Bailey
wrote: Only in Massachusetts. (He's being sarcastic, I
think, but as I often warn: be careful what you laugh at; someone
on Beacon Hill will think it's a good idea!)
In the bluest of blue states the end is in sight --
one way or another. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot
survive much longer under the weight of this reign. Maybe this is
for the best.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Travaglini proposes tax break for families
By Scott Helman and Russell Nichols, Globe Staff
Nearly 450,000 Massachusetts taxpayers could see a new tax break of up
to about $300 a year under a proposal unveiled yesterday by Senate
President Robert E. Travaglini to help working Massachusetts residents
who care for children or elderly relatives.
Travaglini, casting the tax-relief plan as the Senate's answer to calls
to lower the state income tax rate to 5 percent, estimated that his plan
would cost the state up to $70 million a year.
"Now that we have weathered the fiscal crisis of the past years, we can
afford these reasonable measures," Travaglini said in detailing the plan
before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
The bill's prospects in the House, however, are unclear.
"We're going to refrain from comment on the legislation until it's filed
and the appropriate committee has an opportunity to review it," said Kim
Haberlin, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
The broadest portion of the tax break would increase the standard
deduction for taxpayers making $75,000 or less with dependents who are
younger than 12, older than 65, or disabled.
The deduction, which would apply to about 400,000 taxpayers, would
increase to $5,000 from $3,600 for those with one dependent, and to
$10,000 from $7,200 for those with two or more.
For a family of four with an income of $60,000, the increased deduction
would mean a savings of just under $150.
The proposal would also more than double the maximum state income-tax
deductions for expenses for child and dependent care -- the cost of
preschool, for example, or the cost of a home healthcare aide for an
elderly parent.
The current maximum deduction of $4,800 in expenses would increase to
$10,000 for taxpayers with one dependent, and from $9,600 to $15,000 for
those with two or more. The state Department of Revenue estimates that
the new deductions would apply to more than 40,000 people.
Exactly what the additional tax benefits will be worth to Massachusetts
families will depend on how much in expenses they claim and whether they
choose to itemize expenses or take the standard deduction. (They cannot
do both.)
One example: A family of four making $60,000 with two children under 12
currently gets $382 in annual tax relief for child-care expenses if they
claim the standard deduction. If the Senate plan were enacted, the
family would instead see $530 in savings.
The proposal Travaglini outlined yesterday is part of a broader bill
Senate leaders intend to file this week that would also establish a new
family and medical leave plan for every worker in the state. While an
income-tax rate reduction would affect everyone, Travaglini's approach
targets working families with young children, aging parents, or a sick
spouse.
A spokesman for Governor Mitt Romney, Eric Fehrnstrom, said: "We're all
for tax cuts." But he added, "The one we're focused on is the one that
the people voted for, which is the rollback in the income tax to 5
percent."
Romney, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, and several of her opponents
in the governor's race have called on the Legislature to roll back the
income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent, a reduction voters
approved at the polls in 2000.
Lawmakers, however, have thus far resisted, saying the state cannot
afford to lose an estimated $700 million in revenue every year.
Asked by reporters after his remarks yesterday whether his proposal was
the Senate's response to the calls for tax relief, Travaglini said: "I'm
sure that some will interpret it in that fashion. There is a
connection."
Travaglini noted in his remarks that the Legislature has enacted 16 tax
cuts since he became Senate president in January 2003.
"These working-family tax cuts would deliver relief to those who most
need it," Travaglini said of the new proposal. "By increasing the child
and dependent care deductions, we can help make sure that more workers
can afford to do more work."
But Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said the Senate's new deduction proposal hardly
amounts to sufficient relief for Massachusetts taxpayers.
"They're trying to use the money so they won't ever have to do the
income tax rollback, and this is not an acceptable solution," Anderson
said, referring to the state budget surplus.
Senate sponsors also said they hope the appeal of the tax-relief plan
will attract more companies to the state.
"This would help attract and retain more businesses," said state Senator
Karen Spilka, who is a cosponsor of the bill with senator Thomas M.
McGee of Lynn. "We'd really be on the cutting edge of being
competitive."
Travaglini, too, cast the bill yesterday as something beneficial to the
business community.
"Our aim is to strengthen and to support working families in the
Commonwealth, the men and women who provide the backbone to our economy
-- the people who work for you," he told the Chamber of Commerce.
The tax cut plan is part of a broader bill Senate leaders intend to file
this week that aims to help relieve the burden on families.
The other main component of the Senate bill would guarantee all workers
in Massachusetts up to 12 weeks' paid time off to care for a newborn,
adopted children, or sick relatives.
That plan, similar to one in California, would be financed by an
employee payroll premium of at least $1.50 a week. It would pay
employees their full salary, up to $750 a week. Travaglini said,
however, that the figures could change.
"If we do this right, we can improve the quality of life for every
Massachusetts resident," Travaglini said. "And at the same time, we can
promote a strong, vital business climate."
Return to top
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 25, 2005
Tax cuts part of developing "working families" plan,
senate chief says
By Amy Lambiaso
Recognizing a growing number of residents who are working while trying
to care for young and old dependents, Senate President Robert Travaglini
on Tuesday announced the Senate will push to more than double the income
tax deduction for child and dependent care expenses.
The proposal, which Senate leaders plan to file as legislation this
week, would cost the state up to $70 million in year in lost tax
revenue, but would strike "the right balance" between work and family,
according to Travaglini, an East Boston Democrat. The plan also looks to
increase the standard tax deduction for individuals with dependents who
are under the age of 12, over 65, or disabled.
The tax relief is part of an larger proposal, which includes generous
family and medical leave benefits, aimed at relieving the stress
families are facing as adults work while caring for children, aging
parents, and in some cases sick relatives, Travaglini told business
representatives during a breakfast meeting of the Greater Boston Chamber
of Commerce.
The Senate leader said the cost to the state is affordable and
appropriate, given the benefit it would bring to families. "Now that we
have weathered the fiscal crisis of the past years, we can afford these
reasonable measures," he said.
The proposal raises the deduction for child or dependent care services,
including preschool, from $4,800 to $10,000, and to $15,000 for families
with two or more dependents. It would also raise the deduction for young
or older dependents from $3,600 to $5,000 for families with income of
$75,000 or less.
The plans may deflect criticism of the Legislature's rejection of an
income tax rate reduction, Travaglini said. Republicans for years have
been pushing for that rate reduction, which was endorsed by the voters.
Working families "face a tougher challenge than ever," Travaglini said,
noting that in 1979, only two out of three mothers with children under
18 worked. Today, he said, four out of five mothers work, and both
mothers and fathers are working longer hours. As the Baby Boom
generation matures, he added, more and more of adult workers will be
caring for their children and their parents simultaneously.
During his speech, Travaglini said the Legislature has enacted 16 tax
cuts since he became Senate President in January 2003, including a sales
tax holiday, and tax credits for certain research and development,
energy efficiency, and breaks for production companies setting up shop
in the Bay State.
Speaking to reporters after the event, Travaglini said his newest
proposal could be viewed as a way to counter calls for an income tax
cut. "There's a reasonable connection," he said.
The developing Senate plan also includes a proposal to guarantee workers
up to 12 weeks of paid time for a family or medical leave, funded solely
by mandatory employee contributions of between $1.50 and $2 a week, and
offer a worker their full salary, or up to $750 a week during that time.
The paid leave plan mirrors a similar, less expansive law in California
passed in 2002.
Business representatives immediately expressed caution about the burden
on small businesses to find temporary employees to cover for employees
on extended paid leave, but Travaglini defended the plan and said all
components are open to change.
"Don't be frightened by the arithmetic right now, these are arbitrary
numbers that my staff and I just have arrived at," he said, "I feel good
about (it), but they are obviously subject to change."
One of the plan's co-sponsors, Sen. Thomas McGee (D-Lynn), said in an
interview that he is committed to crafting a balanced proposal that
meets the "legitimate" concerns of the business community, and
recognized that smaller companies could be "in for a struggle" in the
absence of a worker on leave.
"This is the first step and I think it's been drafted pretty well," he
said. "But there are some legitimate questions that have to be addressed
if we think it's going to happen."
Economists at the University of Massachusetts at Boston estimate that up
to 200,000 leaves would be taken each year, based on the size of the
state's workforce and experiences in California. That estimate is on the
high end, said economist Randy Albelda, who helped senators draft the
proposal.
If the demand grew, Albelda said, the state could opt to increase the
worker's contribution to cover the growing need. "That's really not an
issue," she said. "I would see that as a technical problem, not a flaw."
Under the existing Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act, employers with at
least six workers must grant women up to eight weeks of unpaid maternity
leave. Federal law requires larger companies to provide up to 12 weeks
of unpaid medical leave.
The Senate proposal would create the most generous system of paid leave
in the nation, going further than California's law by guaranteeing up to
12 weeks of job-protected paid leave, compared to six weeks. The
proposal would also pay the employee's full salary up to $750 a week,
whereas the California law pays employees 55 percent of their salary, up
to $840 a week.
Under the Senate plan, workers would be eligible to paid leave after a
five-day waiting period, after working at the company for nine months
and 900 hours, and they would have to produce written proof from a
doctor of their family member's medical condition.
Travaglini said 1 to 2 percent of California residents have taken
advantage of the program, but employers said they thought the program
would be more popular here since the benefits are greater and a worker's
job would be protected.
John Regan, vice president of government affairs for the Associated
Industries of Massachusetts, said companies could face "indirect costs"
of having to hire temporary employees during a worker's absence, and
said it was "hard to tell" if this would improve the state's economic
conditions and business climate, as Travaglini claimed.
"Massachusetts will never be the cheapest place to set up a business,
and we wouldn't want it to be," Travaglini said. "Our edge is having the
best possible workers, innovators, and entrepreneurs."
Often times, Regan said, small business employers have a good
relationship with their workers and would make their own arrangements to
accommodate family situations without government mandates. "Legislating
sometimes ties people hands," he said.
Retailers Association of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst issued
similar words of caution, and gave his immediate praise for the tax cut
proposal as a way to "help workers living paycheck-to-paycheck." Hurst
said he is also concerned small businesses may not have the flexibility
to account for a dip in their workforce for long periods of time.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
A Boston Herald editorial
Not all tax cuts are created equal
Along with his idea for a new paid family leave program for Bay State
workers, Senate President Robert Travaglini yesterday dished out a
little breakfast surprise for taxpayers.
In a speech before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Trav called
for two targeted tax cuts to give families caring for young children,
elderly parents or disabled relatives some relief.
Now, when a Democratic leader on Beacon Hill says we can well afford a
tax cut - after we pick ourselves up off the floor, he gets no argument
from us.
But an increase in the personal exemption and higher deductions for
dependent care expenses for some individuals - while most helpful - do
not an across-the-board tax cut make.
Asked if his tax plan could be seen as an alternative to an income tax
rollback, Travaglini said "There’s a reasonable connection."
But try telling that to the voters, who we assume will see no connection
whatsoever between the plan floated yesterday, and their 2000 vote to
reduce the income tax rate to 5 percent.
It’s hard to believe that nearly six years after the voters demanded it,
Trav and his colleagues say we still can’t afford to roll back the
income tax rate to 5 percent - even though the state is posting revenue
surpluses.
Plenty of people outside the Legislature understand the voters’ mandate.
Ask Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Attorney General Tom Reilly, who are
campaigning for governor partly on the tax rollback (Reilly is a recent
convert).
But time and again, through good times and bad, it is the Legislature
that has failed utterly to keep faith with the electorate on this issue.
Sure, overburdened families could use a tax break like the one
Travaglini proposed yesterday and who would turn it down? But voters
have demanded - and they deserve - much more.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Only in Mass.
By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist
Why stop now?
That has become the mantra of the newly energized Massachusetts
Legislature. Being speaker of the House or Senate president will get you
a good table at Davio's on a Saturday night here in the Athens of
America, but rarely do you see your work praised in such august places
as the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
The state's ability, however, to get something meaningful done on
healthcare -- when Washington can't -- has made Sal DiMasi and Bob
Travaglini heroes of the moment. Even if they will appear as mere props
in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign ads.
Yesterday Travaglini was before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
pushing his next groundbreaking initiative: legislation that would offer
all workers up to 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborn and
adopted children or sick family members. The plan, which would be the
nation's most generous paid leave policy, would be financed by an
employee payroll tax of $2.50 a week.
That's not all. Well-placed sources tell me that is just the beginning
of an ambitious agenda DiMasi and Travaglini are developing designed to
distinguish Massachusetts from the rest of the nation. Included in the
package:
A mortgage- and rent-protection plan. While details are sketchy, the
first-in-the-nation initiative would pay workers' mortgages or rents for
three months in the event they lose their jobs. The exact size of the
assessment -- "It's not a tax!" says one legislative insider who asked
not to be named -- has yet to be determined, but is being calculated by
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who did the Legislature's estimates on
the healthcare bill. As he did in the healthcare debate, DiMasi is
standing by his principle that "all must share the burden."
An employee clothing allowance. In an attempt to jump-start the retail
sector and have the nation's best-dressed workforce, the legislators are
developing a clothing subsidy for all full- and part-time employees. The
fee, like the family leave tax, can be kept low -- maybe 3 bucks a week
-- because of the benefits of globalization. Thank heavens for China!
There's even a new tag line in the works for the state's license plates.
"Massachusetts: Dressed for Success."
Friday Pizza Day. That DiMasi and Travaglini are Italian is completely
coincidental, legislative sources insist. Instead, they say, F.P.D. is
an attempt to boost morale and bring some fun back to the workplace.
Massachusetts-based pizza shops will get an edge over the national
chains under the plan. In an effort to keep the costs down, workers will
initially be able to choose only between cheese and pepperoni. The
advocate community is not happy, but hopes to eventually expand consumer
choice.
Business leaders -- as always worried about the costs -- are trying to
find common ground with DiMasi and Travaglini. Boston adman Jack Connors
has again brought in super-strategist John Sasso to help craft the
legislation and has been holding behind-the-scenes meetings with key
players at Pizzeria Regina in the North End. All those Irish guys in a
pizza parlor at noon have been hard to miss, though. Connors has told
legislators he expects a bill on his desk by mid-May.
In pushing the family-leave allowance and the rest of the package,
Travaglini and DiMasi are trying to turn the conventional wisdom on its
head. Rather than seeing Massachusetts' high costs as a barrier, the
goal is to make them a virtue. Residents may be leaving in droves and
job creation may be lagging, but the lucky few who do have jobs here
will be well dressed and have their choice of cheese or pepperoni pizza.
And if a parent gets sick they will have a fully-paid leave and if they
lose their job they can fall back on Massachusetts' unique
mortgage-protection benefit.
Even the French can't match that. You can only get it in Massachusetts.
Return to top
The Salem News
Tuesday, April 24, 2006
Lawmakers fight for money for local projects
By Ben Casselman, Staff writer
It's budget season on Beacon Hill.
With state legislators beginning their budget deliberations this week,
local lawmakers are joining their colleagues in submitting hundreds of
spending proposals:
* $50,000 to promote tourism in Salem
* $400,000 to fix a boat ramp in Danvers
* $800,000 to clean up weeds in a Peabody lake
The proposals — in the form of 1,600 budget amendments — seek to provide
funding for local road projects, overhaul the way the state funds public
education, and just about everything in between.
"To say the least, all those are not going to be funded or approved,"
said Rep. John Keenan, D-Salem. "At the end of the day, it's the whole
House as a body that needs to determine and prioritize what's most
important this year."
The big debates at the end of the week will likely revolve around
education spending and local aid, where billions of dollars are at
stake. But until then, the focus is on hundreds of smaller proposals —
$25,000 here, $2 million there — that legislators have submitted for
their districts.
"These are all programs that affect people in your community," Rep.
Joyce Spiliotis, D-Peabody, said. "Nobody wants to see the nursing homes
in their community close, or their community hospitals close."
Local legislators said they know that not everything they are asking for
will pass. But they said it is their job to fight for local projects.
"There has never been an amendment that I have brought in that I feel I
have to apologize for," Rep. Ted Speliotis, D-Danvers, said. "It's our
job to bring to the forefront what's important to the people in our
districts."
But Barbara Anderson of Marblehead, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said there is far too much spending
and far too few people saying "no."
"Raising taxes and giving everybody a free trip to Disneyland would help
people, and be great fun besides," Anderson said. "But every cent they
spend to help somebody is being taken from somebody."
Anderson is supporting one amendment: a move to roll back the state
income tax to 5 percent.
"It's a game we play," Anderson said. "You try to get the money before
they do."
But Rep. Doug Petersen, D-Marblehead, bristled at the notion that the
proposals are merely pet projects.
"Marblehead really needs to rebuild the causeway because it's falling
apart," Petersen said, referring to his request for $4 million to repair
the crumbling causeway. "That's a very real thing. It's not fluff.
They're not putting statues on there."
Projects that are fluff, said Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly, will be weeded
out in the process.
"You gather together everybody's requests and try to figure out what's
happening here in the cities and towns, because everybody's short," she
said. "Everybody has a good reason for what they want. There's very good
reason for it."
This has been an especially busy year for amendments — nearly twice as
many as in a normal year. Lawmakers attributed the increase to the
year's busy legislative calendar, which has delayed supplemental
spending bills that would normally have covered many of the smaller
items that were submitted as budget amendments instead.
Could some of the increased activity be due to election-year politics,
as Anderson suggests? Most local representatives didn't reject the
possibility.
"Politics is always going to play a part of it, and I guess in some ways
that's what we do," Keenan said. "You can't be shocked if there's
gambling in Casablanca."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Many schools grew beyond state size limits
Officials fault lax oversight
By Maria Sacchetti, Globe Staff
More than 90 percent of the roughly 250 Massachusetts public schools
built or renovated in the past decade were bigger than state rules
dictated, as communities took advantage of soaring revenues to erect
sometimes sprawling campuses at taxpayer expense.
The review of the costs, by the state School Building Authority, is the
first detailed examination of the school building boom of the 1990s,
when communities sought -- and the state often approved -- large
schools, which sometimes included Olympic-sized swimming pools, senior
centers, or field houses with seating for 3,000 people.
In other examples, communities built schools only to find out later that
they erred in their projections -- and few students enrolled.
"There were some extras that were built into schools, maybe when times
were good and people weren't paying attention to what the dollar figures
were," said state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill.
State taxpayers picked up the tab for most of the spending. On average,
the state paid 72 percent of the construction costs.
State officials attribute the out-of-control spending to a lack of
oversight and a poorly-staffed Department of Education that simply
didn't enforce basic standards for school size. The state regulations
called for elementary schools to be no more than 115 square feet per
child, middle schools at 135 square feet per child, and high schools at
155 square feet. Some during that period swelled to more than 300 square
feet per student.
The state Department of Education approved the projects that the new
building authority now questions. The $49.3 million Mildred Avenue
Middle School in Boston, for example, exceeds the state's size limits
because it has an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a recording studio, and a
community center. Waltham has a field house with an indoor track and
enough seating for roughly 3,000 people.
But Boston, like other communities, makes no apology for building bigger
than state regulations because it says it wanted more than just a school
-- and at the time, the state gave its blessing.
"Sure, we may have been over [the size regulation], but all of this was
presented to the appropriate department with a rationale that they
bought into," said Michael Contompasis, chief operating officer of the
Boston public schools.
Today, the School Building Authority, which took over the state's school
construction program from education officials in 2004, will warn
communities that they can no longer rely on the state to support so many
additions beyond a basic school building. The authority plans to draft
new regulations on project size, and authority officials promise to
rigorously enforce the rules.
"We're working towards coming up with a fair set of regulations that
everybody can live with," said Katherine Craven, executive director of
the School Building Authority. "It might be like the Rolling Stones
said, 'You can't always get what you want, but you can sometimes get
what you need.' "
Department of Education officials stand by their past actions, saying
that the state regulations were set a few decades ago and that they gave
schools the flexibility to get bigger. The initial rules set particular
limits for square footage and counted classrooms, hallways, and
administrative office space in the calculation. Schools had to seek
waivers for permission to add computer labs or other spaces, if they
wanted state funding.
Jeff Wulfson, associate education commissioner, said the state paid for
extras such as swimming pools and field houses until roughly five years
ago, when it stopped doing so to rein in costs.
He said the state didn't necessarily pay when schools wanted extras,
like pools; sometimes the cost fell to the local taxpayer.
"Some people would argue that's an appropriate thing for a community to
have and a state could help build," he said. "During the days we could
afford it I don't think anybody had a problem with it."
Craven pointed to Kennedy Middle School in Waltham as an example of a
facility that could have been smaller. A Waltham official said the state
helped pay for a new field house, instead of a regular gymnasium,
complete with an indoor track and four basketball courts, at the
renovated school, which opened last fall. The revisions added millions
to the cost, but everyone from high school basketball players to senior
citizens' exercise groups will use the facility, said David King,
business manager for the Waltham public schools.
King said he was puzzled that the state would now deny those expenses to
other schools.
"They've been approving them all these years," he said. "For those
communities that haven't built a new high school, it's kind of unfair to
them."
Under the old program, the state also signed off on numerous schools
that were based on enrollment projections that never materialized,
another problem related to the lack of state oversight. Becket
Washington Elementary School, in the Berkshires, opened in 2003 to hold
200 students, but only 117 enrolled. Now officials are scrambling to
fill the classrooms. In the fall they'll start a program for deaf
children to attract students from other communities. A program for blind
students could follow.
School construction has been on hold in the state since 2003 because of
the oversight issues.
The state declared a freeze on new construction, saying it wouldn't be
lifted until July 2007, and created the Building Authority to run the
program. Massachusetts at one point covered up to 90 percent of the cost
of school projects, but it now plans to drop its maximum share to 80
percent and reduce its average contribution to 62 percent of the cost,
down from 72 percent.
Already battles are looming between communities and the state over how
much Massachusetts will chip in for projects on a wait list.
A majority of the 428 projects, which are in various stages of
construction, are owed money, and today, the Building Authority will ask
its board to approve a new $150 million loan program to help some of the
communities.
The state has not evaluated the size of the schools on the wait list.
The authority inherited the wait list, which was worth $4.1 billion at
the time. Because of the rising costs of construction and other factors,
the projects are now $1.4 billion over budget, Cahill said.
The Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents acknowledges
that many schools exceeded state regulations, but it is urging the
Building Authority to be flexible.
While the association is pushing for changes in state regulations that
would allow larger schools, executive director Thomas Scott said school
officials know the days of big spending are over, unless they pay for it
themselves.
"They've been very clear and consistent in the message that they've
given to us," he said. "Some of it we don't want to hear."
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
|