CLT
UPDATE
Monday, May 8, 2006
Taxpayers: The time to defend
yourself is now
Act three of the state's annual budget drama begins
this week when Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Therese Murray
unveils her version of how the state should $25 billion in the coming
fiscal year.
Gov. Mitt Romney and the House have already placed their spending plans
on record. The Senate's bottom line will not stray far from either of
the others but there will be hundreds of differences between the House
and Senate over dollar amounts and language contained in individual line
items. And senators worried about policy priorities that remain hung up
in committees or in the House are expected to make far more use of the
budget's outside sections than did the House....
The public gets its first peek at their Ways and Means Committee's
budget proposal Wednesday and senators will then spend a hectic couple
of days drafting hundreds of amendments to change it - mainly by adding
to its bottom line or earmarking money in the budget. Debate over
amendments will begin the following Wednesday and most likely be
completed by Memorial Day Weekend....
Another sizeable surplus is expected when the current bookkeeping year
ends on June 30, and there are forecasts that revenues will continue to
expand. Such news prompts louder calls for more money in budget accounts
that have not kept pace with the growth of recent years.
State House News Service
Friday, May 12, 2006
Advances - Week of May 15, 2006
The $1.25 billion available under the current bond cap would
have risen to $1.614 billion if it had been adjusted for inflation since 2000,
said Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer, who also
pushed for a systemic reform to the way the state decides which projects to
prioritize - the administration presently picks from a huge list.
Gov. Mitt Romney has resisted similar gambits by legislators eager to increase
the amount the state borrows each year to spend on big ticket projects in
transportation, housing, environmental protection, information technology and
other areas.
Widmer advocated for both the elevation of the bond cap to $1.5 billion and the
allocation of operating surpluses for capital projects, calling the condition of
the state's public college campuses "a public disgrace" and of the
transportation infrastructure "a bleak and tough picture." ...
Romney last month rejected MTF's suggestion to hoist the cap by $250 million,
saying the state can't afford to add to its debt because it's already one of the
highest debt states, per capita, in the country.
"Borrowing just puts off on our kids our spending and it's unnecessary,
particularly at a time when we're generating record surpluses, when our rainy
day fund is full and the Commonwealth is in a mode of economic strength," the
governor told the News Service last month....
Widmer, whose business-backed policy group often enters the fray of Beacon Hill
debates ... rebutted Romney's indictment of added borrowing. "Of course
it's borrowing. That's what we do to pay for a house. Borrowing isn't bad in and
of itself," Widmer said.
State House News Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Think tank chief:
Inflation cutting into bang for state's capital buck
Tepid job growth in Massachusetts means total
employment here won’t reach its peak level, established in 2001, by
2010, economists said today at a conference in Westborough. Economists
with the New England Economic Project say growth in Massachusetts
between 2006 and 2010 will be "lackluster" compared to the expansions of
the 1980s and 1990s, with annual growth in real gross state product of
2.8 percent.
State House News Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Forecast: Mass. won't see 2001 job levels by 2010
A majority of people who moved out of Massachusetts last year
report they are very satisfied with life in their new state and would not move
back, a Boston Globe poll has found.
Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said they live in a home that is bigger
than their home in Massachusetts was. Fifty-four percent said their standard of
living is higher now....
"It points out that people are not being dragged away from Massachusetts kicking
and screaming: They go out, they look at other states, and they say, 'You know
what? This is pretty nice,'" said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of
New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll. "I see so many people who
move from Massachusetts and say they will never move back."
The nationwide survey, commissioned by the Globe and administered over the
phone, interviewed 524 people between April 28 and May 4....
The results showed New Hampshire was the top destination for people who left
Massachusetts....
Blue-collar and white-collar nonprofessionals and those who made less than
$75,000 were more likely to move to New Hampshire than others who left the
state....
The survey also sought to measure what was a major factor in prompting people to
move. Housing and jobs were cited by 50 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
Taxes were cited by 30 percent; a better place to raise kids, by 25 percent; the
weather by 24 percent; and the traffic by 20 percent....
Asked what they missed least, weather topped the list, named by 24 percent of
respondents. Traffic and commuting were named by 19 percent, taxes by 16
percent, the cost of living by 10 percent, cost of housing by 6 percent, and
state politics by 5 percent.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Most who left state don't plan to return
By a vote of 39-0, the Senate approved and sent to the House
a bill increasing from $10,000 to $15,000 the minimum pension for retired state
workers and teachers in the state teachers' retirement system with at least 25
years on the job. The proposal also allows local communities to adopt a minimum
pension requirement of up to $15,000 for local workers with 25 years of service.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of May 1, 2006
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
The state Senate's vote is looming. Our tax
rollback will be part of it.
You must contact your state Senator now, if you want
your tax burden reduced, as promised 18-years ago. How to do that
is provided below.
Meanwhile, those New Socialists on Beacon Hill are
plotting how to spend more of your tax overpayment. It will be
gone, spending us into the next "fiscal crisis" before you can blink --
if you fail to act.
Act now, or forever hold your peace and don't
complain to us.
It's now. Or never.
ALERT !
We've heard from a number of
state Representatives and Senators that -- despite
record revenue surpluses (again) -- the Legislature is not
going to respect the voters' 2000 mandate and roll back the
now-17-year old "temporary" income tax hike as voters ordered --
because -- your elected "representatives" on Beacon Hill claim they
haven't heard enough of a demand from you, their alleged
constituents. (Far too many of them feel that democracy and
election results are optional, don't matter -- even overwhelming
statewide ballot mandates -- unless it's to elect them.)
Instead, they intend to spend our tax overpayment, again.
The
state Senate vote is coming up very soon . . .
It's time they heard from you
-- the 59% majority -- again!
Find and
contact your State Representative and State Senator
Who are my
elected officials
- or -
Massachusetts State Representatives and State Senators
- and -
Massachusetts House - Senate members' e-mail addresses |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
State House News Service
Friday, May 12, 2006
Advances - Week of May 15, 2006
Act three of the state's annual budget drama begins this week when
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairwoman Therese Murray unveils her
version of how the state should $25 billion in the coming fiscal year.
Gov. Mitt Romney and the House have already placed their spending plans
on record. The Senate's bottom line will not stray far from either of
the others but there will be hundreds of differences between the House
and Senate over dollar amounts and language contained in individual line
items. And senators worried about policy priorities that remain hung up
in committees or in the House are expected to make far more use of the
budget's outside sections than did the House.
Speaker Salvatore DiMasi has discouraged the use of such riders that are
unrelated to actual budget accounts but are attached to the
appropriation bill to assure their movement through he process. But with
just over two months of formal meetings remaining in this two-year
session, some lawmakers worry that preoccupation with the budget and the
handful of other major bills in the queue means their own initiatives
may be abandoned along the way.
The public gets its first peek at their Ways and Means Committee's
budget proposal Wednesday and senators will then spend a hectic couple
of days drafting hundreds of amendments to change it - mainly by adding
to its bottom line or earmarking money in the budget. Debate over
amendments will begin the following Wednesday and most likely be
completed by Memorial Day Weekend. The House and Senate budgets will
then be reconciled in June by a conference committee. The new fiscal
year starts July 1.
Another sizeable surplus is expected when the current bookkeeping year
ends on June 30, and there are forecasts that revenues will continue to
expand. Such news prompts louder calls for more money in budget accounts
that have not kept pace with the growth of recent years.
For those who control the state budget, it's easier when times are tough
to say "no" to a colleague requesting more money for a favorite cause or
program. When state coffers are swelling, it's difficult to argue that
the state can't afford the added dollars, or tax cuts - despite claims
by economists that the budget remains structurally unbalanced.
For Murray, the stakes may be higher than during the first three years
of her tenure atop the important Senate budget committee. In the wake of
rumors that Senate President Robert Travaglini may be contemplating a
career change, some senators believe Murray has collected enough pledges
from colleagues to assure her election as the next Senate president. But
Travaglini insists he's a candidate this fall for another two-year term
representing the 1st Suffolk and Middlesex District and then in January
for another stint as Senate president. All eyes will be on Murray as she
marshals her new budget proposal through the Senate and then fights for
it in the eventual House and Senate conference committee that writes the
final bill come summer. They'll be looking for any signs of ruffled
feathers.
Return to top
State House News Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Think tank chief:
Inflation cutting into bang for state's capital buck
By Jim O'Sullivan
The state's capital spending power has been eaten away by inflation over
the past six years, declining 23 percent and limiting the state's
ability to maintain and expand aging roads, public buildings and
infrastructure, the head of a think tank said Thursday.
The $1.25 billion available under the current bond cap would have risen
to $1.614 billion if it had been adjusted for inflation since 2000, said
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer, who also
pushed for a systemic reform to the way the state decides which projects
to prioritize - the administration presently picks from a huge list.
Gov. Mitt Romney has resisted similar gambits by legislators eager to
increase the amount the state borrows each year to spend on big ticket
projects in transportation, housing, environmental protection,
information technology and other areas.
Widmer advocated for both the elevation of the bond cap to $1.5 billion
and the allocation of operating surpluses for capital projects, calling
the condition of the state's public college campuses "a public disgrace"
and of the transportation infrastructure "a bleak and tough picture."
"The state is facing an enormous capital investment crunch," Widmer
said, adding that transportation needs outpace funding streams. "The gap
is huge, and growing larger because we're falling further behind in
terms of maintaining our infrastructure, never mind expanding."
During remarks to the Legislature's Committee on Bonding, Capital
Expenditures and State Assets, Widmer said the administration that takes
over state government in January should implement a policy of more
tightly defined capital spending plans. That reform, he said, could
include public comment periods, and fixed commitments to which projects
are funded on what schedule.
Romney last month rejected MTF's suggestion to hoist the cap by $250
million, saying the state can't afford to add to its debt because it's
already one of the highest debt states, per capita, in the country.
"Borrowing just puts off on our kids our spending and it's unnecessary,
particularly at a time when we're generating record surpluses, when our
rainy day fund is full and the Commonwealth is in a mode of economic
strength," the governor told the News Service last month.
Widmer said the current system prevents capital and budget planners for
institutions and regions from anticipating when the funding and actual
landscapes might change.
"One of the ways in which a series of administrations, and I would argue
it's virtually inevitable, has dealt with this is to over-promise or to
at least suggest that this [project] might be next, but then it gets
squeezed aside and then another year and they say we're getting close,"
he said. "So it minimizes accountability, and this is not a fault in
particular of any particular administration."
House Dean David Flynn, who worked in the Executive Office of
Administration and Finance under Gov. Ed King, said he empathized with
suggestions to tweak the allocation policy.
"In this state, once it leaves [the Legislature's] hands, we never have
anything to do with it again. It's up to the administration. I liked
that when I was in the administration. But I don't like it now," Flynn
said, turning to his staff and grinning.
Widmer, whose business-backed policy group often enters the fray of
Beacon Hill debates, said the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, its purse slimmed by slow sales tax revenues and ridership
declines, cannot afford to expand its rail service as many in the state
have advocated.
"There's almost nobody who says we have even close to adequate resources
in terms of investing in our infrastructure," he said.
The shortfall in capital spending ability is likely even greater than
the inflation-adjusted figures indicate, Widmer said: "That understates
the problem because construction costs have gone up much greater than
inflation."
He also rebutted Romney's indictment of added borrowing. "Of course it's
borrowing. That's what we do to pay for a house. Borrowing isn't bad in
and of itself," Widmer said.
Return to top
State House News Service
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Forecast: Mass. won't see 2001 job levels by 2010
Tepid job growth in Massachusetts means total employment here won’t
reach its peak level, established in 2001, by 2010, economists said
today at a conference in Westborough. Economists with the New England
Economic Project say growth in Massachusetts between 2006 and 2010 will
be "lackluster" compared to the expansions of the 1980s and 1990s, with
annual growth in real gross state product of 2.8 percent.
Alan Clayton-Matthews, assistant professor at UMass Boston and chair of
the project’s Massachusetts forecast, said a resurgence in technology
markets worldwide has improved the climate for exports and improved the
local job market, but noted a costly drag on the local economy: energy
prices in Massachusetts exceed those of the rest of the nation by 32
percent.
Forecasters see a "rocky road" ahead for Rhode Island, a continuing "up
cycle" for Vermont, slower rates of growth in Maine and Connecticut, and
a different situation in New Hampshire, which posted the largest
percentage increase in jobs in 2004 when it added 37,500 jobs, a 6.8
percent increase.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Most who left state don't plan to return
Jobs, housing inspired moves, survey finds
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
A majority of people who moved out of Massachusetts last year report
they are very satisfied with life in their new state and would not move
back, a Boston Globe poll has found.
Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said they live in a home that is
bigger than their home in Massachusetts was. Fifty-four percent said
their standard of living is higher now.
The top reason people gave for leaving Massachusetts was a better job,
followed by the cost of housing, family ties, and the weather. In a
separate set of questions, 50 percent of those surveyed said the cost of
housing was a "major factor," and a better job was cited as a "major
factor" by 39 percent.
The findings underscored the difficulties of living, raising children,
and earning enough money in Massachusetts, and suggested that these
fundamental aspirations of the American middle-class are often easier
for people to achieve outside the state.
The wide-ranging poll was the first of its kind to measure the
motivations of people who have left Massachusetts, whose population of
6.39 million dropped by nearly 19,000 between 2003 and 2005, according
to Census data.
Some 232,945 people moved out of the state between 2000 and 2005, a
number somewhat offset by births and by an influx of immigrants from
other countries, researchers said.
The survey comes as candidates for governor and policy makers are
discussing the state's stagnant population, and identifies some of the
aspects where Massachusetts faces a competitive disadvantage with other
states.
"It points out that people are not being dragged away from Massachusetts
kicking and screaming: They go out, they look at other states, and they
say, 'You know what? This is pretty nice,'" said Andrew E. Smith,
director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which
conducted the poll. "I see so many people who move from Massachusetts
and say they will never move back."
The nationwide survey, commissioned by the Globe and administered over
the phone, interviewed 524 people between April 28 and May 4. The
respondents, who moved out of Massachusetts in 2005, were randomly
selected from a database compiled from change-of-address forms for
utilities and telephone service and public records. The questions
covered a range of topics, from people's perceptions of their new local
public schools to the courteousness of their neighbors.
The results showed New Hampshire was the top destination for people who
left Massachusetts. Florida was the second most popular state, followed
by Texas. Regionally, the Southeast was the most popular destination,
drawing 19 percent of those polled, followed by 18 percent who now live
in the Midwest and West.
Blue-collar and white-collar nonprofessionals and those who made less
than $75,000 were more likely to move to New Hampshire than others who
left the state. Those who moved to New Hampshire were also more likely
to name housing costs as a "major factor" for their move, the poll
suggested. They represent many middle-class people who feel they can no
longer afford life in the Bay State, said William H. Frey, a demographer
at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., who has studied
migration patterns throughout the United States.
"They want a suburban lifestyle, they want a yard, they want a home,
they want to have the American dream," Frey said. "And it's persistently
unaffordable in places like Massachusetts."
Professionals and executives, people under age 50, people with
post-graduate educations or with incomes above $100,000 were more likely
than other emigrés to move to the Mid-Atlantic and to cite a better job
as a major factor for moving, the poll suggested. Their exodus
represents what some policymakers term a brain drain.
The exodus from Massachusetts has been particularly acute in recent
years. Between 2000 and 2004, Massachusetts lost residents at a greater
rate than any other state except New York, according to Census Bureau
estimates that were released last month. The exodus from Massachusetts
averaged 42,402 people per year, according to the Census data.
"To me, what's new about this period is that now housing costs are being
factored into people's migration decisions," Frey said. "In the past,
they would look more or less at the job and what the job paid, but
housing costs would not factor as much."
The survey also sought to measure what was a major factor in prompting
people to move. Housing and jobs were cited by 50 percent and 39
percent, respectively. Taxes were cited by 30 percent; a better place to
raise kids, by 25 percent; the weather by 24 percent; and the traffic by
20 percent.
Other issues were less important, the poll showed. Only 8 percent of
respondents indicated crime as a major factor for their move, while 9
percent cited the public schools, 12 percent cited Massachusetts'
liberal bent, and 13 percent its political leadership.
Once outside Massachusetts, life improved for many respondents.
Ninety-two percent described themselves as satisfied with their new
state, including 56 percent who said they were "very satisfied." Only 37
percent of those polled said they would like to move back to
Massachusetts someday, while 56 percent said they would not return to
the Bay State.
Fifty-four percent of those polled said their standard of living was
higher in their new state. Thirty-six percent said it was about the
same, while 9 percent said it was lower.
Fifty percent of those polled said their home now is "much bigger" than
the one they had in Massachusetts, while 23 percent said it was
"somewhat bigger." Sixteen percent live in a home that is "much smaller"
or "somewhat smaller."
A majority of those polled said they were satisfied with their move,
with 56 percent calling themselves "very satisfied" and 36 percent
"somewhat satisfied."
Fifty-two percent of respondents said they visit Massachusetts more than
once a year; 26 percent said they visit about once a year. A majority --
68 percent -- said they still have relatives in the Bay State.
Asked what they missed most about Massachusetts, 25 percent of those
polled said family, while 22 percent said the state's natural
surroundings. Eight percent said they missed cultural outings to museums
and theaters, and 8 percent said they missed Boston.
Asked what they missed least, weather topped the list, named by 24
percent of respondents. Traffic and commuting were named by 19 percent,
taxes by 16 percent, the cost of living by 10 percent, cost of housing
by 6 percent, and state politics by 5 percent.
A majority -- 69 percent -- said they found Bay State residents either
"much less courteous" or "somewhat less courteous" than people in their
new state.
Some allegiances persisted, the results showed. Only 5 percent of those
polled said they were now cheering for a different sports team. The Red
Sox, the poll suggested, were the most popular team among those who left
Massachusetts, listed by 56 percent of respondents. The Patriots claimed
43 percent, and the Bruins and Celtics, 10 percent each.
Return to top
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of May 1, 2006 - How they voted
By Bob Katzen
BOSTON — Here's how area state senators were recorded on major roll call
votes the week of May 1. There were no roll calls in the House last
week:
$15,000 Minimum Pension for Retired State Workers and Teachers (S
2292)
By a vote of 39-0, the Senate approved and sent to the House
a bill increasing from $10,000 to $15,000 the minimum pension for
retired state workers and teachers in the state teachers' retirement
system with at least 25 years on the job. The proposal also allows local
communities to adopt a minimum pension requirement of up to $15,000 for
local workers with 25 years of service.
Senators added an amendment prohibiting a local pension from exceeding
the salary currently being paid for the position that the person held.
They noted that this would ensure that a town moderator who earned $100
per year would not unfairly receive a $15,000 annual pension.
Supporters said that the bill would cost some $34 million and would
provide increased pensions for some 2,000 struggling former state
workers and teachers whose average age is 80. They pointed to the case
of a teacher who worked for 34 years but receives a pension of less than
$13,000 per year because teachers were paid a lot less in the 1940s and
1950s when this woman worked. They noted that cost-of-living adjustments
have been inadequate and argued that many of these retirees can barely
make ends meet with their current pensions.
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
|