CLT
UPDATE
Monday, June 19, 2006
After 17 years of this nonsense,
there goes our tax overpayment again!
State legislators yesterday went on an election-year
spending binge, approving about $750 million to pay for salary increases
for court clerks, county sheriffs and judges, creating jobs and pet
capital projects.
The House of Representatives and the Senate voted to approve bills that
provide about $457 million to stimulate the economy and $300 million in
surplus money to spend on capital projects....
The 276-page economic-stimulus package includes ...
The 65-page surplus spending bill includes a $55 million in Chapter 90
grants for local road and bridge projects, bringing the total to a
record $175 million for the fiscal year ending June 30 ...
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, said ... "In the weeks before an
election, I don't care if you are Republican or Democrat, what you talk
about is what you brought back for your district." ...
The surplus spending bill also is a boon for certain court employees and
county sheriffs....
Barbara C. Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said the salary increases would exacerbate the
state's unfunded pension liability.
Anderson said she supported spending on infrastructure improvements such
as roads and bridges, but questioned if much else in the stimulus bill
would improve the economy.
The Springfield Republican
Friday, June 16, 2006
Lawmakers approve spending
The Massachusetts Legislature yesterday approved two bills
costing a total of $760 million, while House-Senate conferees are still
considering next year's state budget, which will top $25 billion. Governor Mitt
Romney has to consider all three bills as a package and use his veto power to
make sure the bills provide adequate resources for state government to promote
prudent investments in economic development, and to prepare the state for the
next recession.
But there's still too much money spent on too many items of questionable value
for the economy of the state. The Legislature should not have taken $120 million
from the state stabilization fund to pay for them all. This fund, which now
stands at $1.728 billion, will need to top $3 billion to sustain essential state
programs during the next recession.
At more than $25 billion, the state budget offers a more spacious tent for items
that might not be essential to state government. As the House and Senate
conferees strive to devise their consensus budget, Governor Romney was right to
warn them yesterday not to get carried away by the current surpluses in state
revenues. (Romney's guilty of that himself when he calls for an income tax
cut, which the state cannot afford at this time.)
A Boston Globe editorial
Friday, June 16, 2006
A hydro loophole
Just before abandoning the State House for a "hack holiday,"
lawmakers slipped through controversial judicial pay hikes that will see most
judges’ annual salaries soar to nearly $130,000 - plus thousands in retro pay.
The measure to boost judges’ pay by an average of more than $18,000 a year was
passed Thursday afternoon as legislators cleared out of the State House for the
often ridiculed long Bunker Hill Day weekend. Bunker Hill Day is a Suffolk
County-only holiday that gives government workers a paid day off....
Under the deal, salaries for trial court judges will jump from $112,777 to
$129,694. Chief Administrative Justice Robert Mulligan’s pay will rise from
$122,050 to $140,358, while Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the state’s
highest court, will get a $20,000 raise to $151,239.
Clerk magistrates are taken care of too, seeing their salaries jump from $88,000
to more than $100,000. The raises are retroactive to Jan. 1, meaning judges will
get checks for as much as $9,000 in back pay.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Pols OK huge judge raises, then flee
Under the deal, 390 state judges would see their average
annual pay rise from the current $112,777 to $129,694, a boost judges contended
is essential to attracting top legal talent to their profession. The pay package
calls for Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, to
receive $151,239, a $20,000 increase, and all raises would be retroactive to
Jan. 1.
"I think it's long overdue," said Senator Michael Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat
who has been trying to win approval for the judicial pay increases since last
fall....
Even if Romney vetoes the pay package, Morrissey believes Democrats have enough
votes in the Legislature to override it. There was no direct vote on the pay
raise since it was part of a larger spending package, but, Morrissey said, "It
enjoys considerable support."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, June 18, 2006
State judges' pay raises on governor's plate
We’ve never been completely convinced of the value in
spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer dough to "stimulate" the economy.
Or for that matter, loading up a "midyear" spending bill just as you’re
finalizing a gargantuan state budget for the year to come.
The approach invariably leads to political gluttony - and it becomes impossible
to satisfy the hunger for pork....
Lawmakers are nearing completion of a $25 billion budget for next year. By
cramming these other bloated spending bills through now, they convince the
skeptics (who, us?!) that the House specialty - and the Senate’s - is indeed
pork.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 19, 2006
Cutting the pork left to Romney
Their final passage, coupled with this spring's passage of a
much-ballyhooed plan to extend health care coverage to most Bay Staters,
translates into more than a billion dollars in new spending ...
Budget watchdogs are busy warning against overspending and building a larger
budget base here that will be difficult to sustain in future years. Romney has
already warned that some of the items appearing in the jobs bill and the
supplemental budget he's now reviewing may be inappropriate and he's also argued
against using large amounts of money from the state's Stabilization Fund to
finance the new budget.
State House News Service
Advances -- Week of June 19, 2006
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
"In the weeks before an election, I don't care if you
are Republican or Democrat, what you talk about is what you brought back
for your district." That one sentence, admitted by state Sen.
Stephen Brewer, concisely and accurately and, for once, honestly sums up
the $750 million feeding frenzy that took place last week on Bacon Hill.
Pet projects, political pork and pay raises all over
again, but still not enough in the state's coffers to respect the
voters' mandate to roll back the income tax. With this usual
pigging-out there never will be, of course -- and that's always the
Bacon Hill legislative intent: Spend it and more quickly, before
they have to give any of it back.
When the governor warned legislators to not get
carried away with pork-barrel squandering of the latest whopping billion
dollar state
revenue surplus, the Boston Globe editorial elitists were quick to add
that he is, "guilty of that himself when he calls for an income tax cut,
which the state cannot afford at this time." Those socialist
harridans still don't grasp that all the money government has first came
out of taxpayers' pockets, to whom any surplus rightfully belongs.
If this legislative over-indulgence won't convince them what happens
when taxpayers are screwed again, nothing ever will -- as we've all come
to expect from the Morrissey Boulevard pontificators.
Another budget cycle goes by without keeping the
17-year old "promise" (now going on 18-years) made by the Legislature to roll back the income
tax rate to 5 percent once the 1989 "fiscal" crisis was over. Again the voters
have been stonewalled, told
"the state can't afford it," were given the usual Beacon Hill
Middle-Finger Salute.
Again we were lied to.
And again, the Legislature is spending us into the next "fiscal"
spending crisis just over the horizon.
At which time the Bacon Hill pols and the Boston
Globe socialist architects will be back for yet more. After all,
they still haven't taken it all from us, there's more from where
what they already take comes. For some reason, enough of us
continue to reside in the Pay State and shoulder the mounting financial
burden they impose. So far we've kept their ball in the air, but
the balancing point quickly
approaches. We haven't joined the
Taxachusetts Diaspora
. . . yet.
As more of us do, as the exodus marches on, like all Ponzi
schemes their house-of-cards will inevitably collapse.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Springfield Republican
Friday, June 16, 2006
Lawmakers approve spending
By Dan Ring
State legislators yesterday went on an election-year spending binge,
approving about $750 million to pay for salary increases for court
clerks, county sheriffs and judges, creating jobs and pet capital
projects.
The House of Representatives and the Senate voted to approve bills that
provide about $457 million to stimulate the economy and $300 million in
surplus money to spend on capital projects. Both bills landed on the
governor's desk.
Gov. W. Mitt Romney said he is pleased with the economic stimulus bill.
Romney, who has been plagued by job losses during his tenure, filed a
similar bill more than a year ago.
"This legislation is critical to our effort to create jobs," Romney
said.
Romney wouldn't specify any projects he found questionable. The governor
can veto line items in the two bills, but the Democrat-controlled
Legislature can override with a two-thirds vote in each branch.
The 276-page economic-stimulus package includes $13 million for matching
grants to museums, community theaters and other cultural attractions, $6
million for marketing and promoting tourism, $23 million in worker
development and training, $30 million for re-developing "brownfields" or
contaminated properties, $80 million to spur technology and life
sciences including a tax credit for companies that manufacture medical
devices, $2.1 million for Westfield for road improvements to support a
proposed Target Corp. distribution center, $150,000 for the Hampden
County Regional Employment Board to train precision machinists and an
initiative to bring wireless and broadband to rural areas.
The 65-page surplus spending bill includes a $55 million in Chapter 90
grants for local road and bridge projects, bringing the total to a
record $175 million for the fiscal year ending June 30, $100 million in
capital improvements at the University of Massachusetts and state and
community colleges, $10.9 million for parks and beaches and $30.3
million in grants to municipalities for repairs to libraries and other
assets.
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, said legislators are providing the
first major amount of money for capital projects in their districts in
three to four years. "In the weeks before an election, I don't care if
you are Republican or Democrat, what you talk about is what you brought
back for your district," Brewer said.
The surplus spending bill also is a boon for certain court employees and
county sheriffs.
The bill, for example, raises the salaries of clerk magistrates in
District Courts from $88,676 to $110,220. It increases the salaries of
first assistant court clerks from $74,000 to $92,000 and for assistant
court clerks from $68,280 to $84,869.
The bill raises the salaries of local sheriffs to $123,209. Franklin
County Sheriff Frederick Macdonald's salary would jump from $84,582,
Hampshire Sheriff Robert Garvey's salary would leap from $101,499 and
Hampden Sheriff Michael J. Ashe Jr.'s pay would increase from $107,138.
Annual pay for judges would go up by 15 percent, with an associate
justice in the Trial Court receiving $129,694.
Barbara C. Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said the salary increases would exacerbate the
state's unfunded pension liability.
Anderson said she supported spending on infrastructure improvements such
as roads and bridges, but questioned if much else in the stimulus bill
would improve the economy.
Rep. John F. Quinn, D-Dartmouth, a member of the House Ways and Means
Committee, which crafted the raises for court employees, defended the
pay increases. The raises are the first approved for judges and clerks
since 1998.
"It's never a good time for public sector raises in the eyes of some,"
Quinn said. "Now is as good a time as any."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 16, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
A hydro loophole
The Massachusetts Legislature yesterday approved two bills costing a
total of $760 million, while House-Senate conferees are still
considering next year's state budget, which will top $25 billion.
Governor Mitt Romney has to consider all three bills as a package and
use his veto power to make sure the bills provide adequate resources for
state government to promote prudent investments in economic development,
and to prepare the state for the next recession.
The two bills passed yesterday are intended to stimulate economic
development and deal with the unmet construction needs of state higher
education and local government. But not all items are of high priority.
The state doesn't really need to spend $4 million on improving the
internal combustion engine, as the economic stimulus bill encourages.
And better uses for $100,000 could be found than a boat ramp in Truro,
or $100,000 for a disbanded mounted ranger unit in the Blue Hills, as
the capital bill mandates.
There's much to like about the bills as well. Investments in the state
higher-education system are especially noteworthy, as are the
initiatives to support cultural institutions and to encourage broadband
Internet access in rural areas.
But there's still too much money spent on too many items of questionable
value for the economy of the state. The Legislature should not have
taken $120 million from the state stabilization fund to pay for them
all. This fund, which now stands at $1.728 billion, will need to top $3
billion to sustain essential state programs during the next recession.
At more than $25 billion, the state budget offers a more spacious tent
for items that might not be essential to state government. As the House
and Senate conferees strive to devise their consensus budget, Governor
Romney was right to warn them yesterday not to get carried away by the
current surpluses in state revenues. (Romney's guilty of that himself
when he calls for an income tax cut, which the state cannot afford at
this time.)
The conferees need to focus on a few key items. These are aid to cities
and towns, with a special focus on K-through-12 schools, more money for
the public higher-education system to make sure that high school
graduates get the further education required for a high-tech society,
and further replenishments of the stabilization fund, so that education
and other essential programs will not have to be slashed in future
downturns.
It's understandable that government officials want to do what they can
to promote economic growth, but in Massachusetts the best guarantor of
prosperity is a well-managed state government that educates its citizens
for the jobs of tomorrow.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Pols OK huge judge raises, then flee
By Dave Wedge
Just before abandoning the State House for a "hack holiday," lawmakers
slipped through controversial judicial pay hikes that will see most
judges’ annual salaries soar to nearly $130,000 - plus thousands in
retro pay.
The measure to boost judges’ pay by an average of more than $18,000 a
year was passed Thursday afternoon as legislators cleared out of the
State House for the often ridiculed long Bunker Hill Day weekend. Bunker
Hill Day is a Suffolk County-only holiday that gives government workers
a paid day off.
Gov. Mitt Romney could veto the pay hikes, which were part of a $302
million spending package passed by lawmakers, but a Romney rejection is
expected to be overturned by the Legislature.
"I wouldn’t bet on him winning a veto," said Sen. Michael Morrissey
(D-Quincy), who was one of the sponsors of the pay raise package. "How
many vetos has the guy won in four years? I think none. He’s batting a
thousand."
Romney was in Iowa today for that state’s Republican convention but his
spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor has 10 days to review the
pay hikes.
"We’ll be taking a close look at all of it but no decisions have been
made," Fehrnstrom said.
The raises - first detailed by the Herald in May - are the first for Bay
State judges since 1998. Under the deal, salaries for trial court judges
will jump from $112,777 to $129,694. Chief Administrative Justice Robert
Mulligan’s pay will rise from $122,050 to $140,358, while Margaret
Marshall, chief justice of the state’s highest court, will get a $20,000
raise to $151,239.
Clerk magistrates are taken care of too, seeing their salaries jump from
$88,000 to more than $100,000. The raises are retroactive to Jan. 1,
meaning judges will get checks for as much as $9,000 in back pay.
Laurie Myers, a victims rights advocate and outspoken critic of light
sentences handed out by some judges, called the raises "outrageous."
"We have prosecutors out there making next to nothing," said Myers,
spokeswoman for the sex offender reform group Community VOICES. "We have
overpaid judges and defense attorneys and underpaid prosecutors and we
wonder why all these things are going on. It’s ridiculous."
Morrissey said while the pay raises may seem generous, they are
deceiving because judges haven’t had a raise in eight years.
"It appears to be a jump," Morrissey said, "but a 13 percent raise over
seven years, is about 1 1/2 percent per year. I’m not sure we can say
any contract, public or private, has seen so low a number."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, June 18, 2006
State judges' pay raises on governor's plate
13% boost would be the first since '98
By Scott Allen, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney must decide by next week whether to veto a 13
percent pay raise for judges passed by the Legislature on Thursday
before it adjourned for a long weekend. Romney has taken no position on
what would be the judges' first pay hike in eight years, but Lieutenant
Governor Kerry Healey has called the increase, expected to cost about $7
million a year, an example of "reckless" spending by the Democratic
Legislature.
Under the deal, 390 state judges would see their average annual pay rise
from the current $112,777 to $129,694, a boost judges contended is
essential to attracting top legal talent to their profession. The pay
package calls for Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme
Judicial Court, to receive $151,239, a $20,000 increase, and all raises
would be retroactive to Jan. 1.
"I think it's long overdue," said Senator Michael Morrissey, a Quincy
Democrat who has been trying to win approval for the judicial pay
increases since last fall. "If you compare public and private contracts,
I dare to say you won't find many people who have not gotten a pay
increase in eight years."
Some conservatives have balked at the idea of boosting judges' pay in
the wake of controversial decisions such as the Supreme Judicial Court's
legalization of same-sex marriage, while some crime victim advocates
have argued that county prosecutors need a raise even more than judges.
In April, Healey, who is running for governor this year, singled out the
judges' pay hike as an example of wasteful spending, saying, "Let's get
our priorities straight."
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said the governor has not
taken a position on the judges' pay. He said the governor has 10 days
from the day of the vote to veto the spending and "no decision has been
reached."
Even if Romney vetoes the pay package, Morrissey believes Democrats have
enough votes in the Legislature to override it. There was no direct vote
on the pay raise since it was part of a larger spending package, but,
Morrissey said, "It enjoys considerable support."
The pay increase would be a significant victory for prominent judges
such as Marshall and Robert A. Mulligan, chief justice for
administration of the Trial Court, who have publicly worried that
Massachusetts' judges were falling financially behind judges in other
states. Massachusetts ranked 45th out of the 50 states and Washington,
D.C., for judges' pay once cost-of-living is considered, according to a
2005 survey by the National Center for State Courts.
"Recognition by the Senate and House that judges and court clerks
deserve to be treated fairly is not reckless," Marshall and Mulligan
wrote in a letter to the Globe in response to Healey's criticism of the
pay increase.
Healey could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Still, Morrissey said the Legislature deserves some of the blame for the
long wait since the judges' last pay increase in 1998, delaying raises
for so long that the one-time increase struck some people as excessive.
"We compounded the problem by not addressing this sooner," said
Morrissey, pointing out that some promising judges have already left the
Massachusetts bench because they could not earn enough money.
But David L. Yas , publisher and editor-in-chief of Massachusetts
Lawyers Weekly, said the real problem is that, under Massachusetts law,
judges can get a raise only if legislators pass a bill specifying the
exact pay for each judge, rather than using a formula that automatically
grants them a cost-of-living increase. "Changing a statute is like
trying to navigate the Titanic through a canal," said Yas, "So cost of
living soars and years go by and judges wait and wait" for their raise.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 19, 2006
A Boston Herald editorial
Cutting the pork left to Romney
We’ve never been completely convinced of the value in spending hundreds
of millions in taxpayer dough to "stimulate" the economy.
Or for that matter, loading up a "midyear" spending bill just as you’re
finalizing a gargantuan state budget for the year to come.
The approach invariably leads to political gluttony - and it becomes
impossible to satisfy the hunger for pork.
Are there worthwhile investments in the $700 million in new spending
approved by the Legislature last week? Sure.
The long-overdue transportation improvements in the Fenway/Longwood
neighborhood - $55 million worth - will benefit not only our friends who
wear red socks but the mini-city of health care and research facilities
that help anchor our economy.
And as long as you’re throwing money around, no one can argue that life
sciences, higher education, basic adult education and cultural resources
are not wise areas in which to invest.
But if you’re really serious about creating new jobs, where is the
reduction in the highest-in-the-nation unemployment insurance rates? And
a sales force to woo businesses to the Bay State is nice, but why, oh
why, would you limit it to operating within the state’s borders?
But look no further than the supplemental spending bill to discover the
real intent behind all this largesse.
Like the jobs bill, there are worthwhile ventures in this outlay -
$500,000 for a homeland security center at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, for one.
But $150,000 for a UMass study of the winter moth worm?
And don’t forget the hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate no
fewer than 10 senior centers around the state. Remember the elderly
vote!
Like our travelin’ governor says, if you have to dip into reserves to
the tune of $120 million to pay for this stuff, then guess what? You
can’t afford it.
"I’d like to rebuild all 500 bridges that are structurally deficient,"
he said, "but we have to spend the money which we have in our pocket
rather than using the credit card."
Amen.
Lawmakers are nearing completion of a $25 billion budget for next year.
By cramming these other bloated spending bills through now, they
convince the skeptics (who, us?!) that the House specialty - and the
Senate’s - is indeed pork.
Return to top
State House News Service
Advances -- Week of June 19, 2006
[Excerpt]
Already on the governor's desk are two bills that had lain dormant since
last fall. In a spurt of activity last week, lawmakers sent him a $302
million mid-year spending plan and a $437 million economic stimulus
package. The bills had languished for seven months in House-Senate
conference committees. Their final passage, coupled with this spring's
passage of a much-ballyhooed plan to extend health care coverage to most
Bay Staters, translates into more than a billion dollars in new
spending, although much of it falls into the category of one-time
spending. Gov. Mitt Romney indicated as the bills were nearing his desk
that he will not hesitate to trim the proposed spending if he thinks
it's not warranted.
Massachusetts is one of the 42 states happily ending this fiscal year
with a surplus, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures. An improving economy and healthy reserves can solve many
problems, but such largesse can also create problems. Budget watchdogs
are busy warning against overspending and building a larger budget base
here that will be difficult to sustain in future years. Romney has
already warned that some of the items appearing in the jobs bill and the
supplemental budget he's now reviewing may be inappropriate and he's
also argued against using large amounts of money from the state's
Stabilization Fund to finance the new budget. Both branches have made
such recommendations in their separate budgets for fiscal 2007.
If Romney decides to take the full 10 days allowed him to review the new
budget, it would need to reach him this Wednesday, June 21, in order to
be in place by the July 1 start of the new fiscal year. When he and his
staff finish analyzing it, the governor will sign it into law and issue
his vetoes and dollar reductions. Those vetoes will remain in effect
until and unless overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the House and
the Senate.
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
|