CLT
UPDATE
Thursday, September 14 2006
"The debate is over. The people have
voted.
It is not up to you."
Citizens for Limited Taxation took a solemn oath in
1989 to hold politicians to their promise that the Dukakis income tax
increase would be temporary. We have kept OUR promise.
When they refused to honor theirs in eleven years, we placed the
rollback of that "temporary" tax hike on the 2000 ballot, and the voters
passed it 59-41. The Legislature froze it in 2002, "temporarily."
We continued to keep our promise, despite noticing that some reporters
had begun rolling their eyes when we and Governor Romney or Lt. Gov.
Healey have a news conference on the subject....
Our patience was rewarded when the rollback became the primary issue in
the Democrat primary....
We are surprised by the number of people who seem to be taken in by all
this, as if these three politicians can be believed when they say they
suddenly support a tax break that they have opposed for years – until
the polls showed them on the wrong side of the issue.
CLT News Release
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Phony Democrat support for the CLT Rollback
In choosing a governor to run the state, voters look for
executive experience, wise issue positions, and the intangible quality of
leadership. It is a rare thing when a candidate has all three. We believe
Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters have such a person in Deval
Patrick. The Globe strongly endorses his candidacy in the gubernatorial primary
Sept. 19....
Patrick's policy views, rather nebulous at the beginning of the campaign, have
come into sharper focus. His economic prescription is simple but powerful: Hold
the line on income taxes; focus on support for beleaguered communities to ease
property taxes; and expand the economy by making Massachusetts a more inviting
place for all kinds of businesses.
A Boston Globe editorial
Sunday, September 10. 2006
Patrick in the primary
What has most distinguished this year’s primary season is the
candidates’ fixation on what should, in one sense, be the least important issue
of the campaign: whether to cut the personal income tax rate from 5.3 percent to
5 percent. In 2000, the voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure to
reduce the rate, then at 5.85 percent, in stages to 5 percent.
In 2002, the Legislature overturned this vote and froze the rate at 5.3 percent
in response to an economic slowdown.
Now, with revenues flooding state coffers, candidates debate whether to let the
income tax rate fall to 5 percent at once, or in stages, or whether to just keep
the rate frozen where it is now. The revenue loss from the tax cut is estimated
to be $675 million annually or about 2.6 percent of the budget.
Today 57 percent of expected Democratic primary voters support a reduction of
the rate to 5 percent. There are, to be sure, influential voices claiming that
the state cannot “afford” to sacrifice even this much revenue. But fiscal 2006
revenues totaled $18.6 billion - a surplus of $1.3 billion. The tax cut could
have gone into effect July 1, 2005, and the state would still have brought in
about $529 million more revenue than it would have needed to meet its spending
plans for the coming fiscal year....
Perhaps, in enacting the 2000 tax cuts, the voters were telling the Legislature
that what it has to spend can be no more than what it can raise in revenue when
the tax rate is set at 5 percent. Perhaps they were saying that if current
obligations would require the Legislature to spend more than that, then it is
time to reduce current obligations.
Self-styled experts like to disdain the naive voter who would jeopardize “vital”
programs just to save a few bucks. Perhaps the voters likewise disdain pols who
behave like petulant teens unable to live on an allowance. The difference is
that it is the voters, not the experts or the pols, who have the votes.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
State runs out of excuses not to cut tax:
Core issue is the value state places on democracy
By David G. Tuerck
When I took office, the Massachusetts economy was down. My
team and I went to work to find ways to economize and to eliminate duplication
and waste. We cut back on "nice to have" spending that we just couldn't
afford....
Which brings us to today. When things are up, it's easy to forget the law of
cycles, and to spend like "up" is the only direction the economy will ever go.
That's just what happened in this year's budget debate. On June 30, the
Legislature passed a budget that spent not only all of the record tax revenues
and all of the billion-dollar surplus, but also $500 million from the rainy day
fund. The Legislature's bet must be that if the Massachusetts economy keeps
booming next year, no one will be the wiser....
I wish I could say that all of the excessive spending at least went to
necessities. While we did address some of our critical infrastructure needs
relating to state roads, bridges, and our system of public higher education, the
budget included line item after line item of less-than-essential projects, such
as merry-go-rounds and gazebos.
Every legislator and politician knows this spending can't be justified, so why
do they do it? Because it gets politicians praised -- and re-elected....
This year's budget battle is history, but my concern is that the spending binge
will continue unabated....
Yogi Berra famously said: "It's déjà vu all over again." He'd learned the lesson
of cycles. We've seen cycles here in Massachusetts often enough to have learned
as well. But we'll need a hefty dose of courage from politicians and vigilance
from citizens if we are going to be as well-prepared for the next inevitable
downdraft as we were for the last one.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Binge spending days are over
By Mitt Romney
It's become a staple of state and local news coverage: The
public employee who abuses sick leave or vacation time policies in ways that
would be unimaginable in the private sector....
"The public sector has a long way to go in terms of managing its resources and
its personnel policies," says Sam Tyler, president of the Boston Municipal
Research Bureau. "There really hasn't been any overall comprehensive review of
personnel practices at the state or local level."
Establishing policies that look more like the private sector's would be one way
to reassure the public that government is well run. And it would help put an end
to the well-publicized abuses we've seen in the last month - abuses that should
make every honorable public servant cringe.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Personnel policies need scrutiny
By Scot Lehigh
The 2006 GOP campaign message is basic: Healey won't spend
your money or raise your taxes. Liberals may not want to accept this political
reality, but Patrick's position on the income tax rollback is going to be a
problem in the general election -- and could doom him. At least Gabrieli accepts
the reality -- voters endorsed an income tax rollback -- and offers a formula
for implementing it, even if it falls short of immediate gratification.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Heart vs. mind
By Joan Vennochi
The three Democratic candidates for governor picked apart one
another's positions on taxes, education, and crime in a robust debate last
night, but avoided the rancor that dominated a similar face-off last week....
Reilly also told Patrick that he had "legitimate concerns" about his and
Gabrieli's refusal to release their tax returns and "honor the will of the
voters" by rolling back the state income tax....
"Neither one of you get it," Reilly chided his rivals. "The debate is over. The
people have voted.... It is not up to you.... You just don't get what is going
on in average peoples' lives."
Patrick insisted the state needs the money to restore local aid to curb property
taxes and and pay for education, fix crumbling roads, and restore other spending
that had been cut.
Gabrieli criticized Patrick for suggesting there could be a rollback in the
future, but not providing details. Gabrieli touted his own plan, which calls for
a gradual rollback of the income tax rate, which he said could lower from the
current 5.3 percent to 5 percent by the end of his first term.
The Gabrieli proposal would phase in the cut, diverting 40 percent of each
year's revenue growth above inflation to a tax cut.
Reilly called Gabrieli's plan bogus, saying it is unlikely that the economy will
improve sufficiently to set off the triggers. "It's one of those things," he
said, "now you see it and now you don't.
"You have to be straight with people," Reilly told Gabrieli. "You can't kid
them.... The plan does not roll back the income tax except when you want it to."
Patrick also used Gabrieli's income tax formula to portray him as a theorist: "I
would just say first of all that the concept of a gradual income tax rollback is
right," said Patrick. "The problem or the difference I think between your view
of that and mine, Chris, is that you love the world of theory and I live in the
real world."
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Democrats clash over taxes, crime, education
As usual, the income tax was the most important difference,
with Reilly favoring an immediate rollback, Deval Patrick opposed, and Chris
Gabrieli in the middle. From the discussion last night, viewers would have no
inkling that the Legislature, not the governor, will have the most say in that
decision. And the electorate shows no inclination to change the legislative
balance that favors the current 5.3 percent rate, barring an economic miracle
that increases revenues more than expected.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Small differences
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
"The debate is over. The people have voted.
It is not up to you," declared Attorney General Tom Reilly during last
night's debate between the three Democrat candidates running for
governor, referring to our 2000 ballot question to roll back the now
17-year old "temporary" income tax increase.
Reilly sounded as if he was reading from the CLT
website, or has been a regular visitor to it. Too bad he
apparently discovered it only recently, since he decided to run for
governor. He'd have some credibility if he had stood up for the
voters' decision back in 2002, when the Legislature "temporarily" froze
the rollback at 5.3 percent, if he had uttered even a single word
defending those voters and their decision at any time since then and
until his recent conversion after reading the polls.
I don't believe for a moment that if elected governor
Tom Reilly would carry out his "promise" any more than other Democrat
pols have kept theirs; that taxpayers would see the final step
implemented in our winning ballot question law just because he somehow
won the election. I don't believe for a moment that any of
the three candidates would, or even intend to.
Which is why CLT sent out
our news release yesterday.
It's amazing how many, media and public alike, think it's all for real
and not just a discardable campaign gimmick.
Deval Patrick insists the state can't afford the tax
rollback in the foreseeable future; Gabrieli claims the state can't
afford to roll it back all at once and has another "trigger" scheme
that'll never be implemented. If the state can't "afford"
to return the rate to 5 percent as the voters ordered, then, as David
Tuerck of the Beacon Hill Institute observed, perhaps the voters in 2000
"were saying that if current obligations would require the Legislature
to spend more than that, then it is time to reduce current obligations."
But the Legislature is having none of that -- they've
got our money and have no intention of returning a cent of it if
avoidable. Not only is there no plan in the Legislature to "reduce
current obligations," but as always happens when there's a revenue
surplus, the Beacon Hill Democrats are squandering hundreds of millions
of our dollars on ridiculous boondoggles, expanding and adding new
"fixed cost" programs that will only grow larger and more expensive, and
turning a blind eye to any meaningful reforms whatsoever.
The state revenue surplus for just the past fiscal
year was $1.3 billion -- and the Beacon Hill pols spent it As
Governor Romney pointed out in his Boston Globe column, this fiscal
year's budget "included line item after line item of less-than-essential
projects, such as merry-go-rounds and gazebos."
But the Democrat majority in the Legislature, and two
of its party's candidates for governor, insist the state still can't
afford to honor and respect the voters and their 2000 decision.
If they can't finally keep the Legislature's 17-year
old promise and return the rate to 5 percent now -- honestly, when will
they ever be able to? The answer is, there is no intention to
ever, for as long as they can get away with their ongoing heist.
And why would the pols want to make do with less of
our money? How could all the waste, patronage, fraud and abuses
continue with less of our money to squander -- how would "public
servants" continue to enjoy the benefits and boondoggles to which
they've become accustomed, entitled in their eyes?
"But it's also apparent that lax and generous
personnel policies have led to too much abuse." Scot Lehigh wrote, again
exposing another only-in-the-public-sector entitlement. "Certainly, the
average private sector worker can't trade in unused sick leave or
vacation time." Still, we hear from the Democrats on Beacon Hill
that "the state can't afford the rollback." The way
government-for-"public-servants" operates in Massachusetts, there is no
wonder why. They keep getting more by hook or by crook while we
keep getting less after paying the "fixed costs" they impose using our
tax overpayments.
With an election less than two months away, let's
hope there's some changes in the Legislature this time -- and pray that
none of the Three Blind Mice manage to somehow get elected.
Without at least a Republican in the corner office, our days are
numbered.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Sunday, September 10. 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Patrick in the primary
In choosing a governor to run the state, voters look for executive
experience, wise issue positions, and the intangible quality of
leadership. It is a rare thing when a candidate has all three. We
believe Massachusetts Democrats and independent voters have such a
person in Deval Patrick. The Globe strongly endorses his candidacy in
the gubernatorial primary Sept. 19.
Patrick, 50, has not held elective office, but he has served in
significant appointed office, as chief of the civil rights division in
the US Justice Department under President Clinton. There, he managed an
office of several hundred lawyers fighting complex issues across diverse
constituencies from bankers to police officers to community organizers.
After that he was a lawyer for Coca-Cola and Texaco and a member of
several corporate boards. He has experience in the plushest office
suites and the meanest urban streets. He has the range, the maturity,
and the skill to lead Massachusetts through precarious times.
Often, the character of a political campaign provides a lens into how a
candidate would govern. One may call on longtime political alliances.
One may spend a lot of money on television ads. Patrick has chosen to
build a broad citizen organization, fueled by his inspiring presence,
perhaps, but also benefiting from the advice and participation of
thousands who are joining the political process in earnest for the first
time. The organization may help propel him to victory in the election.
More important, because of the base it provides to speak directly to the
voters and mobilize support for change, it can help him govern.
Patrick's policy views, rather nebulous at the beginning of the
campaign, have come into sharper focus. His economic prescription is
simple but powerful: Hold the line on income taxes; focus on support for
beleaguered communities to ease property taxes; and expand the economy
by making Massachusetts a more inviting place for all kinds of
businesses. Despite the easy stereotype, he is no big-spending,
antibusiness liberal. His ideas for economic development are as serious
and sensible as any candidate's, Republican or Democrat.
Patrick sees the comprehensive picture. He showed vision and
independence in being first to support the Cape Wind project, but he
also understands global markets, and the opportunity in steering the
state's economy toward alternative energy technologies. "If we get that
right, the whole world is our customer," he says.
He has a measured, focused approach to implementing the state's
complicated new healthcare law, already fraying at the seams. Just
holding together the fragile coalition that passed the universal access
law and steadily making it work is challenge enough for now. "It's
important for us to get past this politics that says we have to agree on
everything before we can work on anything," he says. Similarly, he wants
to fix the relationship between the state and the cities and towns,
which he correctly says is in "total breakdown."
Patrick's experience with brokering such collaboration among competing
interests is a major asset of his candidacy. A good example was on
display in Thursday night's debate. When both his opponents were sniping
at each other over whether Harvard or the UMass system should benefit
from publicly funded stem cell research, Patrick spoke eloquently about
the power of partnerships.
Patrick says he wants to effect a change in the culture on Beacon Hill;
his successes doing that in the corporate sector -- where both Coke and
Texaco were facing difficult mandates to diversify from top to bottom --
help us believe it is more than just rhetoric. Judging from the "brain
trust" of policy advisers he already has attracted to the campaign, we
are confident he will build an administration full of the talent and
energy that have been shut out of government -- both in the executive
and the Legislature -- for too long.
We hope Patrick will become a more vigorous advocate for education
reform and the need to hold students and teachers to higher standards.
Crucial to the state's ability to compete is that 13 years of momentum
not be slowed by institutional resistance or inertia. But we also
recognize that Patrick is a man whose life was saved by the
opportunities of a rigorous education that took him from a broken home
in Chicago to Milton Academy and Harvard and beyond. The transforming
power of education is not theoretical to him.
Patrick doesn't often explicitly address his race in the campaign. But
his positive reception -- he won the Democratic Party's endorsement at
its convention in June -- has been a good sign that this state can move
beyond its reputation as old, cold, and closed. At a crowded town forum
in Framingham last month, Patrick addressed the perception that
Massachusetts is a difficult place to break into, whether for business
or socially. "It will be a signal of welcome when I take the oath," he
said. Patrick's very presence in this campaign has been positive and
inviting, with its theme of the common stake each citizen has in the
success of the other. Wouldn't more of that be a refreshing "culture
change" for Massachusetts?
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
State runs out of excuses not to cut tax:
Core issue is the value state places on democracy
By David G. Tuerck
What has most distinguished this year’s primary season is the
candidates’ fixation on what should, in one sense, be the least
important issue of the campaign: whether to cut the personal income tax
rate from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. In 2000, the voters overwhelmingly
supported a ballot measure to reduce the rate, then at 5.85 percent, in
stages to 5 percent.
In 2002, the Legislature overturned this vote and froze the rate at 5.3
percent in response to an economic slowdown.
Now, with revenues flooding state coffers, candidates debate whether to
let the income tax rate fall to 5 percent at once, or in stages, or
whether to just keep the rate frozen where it is now. The revenue loss
from the tax cut is estimated to be $675 million annually or about 2.6
percent of the budget.
Today 57 percent of expected Democratic primary voters support a
reduction of the rate to 5 percent. There are, to be sure, influential
voices claiming that the state cannot “afford” to sacrifice even this
much revenue. But fiscal 2006 revenues totaled $18.6 billion - a surplus
of $1.3 billion. The tax cut could have gone into effect July 1, 2005,
and the state would still have brought in about $529 million more
revenue than it would have needed to meet its spending plans for the
coming fiscal year.
If affordability is the issue, then we must ask, “If not now, when?”
Opponents of the tax cut point out how little it would add to disposable
income (about $143 per household per year). But the same logic cuts the
other way. Using the state surplus and limiting the annual growth of
budget busters, the Legislature could make up 2.6 percent of the budget
without inflicting real pain. Cutting the tax would confer at least
modest economic gains. According to our analysis, it would create almost
8,000 jobs and add $450 million annually to disposable incomes.
The core issue, however, is the value that the state - and the
candidates - place on democracy.
The usual argument is that the voters would never have approved the tax
cut if they had anticipated the 2002 downturn or if they had understood
the spending needs imposed by health care and education reform, unfunded
pension liabilities, Big Dig disasters and the like. But this argument
overlooks the possibility that the voters are intelligent enough to know
that economic downturns will occur and that professed spending needs
will always get larger and larger.
Perhaps in 2000, the voters meant to tell the Legislature that it must
learn to live with 5 percent through thick and thin and that if there is
a downturn and if citizens must tighten their belts, then so must state
government. Perhaps that’s what they’re telling the candidates now.
The voters, too, may see through the argument that the state continues
to labor with a “structural” deficit that makes a tax cut fiscally
irresponsible. This deficit is supposed to be the difference between
what the state has to spend in order to meet obligations and what it can
expect to take in as revenue.
Perhaps, in enacting the 2000 tax cuts, the voters were telling the
Legislature that what it has to spend can be no more than what it can
raise in revenue when the tax rate is set at 5 percent. Perhaps they
were saying that if current obligations would require the Legislature to
spend more than that, then it is time to reduce current obligations.
Self-styled experts like to disdain the naive voter who would jeopardize
“vital” programs just to save a few bucks. Perhaps the voters likewise
disdain pols who behave like petulant teens unable to live on an
allowance. The difference is that it is the voters, not the experts or
the pols, who have the votes.
David G. Tuerck is executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute,
and chairman and professor of economics at Suffolk University.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Binge spending days are over
By Mitt Romney
In 1981, I learned about cycles the hard way. I invested in Texas real
estate when it was at an all-time high only to see values, and my
investment, take a nose dive. This experience alerted me once again to
the law of cycles: What is up will eventually come down, and what is
down will go up.
When I took office, the Massachusetts economy was down. My team and I
went to work to find ways to economize and to eliminate duplication and
waste. We cut back on "nice to have" spending that we just couldn't
afford. We had our share of disagreements with the Legislature: the
budgets I proposed did not cut school funding, for instance. But we were
steadfast in avoiding new taxes. And, of course, our success in managing
during the down years benefited from the state's rainy day fund. Thanks
to the courage and foresight of prior Republican governors and
Democratic legislators like former speaker Tom Finneran, money saved
during the good times helped to smooth out the bad.
Over the last three years, Massachusetts has come back. Businesses are
hiring again, and we even read stories of employers creating incentives
to retain older employees in the face of worker shortages. Our state and
local tax revenues have gone through the roof. In fact, state tax
receipts have exceeded forecasts by over a billion dollars for each of
the last two years. A year ago, we refilled the rainy day fund.
Which brings us to today. When things are up, it's easy to forget the
law of cycles, and to spend like "up" is the only direction the economy
will ever go. That's just what happened in this year's budget debate. On
June 30, the Legislature passed a budget that spent not only all of the
record tax revenues and all of the billion-dollar surplus, but also $500
million from the rainy day fund. The Legislature's bet must be that if
the Massachusetts economy keeps booming next year, no one will be the
wiser. But there may already be signs that this is a bad bet: Tax
revenues are below forecast for each of the last two months. And the law
of cycles will not go away. Sooner or later, a downturn is inevitable.
The spending spree will lead to deep cuts, big borrowing, a call for
higher taxes, or all of the above. The fingers of blame will be pointed
in many directions, but spending-- runaway spending-- will be the real
culprit.
I wish I could say that all of the excessive spending at least went to
necessities. While we did address some of our critical infrastructure
needs relating to state roads, bridges, and our system of public higher
education, the budget included line item after line item of
less-than-essential projects, such as merry-go-rounds and gazebos.
Every legislator and politician knows this spending can't be justified,
so why do they do it? Because it gets politicians praised -- and
re-elected. There's no courage involved in spending more money. Drawing
a line on spending is hard and fraught with criticism. When I vetoed
$458 million of excessive spending in the budget this spring, I knew
that community newspapers across the Commonwealth would decry my
elimination of local pet projects. And, I knew that the Legislature
would over ride most of my vetoes. In fact, they over rode all of
them, to a chorus of community acclaim. But someone has to say "no."
This year's budget battle is history, but my concern is that the
spending binge will continue unabated. Social service advocates always
want more. Last month, I vetoed a bill mandating free pre-school for
everyone, which would have cost over $1 billion a year. It's a wonderful
concept, but leaders need to know where to draw the line on spending.
Government unions will want more. We have attempted to limit increases
in state employee contracts to roughly 2 percent annually, unless there
are significant concessions. But the unions will be expecting a more
generous deal from the politicians they endorse in the fall elections --
and if history is a guide, they'll get it. And, most of all, lobbyists
want more. Beacon Hill is alive with hands hired to get government money
-- your money -- for their clients.
Yogi Berra famously said: "It's déjà vu all over again." He'd learned
the lesson of cycles. We've seen cycles here in Massachusetts often
enough to have learned as well. But we'll need a hefty dose of courage
from politicians and vigilance from citizens if we are going to be as
well-prepared for the next inevitable downdraft as we were for the last
one.
Mitt Romney is the governor of Massachusetts.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Personnel policies need scrutiny
By Scot Lehigh
It's become a staple of state and local news coverage: The public
employee who abuses sick leave or vacation time policies in ways that
would be unimaginable in the private sector.
The latest example came last week, with the Globe's report on Boston
Police officer Christine Meegan, who took more than 100 work days off in
less than a year by gaming the department's sick time and vacation
policies.
Mayor Tom Menino, who has been prodded for years to tighten the
management at both the police and fire departments, has, of course,
demanded a full investigation. But here's the real scandal: According to
the Globe story, what Meegan did was apparently permitted under the
department's union contract.
In mid-August, meanwhile, we had a sterling example of greed in the
persons of Matt Amorello, former chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority, and some members of his management team.
On their way out the door at the turnpike, Amorello and his managers
made off with something that really should belong to you and me. Like,
say, several hundred thousand dollars.
Oh, I know, I know, it's all perfectly legal.
It's money they were entitled to for vacation they didn't take or sick
time they didn't use.
Of course, Amorello went the extra mile to ensure his minions could
enjoy a public-sector pig-out.
He changed the turnpike's sick-leave policy on his own initiative back
on July 5 to allow managers to cash in up to 50 percent of their unused
sick leave whenever they left the turnpike.
It was bad enough before, when they, like other executive branch
employees, could cash in 20 percent of their sick leave upon retirement.
Amorello, meanwhile, got a check for 450 hours of supposedly unused
vacation.
So let's review the record of this selfless civil servant.
We start with a man who never should have had this job in the first
place, who was hired in February 2002 at $170,481 a year. Because of
both automatic salary adjustments and raises voted him by the board,
four years later, he was making $226,348 - an increase of 33 percent
over four years.
Under the arrangement he got upon resigning his post in the aftermath of
the Big Dig tunnel ceiling collapse, Amorello will continue to receive
his salary until February, after walking out the door with an extra
$54,000 for cashing in his unused vacation time.
Those with particularly long memories may recall this sort of thing
happening before at the Pike.
When Allan McKinnon left as turnpike chairman back in 1996, he got
$84,000 for supposedly unused sick time and vacation time - even though
agency parking records cast strong doubt on his claim to have taken
little time off during his last 18 months on the job.
Amorello also seems to have been a Cal Ripken-like public servant.
If turnpike records are to be believed, Amorello didn't take any
vacation in 2002, and with the exception of 2004, took 11 or fewer days
off in each of his other years at the Pike.
It's not just Amorello who made out like a bandit, however.
His team of, well, highwaymen, were also taken care of. Under Amorello's
new policy, for example, flak Mariellen Burns walked off with $25,100,
though part of that, I hasten to add, was $17,692 in "special
recognition pay" - for a job she had held for a year and a half.
We also recently read about retired Brockton police lieutenant Charles
Lincoln, who was able to exploit lax sick-day policies to work - ah,
make that hold - two full-time public positions for several years.
For three years, he worked both for the Brockton police and as director
of security for the Plymouth County House of Correction, something he
managed in part by abusing the sick-day policies of both. In the three
years of his dual employment, Lincoln called in sick 222 times from his
Brockton Police post, and 29 times from his Plymouth County job. On many
of the days when he was supposedly out sick from one job, he showed up
for the other. His twin posts have qualified him for a pension of
$140,000 a year, though his
case is under investigation by the Public Employee Retirement and
Administration Commission.
Now, I'm not one who thinks that the average public employee is a hack
or a layabout or an abuser of the system. There are plenty of good,
honest, dedicated, hard-working people in the public sector.
But it's also apparent that lax and generous personnel policies have led
to too much abuse. Certainly, the average private sector worker can't
trade in unused sick leave or vacation time.
If I were one of the legislative patrons whom Amorello long depended on
to protect his job - and then, when his departure became inevitable
after the Big Dig tunnel tragedy, to insist that he be fairly treated -
I'd be furious.
The turnpike's personnel policies have now been changed back to what
they were before.
Still, Senate President Robert Travaglini, who tightened the Senate's
personnel policies some upon assuming the leadership post, thinks the
state's policies also need more scrutiny.
"It's time to review the rules that govern reimbursement at the time of
departure as it relates to vacation and sick time," Travaglini says.
That's something that should happen not just at quasi-independent
authorities, but at every level of public employment, including city and
town labor forces.
"The public sector has a long way to go in terms of managing its
resources and its personnel policies," says Sam Tyler, president of the
Boston Municipal Research Bureau. "There really hasn't been any overall
comprehensive review of personnel practices at the state or local
level."
Establishing policies that look more like the private sector's would be
one way to reassure the public that government is well run. And it would
help put an end to the well-publicized abuses we've seen in the last
month - abuses that should make every honorable public servant cringe.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Heart vs. mind
By Joan Vennochi
For a while now, it has been heart versus mind, hope versus results,
Deval Patrick versus Chris Gabrieli.
Why -- just as "mind" was starting to win -- did Gabrieli have to pull a
Dick Cheney on me?
This week, Gabrieli labeled Patrick "out of the mainstream" and called
Patrick backers "a small group of rabid supporters." That has an
unpleasant, right-wing Republican sound to it. As Attorney General Tom
Reilly would say, "I'm very disappointed in you, Chris."
Two recent polls show Patrick breaking way out ahead of Gabrieli, with
Reilly trailing in third place. For any chance at victory on Sept. 19,
Gabrieli needs to close the gap fast.
To do that, he is choosing to go for the conservative Democratic vote
versus the votes of liberal-leaning independents, still torn between a
heart-versus-mind argument. The strategy has its risks. Unfortunately,
given the short time frame between now and primary day, it may be all
that's left for Gab rieli.
In reality, Gabrieli and Patrick have a lot in common. For example, both
are pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage, and support Cape Wind.
However, to draw a sharper distinction with his opponent, Gabrieli is
trying to separate himself from Patrick on taxes and immigration, the
hot buttons Republicans love to push.
Patrick says the state cannot afford an immediate income tax rollback.
Gabrieli supports a phased income tax rollback tied to revenue
benchmarks. In essence, that is a less candid way of saying the state
cannot afford the immediate rollback endorsed by Reilly and Republican
Kerry Healey.
Patrick and Reilly would allow children of illegal immigrants to qualify
for the resident tuition rate at state colleges. Gabrieli opposes
in-state tuition rate for illegal immigrants, a stance that is unpopular
with liberals, but, sadly, helpful in the general election. Gabrieli
supports charter schools and lifting the cap on them. Patrick's website
proclaims "charter schools as part of the solution," but says the
"emphasis must lie in assuring that conditions exist for innovation and
consistent success in our district schools."
But the true differences between them are less about issues and more
about personal style and professional resume. Conventional wisdom gives
Patrick the edge in this department, but there's another side to the
story.
In this primary election, Patrick is cast as the charismatic speaker
with an inspirational life story, from downtrodden in Chicago to
millionaire in Massachusetts. Gabrieli is the cerebral policy wonk who
can point to success in the private and nonprofit sectors and a bankroll
to match Healey's.
You might also say that these two sons of Harvard chose opposite career
paths. Gabrieli did well, then he did good; Patrick did good, then he
did well.
Gabrieli made a fortune via investments in healthcare and biotech
startups. Then, he moved into the nonprofit world, working and funding
ways to advance public policy ideas.
Patrick launched a career as a government lawyer with a zeal for
enforcing civil rights laws. Then, using the public sector as a
springboard, he made millions in the private sector, defending
corporations he used to regulate.
Because of his natural glibness, Patrick may look like the person who
can wheedle most of what he wants out of Beacon Hill. On the other hand,
Gabrieli has experience promoting ideas in the public arena.
The same poll that puts Patrick ahead on primary day indicates that
Gabrieli is the strongest Democrat against Healey. In the State House
News poll, he beats her 47 percent to 26 percent. Those numbers explain
why the Healey campaign is going after Gabrieli. This week, the
Republicans criticized a Gabrieli campaign flier that said the state is
losing jobs under the Romney-Healey administration.
The 2006 GOP campaign message is basic: Healey won't spend your money or
raise your taxes. Liberals may not want to accept this political
reality, but Patrick's position on the income tax rollback is going to
be a problem in the general election -- and could doom him. At least
Gabrieli accepts the reality -- voters endorsed an income tax rollback
-- and offers a formula for implementing it, even if it falls short of
immediate gratification.
Heart versus mind. Hope versus results. Inspiration versus pragmatism.
I just wish Gabrieli could win minds without stomping on hearts.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Democrats clash over taxes, crime, education
Reilly, Gabrieli target Patrick
By Frank Phillips and Andrea Estes, Globe Staff
The three Democratic candidates for governor picked apart one another's
positions on taxes, education, and crime in a robust debate last night,
but avoided the rancor that dominated a similar face-off last week.
In their final appearance together before Tuesday's primary, Deval L.
Patrick, Christopher F. Gabrieli, and Thomas F. Reilly offered primary
voters strongly differing visions of how to roll back the state income
tax and bickered over the value of charter schools and whether their
campaign had taken an unecessarily harsh turn.
Patrick, who has taken a lead in recent polls, appeared at times
defensive and off balance. His two rivals targeted him in the debate,
suggesting he was vague in his proposals. Gabrieli asked Patrick at one
point: "You have been in the race a year and a half; got any specifics?"
The only personal barbs came when Patrick asked about his two rivals'
character, saying Reilly and Gabrieli had been waging a "nasty and
negative" campaign in recent days. Patrick charged that Reilly and
Gabrieli, in last week's debate and in recent days, have crossed "over
that line," referring to an early agreement among Democrats to conduct a
civil campaign.
"And I just wonder what that says about your character and your
leadership," Patrick asked.
Gabrieli in particular has aired ads and leveled tough rhetoric against
Patrick, pointing to Patrick's opposition to an income tax rollback and
his support of in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants.
"I do find it ironic to say ... we shouldn't be catty," Gabrieli told
Patrick. "You know we have both been spending millions this summer.
You've been spending it on a summer home, and I've spending it on
something I care deeply about; that's fighting for Massachusetts."
Gabrieli was referring to the multimillion dollar summer estate that
Patrick has built in the Berkshire town of Richmond. He has taken out a
$4 million loan on the 77-acre lot to build the house, along with a
carriage house and a pool.
"I don't think people who live in glass mansions should throw stones,"
said Gabrieli, himself a multimillionaire who lives in tony Louisburg
Square on Beacon Hill.
"A well-rehearsed line," Patrick shot back.
"No one is picking on you," Reilly told Patrick. "You have taken stands
and positions that we disagree with. What do you think is going to
happen when the Republicans get a shot at you? This is tame. We are
being really nice."
Reilly also told Patrick that he had "legitimate concerns" about his and
Gabrieli's refusal to release their tax returns and "honor the will of
the voters" by rolling back the state income tax.
"Those are comparisons; those are fair questions," Reilly told Patrick.
"Just because someone is asking the question doesn't mean there is
anything wrong with it."
Reilly suggested it was the first time that a major Democratic candidate
has not released income tax returns. But Patrick said that Senator
Edward M. Kennedy has always refused to release his tax returns.
The debate also turned contentious on the issue of the 5.3 percent state
income tax rate. Reilly, using the populist rhetoric that he hopes will
distinguish him from his wealthy rivals, attacked the other two over the
2000 ballot vote to roll back the income tax to 5 percent.
"Neither one of you get it," Reilly chided his rivals. "The debate is
over. The people have voted.... It is not up to you.... You just don't
get what is going on in average peoples' lives."
Patrick insisted the state needs the money to restore local aid to curb
property taxes and and pay for education, fix crumbling roads, and
restore other spending that had been cut.
Gabrieli criticized Patrick for suggesting there could be a rollback in
the future, but not providing details. Gabrieli touted his own plan,
which calls for a gradual rollback of the income tax rate, which he said
could lower from the current 5.3 percent to 5 percent by the end of his
first term.
The Gabrieli proposal would phase in the cut, diverting 40 percent of
each year's revenue growth above inflation to a tax cut.
Reilly called Gabrieli's plan bogus, saying it is unlikely that the
economy will improve sufficiently to set off the triggers. "It's one of
those things," he said, "now you see it and now you don't.
"You have to be straight with people," Reilly told Gabrieli. "You can't
kid them.... The plan does not roll back the income tax except when you
want it to."
Patrick also used Gabrieli's income tax formula to portray him as a
theorist: "I would just say first of all that the concept of a gradual
income tax rollback is right," said Patrick. "The problem or the
difference I think between your view of that and mine, Chris, is that
you love the world of theory and I live in the real world."
Countered Gabrieli: "For a guy who spent his whole life in business
doing stuff, I don't know when I became the theoretician."
Reilly and Patrick also sparred over the Public Safety Act of 2006,
which Reilly said would allow the purging of criminal background
information known as CORI records.
Reilly said drug dealers and others would have their records cleaned
under the proposal and it would allow criminals to get out of prison
early.
But Patrick insisted he would not allow the proposal to become law
without amendments. "Tom, did you just hear what I said?" he said, his
voice rising in exasperation after Reilly pressed on.
Gabrieli and Reilly also singled out Patrick's opposition to lifting a
cap on new charter schools. But Patrick responded: "Chris, you're wrong
that I don't support charter schools. You've again overstated or
understated my position. My view is ... we need to come up with a
different and better funding mechanism before we raise the cap. It's
just that simple."
Still the debate had far less tension than last week's event when Reilly
went on the attack, primarily against Gabrieli with accusations he had
leaked confidential documents about state Representative Marie St.
Fleur, the attorney general's choice as lieutenant governor, who was
forced off the ticket because of her financial problems.
Last night's debate was broadcast live from CBS4 and moderated by the
station's political analyst, Jon Keller. By the end of the event, each
candidate's attempt to carve out a niche in the race was clear.
Reilly, the two-term attorney general and former district attorney,
played up his experience in government, describing himself as a "proven
and tested leader" who at times has gone up against the political
establishment, including pushing to remove William M. Bulger as
president of the University of Massachusetts.
Gabrieli, who has not held public office but has been a successful
venture capitalist, cited his background in business and hit his
recurring theme that he "gets results" and is far less partisan than his
rivals.
Patrick, a former top Justice Department official and corporate lawyer,
said his candidacy is distinguished from the others because he has
broad-based experience in both the private and public sectors. He argued
that as an outsider with grassroots support, he can change the
entrenched political culture on Beacon Hill.
In response to a question posed by Keller, all three promised to serve
out a four-year term and not explore other political options while
governor.
Keller noted that two of the last three governors left office before
their terms expired and that Governor Mitt Romney is traveling the
country to seek support for a presidential candidacy in 2008.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, September 14, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Small differences
It's been a long campaign, and it showed last night, as the three
Democratic candidates for governor recited their stands on the issues on
the last televised debate before the primary Tuesday. Their similarities
outweighed their disagreements and suggested that the party will unite
behind the winning candidate when he faces Lieutenant Governor Kerry
Healey in the general election.
As usual, the income tax was the most important difference, with Reilly
favoring an immediate rollback, Deval Patrick opposed, and Chris
Gabrieli in the middle. From the discussion last night, viewers would
have no inkling that the Legislature, not the governor, will have the
most say in that decision. And the electorate shows no inclination to
change the legislative balance that favors the current 5.3 percent rate,
barring an economic miracle that increases revenues more than expected.
The other differences presented were exceedingly small. Reilly favored
merit pay for teachers, Patrick would offer it on a schoolwide basis,
and Gabrieli favored payments for innovation plans offered by individual
districts. Patrick wants to tweak the payment for charter schools, while
Gabrieli wants to increase their number.
On economic development, healthcare benefits for state employees, the
need to trim healthcare costs, and hiring quotas, they were nearly
identical. And even though Patrick is leading in the polls, neither of
his opponents sought to barrage him with negative comments -- a big
difference from the last debate, when Reilly attacked Gabrieli . With
Reilly and Gabrieli acting civil, Patrick looked oversensitive when he
sought to criticize his opponents for past negative campaigning.
Gabrieli did make a crack about Patrick's spending millions on his
vacation home, an odd comment from a multimillionaire who has hardly
forsworn luxuries. But that was a ripple on the waters of reasoned
though occasionally impassioned discourse.
Patrick, whom we on this page endorsed Sunday, made the best case for
his candidacy at the beginning and end of the debate, when he eloquently
spoke of his successes in public and private life and of the impressive
grass-roots organization he has created. By contrast, Reilly has relied
during the campaign on established interests for support, and Gabrieli
counted on his fortune to make up for his late start.
As with tax cuts, the Legislature will have final say on just about all
the other issues mentioned in this debate -- unless the governor can
build a popular base and claim a mandate. Patrick, for his part, has
persuaded thousands of people to work for him in his campaign. When the
differences on issues are slight, the performance outside the debating
studio counts the most.
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
|