CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Deval is "Doing It For The Children"
too!
Labor unions and other Democratic allies are pitching
in to help Deval L. Patrick, who for the last two weeks has been heavily
outspent in an increasingly combative television ad battle with his
Republican opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry M. Healey....
Patrick's campaign got a boost in recent days from the Massachusetts
Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union Local
1199, both of which have launched ads in support of the Democratic
nominee....
Jim Sacks, communications director of the 102,000-member teachers union,
said the MTA expects to spend "well over $1 million" between now and the
Nov. 7 election on "issue ads" in support of the Patrick-Murray ticket.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Patrick gets help in ad battle with Healey
What is wrong with this picture? Deval Patrick says he wants
property tax relief, and the teachers’ union is running TV spots for him.
It doesn’t make sense. The leading opponents of property tax relief backing the
guy who swears he wants to help taxpayers.
Unless, of course, maybe the Mass. Teachers Association got the secret handshake
from Deval. I mean, when was the last time you saw members of your local
teachers’ union holding signs in the town square saying, VOTE NO ON OVERRIDE -
OUR PAY IS TOO HIGH?
"Those ads should certainly be a warning," Barbara Anderson of Citizens for
Limited Taxation said yesterday. "The MTA has been the No. 1 enemy of Prop 2½
ever since it was a glean in the taxpayers’ eyes back in 1978."
But the teachers unions have never been able to kill 2½. For 16 years, even as
the conservative base in the Legislature withered away, the taxpayers retained
the governorship - and the veto pen....
As for Prop 2½, it’s one of those things that you won’t miss until it’s gone. "I
don’t think they’re going to file a bill, House 111, to abolish 2½," Anderson
says. "What’s more likely is that they’ll have an exclusion for some group or
classification of funds, and once you have one exception, the Legislature won’t
be able to stop anyone from demanding an exclusion, and that’s the end of it."
And 2½ will die, not with a bang but a whimper. Sort of like the
initiative-petition process....
No wonder the teachers’ union is spending all that dough to get Deval elected.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Teacher support for Deval spells doom for Prop. 2½
By Howie Carr
Nearly every school employee will receive a sick-leave
buyback check upon retirement. It's in the contract of the city's 500 teachers
and also guaranteed for a few hundred secretaries, custodians and food service
workers in other union contracts. Even assistant principals and program
directors will get it....
Sick-leave buybacks work like this: If school employees don't use all their sick
days - teachers get 15 per school year - the days accumulate from year to year.
Upon retirement, they get paid for anywhere from 1 to 90 unused sick days....
For many veteran teachers and administrators, who get paid for up to 80 unused
sick days, that means a check for $25,000 as they go out the door....
A former school administrator, Walsh said buybacks were given to teachers
decades ago as a way of providing additional compensation for what was then a
low-paying job....
Sick-leave buybacks were put into the teacher contracts in 1973 ... At that
time, a starting teacher was paid $8,000, and a veteran with a master's degree
earned about $13,500. Those salary figures have jumped to $35,425 today for
starting teachers and $56,914 for veteran teachers with an advanced degree.
The buybacks are big payouts because they are based on a teacher's salary at the
time of retirement. A teacher hired in 1973 was earning only $40 a day, but now
makes more than $300 a day. So the total for those buyback checks is going up.
His fear, Fleming said, is that if buybacks aren't addressed, "we're going to be
burying the next generation with these things."
The Salem News
Monday, October 16, 2006
Salem teachers, administrators get big paychecks
for unused sick days
When it comes to Deval Patrick, there’s one big question
still to ask.
Just how much is all of this going to cost?
Because when it comes to spending our tax dollars, he has ... big plans....
But if Patrick can’t square the circle, what’s going to give? Who is going to be
disappointed? The teachers ... or the taxpayers?
The burden shouldn’t be on the Healey campaign to provide the answer - or the
voters to guess it.
The Boston Herald
Monday, October 16, 2006
With Patrick, the price may not be right
By Brett Arends
Barely minutes into yesterday's lieutenant gubernatorial
debate, Democrat Timothy P. Murray put on an exasperated look, turned to the man
sitting on the stool to his right, and said, "Please, Reed, no more pledges from
you and Kerry Healey. Because every time you make a pledge it costs the
taxpayers millions of dollars."
"You're going to raise taxes every way you can!" responded Reed Hillman, a
former state representative from Sturbridge on the Republican ticket. The
candidates then began raising their voices and talking over one another before
moderator Jim Braude intervened....
Earlier in the day, Murray went to the Long Wharf Marriott hotel, where Healey
was addressing the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Murray
approached Healey after her speech and, in front of a group of reporters, asked
why she would not release her answers to a questionnaire from the Gun Owners
Action League, which endorsed her on Monday.
"We hope you'll be willing to release your answers to the questionnaire, because
it will add to a full and valuable discussion on all the issues relating to
public safety," Murray said.
"You know what I'd like to know?" Healey shot back, drawing within 2 feet of
Murray. "Why don't you release your Mass. Teachers Association information?"
The teachers union endorsed the Patrick-Murray campaign last month.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Sparks fly at lieutenant governor debate
While some voters are captivated by Lieutenant Governor Kerry
Healey's campaign to roll back the state income tax rate to 5 percent, their
wallets are being drained by sharp increases in residential property taxes.
Deval Patrick, her Democratic opponent in the race for governor, calls this a
"fiscal shell game." That's an accurate characterization. But Patrick is also
fooling voters by suggesting that his election would lead to cuts in property
taxes.
A Boston Globe editorial
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Property tax shell games
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
We're sure learning a lot with less than three weeks
before the election. Last night we finally learned what the "Deval
Patrick Property Tax Relief Plan" -- in exchange for his refusal if
elected to roll back the income tax -- is all about, the "details" if you wish
to call them that. It took Patrick's Democrat running mate,
Timothy P. Murray, to expose "the plan." There is no "Deval
Property Tax Relief Plan" -- but to trust municipal officials to
not raise property taxes. (See CLT's new release today, "Deval’s
'Property Tax Relief' Plan Revealed At Last!")
When even the editorial elites on the Boston Globe
editorial board conclude, "But Patrick is also fooling voters by
suggesting that his election would lead to cuts in property taxes," you know Deval's credibility is treading on thin ice.
Of course, the Massachusetts Teachers Association --
the state teachers union -- is backing Deval Patrick to the hilt,
including "well over $1 million" in "issue ads" advocating his election.
What a simple investment decision that must have been for the greedy
teachers union: enabling a candidate who supports its defeated
strident 2000 position against the income tax rollback (during which it
wasted more millions), and who won't lift a finger to reduce property
taxes, which feed its insatiable lust for our money. As Howie Carr
opined in his column of today, a win for Devel Patrick and the teachers
union will not only overturn the only hope for the voters' 2000 mandate
to roll back the income tax -- but could also finally empower the
teachers union to toss out the voters' 1980 Proposition 2½ at last, its
greatest frustration.
And Lord knows, the teachers union needs all our
money it can extract to fund its insatiable greed. There have been
numerous news reports lately concerning public employee "buy-outs" and
sick-leave "buy-backs" that none of us in the private sector would even
dream about. (See: CLT Update, Oct. 7, 2006,
"A
government position is not a license to steal") Who knew that
many teachers in municipalities around the state were taking such
advantage of us taxpayers, taking us to the cleaners on "sick leave
buy-outs" too -- on top of every
other demand they make?
As Jim Fleming, chairman of the Salem personnel
subcommittee, said: "We're going to be burying the next generation with
these things."
Burying the next generation? Is this what they
mean by "doing it for the children"?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Patrick gets help in ad battle with Healey
By Brian C. Mooney, Globe Staff
Labor unions and other Democratic allies are pitching in to help Deval
L. Patrick, who for the last two weeks has been heavily outspent in an
increasingly combative television ad battle with his Republican
opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry M. Healey.
Two big labor unions are paying to air their own independent television
and radio ads supporting Patrick. Another Patrick ally, an independent
group bankrolled by labor and Democratic organizations, may also rejoin
the broadcast battle soon, after airing anti-Healey ads earlier in the
campaign.
Healey and the Republican Governors Association outspent Patrick by
about 3 to 1 on paid media in the first two weeks of October, before
most of the recent labor union spending for Patrick began, according to
estimates by the campaigns. During that period, Healey sliced into
Patrick's once overwhelming lead in the polls but still trails the
Democrat, according to independent surveys.
Last night, her campaign launched another negative ad, this one
attacking Patrick's support for driver's licenses and tuition breaks for
illegal immigrants, saying she will "use our tax dollars to benefit
those who abide by the law, not break it."
The Democrat has been pushing back with a series of negative ads about
Healey's negative ads, the latest featuring Middlesex District Attorney
Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate for attorney general, who
defends Patrick and criticizes Healey on crime-related issues.
For the four weeks since the Sept. 19 primary, Healey has outspent
Patrick by about 2 to 1, according to data compiled for the campaigns.
Patrick's campaign has spent about $1.8 million, but the figures vary on
Healey's ad buys. Her campaign pegs it at $3.3 million; Patrick's
campaign says it's about $4 million. In addition, the Republican
Governors Association spent about $890,000 on broadcast and cable ads
that were pro-Healey during the early part of this month.
Since his primary win, the Democrat's fund-raising has picked up, and
the campaign expects to be competitive but outspent by Healey down the
stretch, Patrick campaign manager John Walsh said. On Monday, a
fund-raiser headlined by former president Bill Clinton reaped an
estimated $2 million, which will be split between the state party and
the campaign of Patrick and his running mate, Timothy P. Murray. Another
major event, featuring Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, is scheduled
for Friday, and the party and campaign hope to collect another $200,000.
Healey campaign manager Tim O'Brien said the GOP candidate has had to
spend more heavily to overcome the negative effects of a barrage of
disparaging ads before the primary by six Democratic candidates for
governor and lieutenant governor and to offset the influence of labor
unions here.
Patrick's campaign got a boost in recent days from the Massachusetts
Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union Local
1199, both of which have launched ads in support of the Democratic
nominee. The teachers association is airing television and radio ads
promoting Patrick and his education policies and says, "Our children
lost a lot under the Romney-Healey administration." The big SEIU local
has a statewide radio ad extolling the Democrat as a champion of better,
more affordable healthcare.
Jim Sacks, communications director of the 102,000-member teachers union,
said the MTA expects to spend "well over $1 million" between now and the
Nov. 7 election on "issue ads" in support of the Patrick-Murray ticket.
Last week the teachers union reported spending about $75,000 on direct
mail on behalf of Patrick, and the Massachusetts Republican Party has
been mailing leaflets to targeted voters in support of Healey.
Separately, the SEIU local is backing Patrick with a radio spot, which
costs about $100,000 per week to air in the state's major markets.
Meghan Finegan, spokeswoman for the 12,000-member SEIU unit that
represents healthcare workers, declined to elaborate on future spending
plans to help Patrick or criticize Healey.
At the same time, the Republican Governors Association, which spent
about $890,000 on television ads that lauded the Romney-Healey
administration and criticized Patrick early this month, has gone off the
air in Massachusetts.
"We've got 36 races; we're evaluating a lot of them around the country,
and this is one of them," said Phil Musser, executive director of the
association, which is chaired by Governor Mitt Romney. The RGA has not
decided where to deploy its resources in the final three weeks of the
campaign, Musser said.
Republicans are struggling to defend eight governorships now held by the
GOP but in danger of falling to Democrats. "But Kerry Healey is closing
the gap, and that's the kind of thing you want to see as you enter the
last 21 days," Musser said.
The RGA is one of two 527 political organizations engaged in the
Massachusetts governor's race; they are called 527s for the section of
the federal tax code under which they operate. The second group is the
Patriot Majority Fund, which is funded by labor unions and the
Democratic Governors Association, the RGA's counterpart. Under the law,
the 527s may not coordinate with campaigns or other party entities and
may not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.
The Patriot Majority Fund, in a filing this week, disclosed the
contributors who financed about $460,000 worth of ads last month that
were harshly critical of Healey and part of what is expected to be up to
$2 million spent on the governor's race. Dan Cence, a local spokesman
for the group, declined to say when the fund will resume spending here.
"There are resources, and there are issues that are important to the
people of Massachusetts that will be brought to the forefront," Cence
said.
The report, covering the past three months, lists the following
contributions: the Democratic Governors Association, which donated
$230,000; Massachusetts Teachers Association, $250,000; SEIU Local 1199,
$200,000; New England Carpenters Political Action Committee, $50,000;
SEIU Local 509, $10,000; and the political committee of Governor Bill
Richardson of New Mexico, $5,000. Richardson is the chairman of the
Democratic Governors Association.
Independent candidate Christy Mihos has suspended his advertising
temporarily. He said he will return to the airwaves with new ads at the
end of this week.
Mihos, who has spent about $1.3 million on television and radio since
the primary, went off the air a week ago. "We're going back up on
Friday" with new spots, the independent said. "I don't think you ever
want to get in the way with anything creative or substance when the two
traditional parties are whacking each other like this about things that
are meaningless to what our problems are in the state," Mihos said.
The fourth gubernatorial candidate, Grace Ross of the Green-Rainbow
Party, has not advertised in the race.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Teacher support for Deval spells doom for Prop. 2½
By Howie Carr
What is wrong with this picture? Deval Patrick says he wants property
tax relief, and the teachers’ union is running TV spots for him.
It doesn’t make sense. The leading opponents of property tax relief
backing the guy who swears he wants to help taxpayers.
Unless, of course, maybe the Mass. Teachers Association got the secret
handshake from Deval. I mean, when was the last time you saw members of
your local teachers’ union holding signs in the town square saying, VOTE
NO ON OVERRIDE - OUR PAY IS TOO HIGH?
"Those ads should certainly be a warning," Barbara Anderson of Citizens
for Limited Taxation said yesterday. "The MTA has been the No. 1 enemy
of Prop 2½ ever since it was a glean in the taxpayers’ eyes back in
1978."
But the teachers unions have never been able to kill 2½. For 16 years,
even as the conservative base in the Legislature withered away, the
taxpayers retained the governorship - and the veto pen.
What Proposition 2½ does is allow the taxpayers in cities or towns to
make the decision for themselves as to whether they want their taxes
raised. Rising along with property values, real estate taxes have still
gone up way too much. But without 2½, it would have been far worse.
Just think how many proposed local property tax increases have never
seen the light of day, just because the municipal hacks were afraid to
put it to a vote?
There are higher-profile issues in the governor’s fight. Did you see
Bill Clinton’s nose the other night? His pick-up line is now "My Little
Chickadee." There’s Deval’s closest supporter, U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern,
trying to broom a sentence for a two-time loser cocaine dealer. And I
won’t even get into the rest of the Deval Fan Club - Ben LaGuer, Bernie
Sigh and David Scondras.
As for Prop 2½, it’s one of those things that you won’t miss until it’s
gone. "I don’t think they’re going to file a bill, House 111, to abolish
2½," Anderson says. "What’s more likely is that they’ll have an
exclusion for some group or classification of funds, and once you have
one exception, the Legislature won’t be able to stop anyone from
demanding an exclusion, and that’s the end of it."
And 2½ will die, not with a bang but a whimper. Sort of like the
initiative-petition process. Somewhere Tom Finneran will be smiling.
From a prison cell, if there’s any justice.
Prop 2½ would have been gutted long ago, had it not been for the
threatened vetoes by all the GOP governors since 1991. The Democrats
have had the votes to croak it for a while, but the legislative leaders
never wanted a roll-call vote to override the veto.
"But now," Anderson said, "the conservative Democrats in the Legislature
are gone, and we can’t do a ballot question to save it, so all we have
left is the veto pen."
And now that, too, could be lost. To be charitable, Deval is not a guy
who spends a lot of time worrying about Prop 2½. He’s a big picture guy,
like his old boss, who promised his own tax cuts in 1992 and then gave
us the biggest tax increases in U.S. history.
Deval has skipped override votes in the Town of Milton. Do you ever miss
a chance to keep your taxes low?
Maybe the first step toward eliminating 2½ will be to turn the override
over to the Town Meeting. Been to a Town Meeting lately? It’s like being
in a public sector union hall. But Gov. Patrick can shrug and say,
"Well, don’t they say TM is the purest form of democracy in the world?"
No wonder the teachers’ union is spending all that dough to get Deval
elected. Killing 2½ is the thing they want most in the world, next to
making sure the people don’t get a chance to vote on "gay marriage." And
of course they’ll get their wish on that one, too, if Deval wins.
Return to top
The Salem News
Monday, October 16, 2006
Salem teachers, administrators get big paychecks
for unused sick days
By Tom Dalton, Staff writer
SALEM - When Ann Papagiotas retired in June after a tumultuous three
years as principal of Salem High, she left with a severance check for
nearly $23,000, mostly for unused sick days.
Although new principals are no longer are given lucrative sick-leave
buybacks, Papagiotas reached a deal with a school administration that
was trying to ease her out of the job and avoid a potentially ugly
showdown with the School Committee.
But when the School Committee was told of Papagiotas' severance check a
few weeks ago, it triggered an angry reaction.
"I think it's absolutely wrong," said Jim Fleming, who chairs the
personnel subcommittee. "She got $100,000 for three years - that was
adequate compensation for her work as principal. To pay her on top of
that ... is wrong."
The check paid to Papagiotas was out of the ordinary in that it was a
financial arrangement made with one departing administrator. But it was
hardly the exception to the rule.
In fact, it is the rule.
Nearly every school employee will receive a sick-leave buyback check
upon retirement. It's in the contract of the city's 500 teachers and
also guaranteed for a few hundred secretaries, custodians and food
service workers in other union contracts. Even assistant principals and
program directors will get it.
It's also a benefit paid to almost all retiring city employees. The
School Department, however, is taking a close look at the provision at
the prompting of a few board members.
Sick-leave buybacks work like this: If school employees don't use all
their sick days - teachers get 15 per school year - the days accumulate
from year to year. Upon retirement, they get paid for anywhere from 1 to
90 unused sick days.
And the checks are big.
For many veteran teachers and administrators, who get paid for up to 80
unused sick days, that means a check for $25,000 as they go out the
door.
Bigger bills coming
The School Department has been putting aside about $300,000 a year to
cover those costs. But that reserve account for this year - thanks also
to a $110,000 legal settlement - is almost gone.
In coming years, even more money will have to be set aside. There is a
long line of teachers approaching retirement.
"I think you're going to see a significant increase in teacher
retirements over the next couple of years," Callahan said.
Realizing it is a controversial subject, the superintendent has
acknowledged publicly that he, too, will get paid for 80 days when he
retires in a year or two.
When the subject of buybacks came up at a recent School Committee
meeting, member Brendan Walsh tried to put it in perspective. A former
school administrator, Walsh said buybacks were given to teachers decades
ago as a way of providing additional compensation for what was then a
low-paying job. In other words, instead of paying teachers more, the
School Committee decided to throw them a bone at retirement.
Sick-leave buybacks were put into the teacher contracts in 1973,
according to Callahan. At that time, a starting teacher was paid $8,000,
and a veteran with a master's degree earned about $13,500. Those salary
figures have jumped to $35,425 today for starting teachers and $56,914
for veteran teachers with an advanced degree.
The buybacks are big payouts because they are based on a teacher's
salary at the time of retirement. A teacher hired in 1973 was earning
only $40 a day, but now makes more than $300 a day. So the total for
those buyback checks is going up.
His fear, Fleming said, is that if buybacks aren't addressed, "we're
going to be burying the next generation with these things."
School Committee member Mike Allen, chairman of the finance committee
and a vocal critic of the payouts, calls the buyback policy "absurd." He
sees it as an unnecessary bonus for teachers who do not abuse the sick
leave policy.
"It seems crazy to pay someone for not cheating," he said.
To the bargaining table?
To some extent, the School Department has started to address the
subject. A recent teachers' contract cut the number of unused sick days
in half for new teachers, which means those hired after 2000 will be
paid for a maximum of 40 sick days.
Other school unions followed suit. In addition, new principals are no
longer getting any sick leave payout.
"Recently, the School Committee directed me that all nonunion
administrators and hires will no longer be afforded the (buyback),"
Callahan said.
Of course, principals are only a tiny fraction of the school system's
900 employees, about 80 percent of whom are eligible for buybacks.
Just recently, the teachers and School Committee began talks for a new
contract. Since they are in negotiations, both the teachers' union and
school officials were reluctant to comment on whether sick-leave
buybacks are on the table. Fleming, however, made clear he believes they
are a dinosaur deserving of extinction.
"I want those things out of there," he said.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Monday, October 16, 2006
With Patrick, the price may not be right
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist
When it comes to Deval Patrick, there’s one big question still to ask.
Just how much is all of this going to cost?
Because when it comes to spending our tax dollars, he has ... big plans.
Have you read his proposals? All of them?
There’s more money for local aid, so towns can cut property taxes.
And for teachers, to provide better pay, a longer school day and smaller
classes. For after-school activities, and for pre-school.
And for skills and jobs training - and he’ll borrow hundreds of
millions, maybe more, for UMass and community colleges.
More money for preventive health care, immunization, HIV, drug and
alcohol abuse programs, cancer screening, even nutrition counseling.
Take a deep breath.
He’ll "guarantee catastrophic coverage" for everyone not yet covered.
And expand affordable health care. And the Prescription Advantage
program.
More money for subway and rail, bridges and roads. And to replace all
the state’s cars and trucks with hybrids, or other green alternatives. (Segways?)
More money for the water system.
He’ll "eliminate homelessness." Indeed.
That means more money for public and affordable housing, and shelters
"with onsite services."
Subsidies for first time homebuyers, with employers as the bagman.
And another $5 million annually for the "Soft Second Mortgage" program.
Keep going.
A thousand extra cops ... and "more and better skills training,
education and substance abuse programs" for prisoners.
More money for housing, personal attendants and long-term home care for
the disabled. More money for the CommonHealth, Home Modifications and
Community-Based Housing programs.
And for special needs schools, and community-based care for the elderly.
And for "greater credit counseling" - for those who can’t stop spending,
presumably.
It’s quite a list.
There’s just one thing missing. That figure you usually find at the
bottom of the invoice.
Deval Patrick hasn’t given us a budget.
Or even a good-faith estimate.
Or even a ballpark figure.
When I pressed them last week, his team could only provide cost for
three items - extra cops, more kindergarten and removing school activity
fees. These alone totaled $187 million.
It’s astonishing he has come this far without being pressed harder on
specifics.
The candidate does, at least, admit that he may not be able to do all of
these things all at once. No kidding.
And he says he has "no interest" in raising taxes - but won’t go
further.
Instead, he says, the money will come from "economic growth" and $735
million in "cost savings."
I’ll believe the savings when I see them.
As for growth: After inflation, that’s only going to raise revenues by a
few percent a year. And the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation believes
most of that is already committed.
But if Patrick can’t square the circle, what’s going to give? Who is
going to be disappointed? The teachers ... or the taxpayers?
The burden shouldn’t be on the Healey campaign to provide the answer -
or the voters to guess it.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Sparks fly at lieutenant governor debate
Hopefuls spar over taxes, MCAS, care
By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
Barely minutes into yesterday's lieutenant gubernatorial debate,
Democrat Timothy P. Murray put on an exasperated look, turned to the man
sitting on the stool to his right, and said, "Please, Reed, no more
pledges from you and Kerry Healey. Because every time you make a pledge
it costs the taxpayers millions of dollars."
"You're going to raise taxes every way you can!" responded Reed Hillman,
a former state representative from Sturbridge on the Republican ticket.
The candidates then began raising their voices and talking over one
another before moderator Jim Braude intervened.
The exchange was the first of many raucous confrontations between the
Democratic and Republican contenders in the hourlong debate on NECN. It
was the first debate among all four candidates for lieutenant governor,
and they traversed issues from MCAS tests to taxes and healthcare
reform.
Independent John J. Sullivan, a town moderator from Winchester who is
running with Christy Mihos, stayed out of the fight for the most part,
his answers coming in a calm and methodical voice. "I think we're
wasting a lot of time in this debate on Patrick versus Healey," Sullivan
said.
"I agree with Mr. Sullivan," said Martina Robinson, a disability rights
activist from Belchertown who is running with Grace Ross on the
Green-Rainbow Party ticket. Robinson -- who has cerebral palsy, a brain
disorder that impairs muscular coordination -- sat in a wheelchair
during yesterday's debate and had a speech assistant repeat all her
answers.
Murray took the offensive nearly every chance he got yesterday, and not
only in the debate. Earlier in the day, Murray went to the Long Wharf
Marriott hotel, where Healey was addressing the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. Murray approached Healey after her
speech and, in front of a group of reporters, asked why she would not
release her answers to a questionnaire from the Gun Owners Action
League, which endorsed her on Monday.
"We hope you'll be willing to release your answers to the questionnaire,
because it will add to a full and valuable discussion on all the issues
relating to public safety," Murray said.
"You know what I'd like to know?" Healey shot back, drawing within 2
feet of Murray. "Why don't you release your Mass. Teachers Association
information?"
The teachers union endorsed the Patrick-Murray campaign last month.
Candidates will oftentimes send aides to their opponents' events, but
rarely does a running mate make an appearance.
In last night's debate, which aired on NECN, Hillman sought to keep
alive the issue of crime, which has dogged the Patrick campaign over the
past week.
"This is a huge issue," Hillman said. "It's Tim Murray who's been a
defense attorney. It's Deval Patrick that's been a defense attorney.
It's Kerry Healey that's always and consistently been on the side of
victims."
Murray responded by saying that he and Patrick had an obligation to
defend criminals.
"People in this country have a right to an equal protection under the
law and due process," Murray said. "And yes, sometimes that does mean
criminal defendants, as unsavory as they might be."
The candidates differed on MCAS. Sullivan and Robinson want to abolish
it, while Murray said changes should be made. Hillman called it "the
best thing that's happened to our kids."
The candidates also scuffled over whether the state should reduce the
income tax rate, from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. Hillman maintained that
it should be reduced. Murray said that cutting back now would mean cuts
in funding for cities and towns.
"This debate is about change; it's about difference," Hillman said at
one point.
"You've been elected state representative for six years; Kerry Healey
had four years as lieutenant governor," Murray said. "You're talking
about change. You had your chance, and you didn't do it."
There were some lighter moments. Murray inadvertently referred to his
opponent's team as "Kerry Hillman."
Hillman grinned.
"We're not married yet," he said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
A Boston Globe editorial
Property tax shell games
While some voters are captivated by Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's
campaign to roll back the state income tax rate to 5 percent, their
wallets are being drained by sharp increases in residential property
taxes. Deval Patrick, her Democratic opponent in the race for governor,
calls this a "fiscal shell game." That's an accurate characterization.
But Patrick is also fooling voters by suggesting that his election would
lead to cuts in property taxes.
Residents are paying more and getting less in the way of local services.
Back in 2002, when state aid was sound, an average community depended on
local property taxes for 49 percent of its revenues and on state aid for
28 percent. This year, the same town raises 53 percent of revenues from
local property taxes and receives only 24 percent from the state,
according to the nonprofit Massachusetts Municipal Association.
Homeowners wind up paying almost $800 more in regressive property taxes
than in 2002 for the privilege of watching a fire station close or a
school art budget disappear.
Ultimately, the state needs to enter into a predictable revenue-sharing
partnership with cities and towns. The Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation recommends that 40 percent of the revenues from the state's
income, corporate, and sales taxes be returned to cities and towns. This
year, such a formula would have amounted to an additional $1 billion for
municipalities, according to the Foundation.
While achieving such a figure requires a careful phase-in period, any
successful effort to stabilize local property taxes must come from the
executive branch or it won't come at all. Legislators are loath to
abandon the current system that allows them to engage in last-minute
budget heroics.
Property tax cuts unlikely
Healey isn't an especially popular figure on Main Street, having served
as the Romney administration's liaison to cities and towns during a
period of deep cuts in local aid. But Patrick isn't helping himself much
with the campaign claim that he will "cut the property tax by
reinvesting in cities and towns." Even in good economic times like the
1997-1999 period, when state aid to cities and towns was growing,
property taxes for the average single-family homeowner increased by
about 4 percent annually, according to the state Department of Revenue.
In periods of tight state aid, such as 2002-2006, residential taxes
jumped by about 6 percent each year.
Actual reductions in property taxes aren't achievable when more than
half of the new revenues at the local level are required just to cover
increases in healthcare coverage for municipal workers. And, despite
complaints about their tax bills, residents still want to restore lost
services. The reality, says Taxpayers Foundation president Michael
Widmer, is that "property taxes won't go down at all."
The best a voter can hope for is a sensible plan to keep property taxes
in check. Patrick still needs to advance a specific plan beyond his
recommendation for a local option tax on restaurant meals if he hopes to
lead on the issue. He supports the concept of state revenue sharing with
cities and towns, but he won't be tied down on a percentage formula.
Healey is mum on revenue sharing. Instead, she stresses the need for
legislation to place municipal employees in the more efficient group
insurance plan now covering state workers, and she also wants to roll
underperforming municipal pension plans into the state system. Such
savings could take considerable pressure off local taxpayers.
Independent candidate Christy Mihos embraces the 40 percent solution.
But his proposal to cap all property taxes at the time of purchase until
a house is sold would create gross inequities when people in similarly
sized homes find themselves with wildly different tax bills.
Green-Rainbow Party candidate Grace Ross sees the 40 percent figure as
"reasonable" given that the state no longer honors its "unwritten
covenant" to provide adequate local aid.
Dampening economic development
The effects of runaway property taxes and declining local services are
being felt beyond the town line. A recent Northeastern University study
argued that companies look hard at property taxes, traffic congestion,
education, and public safety before deciding to expand or locate in the
state. All of the gubernatorial candidates stress the need to expand job
opportunities. A good way to do that is to ensure a consistent level of
state aid to communities.
Geoffrey Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Municipal Association,
says that cities and towns can no longer lurch from fiscal year to
fiscal year wondering what the state has in store. But with predictable
revenue sharing, towns could get serious about long-range planning.
During economic downturns, cities and towns naturally would have to
share the pain. But officials would at least know how bad that pain
might be.
The Romney administration in the past has accused cities and towns of
spending their way into fiscal disarray. It's a bogus charge.
Municipalities have done more than their fair share of belt tightening
since 2002 to make up for a roughly $700 million loss in state aid,
adjusted for inflation. And now cities and towns are taking the lead by
practicing revenue sharing within their own borders. In Brookline, for
example, town officials project gross revenues and split the pie on a
50-50 basis between the schools and other town departments.
How to restore the eroding relationship between the state and
municipalities deserves a central place in the gubernatorial campaign.
Voters will be choosing a new partner for their communities. Now it's up
to the candidates to prove that they can be good providers.
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
|