CLT UPDATE
Thursday, May 4, 2007
Congratulations Shrewsbury!
CLT, MTF again on opposite sides of tax hikes
The [Shrewsbury] election also got more publicity
than other override elections because the measure was backed by Nobel
Prize winner and local resident Dr. Craig C. Mello, said Barbara
Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“We were watching that one very closely,” she said. “I had a feeling it
would not pass. There was just too much going on.”
Ms. Anderson also said it seems that rich people who can afford higher
taxes support overrides, while the rest of the people are trying to
figure out how they are going to continue to live in their homes if
overrides recur.
“I think sometimes people resent it. I resent it when people who make a
lot more money than I do put override signs on the lawns of their
McMansions. If these people want to spend more, feel free, no one’s
stopping them. Let them donate their money to the town.” ...
Fiscal pressures have been building across the state over the past seven
or eight years, said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation....
“And I think there’s a sense of a sort of sourness on the part of the
public toward local government and a belief that there’s a lot of wasted
money,” he said. “I think there’s a sentiment, which I don’t
particularly share, that there’s a lot of waste and we just need strong
leadership to prune the budget and we wouldn’t have to have these
overrides. Maybe it’s true in some communities. As a general matter, I
don’t share that view, but I think there is that sentiment.”
Some taxpayers may have the “we’ve had enough” feeling, he said, or
think that a budget can be balanced without cuts through making tougher
decisions. This sentiment is a myth, he said, but it is deeply felt....
“(Communities) either have an override to pay for the health care costs
or have layoffs to pay for the health care cost increases,” he said.
“That’s too simple a picture, but that’s a central element of the
dilemma facing cities and towns.”
The Telegram & Gazette
Friday, May 4, 2007
Override loss a shock to some, not others
The town was split down the middle by a $5 million question,
but in the end, more voters said no to a property tax increase.
The highest number of voters in recent years, about 52 percent, went to the
polls yesterday and voted against a $5 million Proposition 2½ override, an issue
that divided the town but drew many residents, including Nobel laureate Craig C.
Mello, into local politics....
Judy M. Vedder, chairman of YES4Shrewsbury, said . . . it was organized and run
by volunteers, not hired guns....
“People proved that there is an appetite for change in Shrewsbury,” Ms. Vedder
said. “This was a grass-roots effort the whole way through … there’s a lot to be
proud of.” ...
The question is backed by Nobel Prize winner and local resident Dr. Mello, and
his wife, Edit Mello, who donated $10,000 to support the override. The override
supporters raised $19,103, including the $10,000 donation from the Mellos,
compared to $860 for the opposition group.
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Prop. 2½ override rejected
Though the override passed Town Meeting, it remains unclear
whether the general public will embrace the measure.
Barbara Anderson of the statewide group Citizens for Limited Taxation
would not comment on the North Reading proposal but said her group generally
sees the need for an override only in emergency situations.
"Our general position is that when we created the override clause it was
intended to be a safety net for communities for emergencies," [she] said. "It
never occurred to us that the towns would pass overrides to fund operating
expenses. Basically we think that's fiscal insanity because you haven't dealt
with the structural problems. You just get more money and continue to overextend
yourself." ...
Local communities have been forced into these difficult
tradeoffs for about the last six years when the economy turned sluggish, leaving
less money for state aid to local governments, said Michael Widmer, president of
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The problems experienced by North
Reading are affecting towns across the state, he said....
"We really entered a state fiscal crisis in which revenues dropped precipitously
and as a result state aid dropped in a major way," Widmer said. "One of the only
ways to address that for many communities is to turn to an override."
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 4, 2007
Voters face 3 choices on taxes
If an elephant is blocking your path you don’t try to move it
out of the way -- you look for a convenient way around it.
In the case of Proposition 2½ overrides, some would argue the most convenient
route around the elephant -- the elderly voting population -- is to exempt them
from property tax hikes....
But let’s face it: It’s little more than a tidy way for politicians to pander to
older voters -- and for override supporters to, well, eliminate the opposition.
It’s also a great way to avoid doing the hard work of limiting benefits and
controlling municipal expenses
“This is clearly meant to encourage seniors to stay home, thereby helping
overrides pass,” according to Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
authored Prop. 2½ in an attempt to limit property taxes for all citizens.
“We are opposed to new bills that give a break to seniors at the expense of
young families with mortgages, family health care expenses, future college
tuition and their own retirement savings,” CLT said in a letter to lawmakers.
Frankly, so are we.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Pols playing cute with Prop. 2½
Divide and conquer is the strategy behind bills like the one
introduced recently by state Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, that would protect
senior citizens from the economic fallout of Proposition 2½ overrides....
This is bad public policy any way you figure it....
Holding the elderly harmless from the effects of a Proposition 2½ override might
persuade them to vote yes or simply sit out these votes.
But then isn't that the point? As Citizens for Limited Taxation pointed
out in a memo to legislators this week, "This is clearly meant to encourage
seniors to stay home, thereby helping overrides pass -- at which time the other
burdened taxpayers would have to pick up the seniors' share of the new higher
taxes."
CLT has it right. Given the historic opposition of the elderly to increased
spending on schools and other services, advocates for larger budgets would just
as soon give them a reason not to vote.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Baddour bill makes raising taxes easier
Having polished off work on the state budget for now, House
Speaker Sal DiMasi is focusing on the “what next” -- helping cities and towns
cope with their own budget squeeze....
It takes political courage to tell municipal unions it’s time to get with the
program. Yesterday DiMasi showed he’s got that.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Speaker speaks his mind
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Congratulations homeowners and taxpayers of
Shrewsbury on Tuesday's defeat of your town's Proposition 2½ override!
You had a steep hill to climb to victory, with all the money and
celebrity arrayed against you.
The trustafarian tax hike's proponents had the
temerity to call their push for another tax hike "a grass-roots effort
the whole way . . . organized and run by volunteers, not hired guns,"
despite outspending the limited tax opposition by $19,103 to your $860.
What unmitigated gall.
“I think people just don’t understand how important
it is, particularly in a municipal election, to go out and vote,” the
crushed chairman of YES4Shrewsbury was quoted. And didn't they and
their bed-companions, the Plague of Women Vultures, Shrewsbury Chapter,
do their darndest to get out that vote, with chauffer-driven limousines
to pick up high school students old enough to vote and deliver them to
the polls!
We hope that Barbara's guest appearance Tuesday morning
on
The Peter Blute Show (Worcester talk-radio WCRN-830AM), amplifying
the
limo service story, helped turn out the "No" vote.
The highest number of voters in recent history, about
52 percent of eligible Shrewsbury voters, turned out and rejected the
override by some 51.4-47.6 percent. But Judy Vedder, chairman of
the "YES4Shrewsbury" committee, still whined: “I think people just
don’t understand how important it is, particularly in a municipal
election, to go out and vote . . . “Unfortunately, at the end of the
day, not voting is equivalent to voting ‘no.’”
So let's see here. The override advocates spent
$3.70 per "Yes" vote and lost. The opponents spent fifteen
cents per "No" vote and won.
Hey Judy, Judy, Judy -- maybe you Shrewsbury
tax-and-spenders just need a larger fleet of limos provided gratus by
the allegedly "nonpartisan" League of Women Voters next time -- and a
fatter Sugar Daddy!
Or a better excuse.
As Barbara said: “I think sometimes people
resent it. I resent it when people who make a lot more money than I do
put override signs on the lawns of their McMansions. If these people
want to spend more, feel free, no one’s stopping them. Let them donate
their money to the town.”
It appears that such "advocacy money" would be more wisely invested
directly into town coffers.
Nobel laureate Craig C. Mello, are you listening?
And there goes old Michael Widmer again, president of
the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, running cover for fiscal
mismanagement, finding lame excuses for squandering hard-working
taxpayers' money. Widmer is a shameless and incorrigible apologist
for tax-and-spenders -- and, might I add, a proponent of deficit
spending-and-borrowing which potentially benefits MTF's fat-cat
corporate Big Banks membership. But that's why he makes the big
bucks, I suppose.
“'(Communities) either have an override to pay for
the health care costs or have layoffs to pay for the health care cost
increases,' [Widmer] said. 'That’s too simple a picture, but that’s a
central element of the dilemma facing cities and towns.'” the Telegram &
Gazette quoted him. "'Some taxpayers may have the 'we’ve had
enough' feeling, he said, or think that a budget can be balanced without
cuts through making tougher decisions. This sentiment is a myth, he
said."
For such a "highly-respected fiscal watchdog," how
has Widmer and MTF missed reports such as Fortune Magazine's article
about the "Ticking
Time Bomb"? The only excuse is, they choose to.
Widmer and his organization are becoming so
predictable, disgusting beyond words . . .
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Telegram & Gazette
Friday, May 4, 2007
Override loss a shock to some, not others
‘Glitzy’ campaign may have been a turnoff;
supporters cite voter apathy for defeat
By Patricia J. James
SHREWSBURY— Judy M. Vedder expected the Tuesday vote on a $5 million
Proposition 2½ override would be close, but did not expect the outcome.
“I thought that we were going to win by a small margin, but I didn’t
expect that we were going to lose,” Ms. Vedder, chairman of
YES4Shrewsbury, a ballot initiative group that supported the override,
said yesterday.
About 51.4 percent of the roughly 10,800 voters opposed the override for
town and school departments. While the 51.6 percent voter turnout at the
town election was the highest in recent years, Ms. Vedder said she
attributes the result largely to voter apathy.
YES4Shrewsbury volunteers had called registered voters and identified
3,500 who said they would support the override, she said. They then
watched at the polls to see if all of the identified “yes” voters
actually voted, and found that roughly 20 percent did not.
“I think people just don’t understand how important it is, particularly
in a municipal election, to go out and vote,” she said. “Unfortunately,
at the end of the day, not voting is equivalent to voting ‘no.’”
Ms. Vedder said those who opposed the override did so for a gamut of
reasons.
“I don’t think that you can say that there’s any one reason,” she said,
explaining that some people said they would not support the override
because they have children in private school and others no longer have
children in the school system.
“That’s kind of shortsighted. The override affects everyone — police
officers, the Highway Department, library, senior center — and your
property values. Some people, I guess, they either don’t believe that or
they don’t care.”
John S. Robertson, deputy legislative director for the Massachusetts
Municipal Association, said that while he cannot comment specifically on
the situation in Shrewsbury, the association is tracking about 60
communities statewide that have either decided to go to the ballot with
overrides or debt exclusions this year or are thinking about doing so.
“Like in past years, we are seeing some communities that are winning and
able to maintain or expand services, and other communities that are
experiencing some painful losses, in some cases, for the second year in
a row,” he said yesterday. “If there is something that’s common to all
communities, it’s really hard to convince local voters to raise taxes.
Certainly, tax votes are really hard to do. It’s hard to win.”
Mr. Robertson said it is generally the wealthier communities that tend
to pass overrides, but the trend is not absolute.
“I think it has to do with a whole variety of things,” he said. “The
dynamic is different in every community. The issues in play and the
personalities are different. There are some communities where it has
traditionally been very, very difficult to win overrides. … Other
communities approve overrides quite regularly.”
While he did not win his bid for a seat on the Board of Selectmen at
Tuesday’s election, Benjamin W. Tartaglia Sr. said he is happy
Shrewsbury did not pass the override.
“The override was more important than my candidacy,” the only candidate
for the board who opposed the override said yesterday. “It got voted
down because it’s just a bad idea. The wrong solution at the wrong time
for the wrong reason.”
Some voters just could not afford another increase, Mr. Tartaglia said.
“There’s some real sad stories out there,” he said. “There are some
people making choices between oil bills, prescriptions, gasoline for the
car …”
Mr. Tartaglia said he has also heard from people who were turned off by
the “glossiness” of the election.
“It was just too glitzy,” he said, referring to the amount of money
spent on the pro-override campaign, as well as the publicity it
received. “It’s amazing that it got defeated, but we worked very hard.
The other side was very well-organized and they had a lot of money
donated by just a few people, and they did everything right.”
The election also got more publicity than other override elections
because the measure was backed by Nobel Prize winner and local resident
Dr. Craig C. Mello, said Barbara Anderson, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“We were watching that one very closely,” she said. “I had a feeling it
would not pass. There was just too much going on.”
Ms. Anderson also said it seems that rich people who can afford higher
taxes support overrides, while the rest of the people are trying to
figure out how they are going to continue to live in their homes if
overrides recur.
“I think sometimes people resent it. I resent it when people who make a
lot more money than I do put override signs on the lawns of their
McMansions. If these people want to spend more, feel free, no one’s
stopping them. Let them donate their money to the town.”
Fiscal pressures have been building across the state over the past seven
or eight years, said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation.
“In some cases longer,” he said. “And that has led to the need for more
override attempts in order just to preserve the existing level of
services.”
Mr. Widmer said about half of the overrides in the state passed last
year and are passing this year, but as property taxes rise, voters are
becoming more skeptical about them.
“And I think there’s a sense of a sort of sourness on the part of the
public toward local government and a belief that there’s a lot of wasted
money,” he said. “I think there’s a sentiment, which I don’t
particularly share, that there’s a lot of waste and we just need strong
leadership to prune the budget and we wouldn’t have to have these
overrides. Maybe it’s true in some communities. As a general matter, I
don’t share that view, but I think there is that sentiment.”
Some taxpayers may have the “we’ve had enough” feeling, he said, or
think that a budget can be balanced without cuts through making tougher
decisions. This sentiment is a myth, he said, but it is deeply felt.
“I think as a general matter … it’s getting more difficult to persuade
voters to approve overrides,” Mr. Widmer said. “There is a wide
misperception, in my belief, that you can balance budgets without
consequences. That’s the part that I don’t agree with.”
Communities’ costs are growing faster than their revenues, he said, and
each year there is a squeeze. This squeeze is driven a lot by the often
double-digit rise in health insurance costs, according to Mr. Widmer.
“(Communities) either have an override to pay for the health care costs
or have layoffs to pay for the health care cost increases,” he said.
“That’s too simple a picture, but that’s a central element of the
dilemma facing cities and towns.”
State Rep. Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury, said she did not take sides on
the Shrewsbury override question because she thought it was a local
issue and she should not influence the outcome.
“I have heard from opponents, particularly seniors. They were concerned
because it was a lot of money,” she said, adding that she thinks there
was also a sense of confusion as to whether the override would be
permanent or for three years.
“And I think that when there’s confusion, the tendency is not to support
it. … I just think that they felt that it was a lot of money. It’s a lot
of money for some people and generally that’s what was expressed to me
by opponents of the question.”
The override would have permanently increased the town’s tax base, and
would have cost property owners an additional 97 cents per $1,000 of
assessed property value — or $360 more per year for the owner of a
single-family home with the median assessment of $371,400.
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Prop. 2½ override rejected
By Kevin Keenan
SHREWSBURY— The town was split down the middle by a $5 million question,
but in the end, more voters said no to a property tax increase.
The highest number of voters in recent years, about 52 percent, went to
the polls yesterday and voted against a $5 million Proposition 2½
override, an issue that divided the town but drew many residents,
including Nobel laureate Craig C. Mello, into local politics.
Proposition 2½ is the initiative adopted by Massachusetts voters in 1980
that limits the taxes municipalities can raise each year, by 2.5 percent
from the previous year.
The vote was close, but decisive. About 51.4 percent voted no, while
47.6 percent voted yes. About 10,800 voters — 51.6 percent of the town’s
registered voters — cast ballots, which local observers said was a
remarkable turnout considering municipal elections usually attract a
third of the electorate.
“There is a lot more awareness than there has been in the past,” said
Maurice M. DePalo, a selectman.
The override would have permanently increased the town’s tax base, and
would have cost property owners an additional 97 cents per $1,000 of
assessed property value. That translated to $360 more per year for the
owner of a single-family home with the median assessment of $371,400.
Two ballot question committees, one for the question and another against
it, registered with the town clerk’s office before the election.
YES4Shrewsbury supported the override, while the Committee against the
Proposition 2½ override opposed it. YES members were disappointed last
night, after spending the better part of a year preparing for this
election. Override attempts in recent years were defeated by 2-to-1
margins, which made last night’s result impressive due to the ground
picked up by supporters, Mr. DePalo said.
Judy M. Vedder, chairman of YES4Shrewsbury, said the group raised a lot
of money, about $20,000, but it was organized and run by volunteers, not
hired guns. The group attracted 200 volunteers who made phone calls,
distributed information and held signs.
“People proved that there is an appetite for change in Shrewsbury,” Ms.
Vedder said. “This was a grass-roots effort the whole way through …
there’s a lot to be proud of.”
Christopher W. Kirk was opposed to the override, and afterwards said he
hopes the result dissuades another ballot question.
“I hope that this might be it for a while, that we put aside the
override for a while and concentrate on cutting costs,” Mr. Kirk said.
Before the vote, the School Committee officials said it would eliminate
$1 million from its current fiscal 2008 budget proposal, while the other
town departments would cut a combined $1.5 million from the municipal
side of the 2008 budget. The School Committee also discussed raising
fees for sports and extracurricular activities and that a failed
override means fewer teachers, fewer classroom aides, larger classroom
sizes and scaled-back instruction. The committee has not voted to reduce
its budget yet.
The question is backed by Nobel Prize winner and local resident Dr.
Mello, and his wife, Edit Mello, who donated $10,000 to support the
override. The override supporters raised $19,103, including the $10,000
donation from the Mellos, compared to $860 for the opposition group.
The School Committee also will consider charging up to a $100 school
activity fee. A high school student activity fee would be $100 with a
$300 family cap, while a middle school fee would be $50 with a $150
family cap, according to a proposal. The committee also said it would
consider raising the athletic fee from $225 to $290, to offset the cost
of running athletic programs.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 4, 2007
NORTH READING
Voters face 3 choices on taxes
By Laura M. Colarusso
North Reading Town Meeting this week approved a ballot measure that will
give residents three choices: no property tax increase, a one-year hike,
or a succession of increases over the next three fiscal years.
The proposal, which will go before voters June 5, comes as the town
faces severe budget shortfalls for the years ahead, officials said.
School enrollment is growing, and the town is encountering higher costs
in everything from employee health insurance to road salt.
"We've reached a point of basically no return," said Robert J. Mauceri,
chairman of the Board of Selectmen.
The proposal asks voters whether they want to override the provisions of
the state Proposition 2½ law, which limits property tax revenue
increases to 2.5 percent per year.
The one-year measure would apply to fiscal year 2008, which starts July
1, and would raise $1.5 million in additional revenue. That would keep
town services as they are, heading off teacher layoffs and cuts in
school programs, according to officials. The tax increase would cost 56
cents per $1,000 of a home's assessed value.
The three-year measure would cover fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Revenue would increase by $3.9 million, including the $1.5 million in
fiscal 2008. In addition to the tax hike for fiscal 2008, the three-year
proposal would mean increases of 53 cents per $1,000 of valuation for
fiscal 2009 and 36 cents per $1,000 of valuation in fiscal 2010.
Town administrator Greg Balukonis said town officials have committed to
staying within the $3.9 million tax increase if the three-year override
is passed. He said Town Meeting would still have to approve budgets in
fiscal 2009 and 2010, which would include money from the tax increases.
Though the override passed Town Meeting, it remains unclear whether the
general public will embrace the measure.
Barbara Anderson of the statewide group Citizens for Limited
Taxation would not comment on the North Reading proposal but said
her group generally sees the need for an override only in emergency
situations.
"Our general position is that when we created the override clause it was
intended to be a safety net for communities for emergencies," [she]
said. "It never occurred to us that the towns would pass overrides to
fund operating expenses. Basically we think that's fiscal insanity
because you haven't dealt with the structural problems. You just get
more money and continue to overextend yourself."
North Reading's revenue for 2008 is projected to top $44.8 million. More
than $20 million of that is allocated for the school system. The fiscal
2008 budget that includes revenue from the proposed tax increase is
$46.3 million.
If the tax increase for fiscal 2008 is not approved, the school district
will have to lay off 10 teachers and eliminate elementary and middle
school band and chorus programs, said Superintendent David Troughton. It
also would require early release of all elementary and middle school
students one day a week, he said.
The cuts also would mean that the schools could not buy new textbooks
and class sizes would grow past 30 students because "the enrollment
continues to grow," Troughton said.
Other cutbacks in town would include reducing police overtime by
$15,800, deferring $60,000 of maintenance to town buildings, and
eliminating the purchase of $6,000 worth of radios for the fire
department, according to officials.
Local communities have been forced into these difficult tradeoffs for
about the last six years when the economy turned sluggish, leaving less
money for state aid to local governments, said Michael Widmer, president
of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. The problems experienced by
North Reading are affecting towns across the state, he said.
Increases in state aid have not brought many communities back to where
they were fiscally.
"We really entered a state fiscal crisis in which revenues dropped
precipitously and as a result state aid dropped in a major way," Widmer
said. "One of the only ways to address that for many communities is to
turn to an override."
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 3, 2007
A Boston Herald editorial
Pols playing cute with Prop. 2½
If an elephant is blocking your path you don’t try to move it out of the
way -- you look for a convenient way around it.
In the case of Proposition 2½ overrides, some would argue the most
convenient route around the elephant -- the elderly voting population --
is to exempt them from property tax hikes.
The Joint Committee on Revenue this week took testimony on two bills
that would exempt low- and moderate-income property owners who are over
65 from any property tax increase associated with an override approved
in their community -- or at least delay their payments until their house
is sold.
It sounds reasonable -- at first blush. Certainly those older homeowners
on fixed incomes feel the pinch of property tax growth much more than
some of their neighbors.
But let’s face it: It’s little more than a tidy way for politicians to
pander to older voters -- and for override supporters to, well,
eliminate the opposition.
It’s also a great way to avoid doing the hard work of limiting benefits
and controlling municipal expenses
“This is clearly meant to encourage seniors to stay home, thereby
helping overrides pass,” according to Citizens for Limited Taxation,
which authored Prop. 2½ in an attempt to limit property taxes for all
citizens.
“We are opposed to new bills that give a break to seniors at the expense
of young families with mortgages, family health care expenses, future
college tuition and their own retirement savings,” CLT said in a letter
to lawmakers.
Frankly, so are we.
The Eagle-Tribune
Thursday, May 3, 2007
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Baddour bill makes raising taxes easier
Divide and conquer is the strategy behind bills like the one introduced
recently by state Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, that would protect
senior citizens from the economic fallout of Proposition 2½ overrides.
They would be protected, but their heirs would not. The additional taxes
would eventually have to be paid in full, along with a 4 percent annual
interest fee, when the property of those who take advantage of the law
is sold.
This is bad public policy any way you figure it.
Why just protect the poor elderly, for instance, and not those young
families who are also struggling to pay their real estate taxes and hold
onto their homes?
Baddour's bill has no asset and income limits (though he says he expects
those will be added later). So theoretically a retired couple whose
house is worth $800,000 and whose retirement income is in excess of
$100,000 a year, might be exempted from the effects of an override;
while the family of four living on $40,000 a year in a house worth
$250,000, would have to pay whatever increase the majority of voters
decree.
Exempting one group from a tax increase only increases the burden on
those who must pay. If voters opt to increase spending by $1 million
over what would be allowed under Proposition 2½, but 50 of 1,000
households are excused from paying the additional tax, the amount those
50 would have paid will be divided up among the other 950 taxpayers.
The poor elderly already have access to mechanisms allowing them to
defer their taxes and use the assets in their homes via reverse
mortgages and similar financial instruments.
Holding the elderly harmless from the effects of a Proposition 2½
override might persuade them to vote yes or simply sit out these votes.
But then isn't that the point? As Citizens for Limited Taxation
pointed out in a memo to legislators this week, "This is clearly meant
to encourage seniors to stay home, thereby helping overrides pass -- at
which time the other burdened taxpayers would have to pick up the
seniors' share of the new higher taxes."
CLT has it right. Given the historic opposition of the elderly to
increased spending on schools and other services, advocates for larger
budgets would just as soon give them a reason not to vote.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 3, 2007
A Boston Herald editorial
Speaker speaks his mind
Having polished off work on the state budget for now, House Speaker Sal
DiMasi is focusing on the “what next” -- helping cities and towns cope
with their own budget squeeze.
Gov. Deval Patrick always seems to find the answer to such budget
questions in raising taxes - in the case of cities and towns he’d like
to see local option hikes in the meals and lodging taxes. And that may
be just the beginning. DiMasi, on the other hand, has at the very least
been agnostic on tax hikes and in the case of closing those corporate
loopholes he stopped the governor dead in his tracks.
But he is a believer in helping cities and towns control costs so
property tax revenues go further. Yesterday in a meeting with a roomful
of downtown movers and shakers, the speaker for the first time used the
word “mandate” when talking about getting communities into the state’s
health insurance system. That’s a far tougher stand than the governor
has taken, when he suggested cities and towns be allowed to opt into the
Group Insurance Commission - a process that could take years to bring
results.
And with health insurance costs rising in double digits, the dollars
involved are huge. In a study last fall, the Boston Municipal Research
Bureau found that the city could have saved $38 million over the last
six years had its health insurance costs risen at the same rate as the
state’s.
It takes political courage to tell municipal unions it’s time to get
with the program. Yesterday DiMasi showed he’s got that.
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
|
