CLT UPDATE
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Start with Police Details:
A Political Culture of Self-Interest
You've seen police details dozens of times -- an
officer collecting upwards of $51 an hour at tax payers' expense.
"It's a huge waste of money," says Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
And it's unique to Massachusetts -- using only policemen rather than
less expensive flagmen to direct traffic around construction sites.
"I think the police details are the poster child, the picture that you
see when you think absurdity, ridiculous," says Anderson....
$43 million last year, out of taxpayers' pockets, police
details -- and that's only a fraction of what you're paying.
http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_290210956.html
WBZ-TV4
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I-Team: Police Details Costing You Millions
By I-Team reporter Joe Bergantino
In response to
the Oct. 4 column in the Salem News by Barbara Anderson regarding
police details, I would like for Ms. Anderson to get her facts straight before
making a statement that by taking the policemen off of these details it would
stop taking advantage of the taxpayers of Massachusetts....
Barbara, take a good hard look at that very large picture of the Beverly police
officer and venture to put your orange vest and hard hat on and give it a
shot....
Tell me, how do you know who is shaking their heads and laughing at these
policemen doing the private details? This entails a lot of people and you must
be very busy interviewing every car that rides by these details in Beverly,
Salem, Danvers, Hamilton, Wenham, Ipswich, etc....
Remember these are the men and women who are there 24 hours per day taking care
of all of our emergencies and every-day problems (yours included). Get your
facts straight before writing another shameful article like this.
The Salem News
Friday, October 19, 2007
Letter: Public gets good value from police details
By Pauline Collins, Beverly
Governor Deval Patrick, seeking to upgrade the creaking
infrastructure of the state's colleges and universities, is proposing to spend
$2 billion over the next 10 years to replace outdated structures and build new
research facilities.
The legislation, which Patrick will file today, marks a
large-scale campaign to improve conditions on the public campuses, which college
administrators and many lawmakers say suffer from years of neglect.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Patrick urges $2b upgrade of colleges
10-year plan would focus on infrastructure
Gov. Deval Patrick understands that the Legislature has never
seen a million dollars it couldn’t earmark -- never mind $659 million. So he
shouldn’t be surprised when the 10-year, $2 billion capital spending plan he
filed this week to improve facilities at state colleges and universities doesn’t
look quite the same when it lands back on his desk....
While lawmakers will fight tooth and nail for capital projects for schools in
their districts, many of them worthy, now also begins the lobbying for a
swimming pool here, a new gym there -- anything lawmakers can even remotely
connect to the concept of higher education while debating this bill.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Earmark train rolls on
Remember that billion-dollar deficit the Patrick
administration was supposed to have inherited from the Romney administration?
Despite the best efforts of Beacon Hill’s big spenders to make that projection
come true, the Legislature closed the books on fiscal 2007 this week with a $520
million surplus.
Good news for taxpayers? Not really.
After nailing down the amount of unexpected revenue on Thursday, the Legislature
promptly cut deeply into the surplus by passing a whopping $280 million in
“supplementary spending.” ...
Support for the feeding frenzy was not unanimous. The Republican minority
offered as an alternative sending most of the unexpected revenue to
cash-strapped cities and towns, which would use the money for property-tax
relief — a centerpiece promise of the Patrick administration.
Unfortunately, that approach was soundly defeated on two party-line votes.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Shell game
Lawmakers rush to spend down Romney ‘deficit’
So now we know what Gov. Deval Patrick presumably had in mind
to fund his implied promise of property tax relief -- casinos!
Such a deal: Lose $200 or so gambling, and then get $20 back in tax relief --
maybe. Is this a great state or what?
Yes, at some point several years from now, if and when three resort casinos are
built and operating, if and when they deliver something like $450 million a year
to state government without draining anything from the state Lottery, if and
when he and the Legislature have the spine to fight off all the other vultures
demanding a piece of it for their pet "critical" service, the gov has promised
to dedicate half of that money to property tax relief.
Don't hold your breath. And even if it does happen, don't get too excited --
especially if you are one of those terrible people who has built a business,
provided jobs for others and become financially successful. You will be punished
some more.
Deval is being disingenuous again....
Patrick's plan, if it ever becomes a reality, is not property tax relief. It's
just socialism by another name.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Patrick plays a shell game with property tax promises
By Taylor Armerding
State politicians looking to fill their campaign
wallets might want to consider a new position: casino-gambling opponent.
It's worked well for House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who has fiercely battled
against expanded gambling for the past three years. He took in $10,575
during that period from lobbyists representing casino interests,
according to campaign-finance records. The sum is more than any other
lawmaker.
Jane Lane, DiMasi's campaign spokeswoman, argued the donations prove
that money can't always buy votes.
"The speaker has been a longtime opponent of casino gambling," Lane
said. "Obviously, these donations have had no bearing on his position
and are merely a reflection of their support for the speaker's agenda
for the state."
But Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, has a more cynical view.
"I'm not surprised. Why else would you be holding out?" Anderson said.
"I always assumed his resistance came from the fact that as long as the
issue is unresolved, people will be paying him to vote with them."
The contributions include DiMasi's political action committee, which
uses funds to elect and retain Democrats in the House.
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Casino money flows to reps
Governor Deval Patrick's promises for using casino revenues
would fall short because the stream of gambling dollars would erode over time in
the face of regional casino competition, a nonprofit taxpayer group said
yesterday.
And even if the money did flow as Patrick expects, it would not be enough to pay
for the governor's broad plans for the proceeds, said the organization, the
nonpartisan, business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
"They're not going to have enough money," the foundation's president, Michael J.
Widmer, said yesterday. "And even if they do, it's not going to go that far."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Taxpayer group casts doubt on Patrick's casino plan
Says competition could cut revenues
Moving to allay fears that the MBTA Green Line extension to
Somerville and Medford will be delayed again, Governor Deval Patrick announced
yesterday that the state is applying for $300 million in federal funding and
taking several other steps to move the long-awaited project forward....
If federal funding is not approved, the state will borrow money to pay for the
$560 million project, the governor said during a gathering of residents and
local political leaders at Gilman Square in Somerville.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Patrick seeks $300m for Green Line
Gov. Deval Patrick’s top budget aide said yesterday that the
state is facing a “serious deficit” in the next budget year and that tax
increases may be needed to close a shortfall expected to hit at least $500
million.
Administration and Finance Secretary Leslie Kirwan, who will file a new state
budget in January, indicated that the state’s financial condition remains dire
and that deep cost cuts or new taxes will be needed to balance the books in
fiscal year 2009.
The Boston Herald
Friday, October 19, 2007
Deficit leaves state in crunch
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Whether it's
Margery Eagan's column or
Barbara Anderson's -- or even the state's
Transportation Finance
Commission (See: First Principle: Reform, Exhibit 1. #3 - Page
9 of 45,) the conclusion is the same: It's uncontrovertibly time
to finally end the archaic practice of the unique Massachusetts-only
paid police details.
Joe Bergantino of the WBZ TV-4 "I-Team" agrees.
But that doesn't stop "The Blue Line" from charging
on, or even slow down the likes of apologist Pauline Collins of Beverly
from defending those unique-in-the-nation police details -- using
whatever fabrications or outright lies are necessary to keep this scam
going only here. She and they are shameless, and perfect examples
of self-interest and greed at taxpayers expense. Do you suppose
Pauline has some sort of vested interest -- or is she simply blind to
her surroundings and reality?
It surely won't discourage the "Blue Bullies,"
locked-and-loaded, from amassing at the State House as usual the next time their
taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded personal perk is challenged.
Meanwhile, our recently-elected governor, Deval
Patrick, keeps promising the world to everyone -- like the money's
coming out of his pocket and he has it to pay the tab, "This round's on
me guys!" Deval is -- simply incredible. Billions here,
billions there, cuts no place, and by god he expects us taxpayers to
pick up his bar tab.
Spending billions more before he's yet to figure out how to keep
his promise to decrease our property taxes -- in exchange for denying
the voters their income tax rollback to 5 percent. Where the heck
is his "property tax relief" a year after his election? A
whole
year later! Not a cent of "relief" or even a clue where it'll
come from.
I can't add up all the multiple billions he's
proposed to spend over the next ten or twenty years -- and I challenge
the media to produce the number. It's now in the additional billions by far.
We've got another wide-eyed Democrat governor. We're going to pay
for the his election; just as we're still paying for that of Michael S. Dukakis
by the time he bailed out, seventeen years ago.
Most voters never learn; they just keep electing them from time to time,
for some reason expecting a different result.
Gov. Romney left behind "a deficit," that somehow
became a surplus, which Bacon Hill proceeded to spend. Nothing --
not a cent -- was returned to us who provided the excess cash. How
typically Massachusetts. They spent it on pet projects and salary hikes.
How simply Massachusetts. Now, already, the pols are crying "fiscal crisis"
all over again. Only in Massachusetts.
Is anyone else getting sick and tired of this unique
and self-serving political culture of self-interest?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
Watch the WBZ TV4 video
WBZ-TV4
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I-Team: Police Details Costing You Millions
By I-Team reporter Joe Bergantino and producer Maggie Mulvihill
(WBZ) BOSTON -- You've seen police details dozens of times -- an officer
collecting upwards of $51 an hour at tax payers' expense.
"It's a huge waste of money," says Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
And it's unique to Massachusetts -- using only policemen rather than
less expensive flagmen to direct traffic around construction sites.
"I think the police details are the poster child, the picture that you
see when you think absurdity, ridiculous," says Anderson.
And expensive. WBZ's I-team added up the cost of police details from
state agencies along with a sampling of cities and towns. Here's what we
found: details for projects on Mass Highway Department roads, the
central artery and Mass Turnpike cost $38 million last year alone.
Add to that, the city of Boston, at least $1.3 million tax dollars spent
on details.
Worcester: $1 million.
Cambridge: $800,000.
In just a sampling of 10 other cities we chose, the numbers added up to
another $1.3 million.
$43 million last year, out of taxpayers' pockets, police details -- and
that's only a fraction of what you're paying.
"I find it quite troubling that such a wasteful practice would endure,"
says David Tuerck of Suffolk University's
Beacon Hill
Institute.
It has endured even though there's no state law requiring it.
"City officials and state officials are simply too afraid of the police
unions to stand up to them and put an end to the practice," says Tuerck.
Most cops now count on details to boost their annual pay by tens of
thousands of dollars. Police unions have spent a fortune on lobbyists on
Beacon Hill: $467 thousand dollars over the past four years. The
result--
"They assess the situation politically and then they back off," says
Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Widmer is talking about the governor and the legislature, but will that
change?
Optimists believe a recent state transportation finance commission
report, citing a $19 billion budget shortfall, might make a difference.
The commission's recommendation number three: use flagmen, not police,
on road details and save an estimated $100 million over the next 20
years just on state projects.
"Every dollar we save is one less dollar we need to raise," says Steve
Silveira, the Commission's chairman.
In tolls and taxes, but is the governor willing to buck police?
I-team reporter Joe Bergantino asked the governor if he has the
political courage to end wasteful spending on police details.
"I have the courage to do the right thing," Gov. Deval Patrick said.
One thing the governor hasn't done so far is follow the Transportation
Commission's recommendation that his public safety and transportation
secretaries meet and come up with regulations that would allow flagmen
to be used on road construction projects.
If and when that meeting ever happens, the I-team will let you know.
The Salem News
Friday, October 19, 2007
Letter: Public gets good value from police details
To the editor:
In response to
the Oct. 4 column in the Salem News by Barbara Anderson
regarding police details, I would like for Ms. Anderson to get her facts
straight before making a statement that by taking the policemen off of
these details it would stop taking advantage of the taxpayers of
Massachusetts.
If this was a true statement, I being a taxpayer myself would be first
in line to agree with her. The true fact of this subject is that the
taxpayers of Massachusetts do not pay for any of the private details for
the police departments. In fact, for every private job that the police
work, 10 percent of that money goes back to the city or town, in
addition to the money paid these communities by the contractors. None of
this comes out of the taxpayers' pockets.
All Massachusetts communities benefit from these private details.
As to the police union leaders defending the private details, if the
base pay were adequate, police officers would not have to work extra
details to make a decent living. If this was taken away, the police
union leaders would be down the throats of the different communities
demanding higher base salaries, and this in turn would be cause for
taxpayers to grumble.
Barbara, take a good hard look at that very large picture of the Beverly
police officer and venture to put your orange vest and hard hat on and
give it a shot. Then again, probably that 75-plus-year-old woman from
Philadelphia could come to Massachusetts and lean on her sign here on
Route 1A and do all of the details as needed.
Tell me, how do you know who is shaking their heads and laughing at
these policemen doing the private details? This entails a lot of people
and you must be very busy interviewing every car that rides by these
details in Beverly, Salem, Danvers, Hamilton, Wenham, Ipswich, etc.
There are some very good stories that you could have used your time in
reporting besides this article. Of course, it was nice that your
Marblehead police escaped your scathing report.
It figures Anderson writes for The Salem News with its ongoing bashing
of some of our police departments. What comes across from this article
is that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. One side says
the police are "your heroes," but because they do private details, they
are not respected individuals and are a laughingstock. You owe each and
every one of these officers an apology for this sad article.
Remember these are the men and women who are there 24 hours per day
taking care of all of our emergencies and every-day problems (yours
included). Get your facts straight before writing another shameful
article like this.
Pauline Collins
Beverly
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Patrick urges $2b upgrade of colleges
10-year plan would focus on infrastructure
By Peter Schworm
Governor Deval Patrick, seeking to upgrade the creaking infrastructure
of the state's colleges and universities, is proposing to spend $2
billion over the next 10 years to replace outdated structures and build
new research facilities.
The legislation, which Patrick will file today, marks a large-scale
campaign to improve conditions on the public campuses, which college
administrators and many lawmakers say suffer from years of neglect. The
money would be split equally between the 15 community colleges and the
nine state colleges combined and the five-campus University of
Massachusetts system, which has an estimated $2 billion backlog of
repairs and renovations.
"This administration is committed to providing our students the
highest-quality public education possible, so that they are prepared to
compete with their peers across the country and throughout the world,"
Patrick said yesterday in a statement. "If we ask our students to put
forth their best effort to succeed, then we must be willing to invest in
the tools to help them, their laboratories, their classrooms, and their
libraries."
The proposal calls for $750 million in capital improvements over the
next five years and an additional $1.25 billion over the following five
years.
The state now spends about 3 percent of its budget for capital projects
on higher education. If the legislation passes, that figure would rise
to 10 percent over the next five years. The national average over the
past three years is about 12 percent.
Supporters of more generous education funding said the increase is long
overdue.
"From my perspective, the governor has, to put it bluntly, put his money
where his mouth is," said state Senator Robert O'Leary, a Democrat who
represents the Cape and Islands and who chairs the Joint Committee on
Higher Education.
O'Leary said that campuses are crumbling and that previous renovations
have been "built on the backs of students" by raising fees. In
anticipation of increased capital spending, the Board of Higher
Education plans to eliminate its requirement that campuses provide
matching funds for state subsidies. The last 10-year higher education
bond bill was a $618 million measure in 1995.
College officials said they were delighted by the investment, although
many were caught off guard that the proposal earmarked the bulk of the
$2 billion for specific projects. About $658 million would not be
designated.
"This is a major project that will modernize our classrooms, labs, our
entire science program," said Peter Chisholm, a spokesman for Framingham
State College, which would receive $51 million to renovate its science
center.
Ellen O'Connor, vice chancellor for administration and finance at UMass-Boston,
said the $125 million in Patrick's plan for repairs and new academic
buildings was a rare windfall for the Columbia Point campus. "This is a
giant leap forward," she said.
Also under the plan: UMass-Amherst would receive close to $300 million
for a new science laboratory, new classrooms, and a range of repairs;
Bridgewater State College, $88 million to expand and modernize its
science center built 50 years ago; and the UMass Medical School in
Worcester, $43.5 million for repairs.
Last month, the University of Massachusetts board of trustees approved a
separate five-year, $2.9 billion capital plan to improve the conditions
at buildings across the system's five campuses. The plan, which assumed
a significant increase in state support, would nearly double the
system's current level of capital spending.
Dana Mohler-Faria, Patrick's education adviser and president of
Bridgewater State, called the proposal unprecedented.
"It's the most comprehensive higher education bond bill ever proposed in
this state," he said. "It would mean a tremendous amount to this
system."
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A Boston Herald editorial
Earmark train rolls on
Gov. Deval Patrick understands that the Legislature has never seen a
million dollars it couldn’t earmark -- never mind $659 million. So he
shouldn’t be surprised when the 10-year, $2 billion capital spending
plan he filed this week to improve facilities at state colleges and
universities doesn’t look quite the same when it lands back on his desk.
It’s a fact that many of the facilities on the 29 campuses are in woeful
disrepair or are terminally out of date. And each campus would see some
portion of the funds over the 10 years, for such priorities as new
science labs at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (the bill’s
emphasis on science facilities dovetails well with Patrick’s wish to
beef up life sciences research) or improvements to the hazard known as
the UMass/Boston garage.
Patrick has itemized nearly $1.4 billion of the funds, which would be
raised by annual borrowing, after consulting with the Board of Higher
Education and campus leaders about their needs.
The rest -- well, he’s left it open, a decision Sen. Mark Montigny told
the State House News Service was “wise.” Hey, no kidding! Who wouldn’t
want $659 million to play around with?
While lawmakers will fight tooth and nail for capital projects for
schools in their districts, many of them worthy, now also begins the
lobbying for a swimming pool here, a new gym there -- anything lawmakers
can even remotely connect to the concept of higher education while
debating this bill.
But at least Montigny acknowledges reality. “Although it looks like it’s
easy to build consensus . . . in the end there’s 200 legislators who
have different opinions on what the priorities should be,” he said.
And in the end, while the Legislature will approve the bond bill, it is
up to the governor to decide when and if the money is spent. So if he
isn’t thrilled with the idea of, oh, let’s say a new gazebo (on the
campus of a state college, of course) then he can just say no. He might
want to practice.
The Telegram & Gazette
Saturday, October 13, 2007
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Shell game
Lawmakers rush to spend down Romney ‘deficit’
Remember that billion-dollar deficit the Patrick administration was
supposed to have inherited from the Romney administration? Despite the
best efforts of Beacon Hill’s big spenders to make that projection come
true, the Legislature closed the books on fiscal 2007 this week with a
$520 million surplus.
Good news for taxpayers? Not really.
After nailing down the amount of unexpected revenue on Thursday, the
Legislature promptly cut deeply into the surplus by passing a whopping
$280 million in “supplementary spending.” All indications are that Gov.
Deval L. Patrick will sign it.
Among other things, the bill gives district attorneys a raise of
$31,345, bringing their pay to $148,844 as of July 1. But the
Legislature’s largess didn’t stop there.
It also passed out substantial raises — in the $5,000 to $7,000 range —
to the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney
general, treasurer and auditor. Moreover, it made such raises automatic
in future budgets, a plum the lawmakers conferred upon themselves
several years ago.
Support for the feeding frenzy was not unanimous. The Republican
minority offered as an alternative sending most of the unexpected
revenue to cash-strapped cities and towns, which would use the money for
property-tax relief — a centerpiece promise of the Patrick
administration.
Unfortunately, that approach was soundly defeated on two party-line
votes. The eminently reasonable contention by the GOP that communities
deserved compensation for the $451 million in lottery aid diverted into
the state’s general fund over three fiscal years fell on deaf ears.
The nonchalance displayed on Beacon Hill this week about municipalities’
dire financial straits bodes badly, indeed, for communities across the
state.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Patrick plays a shell game with property tax promises
By Taylor Armerding
So now we know what Gov. Deval Patrick presumably had in mind to fund
his implied promise of property tax relief -- casinos!
Such a deal: Lose $200 or so gambling, and then get $20 back in tax
relief -- maybe. Is this a great state or what?
Yes, at some point several years from now, if and when three resort
casinos are built and operating, if and when they deliver something like
$450 million a year to state government without draining anything from
the state Lottery, if and when he and the Legislature have the spine to
fight off all the other vultures demanding a piece of it for their pet
"critical" service, the gov has promised to dedicate half of that money
to property tax relief.
Don't hold your breath. And even if it does happen, don't get too
excited -- especially if you are one of those terrible people who has
built a business, provided jobs for others and become financially
successful. You will be punished some more.
Deval is being disingenuous again. He isn't really promising property
tax relief. He's proposing selective income tax breaks. He wants to use
the property tax as a lever to do what allegedly populist Democrats
always try to do -- "tax the rich" even more.
If owner A and owner B each own homes assessed at $600,000, but owner A
makes $50,000 a year and owner B makes $200,000 a year, then owner A
will get a property tax break and owner B won't.
This is classic Democratic income redistribution -- I don't know why
Patrick doesn't just admit to, and celebrate, being a socialist. It is
also highly misleading. The governor can, if he wishes, file legislation
to make the state income tax even more "progressive" than it already is.
But he should not be claiming he's providing property tax relief if it
is only going to go to those he thinks "need" or "deserve" it.
It also accepts without question the perverse argument that people
living in $600,000 homes are too poor to pay their property taxes --
that they have suffered an unfair calamity because their homes have
appreciated to 10 times or more the price they paid for it a couple of
decades ago.
This is very convenient. But it is ridiculous. These are the same people
who contend, along with those who are forever calling for more spending
on education, that one of the benefits of better education is that it
"improves" property values. There are dark warnings that if you don't
approve another Proposition 2½ override, your property values might
start to decline, which would be terrible.
In that context, increasing property values is presented as a good
thing. And it is a good thing. Until, of course, it is time to pay the
property tax bill. Then it is a very bad thing. Then they want somebody
else to pay it.
Every time I hear this, I wonder: Do these people intend to sell their
homes for the same $60,000 they paid when they bought it? Is the
$600,000 that their home is worth now just Monopoly money? Are they
going to turn over the money from any appreciation of their home to
their local or state government when they sell?
Of course not. They, or their heirs, intend to reap all the benefits
from that appreciation, which is very real money. Claiming that
calculating your wealth should be based only on your income and not your
assets is like me saying I'm dirt poor, and please pay no attention to
that $500,000 I have stashed under my mattress.
Yes, yes, we all know that a home is not the same as cash in hand. But
it seems very few people are willing to admit that it can be a source of
cash in hand. How many sob stories do we have to hear about people who
"can no longer afford" to remain in the home they've owned for 35 years
because of property taxes, without a mention of the fact that they can
easily tap the equity of that home to pay their taxes? If they are
elders, there are already existing tax abatements for those of low
income. For those who aren't elderly, there are reverse mortgages and
equity lines of credit available.
Sure, I can understand the desire to pass a home to one's heirs free of
any mortgage obligation. I desire the same thing. But no way is it the
responsibility of other taxpayers, rich or poor, to subsidize my desire.
And why should working people who have never yet lived in their own home
be taxed to support someone who has lived in a home for 35 years or
more? Deval and his fellow Democrats are forever talking about
"fairness." What is fair about that? If you bought a home you can no
longer afford, do you somehow have a "right" to a state subsidy that
will let you stay in it?
Patrick's plan, if it ever becomes a reality, is not property tax
relief. It's just socialism by another name.
Taylor armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune.
The Lowell Sun
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Casino money flows to reps
By Hillary Chabot
State politicians looking to fill their campaign wallets might want to
consider a new position: casino-gambling opponent.
It's worked well for House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who has fiercely battled
against expanded gambling for the past three years. He took in $10,575
during that period from lobbyists representing casino interests,
according to campaign-finance records. The sum is more than any other
lawmaker.
Jane Lane, DiMasi's campaign spokeswoman, argued the donations prove
that money can't always buy votes.
"The speaker has been a longtime opponent of casino gambling," Lane
said. "Obviously, these donations have had no bearing on his position
and are merely a reflection of their support for the speaker's agenda
for the state."
But Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, has a more cynical view.
"I'm not surprised. Why else would you be holding out?" Anderson said.
"I always assumed his resistance came from the fact that as long as the
issue is unresolved, people will be paying him to vote with them."
The contributions include DiMasi's political action committee, which
uses funds to elect and retain Democrats in the House.
The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is working on bringing casino gambling to
land it owns in Middleboro. And Gov. Deval Patrick wants to issue
licenses to build three resort-style casinos, triggering a surge of
money from hopeful developers to lobbyists in the past year.
Casino lobbyists have been busy trying to sway lawmakers' votes long
before that.
Lobbyists spent $316,321 on Massachusetts politicians during the past
three years, with $12,175, or 4 percent, flowing to politicians who
represent Greater Lowell.
Rep. Tom Golden, D-Lowell, took in the most in casino lobbyist donations
locally, at $2,525, followed by former Sen. Robert Havern, an Arlington
Democrat who represented Billerica and Burlington, with $2,425.
Golden argued the money hasn't influenced his vote because he has voted
against allowing slots in racetracks previously. He is more open to
considering Patrick's plan, however.
"My decisions can't be bought and I think the proof is in the pudding
right there," Golden said. "I'm always willing to look at an issue over
and over again. Maybe I will be in favor of it, but in the past I've
been against it."
Lobbyists who represent casinos can also represent other businesses,
Golden pointed out. One donor also represents Realtors, which is
Golden's line of work.
Casino supporter Treasurer Tim Cahill got the second most in donations,
taking in about $9,000. Cahill was an ardent opponent of casinos until
this year, when he changed his mind, citing slowing lottery revenues.
"Treasurer Cahill is proud to have had the support of thousands of
individual contributors over the years, and he makes his decisions
independently of the multiple perspectives these donors represent," said
Cahill campaign spokeswoman Laurie Basio. The contributions total less
than 1 percent of Cahill's total donations during the last three years.
Pam Wilmot, executive director of lawmaker watchdog group Common Cause,
said money may not buy votes, but it often buys access.
"Money helps with access to officials. It doesn't necessarily guarantee
you'll get your way, but it does get you in the door," Wilmot said.
The biggest contributors include Suffolk Downs at nearly $87,000;
Mashpee Wampanoag's follow at $35,200; Harrah's entertainment at
$28,000; Aquinnah Wampanoag gaming at $23,425; Foxwoods at $23,200;
Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park at $21,000; and the Plainridge Racetrack
at $19,084.
Gov. Deval Patrick received about $5,000 and Lt. Gov. Tim Murray got
about $6,000. Former Attorney General Tom Reilly took in about $8,000
and former Senate President Robert Travaglini received $6,000. Current
Senate President Therese Murray, who supports casinos and has only been
president since March, took in $5,600.
House Chairman of Ways and Means Rep. Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, scored
big with $7,450 in contributions. The head of the Senate Ways and Means
Committee, Steve Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, doesn't accept donations from
PACs or lobbyists.
"I'd rather keep my dealings with them at arm's length and not have the
financial complications," said Panagiotakos. "They're professional
advocates, so I don't need to solicit or accept funds from them."
But there is another reason why money might not sway legislator votes
when it comes to casinos, said Wilmot. People are watching.
"The antidote to money is citizen participation, and that can be
mobilized around a few key issues effectively," she said. "This is one
of them."
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Taxpayer group casts doubt on Patrick's casino plan
Says competition could cut revenues
By Matt Viser
Governor Deval Patrick's promises for using casino revenues would fall
short because the stream of gambling dollars would erode over time in
the face of regional casino competition, a nonprofit taxpayer group said
yesterday.
And even if the money did flow as Patrick expects, it would not be
enough to pay for the governor's broad plans for the proceeds, said the
organization, the nonpartisan, business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation.
"They're not going to have enough money," the foundation's president,
Michael J. Widmer, said yesterday. "And even if they do, it's not going
to go that far."
The foundation has been studying Patrick's plan for three resort casinos
across the state for the past month and is planning to issue a critical
report next week.
Patrick has said his proposal for three casinos in Massachusetts would
generate $2 billion in economic activity and create 20,000 permanent
jobs.
The state would get a minimum of 27 percent of gambling proceeds which
would be used to mitigate negative casino impacts and then benefit the
state with what's left over, about $400 million a year. The governor
estimates the licensing process, including bidding for the 10-year
licenses, would generate between $600 million and $900 million in
upfront fees for the state.
Patrick filed his casino bill on Thursday. Yesterday the administration
defended its math.
"The administration based its analysis on an independent and credible
report commissioned by the treasurer's office," said Kofi Jones,
spokeswoman for Housing and Economic Development Secretary Dan
O'Connell, Patrick's point man on casinos.
The administration declined to respond to Widmer's comments in detail,
she added, because "we are not going to respond to a report that we
haven't seen."
Widmer said the governor's revenue estimates will eventually prove too
generous.
"It appears reasonable that you can get that level of gaming revenues --
if everything is the same as it is today," Widmer said. "But it's not
going to stay the same. Connecticut is not going to sit by and say,
'Okay that's fine we're not going to worry about it.' Similarly you've
got New Hampshire and Maine. There's a saturation point in New England."
Previously, some gaming specialists have said the governor's estimates
appear to be on par with industry standards.
Patrick has proposed using half of the $400 million in annual proceeds
to provide income tax credits of an average of $200 to nearly 1 million
state residents whose local property tax bills are 2.5 percent or more
of their annual income. The other half would be spent on improving roads
and bridges.
But based on Patrick's other plans for spending the casino revenues, the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation projects that only between $115
million and $133.8 million would be available for property tax relief --
not $200 million.
Likewise, the foundation said, the $200 million that Patrick expects to
be available for transportation improvements also would not fully
materialize.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Patrick seeks $300m for Green Line
By Andrea Estes
Moving to allay fears that the MBTA Green Line extension to Somerville
and Medford will be delayed again, Governor Deval Patrick announced
yesterday that the state is applying for $300 million in federal funding
and taking several other steps to move the long-awaited project forward.
Patrick also told Somerville and Medford residents that the state will
pay the MBTA to begin designing new trains and has hired a consultant,
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc., to perform environmental and engineering
studies. In addition, the state has organized an advisory group of
residents that will meet monthly until the project is complete,
beginning Oct. 25, Patrick said.
If federal funding is not approved, the state will borrow money to pay
for the $560 million project, the governor said during a gathering of
residents and local political leaders at Gilman Square in Somerville.
Patrick said he hopes the new train service will be operational by 2014,
not 2016, as his office had projected in August.
"The Green Line extension is an important project," Patrick said. "I'm
here to affirm my 100 percent commitment to see it gets built and gets
built while I am in office."
The Boston Herald
Friday, October 19, 2007
Deficit leaves state in crunch
By Casey Ross
Gov. Deval Patrick’s top budget aide said yesterday that the state is
facing a “serious deficit” in the next budget year and that tax
increases may be needed to close a shortfall expected to hit at least
$500 million.
Administration and Finance Secretary Leslie Kirwan, who will file a new
state budget in January, indicated that the state’s financial condition
remains dire and that deep cost cuts or new taxes will be needed to
balance the books in fiscal year 2009.
“We continue to face a serious deficit and we have proposed a series of
both cost containment measures and revenue proposals such as our
Municipal Partnership Act, and closing corporate tax loopholes,” Kirwan
wrote in a statement to the Herald.
“We are focused on savings and efficiencies first, but we also must look
at new revenues,” she added.
Top lawmakers and financial analysts agreed that next year’s budget
looks extremely difficult, and one longtime budget expert said he
anticipates a revenue shortfall of up to $600 million and possibly much
higher. The size of the shortfall could rival the $1 billion gap Patrick
faced last year.
“It’s going to be a very tight budget with virtually no room for
expansions,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation. “The state will be fortunate to be able to fund
the present level of programs.”
The anticipated budget crunch means Patrick will again face a struggle
to implement key campaign promises to increase local aid, put more cops
on the street and lower property tax bills, which continue to skyrocket
in communities statewide.
Multiple attempts by Patrick to generate new revenues failed to gain
traction in the Legislature last year. The primary obstacle has been the
House, where lawmakers have blocked $600 million in proposed corporate
tax changes, the introduction of local meals taxes and the elimination
of a telecommunications tax exemption that would generate about $80
million annually for cities and towns.
The House’s top budget writer, state Rep. Robert DeLeo, said yesterday
that finances look tight for the next fiscal year, but he does not
foresee a willingness among lawmakers to raise taxes.
“Right now, I don’t see with the members any appetite for new taxes,”
DeLeo (D-Winthrop) said yesterday. “Before we talk about additional
revenue streams, we have to talk about making necessary cuts.”
But with health care costs -- and the state’s new health reform law --
continuing to claim a huge percentage of the budget, the room for
discretionary spending cuts may not be enough to close the anticipated
gap next year.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Steve Panagiotakos (D-Lowell) said he
agrees the state is facing a shortfall of $600 million and perhaps more.
“At this early point in our deliberations, that’s a good estimate,” he
said. “There is potential for that estimate unfortunately to grow.”
“We’re going to have to be as careful as possible going forward,” he
added. “The national trends do not look good for substantial
investment.”
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
|
