CLT UPDATE
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Prop 2½ still survives,
while hypocrites again decline voluntary tax option
Leave it up to the state Legislature to dangle a
poisoned carrot in front of the starving horse.
In this case, the tainted carrot is a special abatement for senior
citizens who will be exempted from paying taxes on Proposition 2½
overrides. The starving horse represents many Massachusetts communities
that are only too willing to get senior citizens out of the picture when
it comes to voting on Proposition 2½ overrides....
We hope the Senate has the good sense to kill this carrot and save the
horse from choking on another dubious giveaway.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Tax discrimination is no relief at all
The issue of passing a Proposition 2½ tax override frequently
turns divisive when it comes up in cities and towns across the state.
In the case of the recently passed Massachusetts House legislation to exempt
qualified seniors from paying tax increases due to Proposition 2½ overrides, the
same has proven true.
The Newburyport Current
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Port leaders say senior override exemption needs work
The important principle of Proposition 2½ as it is now
written is that all taxpayers have a stake in the outcome of the vote. Exempting
one demographic group defeats the purpose of the law and is potentially divisive
for the community....
As of now, the bill has gone to the Senate where it may not even come up for a
vote because of the public outcry over the proposed changes to Proposition 2½.
We can only hope that the Senate will keep Proposition 2½ as is....
As a former state representative who is familiar with the
workings of Beacon Hill, I know that if they begin tinkering with Proposition 2½
now, eventually it will be so watered down that it will be a useless tool to
keep taxes under control.
The Norton Mirror
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Barrows voted to save Prop 2½,
not abandon seniors
Letter by Virginia M. Coppola
“I’m not sure that this is going to come up (before the
Senate), but right now, I’m not planning on voting for it,” state Sen. Michael
Morrissey (D-Quincy) said. “I think that it’s an attempt to weaken the
provisions of Proposition 2½. Ideas have to rise or fall on the merits, and
something like this doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. We’re all in this
together. You would be pitting one group against another, so I think that would
be divisive.”
The Braintree Forum
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bill would allow tax abatements for some seniors
The switch from the House to the Senate appears to suit Sen.
Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville). Last week the liberal lawmaker, who co-chairs
the Elder Affairs Committee, said she won’t recommend Senate passage of a bill
that would exempt elderly homeowners from tax hikes associated with Proposition
2½ overrides - which is nothing more than a cynical bid to keep the old folks
away from the polls on override day (our words, not hers).
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, March 17, 2008
New friend for homeowners
DiMasi rightly believes that before they assent to more
taxes, the public wants to see the government mend its spendthrift ways. But to
accomplish that, municipal officials are going to need his and other
legislators' help.
Fortunately, DiMasi and his colleagues have a perfect opportunity to demonstrate
to the public their willingness to help mayors and selectmen control costs. A
bill passed last year would allow cities and towns to reduce their skyrocketing
health insurance expenses by transferring their employees to the state Group
Insurance Commission. Unfortunately under that bill, any such move can be vetoed
by the municipal unions. And thus far those unions have shown no inclination to
alter their present arrangements, which generally provide their members with
much better benefits at much lower costs than the average worker.
The Legislature needs to remove that union veto — otherwise known as a "poison
pill" — from the law. The unions won't like it, but it will demonstrate to the
public that lawmakers are indeed willing to help cities and towns get their
costs under control.
A Salem News editorial
Monday, March 17, 2008
Put-up-or-shut-up time for DiMasi
As the pressure mounts on legislators to boost aid to cities
and towns, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said the state should be more watchful
of exactly how local leaders are spending billions of dollars.
“We are investing much in our cities and towns, and we should,” he said at a
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast forum. “But when they call for
more, as they do every year in good and in bad times, we have a right to know
why, and for what.” ...
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer questioned the need
for greater oversight, noting that the administration’s Division of Local
Services provides a similar function. He said the speaker’s idea would have more
merit if it established an advisory board, as opposed to a watchdog.
State House News Service
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Speaker suggests plan to scrutinize municipal,
spending, management
So far this 2008 tax season, fewer Bay Staters than ever
before are checking off the box on their state income tax forms that allows them
to pay at the old 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the 5.3 percent rate pushed
through by heartless, mean-spirited conservatives.
As of Monday, 1.3 million state taxpayers have filed their 2007 returns. And of
those, a mere 294 have decided to pay their . . . fair share. For the children.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 14, 2008
Our bleeding-heart liberals get a leg up
on being tight-fisted
By Howie Carr
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
There's nothing new to report on the House's
attempted end-run around Proposition 2½. Its bill still sits in
the Senate waiting, but the chance of it being brought up or adopted
there seems to look slim from what we're hearing and as you can read.
Meanwhile, with the air virtually sucked out of the
State House these days over Gov. Patrick's resort casinos proposal,
House Speaker Sal DiMasi is pushing for more municipal government
accountability -- which of course the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation opposes. DiMasi is considering an audit of local
spending to insure that state revenue isn't being squandered. This
is a good start.
Better yet will be when the Legislature finally
amends its law and revokes the power of pubic employee unions to reject
the state's Group Insurance Commission, provides municipal officials
with the tools to reduce taxpayer-funded health insurance costs.
Income tax returns are coming in for another year.
Therefore, we can count on Boston Herald columnist and WRKO talkshow
host Howie Carr to report on how many -- or few -- tax-and-spend
hypocrites are electing our
voluntary income tax check-off. Each year since its adoption
into law, there seems to be fewer and fewer who choose to pay it.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Lowell Sun
Saturday, March 1, 2008
A Lowell Sun editorial
Tax discrimination is no relief at all
Leave it up to the state Legislature to dangle a poisoned carrot in
front of the starving horse.
In this case, the tainted carrot is a special abatement for senior
citizens who will be exempted from paying taxes on Proposition 2½
overrides. The starving horse represents many Massachusetts communities
that are only too willing to get senior citizens out of the picture when
it comes to voting on Proposition 2½ overrides.
If the seniors are already promised an abatement from higher taxes, why
would they vote?
As it stands now, seniors are the most reliable voters on town issues,
often voting against proposals to pay higher taxes for operational
matters.
Most communities see this as a bad thing. They shouldn't. Instead, they
should work harder to convince seniors that tax dollars are being spent
efficiently and with good purpose.
The Legislature should know better than to try to appease a certain
constituency -- senior citizens -- while also creating disharmony and
divisions among the community.
If approved by the entire Legislature, the abatement bill will pit young
versus old and establish a special tax class of citizens. It is unfair
to the entire community. In America, we work together, we don't exclude
people, and we agree to pay our fair share of taxes no matter age,
gender, color or creed.
Seniors who think this is a good idea, think again. Is it worth saving
$100 on your tax bill to be subjected to taunts at Town Meeting like,
"Seniors should be seen but not heard?"
This will happen as younger residents are asked to pick up more of
government's tab.
This is not tax relief; it is tax grief.
The House recently passed this bill over the strong objections of five
local lawmakers: Bill Greene of Billerica; Tom Golden and Dave Nangle,
both of Lowell; Colleen Garry of Dracut and Robert Hargraves of Groton.
They were correct.
We hope the Senate has the good sense to kill this carrot and save the
horse from choking on another dubious giveaway.
The Newburyport Current
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Port leaders say senior override exemption needs work
By Meaghan Glassett and M. Renee Buckley
The issue of passing a Proposition 2½ tax override frequently turns
divisive when it comes up in cities and towns across the state.
In the case of the recently passed Massachusetts House legislation to
exempt qualified seniors from paying tax increases due to Proposition 2½
overrides, the same has proven true.
Newburyport Mayor John Moak, state Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, and
Newburyport Council on Aging Director Rosanne Robillard each have their
own take on the bill, which exempts citizens 65 and older from
Proposition 2½ tax overrides if their household income is $60,000 or
less and their property tax is at least 10 percent of their income.
All three also have qualms with the bill.
“I have mixed feelings about it,” Moak said Wednesday. “If you just
wanted to find a way to get overrides to pass that may be helpful, but I
don’t think that’s the way I’d want to present that.”
Proposition 2½ is the Massachusetts statute that limits property tax
increases by municipal governments from increasing by more than 2.5
percent annually.
Moak explained that since the need for an override is tied to a variety
of services across a city, he would want every citizen to be tied to the
decision.
“I would want the entire community weighing in about it, even if it
didn’t affect them tax-wise, because it could be about services,” said
Moak.
“Also, it pushes that effect [of increased taxes] onto a smaller group
of people,” he added.
Baddour said he’s not in favor of the legislation.
“I don’t think the bill was well thought out,” said Baddour. “I don’t
support pitting young families against seniors, or seniors against young
families.”
Baddour said the conflict arises when seniors are given an exemption
from paying for an override to fund a project that benefits them. An
example of this would be a senior center, he said.
Newburyport Council on Aging Director Rosanne Robillard said she agrees
with Baddour, in part.
“I agree with the senator that it is not fair to single out seniors.
However, I do think it would be nice for seniors to be able to defer
payment,” she said. “I think it would be appropriate for the Senate to
amend the bill allowing seniors to defer paying any increase to property
taxes that were voted on through an override.”
Robillard explained that one day the community might want to build a
senior center and an override would need to be on the ballot for that
reason. She said she’d want seniors to be able to vote for such a
project.
Feelings were markedly different in the House, though, as the bill
passed with overwhelming support by a vote of 111-34.
The next step in the life of this legislation is for the bill to go to
the Ways and Means Committee. The committee will then decide if the
Senate will vote on the bill or if it will die there. If it does go on
to the Senate there is no time frame that requires the Senate to vote on
the bill; however, if the bill is not moved to the Senate by July, it
will expire.
“This [process] will take time,” Baddour said.
When asked if he thinks the Senate would vote overwhelmingly against the
bill, Baddour said, “I don’t think it will be overwhelming, but I don’t
think it has enough support to pass.”
“If it does come up as a vote [in the Senate], I will vote against it,”
he said.
Baddour said the House bill is seen as an attempt to make overrides
easier for cities and towns to pass by getting seniors, who are often
seen as an obstruction to their passage, to vote for them.
Robillard also believes seniors should be able to vote for any override.
Seniors are known for voting and going to the polls, and she doesn’t
think they should be exempt, she said.
Baddour said that most constituents who contacted him via phone and
e-mail regarding the bill were opposed.
As for whether the seniors of Newburyport support or oppose this bill,
Robillard said that is unclear.
“I am not aware the issue has been debated [in] the community,” she
said.
Baddour added that during an event he attended with COA directors from
across his district on Feb. 29, members of that group voiced concerns
about the exemption bill. No one at the meeting supported it, he said.
The Norton Mirror
Thursday, March 13, 2008
LETTERS:
Barrows voted to save Prop. 2½, not abandon seniors
By Virginia M. Coppola
TO THE EDITOR:
It was interesting to read Dennis Naughton’s dramatic take on Rep. Jay
Barrows’ vote against House Bill 2480. (“Barrows vote unsympathetic to
seniors,” letters, March 7, Mansfield News) However, Dennis may not
understand the full ramifications of this bill.
The bill was filed as an end-run to make a Proposition 2½ override vote
more palatable to the voters of Newton in order to support additional
funding for their Taj Mahal inspired new high school building. Put
plainly and simply, House Bill 2480 is an attempt to begin the
dismantling of Proposition 2½, which would adversely affect every
property taxpayer in Massachusetts – young and old. Therefore, by
opposing the legislation, Rep. Barrows did not abandon seniors. Rather,
he voted against pitting one group against another and to uphold the
current system that all the citizens of Massachusetts put in place to
protect all property taxpayers.
If a Proposition 2½ override proposal is worthy of support, the voting
public will do so, as happened in Weymouth last week when it was voted
to build a new school and repair others. Likewise, if an override
proposal is not good for the community, it will be rejected. The
important principle of Proposition 2½ as it is now written is that all
taxpayers have a stake in the outcome of the vote. Exempting one
demographic group defeats the purpose of the law and is potentially
divisive for the community.
As a former state representative who is familiar with the workings of
Beacon Hill, I know that if they begin tinkering with Proposition 2½
now, eventually it will be so watered down that it will be a useless
tool to keep taxes under control. Therefore, I think that Rep. Barrows
and the other 34 representatives voted the right way.
As of now, the bill has gone to the Senate where it may not even come up
for a vote because of the public outcry over the proposed changes to
Proposition 2½. We can only hope that the Senate will keep Proposition
2½ as is.
Virginia M. Coppola
Foxboro
The Braintree Forum
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bill would allow tax abatements for some seniors
By Robert Aicardi
It’s not certain at this time how Braintree’s state senators will vote
if the Senate takes up legislation that would allow cities and towns to
permit some homeowners over the age of 65 to apply for an abatement of
property tax hikes that result from any Proposition 2½ override.
On a 111-34 Feb. 28 vote, the state House of Representatives, with Rep.
Joseph Driscoll (D-Braintree) in the minority, approved the bill.
Should it become law, seniors with a family income of less than $60,000
a year and whose annual real estate tax payments exceed 10 percent of
their annual income would be eligible to apply for the abatement.
“I’m not sure that this is going to come up (before the Senate), but
right now, I’m not planning on voting for it,” state Sen. Michael
Morrissey (D-Quincy) said. “I think that it’s an attempt to weaken the
provisions of Proposition 2½. Ideas have to rise or fall on the merits,
and something like this doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. We’re all
in this together. You would be pitting one group against another, so I
think that would be divisive.”
Sen. Brian Joyce (D-Milton) said that he is reviewing the bill and has
not decided at this time how he would vote on it.
Driscoll explained why he voted against the bill, expressing sentiments
similar to Morrissey’s.
“I perceived it as an attempt to water down Proposition 2½ and make it
easier to pass overrides,” he said. “The practical effect of the
legislation would be to burden a particular segment of the population,
namely young families, with tax overrides.”
Driscoll added, “Proposition 2½ has worked for communities because the
entire electorate has the opportunity to decide the tax structure of the
community. The democratic process is available to senior citizens as
well as young families, and important decisions like taxation should be
made by the entire electorate.”
Backers of the bill said that offering the exemption would give cities
and towns the power to decide whether to adopt it, arguing that it would
help thousands of seniors who would like to remain in their homes
despite their fixed income and climbing property taxes.
Pointing out that there are already precedents that offer tax breaks to
seniors, they maintained that the proposal was fair.
Opponents of the bill, on the other hand, called the proposed exemption
a ruse designed to lure more seniors to vote for overrides with the
luxury of not having to pay higher property taxes.
They also raised the possibility that cities and towns could exempt
seniors the first year and then take away the exemption in the future.
Material by Bob Katzen of Beacon Hill Roll Call was used in this
story.
The Boston Herald
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
New friend for homeowners
The switch from the House to the Senate appears to suit Sen. Patricia
Jehlen (D-Somerville). Last week the liberal lawmaker, who co-chairs the
Elder Affairs Committee, said she won’t recommend Senate passage of a
bill that would exempt elderly homeowners from tax hikes associated with
Proposition 2½ overrides - which is nothing more than a cynical bid to
keep the old folks away from the polls on override day (our words, not
hers). According to the State House News Service, Jehlen said seniors in
her district find the bill “very divisive” and pointed out that many tax
exemptions for seniors already exist.
Jehlen may be an unlikely ally in the bid to hold the line on taxes, but
hey, taxpayers can use all the help they can get!
The Salem News
Monday, March 17, 2008
A Salem News editorial
Put-up-or-shut-up time for DiMasi
There's a big hearing up on Beacon Hill tomorrow at which legislators
will learn the pros and cons of bringing casino gambling to
Massachusetts.
As of the weekend, it appeared increasingly likely that House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi would have the votes to defeat the governor's plan to
license three resort casinos. Some say a vote to settle the matter — at
least for this year — could come as early as next month before the House
starts putting together a state budget for the fiscal year that begins
July 1.
DiMasi and others make some good arguments about why the Bay State
should not become a haven for the gambling industry. Gov. Deval Patrick
and those mayors who have joined his campaign, including Salem's Kim
Driscoll, Beverly's Bill Scanlon and Peabody's Michael Bonfanti, on the
other hand, see the casino proposal as a relatively painless means of
raising new revenue.
As Scanlon pointed out during a serious moment at Friday's St. Patrick's
Day roast in Salem, nobody else has come up with a better idea for
getting the cities and towns more money.
Certainly cities and towns in the commonwealth are strapped for cash
these days without any realistic means of raising more. But as DiMasi
points out, mayors, selectmen and school committees have continued to
grant pay and benefit increases to municipal employees that are well in
excess of what they can afford given the limits of Proposition 2½.
This has resulted in a widening gap between public and private-sector
compensation that has the average taxpayer thinking anything he pays in
additional taxes will simply go to fund the next municipal contract,
rather than improve his children's schools or fix his street.
DiMasi rightly believes that before they assent to more taxes, the
public wants to see the government mend its spendthrift ways. But to
accomplish that, municipal officials are going to need his and other
legislators' help.
Fortunately, DiMasi and his colleagues have a perfect opportunity to
demonstrate to the public their willingness to help mayors and selectmen
control costs. A bill passed last year would allow cities and towns to
reduce their skyrocketing health insurance expenses by transferring
their employees to the state Group Insurance Commission. Unfortunately
under that bill, any such move can be vetoed by the municipal unions.
And thus far those unions have shown no inclination to alter their
present arrangements, which generally provide their members with much
better benefits at much lower costs than the average worker.
The Legislature needs to remove that union veto — otherwise known as a
"poison pill" — from the law. The unions won't like it, but it will
demonstrate to the public that lawmakers are indeed willing to help
cities and towns get their costs under control.
State House News Service
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Speaker suggests plan to scrutinize municipal,
spending, management
By Kyle Cheney
As the pressure mounts on legislators to boost aid to cities and towns,
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said the state should be more watchful of
exactly how local leaders are spending billions of dollars.
“We are investing much in our cities and towns, and we should,” he said
at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast forum. “But when they
call for more, as they do every year in good and in bad times, we have a
right to know why, and for what.”
DiMasi said he is considering proposing a Municipal Audit Bureau to
“analyze and report on local management practices and spending
patterns.”
“The purpose would be to identify the kinds of efficiencies the voters
expect and provide an independent source of analysis and information for
state and local policy-makers,” he said.
With economic indicators pointing toward a nationwide recession, the
House agreed last week to a $5.26 billion local aid package for cities
and towns in fiscal 2009, a $223 million, or 4.4 percent increase, over
this fiscal year, about a fifth of the total state budget.
The increase outpaces expected state tax revenue growth of 3.8 percent.
During debate on the aid agreement, several leading Democrats, while
promoting the total local aid they hope to deliver, said that cities and
towns aren’t guaranteed to spend that money wisely.
Rep. Patricia Haddad argued that some communities “skimmed off” some of
the dollars the state provides for education. Rep. Angelo Scaccia said
communities “need to get tougher” on their own spending, calling their
desire for more funds “unquenchable.” Scaccia noted that very few
communities opted to participate in the state’s group health insurance
plan even though it is projected to save them costs.
“They choked,” Scaccia said, citing the influence of local unions. “They
didn’t want to save money.”
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation President Michael Widmer questioned
the need for greater oversight, noting that the administration’s
Division of Local Services provides a similar function. He said the
speaker’s idea would have more merit if it established an advisory
board, as opposed to a watchdog.
“It might be more productive to have this be a resource, a small group
that can help local officials,” he said. “Small communities may not have
the kind of talent they need [to spend effectively].”
Massachusetts Municipal Association officials could not be reached for
comment.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 14, 2008
Our bleeding-heart liberals get a leg up
on being tight-fisted
By Howie Carr
The bluer Massachusetts becomes, the stingier its ever-growing liberal
majority is getting when it comes to voluntarily giving money to the
state.
So far this 2008 tax season, fewer Bay Staters than ever before are
checking off the box on their state income tax forms that allows them to
pay at the old 5.85 percent rate, rather than at the 5.3 percent rate
pushed through by heartless, mean-spirited conservatives.
As of Monday, 1.3 million state taxpayers have filed their 2007 returns.
And of those, a mere 294 have decided to pay their . . . fair share. For
the children.
That works out (I think) to about one-40th of 1 percent. And those 294
chumps - I mean, concerned citizens - have generated a mere $27,944 in
additional revenue, which means that the average income of the donors is
approximately $10,000.
By my inexact calculations, that $28G number probably means that no one
single Beautiful Person has filled in the oval on line 22 to pay at the
more generous, Democrat-endorsed higher tax rate.
Last year, according to the state Department of Revenue, a mere 1,208
taxpayers out of 3.3 million paid at the higher rate, generating
$162,024 in additional revenue.
That 1,208 number works out to .000366 percent of all Massachusetts
taxpayers, which, as pathetic as it is, is still higher than the
commonwealth appears destined for this year.
I am perplexed. After all, when the proposed income tax cut was on the
ballot in 2000, more than a million Massachusetts residents voted to
keep the income tax at its old, higher rate. Apparently they only wanted
other people to have to pay the higher rate. You can’t blame the 60
percent of us who voted to cut our taxes for not paying. The other 40
percent, though - what’s up with you people? Do you think taxes are for
somebody else to pay, but not you?
The Politically Correct always inform us, a tax cut “only” amounts to so
much per week.
Well, two can play at the “only” game. If you make $50,000 a year,
checking the box to pay at the higher rate “only” costs you $550 a year
- “only” a sawbuck and change per week. Aren’t you willing to give up a
large cheese pizza per week to make sure that David Bartley can continue
collecting his $140,000 annual pension?
Liberals, look at it this way - it’s “only” your federal tax rebate that
you’d be giving up.
Last year I challenged every politician to tell me if they were paying
at the voluntary higher rate. One elected official called - Governor’s
Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning. Now I hear the hacks on the North Shore
have been looking around for someone to run against her in the
Democratic primary. Obviously, she doesn’t quite fit in on Beacon Hill.
This week, I called the office of Gov. Deval Patrick and Lt. Gov. Tim
Murray. They’re very, very liberal, which makes it very, very unlikely
they’d give you the shirts off their backs. They’d prefer to steal
somebody else’s shirt, and then give it to you, in a big ceremony with
TV cameras at the State House. At deadline, no one from the Corner
Office had called me back. The office of Senate President Terry Murray
likewise did not respond to an inquiry about whether she’ll be paying
the higher tax.
I did, however, receive an answer of sorts from House Speaker Sal DiMasi.
His spokesman responded to my question in an e-mail:
“Howie - The Speaker said he’ll pay the higher rate if he can trade
salaries with you. Otherwise, he will pay what he is required to pay
under the current law.”
Again, I ask all politicians, especially those at the State House and
Boston City Hall: Let me know if you’re paying at the higher rate, for
the children. I won’t promise you a column, but I’d like to know, for
the record.
When the phone don’t ring, I’ll know it’s all you liberals out there.
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
|
