CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
State spending exploding, slowed
only by repeal threat
It's one step forward, two steps back in the battle
to bring pensions and other public employee retirement benefits under
control in Massachusetts....
The change would raise the average pension just $120 for the coming
year. But compounded annually, the move could end up costing taxpayers
more than $8 billion.
Next year, taxpayers will pay almost $1.5 billion out of a likely $28
billion budget to retire the Commonwealth's more than $13 billion
unfunded pension liability. Hiking retirement benefits would extend the
time at which state pension obligations will be fully funded from 2023
to 2026....
Reining in pensions is not about shortchanging public employees. For
years, the argument was that government workers got rich benefits to
make up for lower pay. But according to the federal Bureau of Labor
Statistics, public employees in eastern Massachusetts now earn 15
percent more than their private sector counterparts who perform
comparable work, and that number is exclusive of more generous
government benefit packages.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The battle to curb public pensions
By Charles Chieppo
The proposed 2009 state budget includes an increase in the
COLA base from $12,000 to $16,000. The base is the amount used to calculate the
annual cost-of-living-adjustment.
The increases will amount to an extra $120 per year, per retiree, of about a 3-
percent increase, according to Ralph White, president of the Retired State,
County and Municipal Employees Association of Massachusetts.
"It maxes out at $10 a month," White said.
But that extra $10 a month equals a massive, unfunded liability for towns and
cities all over the state, according to Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of
the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
Beckwith claims the increase amounts to a 33 percent increase.
"Combined, it will cost more than $2 billion," Beckwith said.
The increase will boost the COLA base for state retirees and school retirees,
who have their own pension systems, as well as the municipal retirees, Beckwith
said.
"They already get a cost-of-living-adjustment increase, this increases that
amount by $120 for every retiree, and it will grow every single year," Beckwith
said.
White said the MMA's calculations that the increase will cost the state $2
billion are wrong.
"The $2 billion is a bogus number, it will cost at most $1 billion," White said.
"It's a very small increase." ...
The increase for all of the retirees will grow with compounded interest,
according to Beckwith.
Compound interest is the concept of adding accumulated interest back to the
principal, so that interest is earned on interest from that moment on.
With the number of retirees growing every year, towns and cities will not be
able to keep up, Beckwith said....
Lancaster's Town Administrator, Orlando Pacheco, said the increase to the COLA
will lead to an increase in taxes....
Robert Hargraves, the state representative for Townsend and Groton calls the
MMA's concerns overblown....
Retirees now receive about a $300 cost-of-living-adjustment increase each year,
Hargraves said.
The projections from the MMA that the plan will hurt towns and cities is not
true, Hargraves said.
"The doom and gloom is a crock of s***," Hargraves said.
The Sentinel & Enterprise
Monday, June 23, 2008
High cost of pensioning
No one in Massachusetts begrudges a state or municipal
retiree a reasonable cost of living increase. These aren’t, after all, the
politically-connected high-rollers who get to cash in $100,000-plus pensions
that are fattened up with housing allowances and other sweeteners.
But the scheme by which lawmakers have conspired to pay for the COLA increase
represents true fiscal irresponsibility. It is the definition of robbing the
taxpaying Peters to pay the retired Pauls.
And unless the Legislature sees the light on this issue, it will be up to the
Patrick administration to come up with a reasonable alternative....
Politicians are fond of calling for belt-tightening in a fiscal crisis. But that
rallying cry shouldn’t apply only to taxpayers who aren’t fortunate enough to be
on the public payroll.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 16, 2008
COLA funding plan leaves bitter taste
Tuesday's override vote in Beverly proved once again that the
majority of voters want to see some sacrifice on the part of those spending
their money before they'll sanction more taxes.
"It sends the message that they've had enough," Elliott Margolis of the
anti-override group Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility declared as the results
arrived at City Hall. Hard to argue, given the fact the override went down to
defeat by an almost 2-1 margin.
This was not the result of a low turnout. An impressive 43 percent of voters
made it to the polls for this special election....
In a diverse community like Beverly, with a good number of voters struggling to
pay for gas and groceries, a tax increase of any amount was clearly not
acceptable. It's not that override opponents don't value good schools, they've
lost faith in the ability of government to spend their money wisely....
Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation referred to the Beverly
results in a rather gloomy assessment of the revenue picture delivered to the
North Shore Chamber of Commerce Wednesday morning. Voters are disenchanted with
government, he warned, and if they're still feeling that way in November it
could result in their jettisoning the income tax.
And the reduction in state aid that would require, Widmer noted, would be
catastrophic for every school system in the state.
A Salem News editorial
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Beverly vote reflects taxpayer dismay
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said he does not see the state
carrying out a repeal of the income tax - even if voters approve the binding
ballot measure in November.
"I'm against doing it and I find myself hard-pressed to say that I would try to
completely implement an elimination of the income tax," DiMasi told a Daily News
editorial board yesterday.
"I can't see myself doing that in the future, but I know people are hurting and
I know people want to send a message maybe at some point in time that their
taxes are too high."
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Income tax cut unlikely, says DiMasi
Cynical citizens often say that Massachusetts is run like a
Third World country. I disagree.
In Third World countries, they at least pretend that elections matter.
Not Sal DiMasi.
The House speaker has a message for all the cranky taxpayers who are thinking
about voting to get rid of the state income tax, and it’s a message we cannot
publish in a family newspaper....
Seriously, do you think Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez could get away with
announcing in advance that he was dumping the results of an election before they
even passed out the ballots? Would Fidel Castro in his heyday have had the nerve
to declare Cuban democracy “a nice way to spend a Tuesday, but a total waste of
time”?
But the way DiMasi sees it, voting only gets in the way of the important work of
democracy, namely spending other people’s money. Why should a little thing like
an election matter?
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Speaker speaks too soon
Won’t even pretend your vote matters
By Michael Graham
Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray urged
Boston-area business leaders to collectively fight an effort to repeal the
state’s income tax.
“We need the support of the business community to educate the public and make
sure we don’t fall victim to a reckless vote in November,” she said this morning
at a packed breakfast meeting in a downtown Boston hotel....
After Murray was finished speaking, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce President
Paul Guzzi told the crowd, “The chamber opposes the ballot question, too.
“It is irresponsible, and it goes too far, and reasonable people understand
that,” he said.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Senate president Murray urges opposition
to income tax repeal
I would suggest that if Senator Murray wants to win this
fight that maybe the legislature should roll back the income tax to 5% as
promised and as supported by the voters.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 13, 2008
Murray opposes repealing the income tax
By Holly Robichaud (The Lone Republican)
A weak economy, soaring gasoline prices and a frustration
with government could cause voters to approve a ballot initiative to wipe out
the state income tax, legislators said Thursday.
The legislators said they think the move is too drastic and would cripple state
services, but believe voters are looking for a way to lower their costs and lash
out at government....
Both [state Reps.] Ross and Poirier said voter anger might not be as great if
the state kept its promise from years ago and lowered the income tax rate to 5
percent. It is now 5.3 percent.
They also said state government has to take steps to earn the trust of voters.
In the meantime, legislators said the ballot initiative has an excellent chance
of passing, considering a similar proposal got 45 percent of the vote in 2002.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Friday, June 13, 2008
Legislators: Voter anger may lead to end of income tax
I know what you’re thinking. The Legislature will never go
along with a $12 billion reduction in the money to hire their friends and
relatives, not to mention hand out an extra billion or so in corporate welfare
to assorted biotech bandidos.
Maybe. But at the very least, this will make it hot for them. If this
abolish-the-income-tax question makes the ballot, the hacks and their pinky-ring
unions are going to have to spend millions to make sure their gravy train isn’t
derailed by working people. Let’s make ’em spend it all.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Get those signatures and give yourself a pay raise
By Howie Carr
A special panel today will recommend large pay raises - some
up to 70 percent - for the state's top politicians and judges, but the board's
report was immediately rejected by high-ranking leaders as unacceptable in the
current economic climate....
But the very politicians who would benefit said yesterday that they would not
endorse the proposal. With the state facing a budget deficit of more than $1
billion, home foreclosures rampant, and gas prices topping $4 a gallon, it would
send the wrong message, they said....
Paul Guzzi, president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and cochairman
of the panel, said the proposals are embargoed until this afternoon when the
board holds a news conference in Boston....
A major concern among Beacon Hill leaders was the spark that such raises would
give to the petition drive to repeal the state's income tax, which provides 40
percent of the revenues for the budget, according to sources who have been in
discussions with political leaders. A coalition led by the state's Libertarian
Party leaders say it has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the November
ballot. The repeal question was barely defeated in 2002.
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 20, 2008
Judicial, political pay hikes suggested
But leaders reject the timing of raises
The ballot question to abolish the state income tax is
already paying dividends for working people - the annual money grab by the
state’s greed-crazed judiciary is DOA.
It wouldn’t have looked good, you see, to heap another $30,306-a-year raise on
top of the judges’ $16,917 pay hike back in 2006. Plus, these criminal-coddling
clowns were also grubbing for an annual cost-of-living adjustment, which is just
an automatic, invisible raise....
This latest scheme, along with pay raises for a handful of elected pols, was
fronted by the traditional “blue-ribbon commission,” a group of people about
whom a song was once written:
“How can we miss you when you won’t go away?”
The co-chairman of this commission is one Paul Guzzi, another bust-out pol. Last
week he was denouncing the proposed abolition of the 5.3 percent state income
tax because it “goes too far.” If you make $50,000, ending the state income tax
would mean you’d get to keep an extra $2,650 of your own money. No pay raise,
just a smaller heist by the hackerama.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Bench helped the Celtics, but hurts you
By Howie Carr
And as we said last week, the timing of this report is
simply, well, priceless! Gas is at $4-plus per gallon, home foreclosures are
rampant and even the cost of food is skyrocketing. Meanwhile, lawmakers are
campaigning for re-election - and against a proposal that would eliminate the
state’s personal income tax. Care to take a guess how raises like these would
play on the campaign trail?
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, June 23, 2008
Timing was off and report is, too
A perfect storm is developing for passage of the income tax
repeal. People are feeling the pinch at the pump and are angry. With the
Legislature consistently failing to roll back the income tax to 5 percent as
promised, no sales tax holiday in August, no property tax cuts and no reforms
passed for pensions or police details, you can expect that Massachusetts voters
are going to repeal, repeal, repeal. New Hampshire has been able to survive and
thrive without an income tax. We can do it as well.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Monday morning briefing
The Lone Republican by Holly Robichaud
Massachusetts' voters will be asked Nov. 4 whether to
eliminate the state income tax. Until then, opponents and supporters will be
campaigning hard to convince voters....
It's shaping up to be an epic battle.
Already, opposition is mobilizing in the state, led by the Coalition for Our
Communities, a group comprised of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, several
communities, non-profits, businesses and individuals....
State officials and legislators also vowed to fight against the repeal, along
with interest groups such as the Massachusetts Teachers Association and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield.
Beckwith said that although the municipal association won't directly campaign
against the proposal because it is not a political organization, it will comment
on implications of the repeal....
Widmer said his organization [Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation] will start
work on an analysis on the impact of the measure as soon as the state budget is
complete next month.
The Attleboro Sun-Chronicle
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
So long, income tax?
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Still spending like there's no tomorrow, the
Legislature and the governor have just doled out another billion dollars of
taxpayers' money, this time to promote the biotechnology industry in Massachusetts.
Gov. Patrick has jacked up his office budget by 40 percent, an increase
of nearly $4 million since Mitt Romney left the office. The
Legislature's $28 billion budget is still in conference committee being
"compromised" between the House and Senate versions -- which usually
means more spending -- and the "cost of living increase" for public
employee retirees is still included. Apparently the only
difference with the COLA versions is whether it will apply to just
retired state employees or will include municipal employees as well.
Clearly the usual "fiscal crisis" is still a
spending crisis, and this crisis is rolling down hill gaining speed.
Obviously we taxpayers and good citizens must stop them
before they hurt themselves and others any more. The most
compassionate if not only means is to outright repeal the state income tax. As with a
recovering drug addict, the first step in helping is to remove the supply, the
temptation, his ability to overdose again.
The good news on the recovery front is that Carla Howell and her
Committee for
Small Government collected far more than enough signatures to put
the income tax repeal question on the November ballot -- and does that
ever have the Gimme Lobby in panic mode! Carla and the CSG
apparently turned in enough signatures to ward off a challenge by the
massive opposition: The "Coalition
for Our Communities" is composed of the
usual suspects, the
powerful unions and other enemies of the taxpayers, the More Is Never
Enough (MINE) Gimme Lobby and its
handmaidens.
Already, the ballot question to repeal the income tax
has had an effect. Just the threat of it has put the brakes on yet
more payraises for pols, proposed by none other than an outspoken opponent of the
repeal, Paul Guzzi; president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
and co-chairman of the committee proposing to put more money in the pols'
pockets.
If the income tax repeal doesn't pass in November,
any bets on how long it'll take for the pols to grab that pay hike?
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The battle to curb public pensions
By Charles Chieppo
It's one step forward, two steps back in the battle to bring pensions
and other public employee retirement benefits under control in
Massachusetts.
Beginning in January, MBTA retirees under 65 will contribute 15 percent
toward the cost of their health insurance. Most T employees can retire
with generous benefits after 23 years. Until now, those benefits
included free healthcare for life. Not a bad deal, especially when you
can retire in your 40s.
Phasing in a plan that would have provided incentives for recent and
soon-to-be retirees to choose less expensive health insurance, as
proposed by a panel charged with assessing state transportation
finances, would have been fairer to those nearing the 23-year mark,
saved more money, and avoided a potential spate of retirements at the T.
Still, treating younger MBTA retirees the same as retired state
employees is a step in the right direction.
But while most state workers pay around 10 percent of their salaries
toward retirement, T employees still pay just 4 percent. Unlike state
employee contributions - which are set by law - MBTA pension
contributions are subject to collective bargaining.
At least the MBTA pension situation isn't getting any worse. An
amendment adopted during the state House of Representatives budget
debate and included in the Senate's recent budget proposal increases
from $12,000 to $16,000 the amount upon which cost-of-living increases
are calculated for teacher and other state retiree pensions. Earlier
this month, busloads of retired teachers descended on the State House to
lobby for pending legislation that would guarantee future escalation by
linking the base amount to the consumer price index.
The change would raise the average pension just $120 for the coming
year. But compounded annually, the move could end up costing taxpayers
more than $8 billion.
Next year, taxpayers will pay almost $1.5 billion out of a likely $28
billion budget to retire the Commonwealth's more than $13 billion
unfunded pension liability. Hiking retirement benefits would extend the
time at which state pension obligations will be fully funded from 2023
to 2026.
State Treasurer Tim Cahill warns against extending the date, saying it
could hurt the Commonwealth's bond rating. The higher interest costs
that would result are no small matter, given that $16 billion in new
borrowing has either recently been approved or appears headed toward
approval.
Payments to retire the liability are on a schedule to increase each
year, reaching more than $2.8 billion in 2023. That means three
additional years would cost taxpayers more than $8 billion. Keeping to
the current schedule would result in the annual sum rising even higher
than $2.8 billion by 2023.
Part of the problem with the Commonwealth's pension system is that it's
just too easy to push the burden out to future generations. Three early
retirement programs earlier this decade saved money in the short term,
but added nearly $2 billion to overall liability.
When it comes to governments staggering under the weight of public
employee benefits, cautionary tales abound. One of every three dollars
spent by the Los Angeles County school system funds teacher pensions.
Philadelphia just issued a staggering $4.5 billion bond to cover
unfunded pension liabilities for 33,000 employees. The City of Vallejo,
Calif., recently declared bankruptcy, its finances collapsing under the
weight of police and fire contracts.
Reining in pensions is not about shortchanging public employees. For
years, the argument was that government workers got rich benefits to
make up for lower pay. But according to the federal Bureau of Labor
Statistics, public employees in eastern Massachusetts now earn 15
percent more than their private sector counterparts who perform
comparable work, and that number is exclusive of more generous
government benefit packages.
The new healthcare reform law is just one of the priorities
Massachusetts is struggling to fund. If not for the nearly $1.5 billion
taxpayers will have to put toward retiring unfunded pension liability
next year, the Commonwealth could pay costs related to the law;
eliminate the need to pull $400 million from the rainy day fund, as the
state Senate did to balance its budget proposal; and still have money
left over. That's why we have to resist the pressure to add to already
staggering liabilities.
Charles Chieppo is a senior fellow at the Pioneer Institute.
The Sentinel & Enterprise
Monday, June 23, 2008
High cost of pensioning
By Damien Fisher
TOWNSEND -- A proposed increase to the cost-of-living-adjustment base
for state, school and municipal retirees is a burden most towns cannot
afford, Town Administrator Greg Barnes said.
"It's another unfunded mandate," Barnes said.
Townsend's financial burden for municipal employee retirements is
already going up $40,000 to $50,000 per year due, in part, to the
current cost-of-living-adjustment, according to Barnes.
"We're finding it extremely difficult to fund," Barnes said.
The 2009 retirement payment for Townsend will be $460,000. The
retirement plan required $413,000 in 2008, and $370,000 in 2007,
according to Barnes.
"We can't afford what we have now," Barnes said.
The proposed 2009 state budget includes an increase in the COLA base
from $12,000 to $16,000. The base is the amount used to calculate the
annual cost-of-living-adjustment.
The increases will amount to an extra $120 per year, per retiree, of
about a 3- percent increase, according to Ralph White, president of the
Retired State, County and Municipal Employees Association of
Massachusetts.
"It maxes out at $10 a month," White said.
But that extra $10 a month equals a massive, unfunded liability for
towns and cities all over the state, according to Geoffrey Beckwith,
executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association.
Beckwith claims the increase amounts to a 33 percent increase.
"Combined, it will cost more than $2 billion," Beckwith said.
The increase will boost the COLA base for state retirees and school
retirees, who have their own pension systems, as well as the municipal
retirees, Beckwith said.
"They already get a cost-of-living-adjustment increase, this increases
that amount by $120 for every retiree, and it will grow every single
year," Beckwith said.
White said the MMA's calculations that the increase will cost the state
$2 billion are wrong.
"The $2 billion is a bogus number, it will cost at most $1 billion,"
White said. "It's a very small increase."
There are around 105 municipal retirement systems in the state, all
governed by the same laws and requirements, according to Beckwith.
Those systems cover firefighters, police, librarians, public works
employees and others employed by municipalities, Beckwith said.
The increase for all of the retirees will grow with compounded interest,
according to Beckwith.
Compound interest is the concept of adding accumulated interest back to
the principal, so that interest is earned on interest from that moment
on.
With the number of retirees growing every year, towns and cities will
not be able to keep up, Beckwith said.
"We are very concerned about this," Beckwith said.
Barnes said no mater what the actual increase, it is something Townsend
cannot afford.
Townsend's revenues are down and the economy in the state is slumping,
Barnes said. This makes it a difficult time to push through a new
increase, he said.
"I understand why individuals would be very appreciative of the
increase," Barnes said. "I have to look at it from the position of the
town."
Barnes is not alone in being worried about the proposal.
Karen Murphy, Westminster's town coordinator, said her town is seeing a
large increase in its retirement burden already.
This year the town is paying $318,000 into the retirement system, and
that is expected to go up to $353,000 next year due to the already
rising cost-of-living-adjustment in place.
"That's without the COLA increase," Murphy said. "It's difficult, and
more and more people are retiring."
Lancaster's Town Administrator, Orlando Pacheco, said the increase to
the COLA will lead to an increase in taxes.
"People are hurting," Pacheco said.
Pacheco is unconvinced the $120 maximum per retiree will not hurt town
finances.
"You multiple that a number of times and it adds up," Pacheco said.
While Lancaster's retirement burden is $255,000 this year, Leominster is
paying $5.1 million.
John Richard, Leominster's comptroller, said it is too early to tell
what effect the increase will have on the city. The city will need to
conduct an actuarial study of current retirees and future retirees.
"It's not a simple math exercise.
The current retirement system pays retirees 80 percent of the average of
their three highest earning years of employment, Pacheco said.
"And they get 50 percent of their health insurance for life," Pacheco
said.
Beckwith is leading a campaign to get cities and towns to contact their
legislators to try and stop the increase.
The increase is included in the state budget currently before the Senate
budget committee, which is expected to present it to Gov. Deval Patrick
in early July, Beckwith said.
State Rep. Stephen DiNatale, D-Fitchburg, hopes the proposal will come
back to the state House of Representatives, so changes can be made
before going to Patrick.
DiNatale, however, acknowledged he initially voted for the increasee,
which was included in the overall state budget.
The proposal will be too much of a burden on communities like Fitchburg,
DiNatale said.
"It's very poor timing for the city of Fitchburg to be dealing with
this," DiNatale said. "This is additional revenue we don't have."
Robert Hargraves, the state representative for Townsend and Groton calls
the MMA's concerns overblown.
"The MMA is sending out a spurious message to mislead the people,"
Hargraves said.
Hargraves backed the increase in the House and said it is a needed boost
for people living on a fixed income.
A retired public school principal, Hargraves said the total increase
works out to a 3 percent boost to the base before the regular
cost-of-living adjustment gets made.
Retirees now receive about a $300 cost-of-living-adjustment increase
each year, Hargraves said.
The projections from the MMA that the plan will hurt towns and cities is
not true, Hargraves said.
"The doom and gloom is a crock of s***," Hargraves said.
Hargraves said if Gorton had 100 retirees, the largest increase the town
will see is $12,000.
Murphy, Barnes and Pacheco want the senate to conduct a full study on
the retirement system.
"It's not the right time for the increase, even if it was something that
had widespread support," Pacheco said.
Hargraves said the MMA and town administrators opposed instituting the
cost of living increase in 1997 with the same argument about it not
being the right time.
"They say it's never time to do this," Hargraves said.
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
COLA funding plan leaves bitter taste
We’ve said it before but as negotiations heat up and the deadline to
enact a new state budget looms it certainly bears repeating.
No one in Massachusetts begrudges a state or municipal retiree a
reasonable cost of living increase. These aren’t, after all, the
politically-connected high-rollers who get to cash in $100,000-plus
pensions that are fattened up with housing allowances and other
sweeteners.
But the scheme by which lawmakers have conspired to pay for the COLA
increase represents true fiscal irresponsibility. It is the definition
of robbing the taxpaying Peters to pay the retired Pauls.
And unless the Legislature sees the light on this issue, it will be up
to the Patrick administration to come up with a reasonable alternative.
To recap: Under the proposal, pushed by public employee unions, a new
way of calculating COLA adjustments would mean about 250,000 retirees
would collect an average increase of $120 a year. At 10 bucks a month we
understand the temptation to say “What’s the big deal?”
The big deal is that to finance the increase for state retirees,
lawmakers would delay full funding of the state retirement system - a
change that could cost billions over the long term - and the Senate, at
least, wants to allow cities and towns to do essentially the same thing.
Now, we’re used to a fair amount of whining from municipal officials
about how little the state is doing for them. But on this issue they
have a point. While it would be up to Town Meeting or a city council to
approve an increase at the local level the pressure to do so would be
overwhelming. Enacting this change, then, would be the equivalent of an
unfunded state mandate.
“If more revenues were available, maybe we could consider it,”
Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone said at a State House rally last week,
according to the State House News Service. “We’ve proposed to lay off
over 40 teachers. It’s just not a good time to be looking for benefit
increases.”
Not a good time at all.
Politicians are fond of calling for belt-tightening in a fiscal crisis.
But that rallying cry shouldn’t apply only to taxpayers who aren’t
fortunate enough to be on the public payroll.
The Salem News
Thursday, June 5, 2008
A Salem News editorial
Beverly vote reflects taxpayer dismay
Tuesday's override vote in Beverly proved once again that the majority
of voters want to see some sacrifice on the part of those spending their
money before they'll sanction more taxes.
"It sends the message that they've had enough," Elliott Margolis of the
anti-override group Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility declared as the
results arrived at City Hall. Hard to argue, given the fact the override
went down to defeat by an almost 2-1 margin.
This was not the result of a low turnout. An impressive 43 percent of
voters made it to the polls for this special election. And both
Margolis' group and the Yes! for Beverly people waged impressive
campaigns that had the entire city talking about the state of the
schools and the municipal budget.
But raising an additional $2.5 million for the schools via a permanent
increase in the property tax, proved a very tough sell. Voters made it
clear they're willing to suffer the loss of a neighborhood school and
see class sizes swell before they will put more of their money into what
many view as a bloated educational bureaucracy.
The message should resonate beyond well beyond Beverly.
We've seen overrides pass this spring in more affluent communities like
Hamilton, Wenham and Ipswich. But even those entailed vigorous efforts
on the part of school supporters who were appealing to a much narrower
demographic base.
In a diverse community like Beverly, with a good number of voters
struggling to pay for gas and groceries, a tax increase of any amount
was clearly not acceptable. It's not that override opponents don't value
good schools, they've lost faith in the ability of government to spend
their money wisely.
Mayor William Scanlon took some of the wind out of override supporters'
sails when he came up with a plan to save Cove School using existing
funds. But the pre-election bickering between the mayor and schools
Superintendent James Hayes hardly inspired confidence in leadership's
ability to tackle the tough issues that face the school system and other
departments.
We'd like to see the City Council and School Committee move forward with
the proposal to consolidate all financial functions in one agency at
City Hall. At least then everyone would be dealing with a single set of
numbers.
And Beverly, like every other community in the commonwealth, could use
some help from Beacon Hill in getting a handle on the salaries and
benefit costs that continue to drive school budgets beyond the point of
affordability. One simple step would be to pass legislation allowing
municipalities to lower their health insurance costs by joining the
state Group Insurance Commission — without having to engage in
collective bargaining.
Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation referred to the
Beverly results in a rather gloomy assessment of the revenue picture
delivered to the North Shore Chamber of Commerce Wednesday morning.
Voters are disenchanted with government, he warned, and if they're still
feeling that way in November it could result in their jettisoning the
income tax.
And the reduction in state aid that would require, Widmer noted, would
be catastrophic for every school system in the state.
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Income tax cut unlikely, says DiMasi
By Lindsey Parietti
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said he does not see the state carrying
out a repeal of the income tax - even if voters approve the binding
ballot measure in November.
"I'm against doing it and I find myself hard-pressed to say that I would
try to completely implement an elimination of the income tax," DiMasi
told a Daily News editorial board yesterday.
"I can't see myself doing that in the future, but I know people are
hurting and I know people want to send a message maybe at some point in
time that their taxes are too high."
The citizen-sponsored initiative to repeal the state's 5.3 percent
income tax has cleared the initial hurdles and will appear on the ballot
this fall as long as its sponsor, Wayland-based Campaign for Small
Government, collects 11,099 signatures by next Wednesday.
Voters narrowly defeated a similar proposal in 2002, with 40 percent
voting for the repeal and 48 percent voting against it.
DiMasi called ending the income tax, which would take $11 billion away
from the state's $28 billion budget, a Draconian move. He said he did
not know how the state would avoid implementing the repeal, if it
passed.
"I'm hoping that the people of Massachusetts don't vote that way, and
I'm asking them not to vote that way. ... It would devastate the
services the state provides as well as services that the cities and
towns provide," he said.
As the two-year legislative session nears its end - lawmakers wrap up
official business on July 31 - DiMasi said the he expects the House to
take up legislation that would have states cast their Electoral College
votes for the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. When
enough states pass the the legislation to control the Electoral College
then the interstate compact takes effect.
The House will also authorize environmental, transportation, information
technology and a handful of other borrowing bills in this session, he
said.
DiMasi said he wanted to reform mandatory minimum criminal sentencing,
but doesn't expect it to happen this session because "a lot of people
don't want to be that aggressive."
Instead, the Legislature is likely to pass some form of Gov. Deval
Patrick's proposal to reform criminal background checks by limiting
employers' access to an offender's record, DiMasi said.
The House may or may not take up a campaign finance reform bill that
would decrease from $200 to $100 the maximum campaign contribution that
lobbyists are allowed to make, he said.
Despite butting heads with Patrick on casinos, local meal and hotel
taxes, ending a telecommunication tax exemption and many of the
governor's other proposals, DiMasi said he was happy with the
accomplishments this session.
"I think we accomplished a great deal," he said, naming legislation that
awaits final approval including a green energy bill, a $1 billion life
sciences bill and education reforms.
"We have many things that we can be proud of," he said. "I have like 10
or 15 pages that I could give you."
When asked if the improved relationship between DiMasi and Patrick could
be attributed to Patrick's silence on recent ethics allegations that the
speaker has used his influence to benefit friends, DiMasi said, "No, no
I don't think that at all."
"I thought we got along at the beginning and I think we get along now,"
he said.
DiMasi has come under fire for accepting a $250,000 mortgage, which he
recently repaid, from friend Richard Vitale, who was allegedly paid by
ticket brokers to push a ticket resale bill through the House without
registering as a lobbyist.
The state GOP has also asked the Ethics Commission to look into reports
that DiMasi pressured administration officials to award a state contract
to software company Cognos, and that he killed legislation blocking a
Fall River liquefied natural gas project, which his friend Jay Cashman
later benefited from by selling the property for $14 million.
DiMasi wasn't shy about calling Patrick out on his early missteps such
as expecting taxpayers to foot the bill for costly drapes and the lease
for his new Cadillac.
DiMasi waved a mock-up of Car and Driver magazine featuring "Cadillac
Deval" at last year's St. Patrick's Day political roast and, a month
later, showed reporters the worn furnishings in his own office.
"That was fun," DiMasi said yesterday. "Well, ... it wasn't fun. It was
poking fun, that's it. It wasn't serious."
"We're very supportive of each other. I really feel that way. We
personally like each other very much. There's no question in my mind.
The only issue that really caused a problem was the casino issue."
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Speaker speaks too soon
Won’t even pretend your vote matters
By Michael Graham
Cynical citizens often say that Massachusetts is run like a Third World
country. I disagree.
In Third World countries, they at least pretend that elections matter.
Not Sal DiMasi.
The House speaker has a message for all the cranky taxpayers who are
thinking about voting to get rid of the state income tax, and it’s a
message we cannot publish in a family newspaper.
DiMasi was asked by the MetroWest Daily News about a petition to repeal
the personal income tax that’s likely to appear on the November ballot,
and he took the opportunity to remind the naive taxpayers of
Massachusetts that when it comes to your tax dollars, we’re gonna do
things the DiMasi Way.
“I’m against doing it and I find myself hard-pressed to say that I would
try to completely implement an elimination of the income tax,” he said.
“I can’t see myself doing that in the future, but I know people are
hurting and I know people want to send a message . . . that their taxes
are too high.”
Not even in a future where the voters have passed it overwhelmingly,
Mistah Speaker?
“I’m hoping the people of Massachusetts don’t vote that way. I’m asking
them not to vote that way.”
And there’s the rub. The “problem” with democracy, according to people
like DiMasi, is that the voters don’t always heed the advice of their
betters. Sometimes the taxpayers decide - foolishly, mind you - that
maybe they could spend their own money better than he can.
Silly voters. Where do they get these crazy ideas?
The speaker knows better, and he’s letting taxpayers know it before the
first ballot is cast. This is why it’s unfair to compare Sal DiMasi to a
Third-World dictator. Unfair to the dictators, that is.
Seriously, do you think Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez could get away
with announcing in advance that he was dumping the results of an
election before they even passed out the ballots? Would Fidel Castro in
his heyday have had the nerve to declare Cuban democracy “a nice way to
spend a Tuesday, but a total waste of time”?
But the way DiMasi sees it, voting only gets in the way of the important
work of democracy, namely spending other people’s money. Why should a
little thing like an election matter?
Oh sure, there’s that annoying “rule of law” thing. Read the
Massachusetts constitution on the petition process, and it’s full of
words like “shall” and “will.” If, for example, the petition repealing
the income tax passes, the constitution mandates that the repeal “shall”
take effect “in 30 days” after the election.
But state law also requires people who get paid $60,000 to lobby for
ticket resellers to register as paid lobbyists.
Power-hungry politicians are nothing new. What makes Massachusetts
politicos stand out from the corrupt crowd is their utter shamelessness.
If hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, we are woefully lacking
in hypocrites. Whatever happened to the backroom deal? Back then,
politicians at least felt enough shame about screwing over the taxpayers
that they did it behind closed doors.
Not our speaker. He’s like Eli Wallach, playing the bandito in the movie
“The Magnificent Seven,” who grins down at the helpless townspeople he’s
pillaging and says “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have
made them sheep.”
Massachusetts taxpayers, say “baaaa.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Senate president Murray urges opposition
to income tax repeal
By Christine McConville
Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray urged Boston-area business
leaders to collectively fight an effort to repeal the state’s income
tax.
“We need the support of the business community to educate the public and
make sure we don’t fall victim to a reckless vote in November,” she said
this morning at a packed breakfast meeting in a downtown Boston hotel.
Murray said the state has launched a strategic series of investment
programs “to keep the commonwealth chugging along in this troubled
economy.”
Those long-term efforts would be severely hampered if the repeal effort
is successful, she said.
To Murray’s displeasure, the Committee for Small Government is working
to repeal the state’s income tax. Volunteers have been collecting
residents’ signatures, in order to place their proposal on the ballot on
Election Day.
If their repeal effort is successful, the state budget would be reduced
by about $12 billion.
In 2002, a similar effort was almost approved by Massachusetts voters.
And with today’s gloomy economic climate, Murray said, the measure has a
greater chance of success.
The result, she said, would be widespread devastation.
“Revenues from our income tax represent $12 billion - that’s 60 percent
of our total tax revenues and 40 percent of the entire state budget,”
she said.
Without revenues from income taxes, school teachers and police officers
would lose their jobs, and road improvement projects would be stalled,
she said.
“Is that what we want for Massachusetts?” she asked.
Murray also said the income tax repeal would benefit the state’s
wealthiest residents, while hurting the people who need public services
the most.
“The income tax, unlike property taxes, protects low- and middle-income
residents from paying an uneven share of their earnings. If you take it
away, not everyone benefits,” she said.
After Murray was finished speaking, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
President Paul Guzzi told the crowd, “The chamber opposes the ballot
question, too.
“It is irresponsible, and it goes too far, and reasonable people
understand that,” he said.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 13, 2008
Murray opposes repealing the income tax
By Holly Robichaud (The Lone Republican)
According to Christine McConville’s article today, Senator Therese
Murray is urging business leaders to fight the ballot question repealing
the income tax.
I would suggest that if Senator Murray wants to win this fight that
maybe the legislature should roll back the income tax to 5% as promised
and as supported by the voters.
Repealing the income tax almost won a few years ago. I think it could
possibly win in November despite all the expected commercials from the
Massachusetts Teachers Association of crying children.
The Attleboro Sun Chronicle
Friday, June 13, 2008
Legislators: Voter anger may lead to end of income tax
By Jim Hand
A weak economy, soaring gasoline prices and a frustration with
government could cause voters to approve a ballot initiative to wipe out
the state income tax, legislators said Thursday.
The legislators said they think the move is too drastic and would
cripple state services, but believe voters are looking for a way to
lower their costs and lash out at government.
"I think people are frustrated and are looking at a way of expressing
it," said state Rep. John Lepper, R-Attleboro.
State Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, agreed.
"There is a great deal of frustration out there regarding the cost of
everything going up," she said. "I have constituents who say they cannot
afford the gas to get to work. I would not be surprised if it passed."
A group calling itself Committee for Smaller Government is sponsoring
the move and has collected enough signatures to get it on the November
ballot.
If passed, it would end the state income tax, which accounts for $11
billion, or almost 40 percent of state revenue.
"We want to save the people and the businesses of Massachusetts from
economic ruin caused by high taxes and big government," said Carla
Howell, leader of the group.
"We want low taxes to attract business, jobs and talent into the state,
rather than allowing high taxes to drive them out of state. We want
taxpayers to get back an average or $3,600 every year to save, spend, or
give away as they see fit," she said. "With more tax dollars back in the
hands of the workers who earned it, people in need will have a real
chance to better their lives through private charity that is effective,
dignified and humane."
A number of groups and individuals have lined up against the measure,
including social services advocates, legislative leaders and the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
Even lawmakers who traditionally advocate for lower taxes, such as
Lepper, say they oppose the measure as too extreme.
Lepper said service for the disabled would "disappear" and other
services would be greatly scaled back.
Poirier said cities and towns are hurting now with tight budgets, but
the current situation is nothing compared to what would happen if the
income tax was eliminated.
"Can you image a 40 percent cut?" Poirier said. "I advocate for
judicious cuts, but not with reckless abandon."
Howell said she wants state government to cut the entire 40 percent if
the measure passes, and not replace the income tax with increases in
other taxes.
"Politicians like to threaten to cut services people care most about so
they can distract attention away from the pork, waste and sweetheart
deals that they dish out to their special interest friends. But ending
the income tax will force the legislature to cut the waste, which is why
they oppose it so fiercely," she said.
Rep. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham, said the cuts advocated by Howell would
be "disastrous."
He said he would favor reasonable cuts in waste and taxes.
Both Ross and Poirier said voter anger might not be as great if the
state kept its promise from years ago and lowered the income tax rate to
5 percent. It is now 5.3 percent.
They also said state government has to take steps to earn the trust of
voters.
In the meantime, legislators said the ballot initiative has an excellent
chance of passing, considering a similar proposal got 45 percent of the
vote in 2002.
Poirier said voters feel there is nothing they can do to lower gasoline
or food costs and may see wiping out the income tax as the only step
they can take to save themselves money.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Get those signatures and give yourself a pay raise
By Howie Carr
How’d you like to give yourself a 5.3 percent pay increase?
It’s not too late yet, but the deadline is today at 5 p.m. If you want
to at least put a question on the November ballot on whether to abolish
the state’s 5.3 percent income tax, you need to get the signatures to
your city or town hall before the close of business.
Oh sure, there is an underfunded anti-tax group out there rounding up
the 11,000 needed signatures, and they seem confident. But you never
know - look at what happened to Jim Ogonowski, the would-be Republican
candidate for the U.S. Senate against Liveshot Kerry. He fell 30
signatures short - that’s right, 30 - of making the ballot.
So if you haven’t signed the petition to abolish the income tax, all you
have to do is go online to the Web site smallgovernmentact.org, download
a petition (both sides) and sign it. Then get your spouse to sign it,
and your neighbors. You have to get it down to the clerk’s office at
City Hall, or Town Hall before 5 p.m.
If somebody you work with lives in a different town, print out a second
petition, and get him to sign. He’ll have to drop his off at his town
hall on his way home.
I know what you’re thinking. The Legislature will never go along with a
$12 billion reduction in the money to hire their friends and relatives,
not to mention hand out an extra billion or so in corporate welfare to
assorted biotech bandidos.
Maybe. But at the very least, this will make it hot for them. If this
abolish-the-income-tax question makes the ballot, the hacks and their
pinky-ring unions are going to have to spend millions to make sure their
gravy train isn’t derailed by working people. Let’s make ’em spend it
all.
Remember Paul Guzzi, a charter member of the forgotten-but-not-gone
brigade, a guy who last won an election in 1974. Guzzi now runs the
Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Here is his take on the people’s
attempt to remove government’s sticky fingers from their wallets:
“It is irresponsible, and it goes too far, and reasonable people
understand that.”
So, if you make $50,000 a year, and the 5.3 percent income tax suddenly
goes away, you’ll be getting an extra $2,650 a year. An additional $50
or so a week. How irresponsible of you to want to keep that 50 bucks in
your pocket, when the “needs” are so great.
How will they come up with that $16,457.16 a month for Billy Bulger’s
pension?
Who will pay the salary for Sen. Marzilli?
How will we be able to pay to give every hack in Suffolk County Bunker
Hill Day off?
What if there’s not enough money left to pay the state cops to run speed
traps? What will happen if state judges have to actually show up for
work more than 35 weeks a year?
How will Newton be able to afford its new $200 million high school? And
what about Wellesley’s new plan to keep up with the Joneses, with its
new $160 million high school?
Who will pay for Deval’s Cadillac?
Hasn’t the governor tightened his belt enough? What about all the
community advocates he hasn’t hired yet, to . . . advocate . . . for the
community? Who will coordinate the outreach to the outreach
coordinators, if he has to keep the increase in his office budget next
year to under 80 percent?
Billy Bulger, he of the $16,457.16 gross monthly state pension, used to
brag that he could slap a tax on a galloping horse. Well, the galloping
horse that is the Massachusetts taxpayer is now hobbling toward the glue
factory. There’s nothing left, the needle is on empty, and the native
criminal class on Beacon Hill says it’s “irresponsible” to finally put
an end to the highway robbery.
We can bring their free ride to a long overdue halt. Turn in the
petitions today, even if they’ve only got a couple of signatures on
them, just to make sure. Ruin the hacks’ summers. Make it hot for them.
The Boston Globe
Friday, June 20, 2008
Judicial, political pay hikes suggested
But leaders reject the timing of raises
By Frank Phillips
A special panel today will recommend large pay raises - some up to 70
percent - for the state's top politicians and judges, but the board's
report was immediately rejected by high-ranking leaders as unacceptable
in the current economic climate.
The five-member independent compensation review board, set up by the
Legislature last year, said judges deserve a raise of 25 percent, to
$160,000. It said the House speaker and Senate president should receive
a similar rate of pay, which would be an increase of 70 percent for
them. It also called for pay hikes for the governor, lieutenant
governor, and others. Governor Deval Patrick's yearly paycheck, for
example, would rise from $147,000 to $175,000, a 19 percent increase.
The entire package of raises - which the Globe reviewed yesterday and
will be publicly unveiled today - would cost $13.3 million a year. The
proposed hikes were based on a systematic review of salaries paid to top
officials in states across the country.
But the very politicians who would benefit said yesterday that they
would not endorse the proposal. With the state facing a budget deficit
of more than $1 billion, home foreclosures rampant, and gas prices
topping $4 a gallon, it would send the wrong message, they said.
House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, who earns $93,237 a year, said in a
statement that he, Patrick, and Senate President Therese Murray have
agreed that "given the state of the economy and the Commonwealth's
ongoing budget deficit, any salary increases of this kind will be put on
hold."
"Base salary increases of this kind simply cannot be considered at a
time when so many worthy state programs and initiatives must be
level-funded or cut," said DiMasi, who had to sharply curtail his law
practice when he became speaker in 2004. The board plan would have
raised his salary to $159,100.
The initiative for the compensation review came from the legislative
leadership. Patrick, whom aides said was always cool to the idea of pay
raises, was out of state yesterday, but Lieutenant Governor Timothy P.
Murray echoed the speaker's statement.
"With the concerns relative to the current economy and an already $1.3
billion structural state budget deficit, now is not an appropriate time
for us to agree to an increase in compensation," said Murray, whose
salary would increase from $124,920 to $148,714.
The rejection by the legislative leadership and the governor kills for
now the work the Board of Compensation has been doing for the past six
months. Members of the special panel declined to comment yesterday. Paul
Guzzi, president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and
cochairman of the panel, said the proposals are embargoed until this
afternoon when the board holds a news conference in Boston.
A major concern among Beacon Hill leaders was the spark that such raises
would give to the petition drive to repeal the state's income tax, which
provides 40 percent of the revenues for the budget, according to sources
who have been in discussions with political leaders. A coalition led by
the state's Libertarian Party leaders say it has gathered enough
signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The repeal question was
barely defeated in 2002.
The compensation panel has been keeping its recommendations under tight
wraps, but the Globe has been briefed on some of the details of its
report. Under its recommendations, other constitutional officers would
also be given significant raises. The attorney general's pay would move
from $133,644 to $159,100, and the secretary of state and state
auditor's salaries would go from $130,916 to $155,852. Judges, who were
given a raise to $129,694 from $112,777 in 2006, their first increase in
six years, would be given automatic cost-of-living raises along with the
jump of their salaries - to $160,000.
As some details have leaked, clerks of the courts - whose salaries and
the wage of their assistants for years has been about 81.5 percent of
judges' salaries - were gearing up to battle the plan because it would
break that formula and allow judges to outpace their raises.
Daniel J. Hogan, clerk magistrate of the Boston Municipal Court who
heads the state's clerks association, said his group would strongly
oppose any "decoupling" of their salaries from judicial pay levels.
"I would be very disappointed if that is their recommendation," he said.
"That would be a bit beyond the scope of the committee."
The clerks, with their patronage hirings and control of court
proceedings, wield a huge amount of influence over lawmakers, almost all
of whom have one or more district court in their legislative districts.
In addition to Guzzi, other members of the compensation panel include:
Nova Costa, managing director of Salary.com; Stephen Crosby, dean of the
McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies, University of Massachusetts
at Boston; Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common
Cause/Massachusetts; and Thomas Kochan, professor of management at MIT's
Sloan School of Management.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Bench helped the Celtics, but hurts you
By Howie Carr
The ballot question to abolish the state income tax is already paying
dividends for working people - the annual money grab by the state’s
greed-crazed judiciary is DOA.
It wouldn’t have looked good, you see, to heap another $30,306-a-year
raise on top of the judges’ $16,917 pay hike back in 2006. Plus, these
criminal-coddling clowns were also grubbing for an annual cost-of-living
adjustment, which is just an automatic, invisible raise.
God, do these Payroll Charlies on the bench ever come up for air? You
know the old saying. It’s one thing to feed at the trough; these hack
judges are licking the plate.
This latest scheme, along with pay raises for a handful of elected pols,
was fronted by the traditional “blue-ribbon commission,” a group of
people about whom a song was once written:
“How can we miss you when you won’t go away?”
The co-chairman of this commission is one Paul Guzzi, another bust-out
pol. Last week he was denouncing the proposed abolition of the 5.3
percent state income tax because it “goes too far.” If you make $50,000,
ending the state income tax would mean you’d get to keep an extra $2,650
of your own money. No pay raise, just a smaller heist by the hackerama.
But dammit, that “goes too far.” An extra $50 a week for you is
“irresponsible.” On the other hand, a $50,000 raise for a bunch of
failed lawyers who were starving to death in the Dreaded Private Sector,
now that is good public policy. If we don’t pay these black-robed
bandits what they “deserve,” they’ll quit and get another job. I hear
the International House of Pancakes is hiring.
So, you can see why even the tone-deaf pols at the State House knew
enough to immediately toss Guzzi’s obscene money-grab into the circular
file. House Speaker Sal DiMasi needed that kind of heat like he needs a
fourth mortgage. And Terry Murray, the president of the Senate, isn’t a
lawyer, so she has no need to go along with the polite fiction that
these unemployable frauds are any more deserving of a bigger welfare
check than the gimme gals of Gloucester High.
The senator who usually masterminds the judicial holdups is Bob Creedon,
whose brother, by an amazing coincidence, happens to be a judge. But
Creedon is now taking early retirement - he’s running for clerk of
Plymouth Superior Court, which will almost double his salary, not that
he needs it. His wife is a state rep. Hey, good things happen to good
people.
Poor Bob Creedon - you know his brother Judge Mike is going to be all
over him about not getting a raise this year. Maybe the judge will even
threaten not to vote for his brother as clerk, not that it’ll make much
difference. Sen. Creedon is running unopposed. In the DPS, you’d call it
a golden parachute. In Bristol County, it would be known as the Bayou
Buyout.
But the judges will have to wait ’til next year. The best quote in the
paper was that another five-figure heist would “send the wrong message”
to the voters.
Actually, the problem is that it would send the right message: These
layabouts don’t care how much it costs you, they’re going to get theirs.
And what’s almost never mentioned is the byproduct of a $48,000 public
sector pay raise - a $38,400-a-year increase in their pensions.
You read that right. Their state pensions would balloon another $38,400
if (or is it when?) they get this next raise. If they’d scored the extra
30 large and lasted three more years at the trough, these bums would be
collecting pensions of at least $128,000 a year. Not bad for
contributing three or four grand to the “right” pols to get their robes.
Not too shabby for a job where you only have to show up 35 weeks a year.
Did you notice, though, that it wasn’t only the judges who tried to take
advantage of all the confusion in the wake of this latest outburst of
bread and circuses. This week’s circus was the Celtics, so while you
were watching the breathless coverage from Shillville, everybody on the
public trough was thinking up new ways to relieve you of a little more
of your bread.
Here is a sampling of headlines from yesterday’s papers. It must be the
weekend, and it must be summer:
“MWRA proposes increase in rates”
“Mass Pike considers $100 million in new tolls”
And of course, the traditional: “State senator may use bipolar defense”
But who cares? How ’bout them Celtics!
The Boston Herald
Monday, June 23, 2008
A Boston Herald editorial
Timing was off and report is, too
A panel appointed to review salaries for top state officials has come
out officially with a report that contains some truly laughable
recommendations. Our state’s top elected leaders have rejected any
immediate action on them but they would be wise to maintain that sense
of reason and perspective even after the November elections have passed.
After six months of reviewing salaries in other states and in the
private sector the six-member panel has recommended that the Senate
president and speaker of the House get a pay bump of (gulp) 71 percent,
to $159,100 apiece. Both would be forbidden from receiving outside
income (gee, we feel so much better).
The governor and lieutenant governor deserve 19 percent pay raises, the
panel said, as do constitutional officers. Judges, 25 percent. All of
that is beyond anything we could have imagined.
Yes, many private businesses commission these kinds of reviews to make
sure that they are paying enough to discourage their employees from
going elsewhere. But in Massachusetts state government, at this level
anyway, that isn’t exactly a problem. House Speaker Sal DiMasi has been
in office for almost 30 years. Senate President Therese Murray is the
new kid, at 15 years.
And as we said last week, the timing of this report is simply, well,
priceless! Gas is at $4-plus per gallon, home foreclosures are rampant
and even the cost of food is skyrocketing. Meanwhile, lawmakers are
campaigning for re-election - and against a proposal that would
eliminate the state’s personal income tax. Care to take a guess how
raises like these would play on the campaign trail?
There are actually some worthy reforms tucked into the recommendations
and some of these officials do deserve a reasonable raise, but all of
that is overshadowed by the larger-than-life recommendations of this
panel. This is one report we wouldn’t mind seeing collect dust on a
shelf
The Attleboro Sun-Chronicle
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
So long, income tax?
By Maite Jullian
Massachusetts' voters will be asked Nov. 4 whether to eliminate the
state income tax. Until then, opponents and supporters will be
campaigning hard to convince voters.
With ballot signatures certified last week for the proposal initiated by
the libertarian group Committee for Smaller Government, the push to
repeal the state income tax is officially on. And it creates a lot of
opposition.
If the proposal passes, the state would lose $12 billion a year, a
40-percent cut in annual revenue that opponents say would gut local aid
to communities across Massachusetts.
"We already have a $1 billion shortfall in the budget with the state
income tax," said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, which opposes the repeal. "Without the tax, it
would be a $13 billion shortfall."
If local legislators, cities and towns and major interest groups are
opposed to it, they all concede there is a good chance the proposal will
be approved by voters fed up with rising living costs and gasoline
prices.
"This is a very difficult time for many people," Widmer said. "And
that's the problem. I take it very seriously because if it passes, it
will be a huge problem."
A similar proposal in 2002 got 45 percent of the vote.
Widmer said that even if there was also a recession that year, there was
not the surge in prices that people face today. And that could make a
difference.
Geoffrey Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Municipal Association,
said repeal of the income tax would have an "extraordinary impact,"
especially on cities and towns already struggling with their budgets.
"It would make a very bad situation an unimaginable one," he said.
But Carla Howell, president of the Committee for Smaller Government who
filed the petition for the second time, said the state will survive
without the income tax.
"When we end the income tax, politicians on Beacon Hill will still be
collecting $17 billion in other taxes and revenues," she said.
Her group collected more than 20,000 signatures to support the proposal,
far more than the 11,099 needed to place it on the state's general
election ballot in November.
Howell said she is optimistic about the vote's outcome.
"We have a good chance to get it passed," she said. "We've been hearing
from people collecting signatures that a lot of people are enthusiastic
about that."
Howell said hundreds of volunteers will focus on a grass-roots effort.
"We encourage volunteers to go to our Web site, send links to their
co-workers and friends to learn about the state income tax and our
campaign, write letters to newspapers editors, call and talk on the
radio, put up yard signs," she said. "We don't have a specific plan yet,
but we'll be calling out to volunteers to end the state income tax."
It's shaping up to be an epic battle.
Already, opposition is mobilizing in the state, led by the Coalition for
Our Communities, a group comprised of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, several
communities, non-profits, businesses and individuals.
The AFL-CIO is calling on all unions to join the coalition and urges on
its Web site to oppose "the decimation of local aid to cities and towns,
and the inevitable property tax increases to provide the necessary
funding for our schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical
services and transportation infrastructure."
State officials and legislators also vowed to fight against the repeal,
along with interest groups such as the Massachusetts Teachers
Association and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Beckwith said that although the municipal association won't directly
campaign against the proposal because it is not a political
organization, it will comment on implications of the repeal.
"We'll do educational work on it," he said. "We will be informing anyone
interested in listening about the impact of such a measure."
Widmer said his organization will start work on an analysis on the
impact of the measure as soon as the state budget is complete next
month.
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
|
