CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The last gasps of an endangered species,
incumbents?
Some Massachusetts business advocates
and Republican lawmakers say they are resigned to the inevitability of a
state sales tax increase, leaving just two constituencies to battle over
smaller tax proposals - package store operators and satellite TV
companies.
Both the House and Senate have taken votes to raise the sales tax from 5
percent to 6.25 percent, and their respective budget plans for next year
are being reconciled by a conference committee. For tax opponents, the
best chance to block the sales tax hike would be for Governor Deval
Patrick to veto the ultimate compromise, and for Patrick to persuade
several lawmakers to join his side to help enforce a veto.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sales-tax increase called a certainty
Focus turns to smaller proposals
Don't look to Citizens for Limited Taxation to launch
a repeal effort if the Legislature approves a sales-tax increase this spring.
"Why bother?" CLT spokesman Chip Ford of Marblehead says. Noting all the
effort that went into the attempt to roll back the income tax, only to have the
Legislature ignore the voters' will, Ford observed, "The definition of insanity
is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
The Salem News
Friday, May 29, 2009
Weekly column by Nelson Benton, editor
]Excerpt]
Accusations of sticky-fingered pols are fueling renewed calls
to make the state Legislature part time, in hopes that less time on Beacon Hill
would mean less mischief.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
who has crusaded for a lesser Legislature, said she believes the public may have
finally had enough with this week’s indictment of former House Speaker Salvatore
F. DiMasi.
“People are finally fed up,” she said. Anderson pushed an ill-fated 1996 ballot
question to make lawmaking a part-time job and thinks the time is ripe again to
try to curb pols’ power by cutting their time.
“They hang out with each other all the time, they protect each other and have
[their] own culture that invites corruption and ignores corruption,” Anderson
said.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Part-time Legislature seen as
possible corruption curb
For those 2,063,891 of you Massachusetts voters who last year
refused to abolish the state income tax because it wasn’t the “responsible”
thing to do, I have a question. Are you happy now, dopes?
They told you if we abolished the income tax, they’d have to raise the state
sales tax.
Now they’re raising the state sales tax anyway - by 25 percent.
They told you if we abolished the income tax, they’d just have to bring it back.
So now these emboldened hacks are threatening to jack the income tax up to 5.95
percent. It’s “for the children,” you know. And the most vulnerable members of
our society - the ones with the welfare Cadillacs and the AAA road service that
you can’t afford....
Thirty percent of us ask the other 70 percent of you: When are you people going
to wake up?
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 22, 2009
I hate to say ‘I told you so,’ but...
By Howie Carr
Already contending with malls and big box stores in tax-free
New Hampshire, business owners in Tyngsborough, Methuen, Haverhill, and Amesbury
said they understand the state needs to raise money, but they complain that a
sales tax hike from 5 percent to 6.25 percent in a time of economic anxiety will
entice even more residents to cross the border.
The Boston Globe
Monday, May 25, 2009
Merchants on border look to N.H. with unease
Fear loss of business to tax-free neighbor
I just wanted to thank the Massachusetts Legislature - and
the governor - for doing all they could to stimulate the New Hampshire economy.
I know they all worked long and hard hours to help us by seeing that the new 25
percent increase in the sales tax would pass - and pass successfully it did!
But the bonus your state gave us with the increase in alcohol and meals tax was
unexpected! ...
Just one more thing, and I hate to ask, considering all of the sacrifices that
your citizens have already made on our behalf. But do you think that you could
OK that 19-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax that the governor proposed?
It would go a long way to help our gas station owners.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Bay State passes a stimulus bill for N.H.
By Al Girolamo (a NH a business owner)
Bay State border towns, bruised by a brutal recession and
drastic cuts to local aid, are bracing for a shoppers’ exodus into tax-free New
Hampshire if legislative efforts to raise the sales tax by 25 percent prevail in
coming weeks.
“We are already feeling the disadvantage we have today,” said Methuen Mayor
William M. Manzi III. “We think the increase makes it substantially worse. We’ve
seen a major flight of jobs and business investment into Salem, N.H. This is not
good for Methuen.”
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 7, 2009
N.H. eyes big payday from our tax hike
It's official: No matter what the Massachusetts Supreme Court
decides, New Hampshire won't be collecting sales taxes from Bay Staters who
stray over the border to do their shopping.
Yesterday, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch applauded the final passage of a bill
protecting New Hampshire businesses from having to collect sales and use taxes
on behalf of Massachusetts and other states.
The Eagle-Tribune
Friday, June 5, 2009
Legislation says 'no' to collecting Mass. sales tax
Yes, they've thrown solemn promises of "reform before
revenue" in there. But surely you were not shocked when, without a shred of
meaningful reform, the Senate last week joined the House in voting to increase
the sales tax by 25 percent and making other changes that will cost the working
people of the state another $1 billion or more.
The Salem News
Monday, June 1, 2009
Children, the poor, everyone can be saved,
thanks to me and my 3-percent solution
By Taylor Armerding
"This is the moment," says Mike Widmer, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. "If there aren't meaningful reforms during
this time of fiscal crisis, there never will be any reforms."
Widmer's exactly right about that. If not now, when?
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 22, 2009
Lawmakers still haven't heard us
By Scot Lehigh
Our legislative leaders are congratulating themselves for
demonstrating the courage not to raise the state's income tax in a time of
fiscal crisis.
But they can demonstrate some actual guts by deciding to police themselves.
"Reform before revenue" always sounded suspiciously like an empty slogan, and
thus far it is.
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 22, 2009
Not enough from the Hill
By Adrian Walker
The Legislature has laid down the gauntlet: The governor can
either sign legislation that will raise the sales tax or use his veto and let
Beacon Hill thumb its collective nose at him and override the veto. For the sake
of both the commonwealth and his political future, he should call the
Legislature’s bluff....
The union bosses would scream bloody murder, but what would they do? Throw money
at the even more anti-union Republicans? And only a small minority of workers
even belong to unions.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Gov at the crossroads
It’s either higher taxes or courage
By David G. Tuerck
I can only imagine the hilarity that goes on out-of-sight at
the Statehouse when legislators talk about how staggeringly stupid we, the
electorate, are. They could probably double the sales tax and we'd still
re-elect them because, you know, our rep or senator got our relative a job or
they sent us a citation because our kid made the honor roll....
But of course they have a choice. They have many choices — too many to mention
here. They could eliminate ridiculous perks like the Quinn Bill and "night
differential for everybody" for police. They could cut the state workforce
instead of adding 2,000 to it. They could stop creating six-figure "jobs" for
friends and relatives. They could eliminate, rather than marginally reduce,
police officers doing road details. They could eliminate the poison pill that
allows local unions to veto their municipalities' efforts to join the less
expensive state health insurance plan. They could cut the pay of everybody in
state government by a percentage point or two, instead of using federal stimulus
money to hand out raises.
But they won't. They don't need to. We'll pay whatever they want us to pay and
keep putting them back in office.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Legislators know we'll continue to pay and pay
By Taylor Armerding
The widening rift and bitter words between Governor Deval
Patrick and his Democratic colleagues in the Legislature is creating dismay
among some party members, who worry about their political fortunes as the state
faces a budget crunch of epic proportions and a countdown to reelections in
2010....
The only joy in the current political environment is emanating from the state's
Republican Party, which is already recruiting candidates for next year's
election as it portrays Democrats as incompetent to lead in a time of crisis.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, May 23, 2009
As Democrats feud, GOP sees opportunity
Budget, reelection fears intertwined
This week, the Herald made a simple request of all 200 state
lawmakers: Voluntarily release a list of their taxpayer-salaried staffs. Less
than 25 percent complied and, of those who did, most were either Republicans
spitting across the aisle or freshmen legislators with just one low-paid aide.
But no matter how furious taxpayers might get, simple information such as this
remains hidden because of a century-old law passed by legislators to exempt
themselves from complying with public information requests.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Transparency? How quaint
Department of Public Works employees could retire at age 55 —
10 years early — under a bill at the Statehouse proposed by the Essex Regional
Retirement Board and a Lynn lawmaker.
The legislation would give DPW workers the same status as police officers and
firefighters, who can retire at 55 because of the inherent dangers of their
jobs.
It would also cost taxpayers, who'd be on the hook not only for the extra 10
years of each employee's pension but for the added salaries and health insurance
costs of their replacements.
The Salem News
Monday, June 1, 2009
Panel: DPW workers can retire at 55
Backed to the wall by an angry electorate demanding change,
the scandal-pocked House last night nevertheless narrowly voted to preserve a
pair of controversial state holidays designed to give pols and public employees
two extra Mondays off.
Before a nail-biting tie vote on the day after former House Speaker Salvatore F.
DiMasi was indicted for contract-rigging, angry pols blamed the Hub’s two
newspapers for scrutiny of Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day - and declared
they would not be pushed around....
All schools, city and state offices are closed in Suffolk County for Bunker Hill
Day on June 7 and Evacuation Day on March 17, which also happens to fall on St.
Patrick’s Day. State employees also are allowed to take the days off or use them
as floating holidays, which costs the state roughly $5 million, according to the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Association [sic - Foundation].
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Hacks to the wall,
pols vote to keep extra Suffolk holidays
Everyone knew these were made-up holidays (besides, there's
nothing to prevent workers from honoring the anniversaries of the June 1775
defense of Bunker Hill against British troops or the British garrison's
evacuation of Boston the following March — on their own time). But until a few
weeks ago, the idea that these holidays might be wrested from state, county and
municipal workers would have seemed farfetched.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Monday, June 8, 2009
Reform comes close, but hack holidays prevail
Former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and
three friends were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury for allegedly
orchestrating a scheme that allowed DiMasi to pocket tens of thousands of
dollars in payments from a software company while he was using his powerful
office to make sure the company won state contracts....
Now DiMasi, who resigned in January, faces up to 20 years in prison on each of
the seven counts of mail and wire fraud and up to five years for conspiracy.
DiMasi yesterday denied wrongdoing.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
DiMasi, 3 associates charged with rigging of state contracts
Ex-speaker allegedly got $57,000 payout
The indictment of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi on federal
corruption charges along with three of his Beacon Hill wheeler-dealer friends is
stomach-churning.
It is a horrifying up-close and personal look at how more often than we will
ever know business is done at the State House.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Business on the Hill
This isn’t a democracy, it’s a kleptocracy.
Three in a row - three House speakers in a row indicted, and two convicted. And
poor Sal DiMasi, this time I think the G-men are finally going to have to throw
one of those crooked hacks into prison. A speaker indicted has become a standing
headline. It’s expected, like the archbishop of Boston getting his red hat.
Try not to let it destroy your faith in the integrity of the Massachusetts
General Court.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Bay State run by men of steal
By Howie Carr
Three indicted speakers - and counting. Empty legislative
offices with fulltime paid staffs. Pension perks for incumbents so lousy that
they’re finally forced out.
What sort of voters put up with this? ...
We’re not dupes, we’re dopes. And until we start treating incumbents like
they’re Bavarian con men with bad hair, that’s never going to change.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Voters conned and ask for more
By Michael Graham
Arrogant Beacon Hill lawmakers, tarnished by a string of
high-profile scandals, shut out the public, and even taunted the media, as they
took discussions on improving transparency at the State House behind closed
doors.
“We’re delighted to see you guys,” Senate Majority Leader Fredrick E. Berry
(D-Peabody) said to reporters as he closed an ethics reform hearing yesterday.
“From now on, it will only be staff.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Pols slam door on public
Debate transparency, ethics reform in private
The growing chorus to spike the holidays comes the day after
House lawmakers narrowly preserved them in a rare 78-78 tie vote. The late-night
debate in the House veered into unchartered waters as Wallace and Rep. James
Fagan (D-Taunton) blamed the Boston Herald, columnist Howie Carr and the Boston
Globe for turning the public against the holidays.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Deval Patrick, mayoral hopefuls join call to nix holidays
So you’d think lawmakers would be just a little contrite,
just a little guilt-ridden, just a little more aware that their constituents are
both hurting financially (hence the revenue slump) and angry that no one on
Beacon Hill seems to feel the need to share the pain.
So while workers in the private sector - those fortunate enough to have jobs -
are being asked to take pay cuts or unpaid furloughs, House members managed to
narrowly defeat an effort to keep two paid holidays not enjoyed by those
private-sector workers.
Yes, on a 78-78 vote the House will hang on to Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill
Day (the Senate voted 21-17 to keep the holidays). According to the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation the holidays for all state employees cost the
taxpayers about $5 million a year.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, June 6, 2009
House tone-deaf
If this isn’t enough to send you to the ramparts, what is?
The third House speaker in a row gets nabbed. Do humiliated legislators throw
their sorry selves off the Golden Dome? No - they vote to keep two paid scam
holidays that nobody else gets but we pay millions for. Their message: Nothin’
you can do about it, you pathetic voter, you....
Right before that, our fearless leaders passed a big fat sales tax on you,
pathetic voter, without passing even a teeny-tiny reform on their own big fat
pensions. Do you get a big fat pension, or any pension, or Cadillac health care,
for life? Can you retire at 55?
I don’t know about you, but I’m sharpening my pitchfork....
Snap out of it! Pay attention! Have some self-respect! Get your blood up,
sheeple! Storm the dome. If your state rep or senator voted for the sales tax,
that’s it. Get rid of ’em. The next election’s November 2010. Not one more
pathetic vote. NOT ONE!
Otherwise, your taxes will fund their fat pensions and Cadillac health care
forever. And you’ll be out there toothless collecting cans on Melnea Cass
Boulevard.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The hell with the ‘whites of their eyes’ - just shoot
By Margery Eagan
There was a moment last week when Representative Denis E.
Guyer was stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Interstate 93. He was in his red
Toyota Matrix, sporting old campaign bumper stickers and a special House of
Representatives license plate meant to be an honor bestowed on elected
officials.
But after the indictment of former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi - the third
Democrat to face criminal charges in 11 months - residents are in no mood to
give much respect to those who work on Beacon Hill.
One motorist pointed his middle finger squarely at Guyer. Shortly after, another
motorist did the same.
"A lot of us are in shock," said Guyer, a Democrat from Dalton. "I'm in shock."
...
"Everything is spinning around chaotically," said Senator Steven C. Panagiotakos,
a Lowell Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. "It's
just negative. It's hard to find that glimmer of hope, that glimmer of optimism,
and we're all trying to find it. But it's been pretty elusive thus far."
The Boston Globe
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Scandals cast shadow on state Democrats
As gloom deepens, new vows on ethics
The Beacon Hill Boys are - to quote Rep. Denis Guyer of
Dalton in the Boston Globe-Democrat - “shocked” to discover that the public
thinks they’re a bunch of incompetent crooks. According to Guyer, passing
motorists are flipping him the bird.
Other legislators are puzzled by a flood of angry e-mails and phone calls after
their vote to save the “hack holidays” of Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill Day.
They’re assailed in appearances with complaints about expected toll and tax
hikes.
Voters are outraged, and our legislators don’t know why. They’re hurt, confused.
As longtime Rep. David Flynn put it: “The pressure is quite severe from
constituents. And it’s only natural to try and blame someone.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
‘Hurtful’ voters bewilder reps
So why not do something?
By Michael Graham
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Have we reached the tipping point yet? Are we
at least finally approaching it? It would seem so, more than ever
before.
The Beacon Hill political culture has been swirling
around the drain for a very long time. At the rate it's
dissolving, it appears closer than ever to being flushed into the sewer.
Will 2010 be the year?
A confluence of events piling one atop another in
rapid succession -- the chickens coming home to roost -- and the
incredibly deaf, dumb and blind actions among the vast majority of our
ruling elite, should and might well signal the end of voter tolerance
and constituent patience.
Sentiment among the public seems to have evolved:
It's not just all the other members of the Legislature who are
the problem, but among a growing number it's "and my legislator too."
Poor state Rep. Denis Guyer (D-Dalton) was "in shock"
when drivers flipped him the bird as they passed by. He just can't
understand what's gotten into people. The Bacon Hill pols are
beside themselves trying to comprehend what's so angering the citizenry
all of a sudden.
They can't conceive what could possibly have
gotten into all of us all at once. "These times are not matched by
any time I've seen. The pressure is quite severe from
constituents," whined a befuddled Rep. David Flynn (D-Bridgewater).
"And it's only natural to try and blame someone."
The citizenry is reaching or has arrived at critical
mass. The entire media across the state is hammering them from
every direction day after day. All the pols can conclude is that
we're just trying to "blame somebody," as if they are unfortunate
victims of unjust, thoughtless, and misdirected condemnation.
Clueless legislators are acting like an endangered
species ensconced in its environment for so long that it cannot adapt --
is incapable of recognizing the approaching climate change, of
feeling the seismic shift in the ground beneath its feet. Like the
dinosaurs, being the most dominant with no natural enemies has been good
enough this far. It's all they know, now built into their DNA.
According to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, this
arrogance can well lead to extinction of the species.
The election of 2010 isn't far off. It will be
the moment of reckoning -- for them, and for us.
They must not be allowed to survive and propagate.
They must be put out of our misery.
Come November 2010, it will be either they or
we who
inherit the future. The evidence is more clear than ever that we
can no longer coexist.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sales-tax increase called a certainty
Focus turns to smaller proposals
By Matt Viser
Some Massachusetts business advocates and Republican lawmakers say they
are resigned to the inevitability of a state sales tax increase, leaving
just two constituencies to battle over smaller tax proposals - package
store operators and satellite TV companies.
Both the House and Senate have taken votes to raise the sales tax from 5
percent to 6.25 percent, and their respective budget plans for next year
are being reconciled by a conference committee. For tax opponents, the
best chance to block the sales tax hike would be for Governor Deval
Patrick to veto the ultimate compromise, and for Patrick to persuade
several lawmakers to join his side to help enforce a veto.
It is an unlikely scenario, opponents acknowledged yesterday. Groups
like the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which previously
lobbied strenuously against the sales tax hike, have turned their
attention to several other areas.
"That issue, as far as the conference committee is concerned, is not a
debatable issue," said Brian R. Gilmore, an executive vice president for
the organization, which represents businesses across the state.
"We're way beyond that at this point," said Senate Minority Leader
Richard Tisei, a Wakefield Republican. "I'm against it and don't want to
see it go into effect, but that battle has already been fought and lost.
I don't see how the dynamics would change."
The sales tax hike is "in both budgets," said Senator Steven C.
Panagiotakos, chairman of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. "I
don't even know if we could take it out if we wanted to at this point."
There remains some diehard opposition, however. The Massachusetts
Retailers Association sent out fliers yesterday to encourage customers
to call their legislators and the governor to oppose the proposed hike.
"We're going to continue the fight," said Jon Hurst, president of the
group. "Never say die."
As the July 1 deadline for approving a new budget looms, there are other
battles still being waged over narrower provisions. For instance, there
should be a moment tonight, as the Red Sox and Yankees are scheduled to
play at Fenway Park, when a blimp glides into view over the ballpark.
But rather than promoting a business, it will be asking you to write to
your elected representatives.
DirecTV is launching a campaign to persuade the Legislature to remove a
budget provision that would levy a new fee on satellite television
users. The fee, which would add about $3.50 to the average monthly bill
for 275,000 Massachusetts residents, would bring in $11 million in new
state revenue. DirecTV has also arranged for the blimp - displaying a
phone number to call, where an operator will direct people to their
individual legislators - to float above Fenway Park and the State House
both tomorrow and Thursday.
"We want to make sure our subscribers know about it and help us knock it
out of the budget bill," said Andrew Reinsdorf, vice president of
government affairs at DirecTV, which so far has sent 7,000 letters and
1,200 phone calls to Massachusetts lawmakers. "We see this as unfair and
bad for competition."
Alcohol distributors in Massachusetts have also been lobbying against a
proposal to remove a sales tax exemption on alcohol sold in retail
stores. A coalition held a rally outside the State House last week, and
also delivered what it said were about 50,000 signatures from residents
who oppose the change.
In addition to the budget negotiations, state lawmakers are currently
reviewing three major pieces of legislation, grappling with complex
policy behind closed doors as lobbyists circle the hallways and plead
with them to hear their cases.
There are key areas of disagreement on all three:
=
Pension reform. The House wants any pension law changes to apply only to
future employees, while the governor and Senate have argued that they
should also apply to current employees.
=
Ethics reform. The Senate would significantly weaken the state Ethics
Commission, a move that differs from plans of the governor and the
House. The governor has also called for banning gifts to public
officials, a proposal the House and Senate have not adopted. The Senate
version also strengthens campaign finance laws, including a ban on
contributions from lobbyists.
=
Transportation reform. The governor wants to help pay for the state's
ailing transportation network through a 19-cent-per-gallon increase in
the gasoline tax, while the House and Senate want to dedicate a portion
of a sales tax increase to pay for transportation. There have also been
disagreements over who would control a merged turnpike and state highway
agency, with the governor seeking administration control and lawmakers
wanting a more independent authority.
Conference committees have been meeting on all three issues, in addition
to the budget. Patrick has threatened to veto the sales tax increase,
but only if lawmakers do not first enact reforms on ethics, pension, and
transportation. The Legislature is planning to move on all of those
issues, perhaps as soon as this week, which makes the sales tax all the
more likely.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Part-time Legislature seen as
possible corruption curb
By Edward Mason
Accusations of sticky-fingered pols are fueling renewed calls to make
the state Legislature part time, in hopes that less time on Beacon Hill
would mean less mischief.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, who has crusaded for a lesser Legislature, said she
believes the public may have finally had enough with this week’s
indictment of former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
“People are finally fed up,” she said. Anderson pushed an ill-fated 1996
ballot question to make lawmaking a part-time job and thinks the time is
ripe again to try to curb pols’ power by cutting their time.
“They hang out with each other all the time, they protect each other and
have [their] own culture that invites corruption and ignores
corruption,” Anderson said.
Lawmakers like DiMasi, accused of pocketing $60,000 in a
contract-rigging scheme, would be less tempted by kickbacks if they had
to have outside employment, said David Tuerck of the Beacon Hill
Institute.
“If you had people who aren’t depending financially on their career as a
legislator, there’s less prospect for corruption,” he said.
Massachusetts is one of just eight states where lawmakers meet
year-round, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In six states, including Texas, they only meet every two years.
California and Michigan voters are considering ballot questions to make
lawmaking a part-time job. Robert Stern of the Center for Government
Studies in Los Angeles said, “People are so disgusted with their elected
leadership. They feel their elected officials are not responsive to
their needs and too beholden to special interests.”
New Hampshire’s system, where part-time lawmakers are paid $400, might
seem attractive, but their outside jobs may pose conflicts, said Sheila
Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics.
“I wonder if it solves problems or creates others,” Krumholz said.
Common Cause backs barring lawmakers from having other jobs - like
Congress - and giving bite to government watchdogs like the currently
toothless Ethics Commission. Director Pam Wilmot said cutting the
Legislature’s hours isn’t a cure-all: “It’s worth having a conversation
about, but it’s not clear there’s any silver bullet.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 22, 2009
I hate to say ‘I told you so,’ but...
By Howie Carr
For those 2,063,891 of you Massachusetts voters who last year refused to
abolish the state income tax because it wasn’t the “responsible” thing
to do, I have a question. Are you happy now, dopes?
They told you if we abolished the income tax, they’d have to raise the
state sales tax.
Now they’re raising the state sales tax anyway - by 25 percent.
They told you if we abolished the income tax, they’d just have to bring
it back.
So now these emboldened hacks are threatening to jack the income tax up
to 5.95 percent. It’s “for the children,” you know. And the most
vulnerable members of our society - the ones with the welfare Cadillacs
and the AAA road service that you can’t afford.
It didn’t have to happen this way. But the pinky-ring public-sector hack
unions spent over $7 million on TV spots and mailings to convince you
that you needed a 5.3 percent increase in your paycheck less than the
hackerama did.
Boy, were you 2,063,891 stupid. No offense, but the payroll Charlies
really picked your pockets this time, didn’t they? They’re handing out
brand-new, six-figure jobs to all their friends and relatives, and
you’re paying for it.
The hacks are no longer afraid of the taxpayers, and why should they be?
Seventy percent of you can’t even figure out what your own self-interest
is.
I mention this today not just because of the week’s billion-dollar
frenzy of tax hikes at the State House, but also because of what
happened Tuesday in California. The pinky-ring unions out there put tax
hikes on the ballot, and they used the exact same
take-cops-and-kids-hostage playbook that worked so flawlessly for the
hacks here last fall.
But out there the voters nixed every tax increase, in landslides. I
guess the voters in California are smarter than we - I mean, you - are.
Don’t blame me, I’m one of the 30 percent, those 901,802 people who
actually got it.
Did you see what Sen. Gale Candaras of Wilbraham said during the
Senate’s tax-raising bender the other night? She compared the state’s
out-of-control spending to a game of cards.
“Sometimes in the deck you’re dealt,” she said, “there’s absolutely no
good card.”
Amazing. These hacks have been dealing from the bottom of the deck for
decades, and now they’re complaining that they’re looking at a hand full
of threes and fours.
Thirty percent of us ask the other 70 percent of you: When are you
people going to wake up?
The Boston Globe
Monday, May 25, 2009
Merchants on border look to N.H. with unease
Fear loss of business to tax-free neighbor
By Katheleen Conti
Senate President Therese Murray described the vote to raise the sales
tax as the fairest way to generate revenue, but some local business
owners along the New Hampshire border said it was also the least
creative.
Already contending with malls and big box stores in tax-free New
Hampshire, business owners in Tyngsborough, Methuen, Haverhill, and
Amesbury said they understand the state needs to raise money, but they
complain that a sales tax hike from 5 percent to 6.25 percent in a time
of economic anxiety will entice even more residents to cross the border.
"There's always a choice. There's always some place to draw from," said
Patricia Bruno, owner of Positive Images Gallery 61 in Haverhill's art
district. "Sometimes time is a factor and nobody has time to think of
something creative and they grab the first option. Meanwhile, consumers
are being slammed."
Representative Colleen M. Garry, who represents the border communities
of Dracut and Tyngsborough and who voted in April against the sales tax
increase, said this is yet another legislative strike against businesses
in border communities, which in the past have taken hits from
initiatives like the bottle redemption bill and the smoking ban in bars
and restaurants.
"We're starting to see businesses board up. Nobody wants to buy in that
area," Garry said. "Convenience stores get hit by everything. For me,
it's personal, but each legislator has to look at it in their own
position."
Out of the six state representatives representing border towns from
Tyngsborough to Salisbury, Garry was one of two who voted against the
sales tax hike last month, which passed the House with a 108-51 vote. Of
the state senators representing the same area, two of three voted
against it. The measure passed the Senate by a 29-10 vote last week and
would go into effect around Sept. 1 if it survives final budget
negotiations.
Brian Connell and Larry Jong, who manage Hobby Emporium, Inc. on
Middlesex Road in Tyngsborough, about 2 miles from Nashua, N.H., said in
the past couple of years, foot traffic decreased as more customers
migrated to the Web. As a specialty shop, carrying items such as model
trains and assembly kits, Connell said Hobby Emporium, now in its 36th
year, still maintains a loyal consumer base, but added that the sales
tax increase will push even more of them online, even if they have to
pay shipping and handling costs.
Legislators, Jong said, were "between a rock and a hard place," but
added that now someone has to identify and eliminate wasteful spending.
"Either you can have a grotesque increase in taxes in certain areas or a
modest increase across the board," Jong said. "The revenue stream has to
be increased, but until somebody has the fortitude to do the
line-by-line accounting, it's just talk."
Apart from one Trader Joe's store, Tyngsborough has no supermarkets,
pharmacies, or even a walkable town center. Most residents already cross
the border to Nashua or Hudson or drive to Dracut or Lowell for goods,
said Town Clerk Joanne Shifres. In Dracut, which also lacks its own big
shopping center, many residents shop in Pelham or Salem, N.H.
"In Dracut, there's no department store that I know of. There's one
major grocery store and that's it," Representative Garry said. "While
the sales tax isn't on food, if you get paper products, over-the-counter
drugs, cleaning products, that's all taxable. In these hard times,
people are deciding how to spend their money and if there's a Hannaford
[supermarket] in Pelham, N.H., they'll go there.
"Everyone's in fear at this point," she added. "If that means going 15
minutes up to New Hampshire, they will. There's a lot of little shops
here and those people are having a tough time."
Bay State residents might partake in the Live Free or Die lifestyle,
even if only while shopping, but they are still required to pay sales
tax on certain goods that will be used, stored, or consumed in
Massachusetts. The state Department of Revenue's "use tax" requires
residents to report out-of-state purchases in their income tax returns
and pay the sales tax on those items, but very few do it, said spokesman
Robert R. Bliss.
"There's no practical way to police it," Bliss said. "It's really up to
the individual to self-report."
The few who did report out-of-state purchases in 2007 (2008 numbers are
still being compiled), provided the Commonwealth $3 million to $4
million in additional sales tax revenue, Bliss said.
Regardless, in this economy, New Hampshire might see more Massachusetts
shoppers who live more than just 15 minutes away, said Dorothy R. Siden,
chairwoman of the Department of Economics at Salem State College.
"If New Hampshire is a one-hour to two-hour drive, I'm sure they'll get
a boost out of it," Siden said. "I think people will travel for certain
items. [The sales tax] will make people look twice, like we were all
looking twice when gas went up to $4 - going on one trip instead of
many."
In Amesbury, where residents often opt to shop at the big box stores in
bordering Seabrook, N.H., downtown business owners are banding together
through the chamber of commerce to start a Local First campaign, which
encourages residents to do at least 10 percent of their shopping
locally, said Mayor Thatcher W. Kezer III. Unlike some border
communities, like Tyngsborough and Dracut, Amesbury's center is designed
for walking, giving business owners like Nancy White a chance to compete
with New Hampshire.
In fact, despite the sales tax, White recently moved her clothing and
accessories store, Real Bodies, from Milford, N.H., to downtown Amesbury
to be "part of a community that services the needs of the local people."
White said her sales have not suffered from the move, but added that
although she believes the sales tax increase will push people across the
border, residents must still try to do their part to sustain local
businesses.
"If 10 percent of your community buys local, then there's no economic
crisis," she said. "People that are really wanting to draw folks into
their community in a sustainable manner and not going far to get what
they need, whether it be food or services."
The Boston Herald
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Bay State passes a stimulus bill for N.H.
By Al Girolamo
I just wanted to thank the Massachusetts Legislature - and the governor
- for doing all they could to stimulate the New Hampshire economy.
I know they all worked long and hard hours to help us by seeing that the
new 25 percent increase in the sales tax would pass - and pass
successfully it did!
But the bonus your state gave us with the increase in alcohol and meals
tax was unexpected!
Also, the additional support your state gave us by mandating that the
tracks in Revere and Raynham be closed couldn’t have come at a better
time. Thank you!
Seabrook residents are dancing in the streets as they wait to greet
their new Bay State patrons to Greyhound Park. As we speak, vendors are
increasing their inventories to meet the increased demands that will be
placed on sales of everything from gas to cigarettes to beer, home goods
and God knows what else.
And the best is that many of your state’s welfare dollars will now be
spent here thanks to that generous gesture of giving free cars to
welfare recipients. Those who used to walk or take a train to Wonderland
can now drive to Seabrook. We also appreciate your including free
insurance and AAA membership for them. Because although New Hampshire is
a non-mandatory insurance state, it’s good to know that welfare
recipients driving their free cars to Seabrook will be able to cover any
property damage they may cause. And the tow companies are pleased with
your providing them free AAA because if there is an accident or
breakdown, they have a guaranteed paying customer.
Wow! It’s like Christmas came early, and what better timing in the
middle of a recession! I expect this will have an impact on unemployment
figures here too, the increase in business will mean new jobs.
Yes, Massachusetts has done so much to help us bring major businesses to
our state that I feel that we owe you a debt of gratitude that cannot be
expressed in words. It brings tears to my eyes when I drive through
border towns like Seabrook and Plaistow and see the parking lots full at
Home Depot, Sam’s Club, TJ Maxx, Lowes, Best Buy and Staples. Our
restaurants too are busy due to your state’s unprecedented generosity.
It’s a modern day Marshall Plan.
Just one more thing, and I hate to ask, considering all of the
sacrifices that your citizens have already made on our behalf. But do
you think that you could OK that 19-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas
tax that the governor proposed? It would go a long way to help our gas
station owners.
Again, my personal thanks to Gov. Deval Patrick, legislators and all of
you wonderfully generous taxpayers and citizens of Massachusetts to whom
we are eternally grateful.
Al Girolamo is a business owner in Hampton, N.H.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 7, 2009
N.H. eyes big payday from our tax hike
By Laura Crimaldi
Bay State border towns, bruised by a brutal recession and drastic cuts
to local aid, are bracing for a shoppers’ exodus into tax-free New
Hampshire if legislative efforts to raise the sales tax by 25 percent
prevail in coming weeks.
“We are already feeling the disadvantage we have today,” said Methuen
Mayor William M. Manzi III. “We think the increase makes it
substantially worse. We’ve seen a major flight of jobs and business
investment into Salem, N.H. This is not good for Methuen.”
House and Senate lawmakers have passed separate proposals with
veto-proof margins to hike the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent
to help balance the state budget. House budget writers estimate the hike
will generate $900 million next fiscal year, including $205 million for
local aid.
Senate leaders, who based their estimates on 10 months of sales tax
collections at the higher rate, say the hike will generate $633 million.
Their proposal does not boost local aid spending, but they claim the tax
will generate an extra $192 million by letting municipalities add 2
percentage points to local option meals and lodging taxes.
Gov. Deval Patrick has threatened to veto any sales-tax hike if
lawmakers fail to pass transportation, pension and ethics reform.
A Patrick spokeswoman referred questions last week about his position on
the tax issue and the flight of shoppers to New Hampshire to an April
letter to lawmakers detailing his veto threat. The House and Senate
proposals are being debated by a joint legislative committee that will
send a final budget plan to Patrick this month.
N.H. reaps benefits
In Salem, N.H., where shoppers flock to retail stores along Route 28,
and at the Mall at Rockingham Place, cars with Massachusetts license
plates have multiplied.
“There is definitely an increase in activity in Salem on the weekends
and an increase in Massachusetts license plates,” said Donna Morris,
director of the Greater Salem of Chamber of Commerce.
The state Department of Revenue estimates that the Bay State stands to
lose $60 million in sales tax revenue from consumers who will shop
online, by catalog or in New Hampshire to avoid a 25 percent sales-tax
hike.
Critics say the sales-tax hike is regressive, and point to data that the
state is already losing hundreds of millions of sales-tax dollars due to
Internet, catalog and New Hampshire retail sales.
The National Conference of State Legislatures found that in 2008 the
state lost $540 million in sales-tax collections on about $11 billion in
retail sales from so-called remote locations, said Jon B. Hurst,
president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
Data released last month by Suffolk University’s Beacon Hill Institute
found that a higher sales tax would cost the state 12,666 private sector
jobs and $51.3 million in economic investment. There is also concern
that a higher sales tax will discourage cross-border shoppers from the
high-sales-tax states of New York, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut
from coming to Massachusetts for a better deal.
“Why doesn’t the Legislature ask hard questions of the Department of
Revenue with respect to how this tax increase will impact consumer
behavior and how that would affect the amount of revenue that this tax
increase will actually yield,” asked David G. Tuerck, director of the
Beacon Hill Institute. “It’s a permanent benefit to New Hampshire’s
economy and for New Hampshire to leave well enough alone as
Massachusetts continues to raise the sales tax.”
Sales-tax revenues for the first 11 months of the fiscal year stand at
$3.53 billion, which is $203 million less than collections at the same
time last year, said DOR spokesman Robert R. Bliss.
“Use tax” collections on goods purchased out of state account for just a
fraction of annual sales-tax collections. In 2005, 39,461 of the state’s
3.4 million tax filers shelled out $3.2 million in use taxes. Two years
later, collections improved slightly, to $4.3 million from 53,514
taxpayers, DOR said.
A bill expected to be signed by Granite State Gov. John Lynch could make
it more difficult for Massachusetts tax collectors to collect use taxes.
The bill protects New Hampshire businesses from having to provide
private consumer information to states where use and sales taxes are in
place.
Major court case
The legislation is a response to efforts by Bay State tax collectors to
force the Town Fair Tire chain, with stores in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire, to collect the 5 percent sales tax from Massachusetts
residents. The case is before the Supreme Judicial Court.
“We were concerned that they were going to put New Hampshire retailers
into the position of being tax investigators for the state of
Massachusetts,” said N.H. state Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-Exeter), the
bill’s prime sponsor. “We have people come from all over the country and
world to shop in New Hampshire because we have made the decision to be
sales-tax free.”
House and Senate leaders defend the tax hike as a must during an epic
state economic meltdown.
“We made tough decisions and passed a responsible, bare-bones budget
that raises necessary revenue for the state and offers relief to our
cities and towns,” Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said in
a statement.
“There is no perfect solution to this economic crisis, but a sales tax
is the fairest way to go because of built-in exemptions for food,
clothing up to $175, prescription drugs, utilities, gasoline and other
necessities that are especially important to the working poor and middle
class,” she said.
A spokesman for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (D-Revere) described the
move as a “politically difficult yet responsible decision” to put $275
million toward the state transportation deficit and ease the $424
million in local aid cuts proposed in House budgets.
“We devised a conscientious and forthright answer to the epic fiscal
difficulties that Massachusetts must now endure,” spokesman Seth Gitell
said in an e-mail.
Joseph J. Bevilacqua, president of the Lawrence-based Merrimack Valley
Chamber of Commerce, said the sales-tax hike is a setback, but he
expects that the bad economy could level the playing field.
“Things are equally as bad in New Hampshire,” he said. “They cannot
sustain their economy without some kind of tax, whether it be an income
tax or sales tax. They are facing the same struggles. This is a national
recession.”
The Eagle-Tribune
Friday, June 5, 2009
Legislation says 'no' to collecting Mass. sales tax
By Angeljean Chiaramida
CONCORD — It's official: No matter what the Massachusetts Supreme Court
decides, New Hampshire won't be collecting sales taxes from Bay Staters
who stray over the border to do their shopping.
Yesterday, New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch applauded the final passage of
a bill protecting New Hampshire businesses from having to collect sales
and use taxes on behalf of Massachusetts and other states.
The bill, sponsored by Seabrook's Sen. Maggie Wood Hassan, D-Exeter,
received final approval by the Senate during its Wednesday session and
now goes to Lynch, who will surely sign it. When the issues first arose,
Lynch called the attempted tax grab by Massachusetts "outrageous."
"New Hampshire has chosen not to have a sales tax, and we will not allow
other states to force New Hampshire businesses to collect their sales
taxes," Lynch said yesterday. "This legislation will protect our
businesses and strengthen our state's economy. I am pleased to see this
bill received strong legislative support, and I look forward to signing
it into law."
New Hampshire's lack of a general sales or use tax is a strong selling
point its retailers use to attract out-of-state customers. Seabrook in
particular has benefitted from being a Granite State border community to
Massachusetts, which could soon see a rise in its sales tax from 5 to
6.25 percent.
Seabrook's Route 1 stretch has become a retail mecca, attracting
Massachusetts shoppers and large national retail outlets like The Home
Depot, Lowe's, Kohl's, Target and Town Fair Tire.
The bill was filed in response to action by Massachusetts Department of
Revenue agents who moved against Town Fair Tire, a Connecticut-based
business with stores in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, trying to force
the company to collect Massachusetts sales/use tax from its Bay State
customers who shop in New Hampshire.
The state attempted to collect $108,000 in use taxes from Town Fair Tire
for sales it made to Massachusetts customers at its New Hampshire
stores. The Town Fair Tire case is before the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court. New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte filed a
brief on behalf of the retailer. Ayotte said she acted because of
concern the action taken by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue
could be interpreted to expand its authority to collect taxes from New
Hampshire businesses. The Massachusetts tax law should not be enforced
in such a way as to interfere with interstate commerce, she said.
Once signed into law, New Hampshire retailers shouldn't have to provide
sales information to out-of-state tax collectors. It also ensures New
Hampshire retailers do not have to collect and provide private consumer
information to other states for a determination of use or sales tax
liability when such disclosure is inappropriate.
In past interviews, Hassan, chairwoman of the Senate Commerce Committee,
said the bill was also meant to protect individual rights, something
historically important to New Hampshire residents.
"If Massachusetts chooses to tax its citizens for use of products they
buy in other states, Massachusetts needs to find a way to collect that
tax from their citizens and not put the burden on New Hampshire
businesses," Hassan said in a past interview. "This would place an undue
burden on New Hampshire businesses. How is a store clerk supposed to
know which of their customers comes from Massachusetts without
collecting information about their addresses their customers may not
want to give."
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
The Salem News
Monday, June 1, 2009
Children, the poor, everyone can be saved,
thanks to me and my 3-percent solution
By Taylor Armerding
I'm launching my campaign to save state government. I'm calling it the 3
percent solution. Pretty original and creative, don't you think?
It's a campaign to preserve essential services. To prevent devastating,
cruel, inhuman cuts in programs that serve the most vulnerable among us.
And, putting a vulnerable human face on it, to keep thousands from dying
in the streets — you know, like they were in 2006 when Massachusetts
state government was spending about the same or less than what it
projects it will spend in the coming year. You remember those dark days,
of course, don't you?
You don't? Neither do I.
Never mind. This is not about reality. This is about the "politics of
fear," something that produced high dudgeon from Democrats here and
across the country when they were accusing the Bush administration of
using it in connection with national security.
But now that fear comes in handy as a means of sucking more money from
productive citizens, there is no need for high dudgeon. For the
overwhelming Democratic majority in the Massachusetts Legislature, the
politics of fear is good and necessary.
The fear-mongering list is almost endless. The state is facing a
"perfect storm" of juvenile crime. Children will be neglected and go
hungry. Veterans will be cast into outer darkness. Those with physical
or mental disabilities will be abandoned. And on and on.
Be afraid, be very afraid — unless something can be done to keep all the
programs in place that are just barely keeping a collapse of human
services at bay.
And so far, the best and brightest minds in our sacred hall of
government — Beacon Hill — can come up with only two ways to confront
the loss of revenue caused by the recession: Raise taxes or cut
programs.
Yes, they've thrown solemn promises of "reform before revenue" in there.
But surely you were not shocked when, without a shred of meaningful
reform, the Senate last week joined the House in voting to increase the
sales tax by 25 percent and making other changes that will cost the
working people of the state another $1 billion or more.
After constantly congratulating themselves over how "courageous" and
"compassionate" they are for spending other people's money, they claim
they will also be getting around to substantive reform.
They'll do a couple of things for show. Probably MBTA workers won't be
able to retire after just 23 years with a full pension. They won't be
able to start collecting a pension until they are 50 or so. Oh, the
horror.
But they won't deal with an abomination like the so-called Pacheco law,
named for its sponsor, Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, which inflates the
cost of public contracts by insulating unions from competition.
And this is just nibbling around the edges anyway. They might save a few
million dollars which, in a spending package of $30 billion-plus,
doesn't even amount to a rounding error.
The real money, the gigantic elephant in the budget, is salaries and
benefits.
And that is where my 3 percent solution comes in. I propose cutting the
pay of everybody in state government by 3 percent for one year, top to
bottom, governor to clerk. Programs preserved, jobs preserved, no
perfect storm of gangs and juvenile crime, no deaths in the streets.
Problem solved.
This, of course, has not even been mentioned, even though legislators
regularly insist that "everything is on the table" when it comes to
dealing with the recession. That is because to do it would take real
courage by Gov. Patrick and the Legislature, not the faux courage they
display by increasing the budget every year in fealty to their
constituency of unions and "advocates" whose paychecks are all dependent
on state funding.
But, I'm sure that with the right message, I can convince state
employees that it won't be too painful. On a salary of $50,000 a year,
it would be a $1,500 hit. That's about $4 a day, which only amounts to a
couple of cups of coffee a day. Surely they can afford that — especially
when it will preserve critical services to the most vulnerable among us.
(I don't know how I came up with that "cup of coffee" analogy — it's so
unique and original. It just came to me in a flash of inspiration.)
And I'll lead by example. I'll be the first to give up 3 percent of my
$100,000 consulting fee for coming up with this idea. It'll be tough to
go without the coffee, but it's a small price to pay to let legislators
keep getting jobs for their relatives, and to keep welfare recipients in
free cars — uh, I mean it's a small price to pay for the children. Yeah,
that's it — the children.
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune in North Andover.
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 22, 2009
Lawmakers still haven't heard us
By Scot Lehigh
Want to see meaningful reform in Massachusetts? Then pick up the phone
and call your legislators.
Perhaps you've heard "reform before revenue" - and thought it actually
meant something. After all, the Senate's slogan has such a nifty ring to
it that Governor Patrick has adopted the idea himself.
So maybe you believed that before they raised taxes, Beacon Hill leaders
would eliminate public pension pig-out of the sort that most workers, be
they private- or public-sector employees, will never see.
And perhaps you figured lawmakers would address other inefficient,
antiquated, unfair arrangements before they plucked more money from your
pocket. Maybe you even thought they'd first clean up the way business is
done on Beacon Hill.
Well, forewarned is forearmed. There's a real risk that we're on our way
to higher taxes without true reform. After all, the Senate has just
followed the House's lead, voting to hike the sales tax to 6.25 percent
- and by a margin big enough to override a gubernatorial veto.
With the Senate tax vote, the message is clear: Legislative leaders have
the numbers to do what they want.
And make no mistake, that's not good news.
"This is the moment," says Mike Widmer, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation. "If there aren't meaningful reforms during this
time of fiscal crisis, there never will be any reforms."
Widmer's exactly right about that. If not now, when?
Yes, the state budget needs more revenue. But we also need real change,
particularly since the budget crisis promises to last for several years.
If we don't fix enduring problems now, future challenges will only be
worse.
Still, there are plenty of interests who think the old ways are just
fine - and who are digging in against changes. One small example:
Yesterday, votes for a proposed state wage-and-hiring freeze for the
next fiscal year melted away after the unions weighed in. "At least 10
of the members told me they were going to vote for it and didn't," says
Senate minority leader Richard Tisei.
On pensions, if the Legislature has its way, it would be a quarter
century before an MBTA employee actually had to be 55 and to have worked
for the T for 25 years before receiving a pension. The House, in
particular, has made a mockery of the governor's pension reforms,
applying many important changes only to future employees; though some
not-yet-elected lawmaker wouldn't be able to leave office after 20 years
and start collecting an early pension, 93 current members of the
Legislature could still qualify to do just that.
As with pensions, the final ethics legislation isn't yet done, but new
conversation-recording powers for state investigators are gone. So too
is the provision that would make it a criminal offense for public
officials to take gifts worth more than $50 even when those gifts aren't
aimed at influencing an official act. Further, if the Senate has its
way, the State Ethics Commission's powers will be weakened.
To his credit, Patrick has repeatedly threatened to veto the sales tax
increase if the Legislature doesn't first deliver substantial pension
and ethics reform, plus a transportation bill. But with the
Legislature's two-thirds pro-tax majorities, such a veto would be little
but a symbolic gesture - unless, that is, the governor wages a
determined, high-profile public fight against his fellow Democrats.
Moreover, Patrick's reforms are only part of what really needs to be
done. Last week, I outlined other measures that could lead to big
saving. One is granting cities and towns the unrestricted right to join
the state's Group Insurance Commission or the same powers of
health-insurance plan design the GIC has.
Another is repealing the Pacheco law, which makes it difficult to
contract with private companies for services.
The taxpayers foundation, meanwhile, has a package of other interesting
proposals.
To date, however, the Legislature has shown little appetite for any of
that. (Although senators voted to loosen the Pacheco law somewhat
yesterday, a Republican amendment to repeal it outright lost handily.)
So if you want real reform before revenue, it's time to pick up the
phone.
The Boston Globe
Friday, May 22, 2009
Not enough from the Hill
By Adrian Walker
Our legislative leaders are congratulating themselves for demonstrating
the courage not to raise the state's income tax in a time of fiscal
crisis.
But they can demonstrate some actual guts by deciding to police
themselves.
"Reform before revenue" always sounded suspiciously like an empty
slogan, and thus far it is.
But as the debate over the budget begins to wind down - budget debates
without any money tend to go a lot faster - our legislative leaders are
going to have to decide what reform, if any, they actually believe in.
Some people find the early results encouraging, but I'm finding it hard
to get enthused. The Senate notion of ethics reform takes a harder line
than current law on campaign finance violations but seeks to gut the
State Ethics Commission. The House is in favor of pension reform, as
long as it isn't the kind that would lower the pensions of current
members. The overriding problem, as always, is that enforcement
decisions are being made by the people who will have to live with them.
The Senate, at least initially, won the battle of the headlines. It
promised a tough overhaul of campaign finance regulations, though on
closer inspection a lot of the overhaul was a direct attack at the
governor's fund-raising operation.
In fact, there was a lot less to the Senate bill than the initial
reaction might have led one to believe. Its proposed changes would have
been bad for the Ethics Commission, a favorite Senate target dating back
to the dark days of former Senate president William M. Bulger. Some of
the commission's core functions would have been transferred to the
Division of Administrative Law Appeals, an agency plagued with a long
backlog and chronic underfunding. It is one of the last agencies to
which anyone should assign new duties, at least new duties one really
wants done.
Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said
yesterday that she believes senators were surprised by the negative
reaction to their brave effort at reform, especially the part involving
the Division of Administrative Law Appeals.
"To give them the benefit of a doubt, I don't think they realized what
an impaired agency it is," Wilmot said. "It is a very impaired agency,
both in theory and in practice. It is so bad in practice that you don't
even need to worry about what's wrong with it in theory."
This is the Senate president's vision of reform.
The House has been much better on ethics reform. But before lawmakers
take any bows, we should note that House leadership has been lukewarm on
major pension reform. That's because many of the people who would be
affected are constituents, even cousins, of lawmakers. And it's because
no one wants to close a loophole they might need someday.
Of course, everyone says they are for reform. David Falcone, spokesman
for Senate President Therese Murray, said yesterday that the Senate is
firmly committed to a better Beacon Hill.
"Our bill was passed unanimously," Falcone said. "That speaks to the
fact that it is a strong bill."
Well, maybe.
The good news is that voter anger has created an environment in which
some of the longtime excesses of the State House can finally be
attacked. A bribery indictment, continuing revelations of pension and
other ethical abuses, and the specter of higher taxes have led the
public to pay attention to shenanigans that normally pass under the
radar. This is all to the good.
But if your elected officials really believe what they say they do, here
is what will emerge: ethics laws that curtail the cute fund-raising
practices that have given lobbyists and companies too much power,
stronger tools for enforcement, and an end to the pension rip-offs that
are costing the rest of us millions of dollars.
Each house supports some of this, but not all of it. That isn't good
enough, or even close.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Gov at the crossroads
It’s either higher taxes or courage
By David G. Tuerck
Now is when Gov. Deval Patrick decides his political future.
The Legislature has laid down the gauntlet: The governor can either sign
legislation that will raise the sales tax or use his veto and let Beacon
Hill thumb its collective nose at him and override the veto. For the
sake of both the commonwealth and his political future, he should call
the Legislature’s bluff.
What the governor needs to understand but what also runs counter to his
political instincts is that this is not about teacher layoffs, human
services cutbacks and all the other dire consequences that the increased
sales tax is intended to avert. This is about politics and moral
courage.
In the Legislature, politics has trumped moral courage. The Legislature
knows that the increase in the sales tax will not bring in enough
revenue to end the “crisis,” as it is commonly seen. But it also knows
that it has to raise some tax - any tax - to show that it is willing to
sacrifice a few thousand private-sector jobs in order to pacify the
union bosses and other special pleaders to whom it is largely beholden.
It is this lack of courage that makes the Legislature so terrified of
the “R” word. When Patrick tried to reform transportation by abolishing
the Turnpike Authority and moving MBTA employees’ health care to the
Group Insurance Commission, he got a poison pill from the Legislature.
When he tried to cut back on overpriced police details, the Legislature
thwarted him by tying the hands of local governments. When he tried to
raise the gas tax, the Legislature decided a sales tax hike carried less
political risk.
So now it’s the governor’s move. Now he gets to decide whether he can
practice good politics and responsible government at the same time. He
might start by observing what just happened in California, where the
voters just said, “No new taxes” to the public employee unions and their
political minions. He might also consider a Suffolk University poll in
which only 34 percent said he should be re-elected while 71 percent saw
a return of “Taxachusetts.” He might also consider how the Republicans
are already teeing up 2010 to be a repeat of 1990, when Taxachusetts was
no memory but a reality that gave the Republicans the governorship and a
veto-sustaining presence.
As for responsible government, there are many places to start. For
example, genuine pension reform and demanding that municipal workers
bring down their health costs. Prevailing wage reform, which could save
the state $200 million annually. There’s repeal of the union-pleasing
but anti-taxpayer Pacheco Law (modified in the Senate budget, but not
repealed). And state and local government could save almost $1 billion
annually by imposing 5 percent wage cuts on public workers.
If Patrick took the position that there will be no new taxes until we
get serious reform along these lines, he could outfox both the
Legislature and his future Republican opponent. He could “triangulate”
like Bill Clinton did when he signed welfare reform and took that issue
from the GOP. My advice: Governor, let the Legislature override your
veto, and let legislators in Lawrence, Lowell and other areas that will
get hurt by the higher sales tax give up their seats while you’re
re-elected on a platform of no new taxes without real reform.
The union bosses would scream bloody murder, but what would they do?
Throw money at the even more anti-union Republicans? And only a small
minority of workers even belong to unions. Of them, many would be quite
happy not to see their taxes rise and equally happy to see you hold all
public workers more accountable. As for the rest of us, well, you gave
us a taste of responsible government when you stood up to the police
unions. With this veto, we would have a great deal more to celebrate.
David G. Tuerck is executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute
and economics department chairman at Suffolk University.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Legislators know we'll continue to pay and pay
By Taylor Armerding
Here's the quote of the week — maybe of the month — from your top
elected leader in Massachusetts.
This is Gov. Deval Patrick, still waving the laughable "reform before
revenue" banner at the Statehouse: "If we don't get the reforms, I'm not
going to support the new revenue, and in the absence of the new revenue,
then we don't have a choice but to increase the tolls."
Huh?
I'll offer a translation: "Reform is irrelevant. In the absence of new
revenue, we don't have a choice but to raise new revenue." Which is to
say, we're going to get the money we want out of you one way or another.
It doesn't really matter if we call it a toll or a tax.
I'm sure you can do the same thing at your job. If your boss doesn't
give you the pay raise you want, you just tell him that you have no
choice but to file vouchers for phantom expenses equal to the amount of
the raise you wanted, so that you can continue to provide essential
services to yourself and your family. After all, you've just
commissioned a study that shows there is a gap of hundreds of thousands
of dollars between what you need and what you are expecting to make over
the next 20 years. You can't provide services for free, you know.
The boss won't care if he's paying you expense money instead of salary,
right? Good luck with that.
I'll also offer a prediction: Whether Patrick supports them or not,
taxes are going to go up. Tolls are also going to go up. Reform? Surely
you jest.
This is really all you need to know, if you plan to keep living in an
alleged commonwealth where we are fast approaching, if we have not
already arrived at, the tipping point where the only jobs with any
security, good wages, gold-plated health care and a fat pension will be
those with the government. The rest of us will be indentured servants.
In the hall of mirrors known as the Statehouse, you can speak the kind
of utter absurdity our governor just did — absurdities that would crack
up normal people if Jay Leno said them — and everybody from legislators
to the misnamed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation will nod soberly and
continue to hold forth with the usual lexicon of filler phrases to
obscure rampant government spending, inefficiency and patronage:
"essential services," "our most vulnerable citizens," "the children,"
"devastating cuts," "investment in the future" and, of course, the
favorite of the current season, "We can't reform our way out of this."
I am not the first to observe — but it bears repeating — that during
last year's heated debate over the proposed repeal of the state income
tax, so-called "cooler heads" patronizingly patted us on the head and
told us not to shoot ourselves in the foot because if we did vote for
repeal, then they'd have to raise the sales tax.
So, we did what good sheeple do. We voted not to repeal the income tax
and the Legislature has now taken a veto-proof majority vote to raise
the sales tax by 25 percent.
I can only imagine the hilarity that goes on out-of-sight at the
Statehouse when legislators talk about how staggeringly stupid we, the
electorate, are. They could probably double the sales tax and we'd still
re-elect them because, you know, our rep or senator got our relative a
job or they sent us a citation because our kid made the honor roll.
This all works for the governor too. Now that the Legislature can
override his veto, he is free to rail against the failure to pass
meaningful reform and can pose as a taxpayer champion because he will
"try" to overturn the tax hike.
What's not to like?
This will all be presented — it already is being presented — as painful
and "courageous," because they simply didn't have a choice.
But of course they have a choice. They have many choices — too many to
mention here. They could eliminate ridiculous perks like the Quinn Bill
and "night differential for everybody" for police. They could cut the
state workforce instead of adding 2,000 to it. They could stop creating
six-figure "jobs" for friends and relatives. They could eliminate,
rather than marginally reduce, police officers doing road details. They
could eliminate the poison pill that allows local unions to veto their
municipalities' efforts to join the less expensive state health
insurance plan. They could cut the pay of everybody in state government
by a percentage point or two, instead of using federal stimulus money to
hand out raises.
But they won't. They don't need to. We'll pay whatever they want us to
pay and keep putting them back in office.
And that is the ultimate absurdity.
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, May 23, 2009
As Democrats feud, GOP sees opportunity
Budget, reelection fears intertwined
By Matt Viser
The widening rift and bitter words between Governor Deval Patrick and
his Democratic colleagues in the Legislature is creating dismay among
some party members, who worry about their political fortunes as the
state faces a budget crunch of epic proportions and a countdown to
reelections in 2010.
The inability of top Democrats to work in concert, generating as much
ill will between the branches as when Republicans held the corner
office, shows how liberals, conservatives, insiders, and outsiders at
the State House have succumbed to factional disputes and political
posturing as they respond to intense pressure to cut budgets and raise
taxes.
"It's clearly getting in the way of important work. It does exactly what
none of us want, which is the further erosion of public confidence,"
said Representative Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and House chairman
of the Committee on Revenue. "The analogy that rings true still is that
we haven't quite sorted out this dance. You would think that after 2 1/2
years we would have started to figure that out."
The only joy in the current political environment is emanating from the
state's Republican Party, which is already recruiting candidates for
next year's election as it portrays Democrats as incompetent to lead in
a time of crisis.
"It's an exciting time," said Nick Connors, executive director of the
Massachusetts Republican Party. "The Democrats are creating
opportunities for us all around the state. It shows a definite need for
two parties and a different vision for where we can take the state."
The discord among Democrats, in some ways, is counterintuitive. The
party has control of both the House and Senate - by the largest majority
in the state's history - and also took the corner office in 2006 for the
first time in 16 years.
But with no Republicans to battle, Democrats have turned upon themselves
in repeated bouts of intraparty bickering. Strains that may be less
visible during flush times are also highlighted as top leaders debate
raising taxes, cutting local aid, and overhauling laws around ethics,
pension, and transportation.
The state Democratic Party chairman shrugged off the controversies.
"While it's a good thing that everybody is respectful and treats each
other civilly, it's not a major requirement of mine that everybody
agrees," said party chief John Walsh. "Put it this way, if the citizens
were watching everybody on Beacon Hill holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,'
they wouldn't think that's necessarily a good thing."
But if, as some lawmakers believe, Patrick has adopted a combative tone
and continues during next year's likely reelection bid to present
himself as a reformer running against Beacon Hill powers, as he did in
2006, then this could turn out to be a much longer period of tit-for-tat
politics. Some are already suggesting that a new dynamic is shaping up
at the State House, where the Democrats in the Legislature will treat
Patrick with just as much disdain as they did recent Republican
governors.
"We'll just ignore him," said one top Senate Democrat. "He can argue, do
all the banging on the table, and the press conferences. But at the end
of the day there will always be two-thirds to override him." Indeed,
part of the Legislature's strategy for dealing with Patrick may have
been neatly summed up by Senate President Therese Murray this week, who
said he "was making himself irrelevant."
Much of the hostility stems from the debate over whether or not to raise
the sales tax. Just as House lawmakers were preparing to debate the
issue last month, Patrick infuriated House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo by
sending a letter to lawmakers threatening to veto the increase unless
they first following his plans for pension, ethics, and transportation
reforms.
Senate lawmakers said they grew frustrated when Patrick issued a
statement on Wednesday saying their vote for taxes was essentially
"thumbing our noses" at voters. They were even angrier because Patrick
was out of the state at the time, at a life sciences conference in
Atlanta attempting to recruit new businesses to Massachusetts.
"This is probably as tense as it's been," said Senator Anthony
Petruccelli, an East Boston Democrat. "We're battling through this right
now. I think that we want leadership that is not going to be swinging
from afar, like he was this week on issues without offering a better
alternative. It's disappointing to see that he's campaigning, so to
speak, rather than governing."
Lawmakers also criticize Patrick for using his bully pulpit to take his
message directly to voters, rather than negotiating with them
face-to-face. Patrick is much more likely to hold a news conference than
call lawmakers into his office, they say.
Patrick initially clashed with the Legislature, coming into office after
vowing to change the culture on Beacon Hill.
He had a rocky first year, and frequently fought with then-House Speaker
Salvatore F. DiMasi, before smoothing the relationships and stringing
together a series of legislative accomplishments.
But as Patrick began grappling with a financial crisis and tumbling
support in public opinion polls, tensions began to emerge with top House
and Senate lawmakers in recent weeks. He disagreed with them sharply
over reform packages, and their approach to raising the sales tax
instead of his proposal for a variety of other taxes.
"People are going to say all kinds of things in the heat of the present
debates," Patrick told reporters yesterday in Waltham. "My job is to
keep my cool, to keep my head, to set the agenda and keep moving it
forward, and that's what I intend to."
"She can make it personal if she wants," he said of Murray. "And I think
when cooler heads prevail, she won't. In fact, we have set the agenda."
Murray and DeLeo both declined requests for comment yesterday.
"Everybody should probably take a deep breath and put it behind us,"
said Senator Michael Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat. "As Democrats we
should all be working together. If the fighting continues, we'll all be
irrelevant. The war of words can't continue. It doesn't help anything."
"If we can't make government work when philosophically we're largely
aligned - and when there are clearly very responsible folks in all
offices - then shame on us," Kaufman said. "The vast majority of us are
going to be running for reelection under the same party banner next
year. It really behooves us to get things together."
The Boston Herald
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Transparency? How quaint
By Dave Wedge
This week, the Herald made a simple request of all 200 state lawmakers:
Voluntarily release a list of their taxpayer-salaried staffs. Less than
25 percent complied and, of those who did, most were either Republicans
spitting across the aisle or freshmen legislators with just one low-paid
aide.
But no matter how furious taxpayers might get, simple information such
as this remains hidden because of a century-old law passed by
legislators to exempt themselves from complying with public information
requests.
The governor’s office is similarly exempt from the law, but most
governors comply with media and public information requests as a
“courtesy,” as they put it.
An effort to remove the Legislature’s exemption, which has been in
effect since 1897, failed in 1994. A recent Senate bid to overturn the
law also failed. The exemption was challenged in the 1970s, but the
state’s highest court ruled in the Legislature’s favor in 1978.
Beyond the lowly public, Beacon Hill lawmakers have also insulated
themselves from the scrutiny of the state auditor and inspector general.
“We can’t go in and do an audit of the legislative branch. That’s been
in effect for a long time,” said Glenn Briere, spokesman for Auditor
Joseph DeNucci. “We have no authority to make them produce any records.”
DeNucci used to file a bill every year to give the auditor’s office
authority to investigate the Legislature, but predictably it “died in
committee” each year - a euphemism for being tossed in the trash.
How’s that for transparency?
The Salem News
Monday, June 1, 2009
Panel: DPW workers can retire at 55
By Chris Cassidy
Department of Public Works employees could retire at age 55 — 10 years
early — under a bill at the Statehouse proposed by the Essex Regional
Retirement Board and a Lynn lawmaker.
The legislation would give DPW workers the same status as police
officers and firefighters, who can retire at 55 because of the inherent
dangers of their jobs.
It would also cost taxpayers, who'd be on the hook not only for the
extra 10 years of each employee's pension but for the added salaries and
health insurance costs of their replacements.
"It's outrageous," said Ira Singer, the town administrator of Middleton,
one of the 19 towns that pay into the Essex Regional Retirement Board.
"At a time when there's such scrutiny over pension costs ... to be
looking at a bill that does nothing more than lump unnecessary and
exorbitant costs back onto the Essex County Retirement communities is
absurd. ... Shame on the board for submitting that legislation."
State Sen. Thomas McGee of Lynn, the bill's sponsor, said DPW workers
deserve early retirement because of the physical demands of the job.
"If you're talking about working out in the streets doing the kinds of
jobs that DPW workers do, it's a taxing job, and over time it impairs
your ability to do the job," McGee said.
Still, no other municipal employees besides police, firefighters and
certain electrical line workers can retire as early as 55.
"Most of the work our guys do involves driving trucks and other
machines," Ipswich Town Manager Robert Markel said. "The day when the
DPW got out and dug trenches with a shovel are over. These are the guys
who plow the snow in the winter time with trucks and who ride on
sidewalk plows."
Some DPW workers choose to work beyond 65, Markel said.
"We retired an employee at age 77 not too long ago," he said.
The Essex Regional Retirement Board — which represents towns like
Boxford, Hamilton, Ipswich, Topsfield and Wenham — filed the bill at the
request of local DPW unions.
"Once you get underneath a manhole cover and expose yourself to gases
and all sorts of stuff, you tell me if you want to be down there when
you're 63," said Lilli Gilligan, the board's chief operating officer.
Essex is the same board that recently approved a subtle language change
that allowed police and fire dispatchers to retire five years early — at
age 60.
It also spent $60,000 last year on a lobbying firm to guide a variety of
bills through the Statehouse.
Gilligan said the board files its bills through McGee, a Lynn Democrat,
rather than its own local legislators, because McGee is chairman of the
relevant legislative committee, and because of his relationship with the
retirement board's executive director, Timothy Bassett, a former Lynn
state representative.
"The message is that pension boards work for employees," Gilligan said.
"We provide future pensions for employees of government offices."
But they are pensions — and pension boards — heavily funded by
taxpayers.
Markel said he wants the board's retirement funds moved into the state
system or to have Ipswich withdrawn from the Essex system altogether.
"We need to have some credibility with the public," he said. "This
system we have right now doesn't have any credibility with me and most
people I talk to."
Gilligan said the Essex board has also filed bills that would save towns
money, like requiring direct deposit and automatic health insurance
deductions.
The DPW bill has been submitted in previous legislative sessions, and
even Gilligan concedes it will likely go nowhere this time around.
Still, some town leaders are wondering how they can fund any extra
employee benefits at a time of massive budget deficits.
"It seems like this is just more evidence that we're not being served,"
Markel said.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Hacks to the wall,
pols vote to keep extra Suffolk holidays
By Hillary Chabot
Backed to the wall by an angry electorate demanding change, the
scandal-pocked House last night nevertheless narrowly voted to preserve
a pair of controversial state holidays designed to give pols and public
employees two extra Mondays off.
Before a nail-biting tie vote on the day after former House Speaker
Salvatore F. DiMasi was indicted for contract-rigging, angry pols blamed
the Hub’s two newspapers for scrutiny of Evacuation Day and Bunker Hill
Day - and declared they would not be pushed around.
“I’m not going to be backed up by the newspapers, not backed up by the
cynics, not backed up by the haters,” bellowed Rep. James Fagan
(D-Taunton). “I hope these holidays are around and with us a long time
after the Globe is gone.”
Lawmakers voted 78 to 78 on the amendment, dooming it despite growing
unease with the Suffolk County-only holidays in the Legislature. A
similar amendment in the Senate failed by a 21-17 vote despite mounting
support there.
Republicans, who added the amendment eliminating the holidays to a
$30-million supplemental budget last night, said axing the days off
would help disperse the ethical black cloud looming over the State
House.
“We have never been under the scrutiny that we are under right now,”
said Tom Calter (R-Kingston). “My suggestion is that we . . . make the
decisions the people of the Commonwealth expect us to make.”
All schools, city and state offices are closed in Suffolk County for
Bunker Hill Day on June 7 and Evacuation Day on March 17, which also
happens to fall on St. Patrick’s Day. State employees also are allowed
to take the days off or use them as floating holidays, which costs the
state roughly $5 million, according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Association [sic-Foundation].
Suffolk County politicians spent three hours pacing the House floor last
night in an effort to shore up dwindling support for the obscure
holidays. House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) didn’t use leadership
muscle to support the holidays even though the Suffolk County pol
supports them.
Outraged Southie pols blamed Boston’s two newspapers, the Boston Herald
and The Boston Globe, for whipping up public sentiment against the
holidays. Rep. Brian Wallace (D-South Boston) focused his ire on Herald
Columnist Howie Carr, whom he said first dubbed the days “hack
holidays.”
“I’m sick and tired of the people in this chamber coming in and bowing
to the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe,” Wallace said.
The Eagle-Tribune
Monday, June 8, 2009
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Reform comes close, but hack holidays prevail
The night after their former leader's indictment on federal corruption
charges, state legislators had a chance to show their constituents just
how serious they are about reform.
At issue were the two extra holidays to which only state and Suffolk
County employees are entitled — Evacuation Day (March 17) and Bunker
Hill Day (June 17).
The former, as all but the most naive or devious would acknowledge, is a
holiday created so state, county and City of Boston employees can have
St. Patrick's Day off without having to call in sick or use vacation
time; while the latter ensured they need not go more than a month
without a paid holiday. (It must have been brutal in the bad old days,
having to work from Memorial Day to the Fourth of July without a break.)
Everyone knew these were made-up holidays (besides, there's nothing to
prevent workers from honoring the anniversaries of the June 1775 defense
of Bunker Hill against British troops or the British garrison's
evacuation of Boston the following March — on their own time). But until
a few weeks ago, the idea that these holidays might be wrested from
state, county and municipal workers would have seemed farfetched.
But these are troubling times for the denizens of the Statehouse. A few
days ago a number of Senate Democrats joined their Republican colleagues
in what was a surprisingly close effort (the amendment failed by a 17-22
vote) to eliminate the holidays. Then Wednesday night, a move by House
Republicans to attach a similar amendment to a budget bill failed, but
only by a 78-78 tie vote.
One vote would have made all the difference.
According to the official House roll call, Democrats Michael Costello of
Newburyport, William Lantigua of Lawrence and David Torrisi of North
Andover voted to keep the holidays. Shame on them.
And shame on several reps who blamed Boston newspapers for trying to
erase the alleged historical roots of these holidays.
Rep. James Fagan, D-Taunton, told his colleagues, "I hope these holidays
are around and with us a long time after the (Boston) Globe is gone."
One can only imagine how many holidays state and Suffolk County
employees would have if the press wasn't around to perform its watchdog
role.
Voting with Republican Brad Jones of North Reading to get rid of them
were Andover's Barbara L'Italien and Barry Finegold, Haverhill's Brian
Dempsey, Methuen's Linda Dean Campbell and West Newbury's Harriett
Stanley. Kudos to them.
It appears at least some legislators are starting to get the message
that voters want more than baby steps when it comes to reform.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
DiMasi, 3 associates charged with rigging of state contracts
Ex-speaker allegedly got $57,000 payout
By Andrea Estes and Matt Viser
Former Massachusetts House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi and three friends
were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury for allegedly
orchestrating a scheme that allowed DiMasi to pocket tens of thousands
of dollars in payments from a software company while he was using his
powerful office to make sure the company won state contracts.
The indictment on a battery of public corruption charges marked yet
another stunning turn for a politician who, just a year ago, was
considered by many to be the most influential official in the state. Now
DiMasi, who resigned in January, faces up to 20 years in prison on each
of the seven counts of mail and wire fraud and up to five years for
conspiracy. DiMasi yesterday denied wrongdoing.
The indictment paints an unflattering picture of a band of longtime
associates, led by DiMasi, successfully plotting - over golf games, at
Democratic fund-raisers, and in incriminating e-mails that even referred
to the speaker as "Coach" - to rig two computer software contracts,
helping assure state approval for them. The charges follow a series of
stories in the Globe.
DiMasi's role was to push the performance management software contract
through the machinations of state government, according to the
indictment.
Joseph Lally, the sales agent for the company, Cognos ULC, applied equal
parts pressure and money to the cause, according to the indictment.
Cognos lobbyist Richard McDonough and Richard Vitale, DiMasi's former
campaign treasurer and accountant, traded on their friendships with the
speaker, according to the indictment.
All four received significant payouts when the contracts were signed by
the state - $57,000 in the case of DiMasi, much of it in monthly
installments, and hundreds of thousands to the other three, according to
the indictment. All four were indicted yesterday and appeared in US
District Court, tieless and beltless.
A fifth recipient of Cognos money, Steven Topazio, DiMasi's law
associate, was not indicted and appears to have been pivotal to the
government's case. The indictment alleges that Topazio was a conduit for
monthly $4,000 payments to the speaker, under the guise that Topazio was
performing corporate law work for Cognos.
"It's about time we got business like this," DiMasi told Topazio,
according to the indictment. The associate was not identified in the
indictment but the Globe, in stories in July and October, reported that
Topazio was on the Cognos payroll.
DiMasi, 64, arrived at the federal court at 2:15 yesterday, accompanied
by his wife, Deborah; his lawyer, Thomas Kiley; and his spokesman, David
Guarino. After an initial court appearance before US Magistrate Judge
Robert Collings, who released each of the men on a $10,000 bond, DiMasi
read a brief statement outside the courthouse.
"Every decision I ever made as speaker or state representative was
always made in the best interests of my constituents and of the people
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," DiMasi said, clutching his wife's
hand.
After reading his statement, the DiMasis drove off in his lawyer's
Jaguar.
The 33-page indictment also portrays officials in Governor Deval
Patrick's administration as bowing to intense pressure from DiMasi and
his staff to award the larger contract to Cognos. Patrick said last
night that when his administration later became aware of problems with
the contract, it reported them to the state inspector general.
"Many of these allegations involve events before we got here at the
State House," Patrick said. "I'm also proud to say that our team
recovered every single dollar that was spent on the contract," Patrick
added. One of two contracts was canceled. He would not take further
questions about the level of involvement of his staff.
A few months before the contract was awarded, McDonough is alleged to
have contacted an unnamed official in the governor's office to let him
know the contract "was important to the speaker and wanted to make sure
it went to the right vendor." According to prosecutors, DiMasi also met
directly with Administration and Finance Secretary Leslie Kirwan, who is
not identified by name.
In another instance, Lally wrote in an e-mail to a Cognos executive that
he was dealing with a "rogue" secretary - Kirwan, who was expressing
reservations about the contract award - and had appealed to her "boss"
to help "handle the situation."
The "boss" was not a reference to Patrick but to David Morales,
Patrick's deputy chief of staff, said two state officials who have been
briefed on details of the investigation. Administration officials
declined to make Morales available last night for an interview.
Acting US Attorney Michael Loucks, at a news conference announcing the
indictments, said no other officials will face charges in the case.
The indictment provided the first allegations that Cognos money found
its way directly to DiMasi. At one point in 2006, when the monthly
payments from Cognos did not arrive on time, DiMasi asked Topazio to
find out what was wrong, prosecutors alleged. After discovering a
bookkeeping error, Cognos sent a $25,000 check to Topazio for the missed
payments. DiMasi "wanted all of it," prosecutors alleged, and Topazio
gave him the entire amount.
McDonough, a lobbyist and close friend of DiMasi's, was paid $25,000 a
month by Cognos; Lally, the Cognos sales agent who helped secure two
multimillion-dollar state software contracts for the company, earned
more than $2 million in commissions; and Vitale, an accountant and
former DiMasi campaign treasurer, made $600,000.
In all, prosecutors identified 80 "overt acts" by the group designed to
take advantage of DiMasi's position to obtain contracts from the state,
stretching back to 2004.
As far back as October 2006, several months before either contract was
signed, DiMasi played golf with the Cognos chief executive at DiMasi's
country club in Ipswich, the indictment says. Cognos documents state
that Robert Ashe was the company's chief executive at the time.
And when the larger of the two Cognos contracts, a $13 million statewide
technology contract, was finally signed in August 2007, the indictment
says, a Cognos official sent an e-mail to Lally, saying in part, "Please
be sure to thank Dick and Sal for getting the contract closed."
IBM, which purchased Cognos in 2007, did not respond to requests for
comment yesterday.
DiMasi's indictment, which follows a series of Globe stories detailing
the awarding of the software contracts, makes him the third consecutive
House speaker to face criminal charges. DiMasi resigned from the House
on Jan. 27 after months of investigations by the state Ethics
Commission, the Massachusetts inspector general's office, Secretary of
State William Galvin, and the US attorney's office.
DiMasi repeatedly denied ever asking anyone to choose Cognos
specifically, although he has acknowledged advocating for the type of
software Cognos manufactures. He also denied ever socializing or playing
golf with Cognos executives. The company for several years sponsored a
golf tournament that DiMasi helped run to honor Vitale's brother, a
Saugus police officer killed in the line of duty.
Thomas Drechsler, who represents McDonough, said he was "disappointed"
by the indictments and insisted McDonough did nothing wrong. The
indictments, he said, charge McDonough with doing "what lobbyists are
paid to, lobby on behalf of his clients. That is a constitutional right
protected by the First Amendment."
Vitale's lawyer asserted his client's innocence. "Dick Vitale is not a
criminal," Martin Weinberg said in a statement. "He is an ethical and
principled businessperson. I am confident he will be acquitted."
Lally's lawyer, Robert M. Goldstein, said, "Joe Lally is an accomplished
businessman who has excelled in sales with many different companies,
including at Cognos. Mr. Lally at all times believed his conduct to be
entirely legal, purely ethical, and looks forward to establishing his
innocence at trial."
The indictment alleges that from December 2004 through about February
2008, DiMasi, Lally, McDonough, and Vitale conspired to devise a scheme
under which DiMasi used his influential position to help Cognos obtain
the multimillion-dollar software contracts from the state.
The indictment alleges DiMasi and the others arranged to have Cognos pay
$5,000 a month to DiMasi's law associate, Topazio, who is identified
only as a "private attorney" in the indictment. Topazio and DiMasi
shared office space, and Topazio paid DiMasi referral fees, the Globe
has reported. Topazio's lawyer, Frank Corso, could not be reached for
comment.
The indictment says that Lally, at the time a Cognos vice president,
arranged to have Topazio paid as local counsel for Cognos, even though
Topazio protested that he lacked experience in such corporate legal
work. No one ever asked Topazio to do actual legal or lobbying work, the
indictment says.
DiMasi got the lion's share of the $5,000 payments, according to the
indictment. Each time Cognos gave Topazio a $5,000 check, Topazio wrote
a check to DiMasi for $4,000, it alleges. DiMasi received a total of
$57,000 in proceeds from Cognos, according to the indictment .
The indictment also describes a $250,000 third mortgage Vitale gave
DiMasi on his North End condo on June 22, 2006, a month after Vitale
formed WN Advisors, the company that received consulting fees from Lally.
The indictment did not say how DiMasi benefited from the loan, if at
all.
Lally left Cognos in February 2006 to start his own software firm. But
before he left he told his replacement "never to cancel" the contract
with Topazio, who was a friend to "Sal." But in June 2006, a Cognos
official told Lally he was "getting questions as to who he is and what
he has done for us. Considering the nature of this relationship, I can't
answer those questions."
Lally then responded, "Do I need to talk to someone? I would not cancel
this."
In 2006, the indictment alleges, DiMasi made sure that budget amendments
provided a $4.5 million earmark to support a Department of Education
purchase of Cognos software.
When the monthly checks from Cognos stopped coming near the end of 2006,
DiMasi asked Topazio to find out what was wrong, the indictment says.
In an e-mail to a Cognos executive, Lally warned that they had to look
into why the payments had stopped, saying, "We don't want to piss anyone
off this late in the game," the indictment said.
After discovering the payments had stopped because of a bookkeeping
error, Cognos sent a $25,000 check to the lawyer, who gave the entire
payment to DiMasi, the indictment says.
The indictment also alleges that DiMasi used his influence to push
through an emergency bond bill that contained authorization to spend $15
million on a software contract that was being steered to Cognos.
When a Cognos executive raised concerns that the state's secretary of
administration and finance appeared to be stalling the deal, Lally
assured him in a June 2007 e-mail that DiMasi would "push it through,"
the indictment says.
"Sal said when he wants something done within his domain he is
ultimately going to get what he wants," Lally wrote in the e-mail, the
indictment said.
Shelley Murphy of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Business on the Hill
The indictment of former House Speaker Sal DiMasi on federal corruption
charges along with three of his Beacon Hill wheeler-dealer friends is
stomach-churning.
It is a horrifying up-close and personal look at how more often than we
will ever know business is done at the State House. A company that wants
to do public business hires a guy “who knows a guy” - preferably a
powerful guy. Some lucrative “lobbying” or “consulting” contracts grease
the skids. Money changes hands - a lot of money for “work” that doesn’t
seem to exist - unless you call picking up the phone to your best buddy
Sal or making sure he’s got a proposed amendment in his pocket “work.”
The federal indictment indicates that the big bucks from Cognos -
hundreds of thousands of dollars - went to DiMasi pals like lobbyist
“Dickie” McDonough and Richard Vitale and fixer Joseph P. Lally Jr. The
checks the feds traced to DiMasi (usually $4,000 each) amounted to
little more than chump change (about $60,000) by comparison. (Of course,
there’s also that $250,000 “line of credit” extended to DiMasi through a
Vitale-owned realty company.)
But the reason there are anti-corruption laws is that it’s always the
taxpayers who take it on the chin. In this case paying $5.2 million for
the first “wired” contract to Cognos and set up to pay $15 million for a
second (ultimately cancelled) contract approved in an “emergency” bond
bill. Some “emergency,” no?
A company set up by Lally got $2.8 million from Cognos, which in turn
wrote checks to Vitale’s firm for $500,000 and $200,000 for McDonough.
“Please be sure to thank Dick and Sal for getting the contract closed,”
a Cognos official e-mailed Lally. Everyone’s taken care of, except the
taxpayers.
Thus far the Legislature has only tinkered with ethics reform and has
made no effort to abandon budget earmarks which lead to such corruption.
And that is shameful.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Bay State run by men of steal
By Howie Carr
This isn’t a democracy, it’s a kleptocracy.
Three in a row - three House speakers in a row indicted, and two
convicted. And poor Sal DiMasi, this time I think the G-men are finally
going to have to throw one of those crooked hacks into prison. A speaker
indicted has become a standing headline. It’s expected, like the
archbishop of Boston getting his red hat.
Try not to let it destroy your faith in the integrity of the
Massachusetts General Court.
To understand how thoroughly corrupt this entire system has become,
consider the connections among everyone in this rancid tale. Sal’s
lawyer Tom Kiley used to represent Senate President Billy Bulger in his
travails and is now a business partner of Bulger’s successor, Bob
Travaglini.
Bulger’s mentor in politics was the late Sonny McDonough, whose son
Dickie is also indicted. Dickie McDonough’s lawyer is Tom Dreschler,
partner of Felon Finneran. Finneran is the unspeakable hack speaker,
pathetic radio talk-show host and on-the-verge-of-being-disbarred
lobbyist who preceded DiMasi. The Felon went down on an obstruction of
justice rap.
After fleeing the State House, Felon Finneran took over the Mass Biotech
Council. When he pleaded guilty, claiming his mind, such as it is, was
addled by Advil, the Felon had to give up his $400,000-a-year job at the
Council.
He was succeeded by Robert Coughlin, then a rep from Dedham, whose name
now turns up on page 10 of the DiMasi indictment as “the sponsor for two
educational budget amendments relating to technology” - i.e., the bills
for which Sal “earned” the $57,000 he so badly needed to keep his trophy
wife, Debbie, in the style to which she had become accustomed.
Coughlin, who in the House was merely a go-along-to-get-along dupe, is
not charged. But if you’re on the board of the Biotech Council, you’ve
got to be at least a bit chagrined about your recent hires.
Another indictee is Richard Vitale, Sal’s accountant and holder of his
third mortgage. Vitale was initially represented by Richie Egbert, who
is now deceased. But when Felon Finneran was trying to stay out of
prison, his lawyer was . . . Richie Egbert.
Here’s my favorite quote, from (what else?) an e-mail:
“Sal said when he wants something done within his domain he is
ultimately going to get what he wants.”
I hope Sal now wants to go to prison, because my guess is that’s where
he’s headed.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Voters conned and ask for more
By Michael Graham
Everything I need to know about Massachusetts voters I learned from Mrs.
Clark Rockefeller.
Testifying against Christian Karl Gewurztraminer (or whatever his
unpronounceable German name is), Sandra Boss explained how a super-smart
biz whiz could fall for a con-job creep.
“It’s possible that one can be brilliant and amazing in one area of
one’s life and pretty stupid in another.’‘
To coin a phrase, “Yes, we can.” On Beacon Hill, it happens every day.
Bay Staters are among the nation’s most affluent and well-educated.
About 75 percent of our high school grads go to college. Almost 40
percent of adults have degrees. Our median income is 25 percent higher
than the national average.
Yet these “brilliant and amazing” citizens repeatedly vote themselves
one of America’s most corrupt and incompetent governments.
Three indicted speakers - and counting. Empty legislative offices with
fulltime paid staffs. Pension perks for incumbents so lousy that they’re
finally forced out.
What sort of voters put up with this?
Meanwhile, our pols don’t hide from corruption, they celebrate it. When
they re-elected Sal DiMasi speaker, everyone knew he was under
investigation. But only seven Democrats withheld their votes. The rest
were with Rep. Jim Fagan, who bragged, “We are direct descendants of
patriots and heroes!” - a comment that must have had Sam Adams drinking
in his grave.
It’s the arrogance that comes from knowing you can get away with
anything. That’s why hearing Boss’ testimony was so painful.
She - like our voters - is smart, capable and affluent. He - like our
government - was an abusive con artist without a cent to his name.
He fed her the most bogus lines: his Rockefeller connections, the
Federal Reserve, even the Trilateral Commission. (What, the Illuminati
lose your application, Karl?) And she fell for it all.
Just like Bay Staters who bought Gov. Deval Patrick’s promise that he’d
never raise our gas taxes or tolls, or the bogus Beacon Hill spin that a
sales tax hike today means no more tax hikes tomorrow.
Suckers.
Boss’ story got even more bizarre when she described going cold and
hungry on a six-figure salary because Karl wouldn’t raise her allowance.
An allowance of her money!
Because Karl - like our state government - never earned a dime himself,
but thought he had the right to spend every penny.
Why was Boss afraid of him? She paid all the bills. Why didn’t she just
throw the bum out?
Good question. It’s one I’d like to ask every Bay Stater who voted down
Question 1.
Every couple of Novembers, hordes of hungry, shivering voters schlep to
the polls to re-elect the same gang of goons who abused them the
previous two years.
How are we so different from “Mrs. Rockefeller”?
At least Sandra Boss can claim to be duped. Massachusetts voters know
exactly what we’re getting, and we keep coming back for more.
We’re not dupes, we’re dopes. And until we start treating incumbents
like they’re Bavarian con men with bad hair, that’s never going to
change.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Pols slam door on public
Debate transparency, ethics reform in private
By Dave Wedge and Hillary Chabot
Arrogant Beacon Hill lawmakers, tarnished by a string of high-profile
scandals, shut out the public, and even taunted the media, as they took
discussions on improving transparency at the State House behind closed
doors.
“We’re delighted to see you guys,” Senate Majority Leader Fredrick E.
Berry (D-Peabody) said to reporters as he closed an ethics reform
hearing yesterday. “From now on, it will only be staff.”
Lawmakers voted unanimously to close the conference committee hearing
without a word of debate, brushing off public outrage over corruption
scandals that have rocked the Golden Dome, including this week’s
kickback charges against former Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.
Berry refused to answer questions about why the meeting was closed.
Majority Leader James E. Vallee (D-Franklin), House Speaker Robert
DeLeo’s top lawmaker on ethics reform, also clammed up.
One Republican on the committee, Rep. Jeffrey D. Perry (R-Sandwich),
said he was “all for” opening up the hearing to the public.
“I think the Legislature should have to comply with the Open Meeting
Law,” Perry said.
Conference committee hearings were public until the 1980s. But lawmakers
have the authority to open up any hearing, which critics say should be
done with the ethics debates in the face of a public outcry over the
DiMasi contract-rigging charges and other recent corruption scandals.
“You can’t have a good democracy behind closed doors where money is
flowing freely,” said Jill Stein, co-chairwoman of the Green-Rainbow
Party. “We have a system that is essentially legal corruption. We’re not
going to fix it unless we get to the core of the problem. It’s not just
a couple rotten apples. We have a system that’s rotten.”
But Republican Sen. Bruce E. Tarr defended the closed-door tactic,
saying lawmakers shouldn’t pick and choose which conference committees
should be opened up. However, he does support opening all such committee
hearings to the public.
“To begin with one sets a precedent that we should pick and chose,” the
Gloucester representative said.
Pam Wilmot, executive director of the ethics watchdog group Common
Cause, believes all conference committees should be open to the public,
but said she can understand lawmakers wanting privacy on the ethics
bill.
“There are many things in the Legislature that are better done in front
of the public. This is the public’s business,” she said. “That said,
this is a very sensitive matter, and that’s why they don’t want to do
it.”
Sen. Bob Hedlund (R-Weymouth) said he generally has “no problem” with
conference committee hearings being closed. But when it comes to ethics
debates, he believes the public should be invited in.
“There are some reasons why it would be valid to open (hearings), and
this specific issue would be one of them, given the circumstances and
the subject matter,” Hedlund said.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 5, 2009
Deval Patrick, mayoral hopefuls join call to nix holidays
By Hillary Chabot
Gov. Deval Patrick and Hub mayoral candidates Michael Flaherty, Sam Yoon
and Kevin McCrea yesterday called for eliminating two controversial
state holidays - joining a groundswell to revoke the days off amid a
public outcry against business as usual on Beacon Hill.
“The public is hungry right now for meaningful action on a few things
that on a practical matter and on a symbolic basis change the way things
are,” Patrick said, adding he would sign a bill voiding the Suffolk
County holidays if it reaches his desk.
City Councilors Flaherty and Yoon and South End developer McCrea, who
are challenging Mayor Thomas M. Menino, also said preserving a pair of
holidays designed to give pols and public employees two extra Mondays
off sends the wrong message to voters.
Flaherty broke ranks with fellow South Boston Democrats Rep. Brian
Wallace and Sen. Jack Hart, who both voted to keep Bunker Hill Day (June
7) and Evacuation Day (March 17), which falls on St. Patrick’s Day.
“First we want to acknowledge that these holidays serve an important
role in our state’s and our city’s history, but we believe we can
observe these holidays without burdening the taxpayers,” said Flaherty
campaign spokeswoman Natasha Perez.
Yoon, who said public officials and workers still could celebrate the
holidays without taking them off, added, “We have to question the status
quo. That’s the era that we’re in. We have to do everything we can to
restore public confidence in government.”
Said McCrea: “I do not support a holiday that only applies to city and
state workers when everybody else has to work. It’s not fair to the rest
of the people in the state.”
Menino ducked the controversy, saying, “It’s a legislative decision,
it’s not my decision,” according to his spokeswoman Dot Joyce.
The growing chorus to spike the holidays comes the day after House
lawmakers narrowly preserved them in a rare 78-78 tie vote. The
late-night debate in the House veered into unchartered waters as Wallace
and Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton) blamed the Boston Herald, columnist
Howie Carr and the Boston Globe for turning the public against the
holidays.
“I’m sick and tired of the people in this chamber coming in and bowing
to the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe,” Wallace said.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, June 6, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
House tone-deaf
The bad news about state revenues - and, therefore, the current and
upcoming state budget - keeps getting worse.
Thursday Gov. Deval Patrick submitted a new version of his fiscal 2010
budget (without a sales tax hike) that makes about $800 million in
additional cuts, including new cuts to local aid and MassHealth. The
Revenue Department reported that tax collections through the end of May
were down 11.5 percent from last year.
Then there’s the embarrassment of having former Speaker Sal DiMasi
indicted for trying to put the fix in on two software contracts that
would have cost the taxpayers $20 million.
So you’d think lawmakers would be just a little contrite, just a little
guilt-ridden, just a little more aware that their constituents are both
hurting financially (hence the revenue slump) and angry that no one on
Beacon Hill seems to feel the need to share the pain.
So while workers in the private sector - those fortunate enough to have
jobs - are being asked to take pay cuts or unpaid furloughs, House
members managed to narrowly defeat an effort to keep two paid holidays
not enjoyed by those private-sector workers.
Yes, on a 78-78 vote the House will hang on to Evacuation Day and Bunker
Hill Day (the Senate voted 21-17 to keep the holidays). According to the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation the holidays for all state employees
cost the taxpayers about $5 million a year.
The really appalling thing is that lawmakers were angry that they were
forced to vote on the issue, focusing much of their anger on the news
media.
“I’m sick and tired of the people in this chamber coming in and bowing
to the Boston Herald and The Boston Globe,” ranted Rep. Brian Wallace
(D-South Boston).
Well, it’s the voters who are “sick and tired” - sick and tired of one
set of rules for them and another for the pashas who preside over Beacon
Hill.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The hell with the ‘whites of their eyes’ - just shoot
By Margery Eagan
If this isn’t enough to send you to the ramparts, what is?
The third House speaker in a row gets nabbed. Do humiliated legislators
throw their sorry selves off the Golden Dome? No - they vote to keep two
paid scam holidays that nobody else gets but we pay millions for. Their
message: Nothin’ you can do about it, you pathetic voter, you.
The state’s going broke. Programs for the blind are going south. But
Sen. Jack Hart - who should never get another vote - compares Bunker
Hill Day to Christmas. And state Rep. James Fagan - who should never get
another vote - says tapped-out taxpayers who want to ditch the holidays
are “haters.”
Right before that, our fearless leaders passed a big fat sales tax on
you, pathetic voter, without passing even a teeny-tiny reform on their
own big fat pensions. Do you get a big fat pension, or any pension, or
Cadillac health care, for life? Can you retire at 55?
I don’t know about you, but I’m sharpening my pitchfork.
Alas, my fellow pathetic voters, this is our fault. Almost every
legislator voted for the sales tax. That’s revenue before reform, said
Senate President Terry Murray - who should never get another vote
either. Chances are, pathetic voters, you voted for the thief who voted
to shaft you, again.
I know. There’s a handful of stand-up legislators. A handful. The rest
“are feeding their own self-interest on the backs of folks trying to
feed their families,” says ex-legislator Frank Hynes, who should know.
Talk to Frank. He describes this surreal, parallel universe of payroll
Charlies and Tommys and Bobbys who laugh too loud at bad jokes and slap
each others’ backs. Then “Mr. Speaker” happens by, with his entourage,
and they grovel.
Frank recalls how, after months of pleading, he’d get invited to Sal
DiMasi’s enormous office. “He wants to come across as a regular guy and
talks for 10 minutes about sports or what’s taking place in the world,
then for two minutes about what brought you there,” Hynes said. Then
DiMasi would say, “Don’t worry, I’m gonna give this to you,” awarding
Hynes’ request not on the merits but as if it’s a favor and to make him
beholden.
Once upon a time, it was Howie Carr and Barbara Anderson baying
alone in the wilderness against these creatures. Now even moonbats
recognize the scam-a-ramas. Better late than never, so does the Globe!
Now Gov. Deval Patrick has decided to fight for pathetic voters instead
of gimme-gimme legislators and wired public unions.
He “has made a decision to take the Legislature on,” said Anderson. The
problem? He has few friends and no veto power. Which means it’s all up
to you, pathetic voter.
Snap out of it! Pay attention! Have some self-respect! Get your blood
up, sheeple! Storm the dome. If your state rep or senator voted for the
sales tax, that’s it. Get rid of ’em. The next election’s November 2010.
Not one more pathetic vote. NOT ONE!
Otherwise, your taxes will fund their fat pensions and Cadillac health
care forever. And you’ll be out there toothless collecting cans on
Melnea Cass Boulevard.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Scandals cast shadow on state Democrats
As gloom deepens, new vows on ethics
By Matt Viser
There was a moment last week when Representative Denis E. Guyer was
stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Interstate 93. He was in his red
Toyota Matrix, sporting old campaign bumper stickers and a special House
of Representatives license plate meant to be an honor bestowed on
elected officials.
But after the indictment of former House speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi -
the third Democrat to face criminal charges in 11 months - residents are
in no mood to give much respect to those who work on Beacon Hill.
One motorist pointed his middle finger squarely at Guyer. Shortly after,
another motorist did the same.
"A lot of us are in shock," said Guyer, a Democrat from Dalton. "I'm in
shock."
Democrats have never had more power in Massachusetts, and it has been on
their watch that the political and ethical culture on Beacon Hill has
reached its lowest point in decades. The House, Senate, and Patrick
administration have all been battered in recent months, and are trying
to regroup as they face reelection next year.
"Everything is spinning around chaotically," said Senator Steven C.
Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and chairman of the Senate Committee on
Ways and Means. "It's just negative. It's hard to find that glimmer of
hope, that glimmer of optimism, and we're all trying to find it. But
it's been pretty elusive thus far."
The House last week saw its former leader indicted for allegedly
accepting $57,000 in payments from Canadian software company Cognos ULC
while he pushed contracts for the company. One of the contracts was
approved in 2007 by Governor Deval Patrick's administration, which
missed numerous red flags that it was being rammed through at DiMasi's
behest without sufficient scrutiny.
The Senate had two members resign last year, one of whom, Senator Dianne
Wilkerson of Roxbury, was photographed by federal agents stuffing money
into her bra - an alleged payoff for her help in passing legislation.
The other, Senator J. James Marzilli Jr. of Arlington, was indicted on
charges of accosting four women in downtown Lowell.
Lawmakers have reacted much like family members after a death or
disgrace strikes close to home, unable to bring themselves to discuss
specifics or, in some cases, even mentioning the names of their former
colleagues.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, when talking about his predecessor's
indictment, resorts to generalities, referring to "the news of a couple
of days ago." Panagiotakos calls all of the recent scandals "these other
issues around," even as Republicans have seized on the opportunity,
plastering DiMasi's name in bold letters atop press releases.
"I'm sure every elected Democrat in the state is trying to figure out
what hit the party," State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill said in an
interview. "Because it's not just Sal."
At the state Democratic Convention in Springfield yesterday, Cahill's
assessment seemed about right.
One local official attending, Mattapoisett School Committee member
Charles Motta, said he was disturbed that it took a federal probe to
bring the alleged wrongdoing to light. "I'm sure the people in [the
State House] knew what was going on," said Motta, 65.
But others stressed that these are cases alleged corrupt acts by
individuals, not by the party.
'The party has nothing to do with it," said Farooq Karim-Mirza, 60, a
Framingham resident.
The ethical controversies and corruption scandals come on top of the
discord among top Democrats at the State House, who are divided over
whether to increase the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent.
"These times are not matched by any time I've seen," said Representative
David Flynn, a Bridgewater Democrat and dean of the House. "They're
weighing more heavily on legislators than any time I've been involved.
The pressure is quite severe from constituents. And it's only natural to
try and blame someone."
By all accounts, DiMasi's indictment rocked the marble corridors of the
State House. Almost every House Democrat voted in January to give him
another term as speaker, a decision some privately expressed shame over
last week.
But some lawmakers took a not-my-problem posture, determined to press
on, despite the political equivalent of a 50-car pileup on the Turnpike.
"We're doing the important work that the people send us to Beacon Hill
to do," said Representative David Linsky, a Democrat from Natick. "And
we're not going to let the action of a few of our colleagues keep us
from doing that type of work."
Despite months of pledges to embark on ethics, pension, and
transportation reform, a final bill has yet to be produced. A six-member
conference committee met for the first time Thursday afternoon to
discuss ethics reform - and the first action taken was to close their
meetings to the public. On Friday, the same decision was made by a
committee reviewing the budget, new taxes, and which programs to cut.
The Senate last month unanimously approved an ethics bill that gutted
the ethics commission, although this week senators plan to meet with
Ethics Commission chairman Charles Swartwood, a former federal
magistrate judge.
"There is a real mood of reform in this building. I really sense that,"
DeLeo said in an interview. "At the end of the day we can't let one
incident wash away all the good that we have done."
Senate President Therese Murray said lawmakers were close to moving on
several pieces of legislation but added that little could be done to
prevent the type of corruption DiMasi and Wilkerson are accused of. "It
has always been against the law to use your office to line your
pockets," she said. "It's just like dealing drugs. Everyone knows it's
against the law but they still deal drugs. Everyone knows it's against
the law to take money, but we've got two members - one from the House
and one from the Senate - accused of doing that."
Still, lawmakers are getting angry phone calls and e-mails as they
attempt to defend voting for things like retaining special holidays for
state employees in Suffolk County. And, in a sign that power and
relationships are often more significant than appearances, lobbyist
Richard McDonough, who was indicted Tuesday for conspiring with DiMasi,
attended a State House rally just two days later against a proposal for
new taxes on alcohol purchases. One of his clients is Anheuser-Busch.
"There does seem to be sort of a Groundhog Day approach to this," Cahill
said. "You look up and the same thing seems to be repeating itself
again. You just say to yourself, 'When are people going to learn?' . . .
I think back to Dianne Wilkerson and how dirty things felt for about a
week, and then it kind of passed."
Cahill, who is weighing a 2010 run for governor, has not been immune to
controversy. There has been scrutiny over some of the state treasury
contracts that have involved Cahill's friends and political supporters.
Democrats have dominated state politics in recent years, achieving a
historic majority in the Legislature and recapturing the corner office
in 2006 for the first time in 16 years.
But some of the recent controversies have given new hope to minority
parties, which have been harping on a theme that one-party rule is bad
for state government.
The state's Green-Rainbow Party last week called DiMasi's indictment
"the tip of the iceberg."
"Urgently needed legislation gets sidetracked while legislative
leadership puts their greatest efforts into doing favors for their
friends," said party co-chair Eli Beckerman. "Catching one of them in an
illegal act once in a while doesn't address the massive flow of money
that goes from special interests into campaign accounts."
The Massachusetts Republican Party has called on Patrick to investigate
what roles his aides played in the awarding of the Cognos contract.
"The public's trust will not be restored until there is a full
explanation of the role played by all public officials and employees in
this House-for-sale scandal, and all we are hearing is a lot of 'no
comments,'" GOP executive director Nick Connors said in a statement.
"Governor Patrick should immediately launch an investigation into the
role his top advisers played in this sordid affair and release the
findings."
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
‘Hurtful’ voters bewilder reps
So why not do something?
By Michael Graham
Boo hoo hoo.
The Beacon Hill Boys are - to quote Rep. Denis Guyer of Dalton in the
Boston Globe-Democrat - “shocked” to discover that the public thinks
they’re a bunch of incompetent crooks. According to Guyer, passing
motorists are flipping him the bird.
Other legislators are puzzled by a flood of angry e-mails and phone
calls after their vote to save the “hack holidays” of Evacuation Day and
Bunker Hill Day. They’re assailed in appearances with complaints about
expected toll and tax hikes.
Voters are outraged, and our legislators don’t know why. They’re hurt,
confused. As longtime Rep. David Flynn put it: “The pressure is quite
severe from constituents. And it’s only natural to try and blame
someone.”
Note that phrase “try and blame someone.” Not “hold us responsible,” but
“try and blame.” This is the same Rep. Flynn who joined with fellow
Democrats to overwhelmingly return Sal DiMoney to the speaker’s chair in
January. The same Democrats who gave the sales tax hike a veto-proof
majority. And now they complain that they’re being turned into
scapegoats as we voters randomly assign blame?
Massachusetts Democrats remind me of the drunk who smoked two packs a
day and spent his spare time in a brothel. One day he goes to the doctor
and, after his exam, the doctor says “You’ve got lung cancer, cirrhosis,
and the clap.”
The drunk looks toward heaven and cries, “Why did this happen to me?”
Why? We just watched the third House speaker in a row indicted by the
feds; a shameless vote to save the $5 million worth of “hack holidays”;
and a legislative committee reviewing the ethics bill promptly threw out
the press and met in secret.
All in the same week. And you can’t fathom why we might be a tad
annoyed?
This wouldn’t be so bad if our full-time, salaried legislators could
sneak in some real work between ripoffs. But they don’t.
It’s no secret the state has a problem with elderly drivers. In fact,
last week also saw a plague of seniors crashing their Town Cars into
buildings, bike riders and even a somber gathering of war veterans.
But even as the bodies fly and store fronts shatter, our lawmakers
refuse to discuss, much less pass, reasonable new testing requirements
for seniors.
When it comes to protecting government workers and union perks, Beacon
Hill will bear any burden and pay any price (with our money, of course).
If these low-rent government grifters had the decency to at least be
embarrassed by their actions, it wouldn’t be so annoying. But they
aren’t. They honestly think they’re doing a good job.
“We’re doing the important work that the people send us to Beacon Hill
to do,” said Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick) in response to the Sal DiMoney
indictment.
Work? What “work”? It’s still possible in Massachusetts to legally give
a cash “gift” to a state senator. A 95-year-old can renew her driver’s
license without a test. The country’s worst-run toll road is still
threatening a toll hike. And the Legislature is trying to charge us a
sales tax on the tax we’ve already paid when we buy beer and wine.
Literally a “tax” tax.
And you guys on Beacon Hill are bothered when voters flip you the bird?
You’re lucky they aren’t flipping over your cars.
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
|
