CLT UPDATE
Thursday, October 29 2009
CLT granted a month's reprieve!
I suppose you could say that
Barbara Anderson and Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT) have
a lot to answer for, inflicting me on Cape Cod....
Now, CLT is on the verge of collapse. Some
large donors, including Dick Egan, founder of EMC Corp., have passed away.
Others have given up and left the state, as have many other restraint-minded
members and supporters. Losing CLT would be a huge setback for fiscal sanity....
CLT's idea is that person will keep and spend their own money instead of having
a big-hearted state take it away to redistribute to them (maybe, kinda). And for
all those who retired to the Cape from other states who don't understand why we
have an auto excise tax anyway — imagine paying almost triple! ...
As CLT's Ford reported, "CLT's annual expense for salaries is about $140,000 a
year for its four staffers — an average per-staffer CLT salary of $35,000.
Compare that to just a single salary at the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, where its president, Michael J. Widmer, received a salary of
$375,000 in 2006, the latest record I've found. His salary alone is almost three
times greater than CLT's entire payroll — over ten times greater than CLT's
average per-staffer pay."
I've written about the CLT annual lunches before, with speakers like Jon Keller
and Michael Graham. This year, at the Nov. 15 annual lunch, an announcement will
be made whether CLT can keep going based on the response to its plea for
donations. Please, if you can't attend the lunch, send a donation to Citizens
for Limited Taxation, P.O. Box 1147, Marblehead, MA 01945, or via PayPal. You
don't have to donate 29 years of excise tax relief — 10 should do just fine!
The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Support Citizens for Limited Taxation
By Cynthia Stead
You can’t think about property taxes in the state of
Massachusetts and not think about Marblehead resident Barbara Anderson.
Well, maybe you can, but you certainly can’t ignore her influence.
In 1980, Anderson successfully lobbied state legislators for the passage of
Proposition 2˝, which prohibits cities and towns from increasing property taxes
each year by more than 2.5 percent over the previous year’s levy, except through
overrides.
For 35 years, Anderson’s Citizens for Limited Taxation, which she serves
as executive director, has influenced tax legislation in a state that long ago
earned the nickname “Taxachusetts.”
But last week, group supporters were alerted to the fact that the organization
was foundering, strapped for cash, and perhaps not going to survive unless
donors stepped up to the plate.
“Unlike the federal government, I don’t go into debt,” Anderson said. “When we
run out of money, we run out of money.” ...
According to Anderson, CLT, which is technically a taxpayers’ association, runs
on an operating budget of around $200,000 a year. This year’s funds fall $30,000
short of meeting that yearly operating budget.
After the brunch, Anderson said one of her four full-time staffers would be laid
off to help control costs.
“We’ve already been cutting salaries for years,” Anderson said. “Last year, I
cut mine to $10 an hour…”
Although she said she thinks Republican lawmakers will “keep an eye” on
Proposition 2˝ itself, she thinks that, without the influence of CLT, related
legislation will be passed that will diminish its effects.
“The reason I’m afraid to retire is that I’m afraid of my property taxes going
up,” she said. “If CLT isn’t around, the Legislature will make up for 30 years
of lost time.”
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Although Prop 2˝ group’s funds ‘Limited,’
debt not an option, says founder
With unemployment at a 33-year high of 9.3 percent and the
state budget tanking because of free-falling tax revenues, you would think that
Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature would be working around the clock
doing everything possible to eliminate wasteful spending and make state
government run more efficiently.
Instead, the message coming out of the Legislature and the corner office during
the last couple of weeks seems to lack any real sense of urgency....
Some legislators are proposing a bill that could require some dog owners to pay
an increase of more than 1,000 percent for a basic license. It’s hardly
surprising, considering the Legislature just hiked the sales tax, the meals tax,
satellite dish tax, and the hotel tax, and created an alcohol tax. Now they’re
talking about an income tax hike - where does it end?
The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Lawmakers, don’t focus on fluff
By Richard R. Tisei
And now Bay Staters face yet another challenge, according to
the liberal group ONE Massachusetts: You’re undertaxed.
In fact, ONE Massachusetts is so certain you want to pay higher taxes, they’re
holding a “virtual rally” Thursday to lobby Gov. Deval Patrick to use “the
obvious alternative to 9C cuts, which is, to be blunt, additional adequate and
balanced revenues.”
That language comes from the ONE Massachusetts Web site, which also features
attacks on Proposition 2˝, support for higher meals taxes and a call for Beacon
Hill to impose our 6.25 percent sales tax on services. That’s everything from
lawn care to pet grooming to dating services....
Massachusetts liberals believe that through a series of, shall we say
“unfortunate circumstances” - indicted pols, blown budgets, no-show jobs -
government is suffering bad PR. If ONE Massachusetts can just turn that around,
you’ll be thrilled to pay more taxes. In the case of the sales tax on services,
$7 billion more.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Just ONE thing in mind: Taxes
By Michael Graham
On one side is an impressive collection of organizations:
Black Leaders for Excellence in Education, The Boston Foundation, Boston Leaders
for Education, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Leaders for Education,
Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, Mass High Tech Council,
MassInsight, Progressive Business Leaders Network, Stand for Children and
Strategic Grant Partners.
Collectively, they call themselves the Race to the Top Coalition....
On the other side: Massachusetts teachers unions.
The issue? Education reform ...
It looks pretty lopsided. But I'm not betting against the unions.
It doesn't matter if it is better for children — and did you know children are
our future? If it reduces their power, their income or their benefits, the
unions will oppose it. And they usually get what they want....
But I'm betting it will have enough wiggle room in it so that no contracts will
be thrown out, no teachers get fired, and if Massachusetts gets the money, the
vast bulk of it will go to increased pay and benefits.
But, it will be sold as "for the children."
If only.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Teachers union clout will squelch any shot at real reform
By Taylor Armerding
Democrats on Beacon Hill are all about standing up
for the little guy. Until they aren’t.
At the bidding of public employee unions and some car insurance
providers, the party in power is doing its best to kill a pilot program
that allows thousands of Massachusetts motorists to renew licenses and
car registrations without waiting in endless Registry lines....
But fearful of losing government jobs, the unions have pressured their
legislative allies to kill the program....
The pilot program is to expire on March 31, and Sen. Marc Pacheco
(D-Taunton) and his Democratic colleagues last week spiked a Republican
effort that would have made it permanent. So the special interests won
out over the average harried motorist.
Yep, it’s all about the little guy. Until it isn’t.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, October 26, 2009
Dems’ license to kill
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
Greetings activists and supporters:
Senate minority leader Richard Tisei: "Now
they’re talking about an income tax hike - where does it end?"
Michael Graham: "ONE Massachusetts is so
certain you want to pay higher taxes, they’re holding a 'virtual rally'
Thursday to lobby Gov. Deval Patrick to use 'the obvious alternative to
9C cuts, which is, to be blunt, additional adequate and balanced
revenues.'"
What a time for CLT to be struggling for its survival
-- and that of all taxpayers.
The bad news is, More Is Never Enough (MINE) and
never will be. The tax-borrow-and-spenders won't relent until our
pockets are empty -- and even if they ever succeed, they'll still
be back for more.
The good news is, the encouraging response to the
news of CLT's imminent demise.
Due to that surprising response, sufficient funds
have come in over the past week to keep Citizens for Limited Taxation
going at least through November.
The BEST news: A large number of those
recent and unexpected contributions were made by first-time
supporters -- new CLT members!
If you made a recent contribution to keep CLT alive,
thank you very much for extending its life.
If you're one of the couple hundred new members,
welcome aboard; we hope you'll hang on for the ride.
We've had some new members join since February, when
we began asking you to invite your friends and neighbors, at the top of
each Update (see above). Thank you to those who've participated,
helped us reach out to and recruit them.
As you know, many long-time members who've carried
CLT for decades have moved out of state, or have passed away. Our ranks
have steadily diminished. We -- CLT and YOU -- need to recruit
new taxpayers to the battle if they're to keep a voice speaking for
them. Vast numbers of taxpayers have benefitted greatly from your
commitment and sacrifice.
It is in their self-interest as well as yours
that at least one organization remains on the side of us beleaguered
taxpayers.
One lesson learned over the past two weeks is, there
are plenty of taxpayers out there who will join and support CLT -- if
they know we need their help, and we invite them to join us.
And believe me -- "us" is CLT and YOU.
You and all the other members ARE Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Without YOU and others, there is no
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Without you and many others, there CAN BE no
Citizens for Limited Taxation.
In its 35th year, it was about to end; quickly,
abruptly, and soon.
Financially, your organization is living on the edge,
hand-to-mouth as usual. Though still on life-support, this week CLT got
a reprieve. It still lives and breathes, at least for an additional
month.
From your staff here and fellow taxpayers, whether
they know it or not, thank you to those whose hasty generosity made this
possible.
|
|
|
Chip Ford |
The Cape Cod Times
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Support Citizens for Limited Taxation
By Cynthia Stead
I suppose you could say that Barbara Anderson and Citizens for
Limited Taxation (CLT) have a lot to answer for, inflicting me on
Cape Cod.
In 1980, I was working in the Worcester city manager's office when
Proposition 2˝ was passed by voters. Manager Francis McGrath called me
into his office and explained that he was headed into layoff
negotiations with police and fire, and felt he had to cut his own office
first as an example. Since I had the least seniority, I had to go.
Of course, it was that layoff that allowed my family to move to Cape Cod
and open our own business, changing me from a city kid to a Cape Codder.
Still, my support for efficient government, lower taxation and (by
extension) CLT was always strong. I've worked on many of CLT's
initiatives and petitions as a member.
Now, CLT is on the verge of collapse. Some large donors, including Dick
Egan, founder of EMC Corp., have passed away. Others have given up and
left the state, as have many other restraint-minded members and
supporters. Losing CLT would be a huge setback for fiscal sanity.
I've gotten a few 'alerts' from Chip Ford of CLT. This is an example of
something that generally gets forgotten:
"See how much CLT has saved you — EVERY YEAR — on JUST your auto excise
tax ALONE, since dropping it from $66/$1,000 assessed value to
$25/$1,000... Never mind the other taxes CLT has dropped or gotten rid
of, putting more money in your pocket, or the ones it has prevented over
the decades. Think JUST what you save on your AUTO EXCISE TAX alone.
EVERY YEAR since 1980 you and your family have been paying LESS THAN
HALF of what you would have been paying, on every vehicle you've owned
in the past 29 years. For example, if you drive a car with an assessed
value of $1,500, you now pay $37.50 each year to your municipal
government. Before Prop. 2˝, you'd be paying $99 annually. You save
$61.50 — EVERY YEAR — thanks to CLT and its members."
Anybody who drives that Delta 88 with a value of $1,500 probably isn't a
millionaire or corporation but a young person trying to live on a modest
paycheck — somebody Democrats might represent as a recipient of state
aid, and beneficiary of increased taxes.
CLT's idea is that person will keep and spend their own money instead of
having a big-hearted state take it away to redistribute to them (maybe,
kinda). And for all those who retired to the Cape from other states who
don't understand why we have an auto excise tax anyway — imagine paying
almost triple!
This happened before in 1998. CLT was on the verge of having to close up
shop when donors came through and allowed them to continue operating.
Then, in 2000, CLT managed to put the 5 percent state income tax rate on
the ballot to roll back Gov. Michael Dukakis' 1989 "temporary" income
tax hike to 5.85 percent. The rate made it down in increments to 5.3
percent, until the Legislature voted a "temporary" freeze in further
reductions in 2002.
There are a lot of misconceptions about CLT. Barbara Anderson wrote that
one person thought CLT supported a 'progressive' income tax, and another
thought they were government funded! In fact, CLT is an entirely
volunteer group, grassroots long before it became fashionable. It isn't
a luxury nonprofit 'think tank' with padded salaries 'helping' others.
As CLT's Ford reported, "CLT's annual expense for salaries is about
$140,000 a year for its four staffers — an average per-staffer CLT
salary of $35,000. Compare that to just a single salary at the so-called
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, where its president, Michael J.
Widmer, received a salary of $375,000 in 2006, the latest record I've
found. His salary alone is almost three times greater than CLT's entire
payroll — over ten times greater than CLT's average per-staffer pay."
I've written about the CLT annual lunches before, with speakers like Jon
Keller and Michael Graham. This year, at the Nov. 15 annual lunch, an
announcement will be made whether CLT can keep going based on the
response to its plea for donations. Please, if you can't attend the
lunch, send a donation to Citizens for Limited Taxation, P.O. Box 1147,
Marblehead, MA 01945, or via PayPal. You don't have to donate 29 years
of excise tax relief — 10 should do just fine!
The Marblehead Reporter
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Although Prop 2˝ group’s funds ‘Limited,’
debt not an option, says founder
By Nikki Gamer
You can’t think about property taxes in the state of Massachusetts and
not think about Marblehead resident Barbara Anderson.
Well, maybe you can, but you certainly can’t ignore her influence.
In 1980, Anderson successfully lobbied state legislators for the passage
of Proposition 2˝, which prohibits cities and towns from increasing
property taxes each year by more than 2.5 percent over the previous
year’s levy, except through overrides.
For 35 years, Anderson’s Citizens for Limited Taxation, which she
serves as executive director, has influenced tax legislation in a state
that long ago earned the nickname “Taxachusetts.”
But last week, group supporters were alerted to the fact that the
organization was foundering, strapped for cash, and perhaps not going to
survive unless donors stepped up to the plate.
“Unlike the federal government, I don’t go into debt,” Anderson said.
“When we run out of money, we run out of money.”
Meaning that if she can’t pay the organization’s bills, that’s “the end
of it.”
Not that the organization hasn’t seen its finances dwindle in the past,
but Anderson said that this year is different. As Anderson bluntly
explained it, the problem is that most of the organization’s big
contributors, those donors who would buy tables at the group’s major
yearly fundraiser (which is just around the corner in Nov. 15), are,
well, dead. Or they’ve fled the state, in an “exodus from taxation.”
“At this point, we are below what we were at last year before the
brunch,” Anderson said. “There is no one to call anymore.”
According to Anderson, CLT, which is technically a taxpayers’
association, runs on an operating budget of around $200,000 a year. This
year’s funds fall $30,000 short of meeting that yearly operating budget.
After the brunch, Anderson said one of her four full-time staffers would
be laid off to help control costs.
“We’ve already been cutting salaries for years,” Anderson said. “Last
year, I cut mine to $10 an hour… We stopped doing pensions last year.”
Prior to 1997, CLT was based in Boston. Anderson moved the group out of
the city when rents started to go up. Staff members, including Anderson,
now work from home. The group rents additional space inside the home of
one of the staffers.
If funding does not come through soon, Anderson said the group could be
discontinued for good.
“We won’t know until a week or so the response we’re getting,” she said.
Over the years, CLT has made donations to state legislators through its
Political Action Committee, targeting those who favor tax cuts.
The organization’s slogan?
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise.”
Anderson’s hope is that CLT will be around through next year’s
elections. In fact, she calls next year “Revolution 2010.” At that time,
she’s hoping her group will be able to “wake up” voters to what is
happening on Beacon Hill. For the last several years, she added, the tax
situation in Massachusetts has gone downhill.
“We had to stop lobbying,” Anderson said. “We’re waiting for the time
when voters will wake up and get the legislators’ attention again… If
you can just defeat a few incumbents then the rest become afraid of the
voters again.”
Although she said she thinks Republican lawmakers will “keep an eye” on
Proposition 2˝ itself, she thinks that, without the influence of CLT,
related legislation will be passed that will diminish its effects.
“The reason I’m afraid to retire is that I’m afraid of my property taxes
going up,” she said. “If CLT isn’t around, the Legislature will make up
for 30 years of lost time.”
The Boston Globe
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Lawmakers, don’t focus on fluff
By Richard R. Tisei
With unemployment at a 33-year high of 9.3 percent and the state budget
tanking because of free-falling tax revenues, you would think that
Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature would be working around the
clock doing everything possible to eliminate wasteful spending and make
state government run more efficiently.
Instead, the message coming out of the Legislature and the corner office
during the last couple of weeks seems to lack any real sense of urgency.
Patrick just announced he is convening an economic summit this month
that will focus on jobs creation and getting the state’s economy back on
track. What took him so long? Patrick’s wait-and-see-approach to a
crisis that has been percolating for the last three budget cycles
amounts to a case of too little, too late.
If Patrick has been slow to react to the crisis, the Legislature has
been even slower. As the budget continues to bleed red ink, and agencies
that service some of the state’s most vulnerable residents brace for
additional budget cuts, here are some of the “urgent’’ matters the
Legislature has been focused on:
* We’re debating whether the Fluffernutter should be designated the
official state sandwich. Thousands of people are worrying about being
able to put food on the table, but we’re determined to make sure
Massachusetts is the first state in the nation with an “official’’
sandwich.
* The governor and some legislators are calling for boycotts of
Massachusetts businesses at the same time unemployment is fast
approaching double figures and many companies are struggling to remain
solvent. Have we forgotten that it is businesses - not government - that
are responsible for creating the jobs and generating the tax revenues
that help fuel the economy?
* Some legislators are proposing a bill that could require some dog
owners to pay an increase of more than 1,000 percent for a basic
license. It’s hardly surprising, considering the Legislature just hiked
the sales tax, the meals tax, satellite dish tax, and the hotel tax, and
created an alcohol tax. Now they’re talking about an income tax hike -
where does it end?
* For some legislators, the most important issue seems to be passing a
bill that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote before
they’re even old enough to legally cast a ballot. Meanwhile, many adults
who are old enough to vote are losing their jobs, and the Legislature
doesn’t seem to be doing much to get people back to work.
* We’re even being asked to consider a bill that would require banks and
insurance companies that do business with the state to document past
profits earned from the slave trade. Meanwhile, those employers are
dealing with one of the biggest corporate tax increases in the state’s
history, which is driving businesses away from Massachusetts and forcing
some companies to close their doors.
September revenues dropped $333 million compared to last year and were
$243 million below current benchmarks. For the first quarter of the
current fiscal year, the numbers are down $477 million from 2008 and
$212 million short of year-to-date benchmarks.
Economists estimate that the state budget is out of balance by as much
as $1 billion, and predict that the state could face a deficit at least
double that amount in fiscal 2011. State revenues are not expected to
rebound to pre-recession levels for another four to five years.
The Legislature needs to be proactive in dealing with this problem, but
instead it is occupying itself with most trivial and frivolous issues.
We’re doing everything we can to avoid tackling the real problems facing
the Commonwealth when we should be rolling up our sleeves and making the
difficult decisions that are required to get us through this economic
crisis.
If we’re really serious about getting state spending under control, then
we need to implement an immediate hiring and pay freeze, just like many
private employers have been forced to do. We also need to consider
moving the state’s Medicaid recipients into managed care plans to rein
in health care costs, which make up a significant portion of the budget.
And while we are at it, we should repeal the anti-privatization Pacheco
law, which costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Legislature should convene in emergency session to discuss what can
be done to jump-start the Massachusetts economy, restructure government,
and make service delivery more efficient.
But more importantly, we need to stop debating inconsequential
legislation like the Fluffernutter bill and focus on doing everything we
can to promote job growth and get the state’s economy back on track.
Richard R. Tisei is minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Just ONE thing in mind: Taxes
By Michael Graham
In Boston, the livin’ is never easy.
A new report from Northeastern University finds we’re one of the
priciest housing markets in America. Only San Francisco has higher
rents, for example.
Massachusetts has the highest energy costs in the country. Our roads are
very expensive (only New Jersey spends more per state road mile) and are
generally crappy - even when they’re not covered with sides of beef.
And now Bay Staters face yet another challenge, according to the liberal
group ONE Massachusetts: You’re undertaxed.
In fact, ONE Massachusetts is so certain you want to pay higher taxes,
they’re holding a “virtual rally” Thursday to lobby Gov. Deval Patrick
to use “the obvious alternative to 9C cuts, which is, to be blunt,
additional adequate and balanced revenues.”
That language comes from the ONE Massachusetts Web site, which also
features attacks on Proposition 2˝, support for higher meals taxes and a
call for Beacon Hill to impose our 6.25 percent sales tax on services.
That’s everything from lawn care to pet grooming to dating services.
(Say, didn’t some ladies get in trouble charging for “dating services”
on Craigslist?)
The premise of the ONE Massachusetts movement is that you don’t want the
precious darlings in the government sector to undergo the same job cuts
you’re facing in the legit economy. They’re shocked that Patrick might
cut 2,000 state jobs - as opposed to the taxpayers, who’ll faint in
astonishment if he actually does.
Massachusetts liberals believe that through a series of, shall we say
“unfortunate circumstances” - indicted pols, blown budgets, no-show jobs
- government is suffering bad PR. If ONE Massachusetts can just turn
that around, you’ll be thrilled to pay more taxes. In the case of the
sales tax on services, $7 billion more.
These nut . . . - er, “progressive advocates” - point to the same
statistic: Massachusetts ranks 23rd among states in taxes paid as a
percentage of our income. And thanks to a small number of extremely
wealthy residents, they’re right.
For folks in the McMansions of Weston and Patrick’s swanky neighbors in
the Berkshires, state taxes are chump change.
But for us chumps, it’s a different story. Our population growth has
been far below the national average. We’ve lost 25,000 manufacturing
jobs, and the middle class can’t handle our housing costs or our eighth
highest property taxes.
Meanwhile, that statistic - taxes as a percentage of income - says
nothing about what we’re getting for our money. The real number is how
much does our government cost us compared to other states. How much does
state and local government shake us down per person - rich or poor - to
keep the lights on?
By that measure, we’re one of the worst-run states.
Massachusetts ranks eighth in per-person spending on state government.
Add in local government, and we’re the fifth highest. But it’s worse
than that.
Every state that ranks higher than us in per capita spending is at the
bottom in population. That’s because there are certain fixed costs of
operation that both a Wyoming (population 532,668) and a Massachusetts
(6,497,967) must bear.
Guess which state is the only one both in the top 10 for per capita
spending and the top 15 for population? You’re living it. You’re also
surrounded by loonies who want to raise your taxes.
Congratulations.
The Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Teachers union clout will squelch any shot at real reform
By Taylor Armerding
On one side is an impressive collection of organizations: Black Leaders
for Excellence in Education, The Boston Foundation, Boston Leaders for
Education, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Leaders for
Education, Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, Mass High
Tech Council, MassInsight, Progressive Business Leaders Network, Stand
for Children and Strategic Grant Partners.
Collectively, they call themselves the Race to the Top Coalition. Oh,
and they have Gov. Deval Patrick and the POTUS himself, Barack Obama, in
their corner.
On the other side: Massachusetts teachers unions.
The issue? Education reform — including the power to void union
contracts in school districts that are failing, instead of just dumping
more money into them.
It looks pretty lopsided. But I'm not betting against the unions.
It doesn't matter if it is better for children — and did you know
children are our future? If it reduces their power, their income or
their benefits, the unions will oppose it. And they usually get what
they want.
Some of you old-timers might be wondering, "Didn't we already do
education reform back in 1990 or so?" Well, yes, the state did a version
of it. That dumped truckloads of money into local districts and brought
us the MCAS as the "accountability" response to all that money.
This new proposed round of reform is from the feds. And once again, a
lot of money is on the table.
The Obama administration's Race to the Top fund is worth $4.35 billion.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan calls it, "by far the largest pot of
discretionary funding for K-12 education reform in the history of the
United States."
And according to the coalition, Massachusetts could get $100 million to
$400 million of it, if it qualifies under the "guidelines" set by the
administration.
Those guidelines include, in Duncan's words:
* reversing the "pervasive dumbing down of academic standards." I wonder
if that might include ending the practice of putting 80 percent of
middle- and high-school students on the honor roll in most districts.
* allowing the use of data to track the progress of students, and
therefore the effectiveness of teachers.
* Having "strategies for rewarding and retaining more top-notch teachers
and improving or replacing ones who aren't up to the job."
* lifting limits on charter schools.
The coalition is eager for the state to get its hands on that money.
What's not to like? "You can do the right thing and get paid for it,"
says Mary Jo Meisner, vice president for communications at The Boston
Foundation.
And yeah, it would be great if the state got the money and actually did
the right thing with it.
But if you look at it carefully, the reforms aren't necessarily as
strong as they may look. Duncan pays lip service to "replacing"
incompetent teachers. But he never mentions firing them. According to
the coalition, they will be "reassigned."
Really? Where? It brings up visions of the infamous "rubber rooms" in
New York, for teachers deemed incompetent or not fit for the classroom
for some other reason. They sit all day, getting paid, doing nothing,
because the union contract provisions make it too difficult to fire
them. There's money well spent for the children.
Beyond that, under these guidelines, Massachusetts doesn't qualify for
the money.
Both Gov. Patrick and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino have proposed
increasing the number of charter schools, but neither has called for
lifting the limits on them. The governor wants to increase them only in
the worst performing school districts — hardly a blanket lifting of a
cap.
The governor has, however, also dipped a toe into the volatile pool of
real reform, with another bill that calls for creating "readiness"
schools in districts that are among the worst in the state. In those
districts, administrators assigned to improve them could be granted,
"waivers or exemptions from teacher contract provisions."
That is red meat for the unions, which have an implacable hatred of
charter schools (even though they are still public schools) because most
of them are not unionized. And discarding their contracts? You've got to
be kidding.
Even with hundreds of millions of dollars on the table, anything with
explicit language like that will probably die in the Legislature. There
have been hearings, but neither House Speaker Robert DeLeo nor Senate
President Therese Murray has indicated that they will support more
charters or the other reforms Patrick has proposed. That is because both
are so far in the tank with the unions that they will barely take a
bathroom break without union approval.
In the month that remains in this year's legislative session, something
might pass that will have the veneer of reform. It might even be enough
to make it look like the state qualifies for that big windfall. But I'm
betting it will have enough wiggle room in it so that no contracts will
be thrown out, no teachers get fired, and if Massachusetts gets the
money, the vast bulk of it will go to increased pay and benefits.
But, it will be sold as "for the children."
If only.
Taylor Armerding is associate editorial page editor of The
Eagle-Tribune.
The Boston Herald
Monday, October 26, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Dems’ license to kill
Democrats on Beacon Hill are all about standing up for the little guy.
Until they aren’t.
At the bidding of public employee unions and some car insurance
providers, the party in power is doing its best to kill a pilot program
that allows thousands of Massachusetts motorists to renew licenses and
car registrations without waiting in endless Registry lines.
The Registry of Motor Vehicles has coped with the fiscal crisis by
closing seven branches since July - doubling wait times - but has been
operating a pilot program that allowed members of the American
Automobile Association to conduct routine business at AAA offices in
Newton and Worcester.
So in the same way an auto dealership is equipped to handle your new
registration, those AAA branches are allowed to handle your renewal.
Easier on the drivers and easier on overburdened Registry offices. Maine
and Rhode Island have a similar arrangement, and the RMV had hoped to
expand it beyond Newton and Worcester.
But fearful of losing government jobs, the unions have pressured their
legislative allies to kill the program. And since AAA also happens to
write auto insurance policies for a single provider, pressure also came
from that company’s rivals.
The pilot program is to expire on March 31, and Sen. Marc Pacheco
(D-Taunton) and his Democratic colleagues last week spiked a Republican
effort that would have made it permanent. So the special interests won
out over the average harried motorist.
Yep, it’s all about the little guy. Until it isn’t.
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
|
