|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, January 5, 2012
Welcome to 2013:
Out with the old; in with the same-old same-old
|
For the second time in recent years, state
politicians face a pay cut, an automatic reduction triggered by the
declining income of households in Massachusetts.
Members of the House and Senate will see a 1.8
percent drop in pay this year, as will the governor and lieutenant
governor, treasurer, attorney general, auditor, and secretary of
state. The governor’s salary is expected to drop to about $137,315.
The cut will reduce legislators’ base pay by
about $1,100 to $60,032, effective Jan. 1, said Treasury spokesman
Jon Carlisle. However, many legislators receive additional pay for
serving in leadership positions or as committee chairmen. Those
stipends, which range from $7,500 to $35,000 for the House speaker,
will not be affected, Carlisle said....
The latest pay cuts are the result of a 1998
constitutional amendment that tied legislators’ salaries to median
household income. A 2007 law extended the measure to cover statewide
office holders, as well, according to the Executive Office of
Administration and Finance....
When the amendment was proposed, some tax-control
activists had opposed it, fearing that regular pay adjustments would
only rubber-stamp raises that legislators might otherwise find it
politically unpalatable to award themselves. One such opponent, Citizens for Limited Taxation executive director
Barbara
Anderson, said she was surprised to learn of the pay reductions.
“They’re going to get a cut?” she said Thursday.
“Oh, good, so this time it’s working for us.”
Typically, Anderson said, the amendment has
resulted in regular raises for legislators. It is, she said,
“probably the only constitutionally guaranteed pay raises anywhere
in the world. That is not what constitutions are for.” ...
“I think that’s to the credit of the Patrick
administration that they seem to be playing it straight,” said
Anderson, adding, “It’s still a bad idea to have it in the
constitution.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 3, 2013
State politicians face 1.8 percent pay reduction
If you get upset when you hear about public
employees accused of misconduct getting paid to stay home, you’re
not alone.
Cities and towns shell out hundreds of thousands
of dollars every year to employees who have been charged with
wrongdoing, including rape, drunk driving and selling drugs.
The reason? Government employees just have more
rights than workers in the private sector.
An I-Team investigation found public employees in
dozens of towns across the state — from Acton to Hingham, from
Northbridge to Boston — sent home, accused of misconduct of all
kinds, including crimes like theft, domestic assault and battery,
extortion, drunk driving, and rape, all in just the last two years.
They are government employees ordered off the
job, but still being paid their full salaries by cities and
towns....
Barbara Anderson, who heads the budget
watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation, points out that
very often in the private sector, when someone commits some kind of
misconduct, they’re simply fired.
“In the public sector,” Anderson says, “you’ve
just got all these things standing between you and being able to get
rid of an employee, no matter how provable his offense. And that’s a
problem.”
WBZ TV-4
Thursday, January 3, 2013
I-Team: Why Public Employees Are Getting Paid To Stay Home
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO
Red-faced state officials admitted last night
they are trying to find as many as 19,000 missing welfare recipients
— after the controversial taxpayer-funded voter registration pitches
the state mailed to their addresses last summer were sent back
marked “Return to sender, address unknown.”
The Department of Transitional Assistance
contacted 477,000 welfare recipients who were on their books from
June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, after settling a voter-rights lawsuit
brought by Democratic-leaning activist groups that demanded an
aggressive voter information effort by the state. That $274,000 push
by DTA resulted in 31,000 new voter registrations — but revealed an
alarming number of welfare recipients whose residency in
Massachusetts can’t be confirmed....
DTA critics expressed astonishment at the
agency’s faulty address records — which were only uncovered by
accident — saying it’s further evidence that the electronic benefits
system sorely needs reform.
“Wow,” said state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell,
R-Taunton, upon hearing of the number of
returned mailings.
“The fact that 19,000 of these came back
undeliverable tells me DTA has no idea where these people live,
obviously, and is not doing the background checks they should be
doing,” O’Connell said....
DTA spokesman Alec Loftus said he did not know
how many clients left forwarding addresses, and could not say what
the state is doing to locate those who did not leave forwarding
addresses, while their benefits continued to be paid through direct
deposit to bank accounts.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 4, 2013
Welfare recipients ‘missing’
State scrambles as voter mail exposes holes in system
State Rep. James Lyons is so
outraged at a ruling requiring the state to pay the lawyers’ fees of
a convicted murderer who wants a sex change that he plans to file a
bill that would give all Massachusetts residents the same legal
benefits.
Lyons, R-Andover, said he will
introduce the measure after Wednesday, when the new Legislature
takes office. He’s being joined in this effort by Rep. Marc
Lombardo, R-Billerica.
The Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Lyons files bill seeking state to pay legal fees
for those seeking sex change procedures to make 'profound point'
Chances are slim that the state Legislature
will pass a bill in 2013 guaranteeing the same taxpayer-funded
legal representation for law-abiding residents that convicted
murderer Michelle Kosilek is going to receive.
But that's not the point, said Billerica
state Rep. Marc Lombardo, who is co-sponsoring a bill with
fellow Republican Rep. James Lyons of Andover that is raising
eyebrows.
The goal of their proposal is simple — to
point out the "absurdity of having taxpayers foot the $724,000
legal bill racked up by a convicted, vicious wife-killer who
wants to force the state to pay for his sex-change operation."
Lombardo, of course, is referring to Kosilek....
Barbara Anderson, executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said she "loves the
sarcasm."
Anderson knows what it's like to file a bill
just to prove a point.
In 2000, the anti-tax crusader said she was
tired of hearing the response, "I don't mind paying more," from
the pro-taxation crowd. Her organization filed a bill in the
House of Representatives to create a new checkbox on income-tax
returns giving Bay Staters the option of paying more taxes if
they choose to.
The
voluntary-tax bill was approved and now appears on all state
income-tax forms.
"We filed that to be sarcastic," she said.
"Sometimes, with all of the noise, you have to find a way to
bring attention to an issue, and I think this is a great way to
do it."
The people who think about the Lyons/Lombardo
proposal literally and wonder if the state can afford it "just
don't get it," Anderson noted.
Lombardo said it was "the absurdity of it
all" that drove him to join Lyons in drafting the bill.
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Lombardo co-sponsors bill, refers to Kosilek's legal costs
Massachusetts residents would overwhelmingly
oppose a 15-cent increase in the gas tax to help pay for
transportation needs, according to the partial results of a poll
obtained by the News Service and conducted for a coalition that
supports raising the income tax to invest in cities and towns.
The poll, conducted by veteran Boston
pollster Tom Kiley for the Campaign for Our Communities, showed
83 percent of Massachusetts residents would disapprove of a
proposal to hike the gas tax to 36 cents per gallon, including
68 percent who “strongly disapprove.” ...
Patrick in 2009 filed a proposal to increase
the gasoline tax by 19 cents to forestall MBTA fare increases
and make other investments, but faced stiff opposition in the
Legislature where the House and Senate ultimately decided to
increase the sales tax instead and dedicate a portion of the new
revenue to transportation.
Asked about an income tax hike, Patrick said
none of the ideas for new revenue “are perfect.” He declined to
say whether the report would include an income tax increase.
The
Campaign for Our Communities is a coalition of labor groups,
local government boards and advocates who have endorsed an
increase in the state income tax to 5.95 percent, while also
raising the personal exemption level to tamp down the impact of
an increase on low- and middle-class families. The coalition has
also called for raising the tax rate on investment income to
8.95 percent with an exemption for low- and middle-income
seniors.
Both proposals, according to the group, would
generate $1.37 billion in additional revenue annually for
Massachusetts.
Andi Mullin, director of the campaign, did not return a call
seeking comment.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Poll shows strong opposition to gas tax hike
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Out with the old, in with the
— same-old same-old. The more things
change the more they get worse these days.
There's one bit of good news with which to start
the new year: state legislators’ base salary is to be reduced by
about $1,100 to $60,032. These cuts will save taxpayers about
$234,000/year for the next two-year legislative session.
The Legislature put a proposed constitution
amendment on the 1998 ballot and voters approved the first
constitutionally-mandated pay raise in the history of the world.
[See CLT News Release, Oct. 1, 1998, "CLT
Informs Public About Question One" and
CLT 60-Second Radio Ad, Oct. 30, 1998.] Bacon Hill legislators
have seen their pay reduced under their arcane formula only once, in
2010, when their salaries were scaled back 0.5 percent, to $61,133.
You may recall that the Legislature's
constitutional amendment followed in reaction to our petition drive
for a ballot question to overturn its 55% pay raise of 1994, and to
encourage a part-time legislature through a six-month legislative
session. Our coalition's efforts were thwarted by the state Supreme
Judicial Court before it got to the ballot in 1996:
A CLT BLAST FROM
THE PAST
State House News Service
June 10,
1997
Pay raise repeal may give way to income tax cut on '98
ballot
The leader of last year’s unsuccessful
movement to cut legislative pay is leaning towards giving up
that fight and concentrating on a referendum to cut the
income tax.
Chip Ford headed the
Coalition
for Payraise Repeal [CPR] last year until the Supreme
Judicial Court ruled that the ballot question was
unconstitutional.
Instead of trying again next year,
however, Ford said today he is hoping his group, which
merged with Citizens for Limited Taxation last year,
votes to focus its attention in 1998 on trimming the state
income tax back to 5 percent.
"It’s futile to go after the pay raise,"
Ford said.
He’ll soon learn if his membership agrees
with him. Citizens for Limited Taxation today sent out
letters to its 10,000 members, asking them which ballot
question they would prefer to do. Trying to do both, he
said, is impossible given the resources.
CLT’s brass, while willing to do what
their members want, are hoping the choice is the income tax.
"That’s been my preference for a while,"
said Barbara Anderson, CLT’s executive [co-]director.
"I thought it was going to be hard to convince Chip, but he
has come to understand that there are some things you can’t
do."
The outrage that followed lawmakers’
decision in December 1994 to raise their own pay 55 percent
drove the formation of Ford’s group. He pledged to repeal
the increase, and the initiative petition CPR drafted also
encouraged a part-time Legislature by refusing to pay
lawmakers after June 30....
The SJC ruled in April 1996 that the
introduction of "unrelated" subjects in a ballot question
violates the constitution.
"I lost all faith in the court after
watching that whole thing last year," Ford said. "The courts
are in the bag, too."
Instead, Ford and Anderson have decided
the time is right to reduce the state income tax from 5.95
percent to its pre-recession level: 5 percent....
We in private sector employment have just lost
our 2 percent reduction in the federal payroll tax, so we will have
2 percent less income at the same time. Let's see if this
affects legislator's pay the next time their salaries are calculated
in 2015 after the next election.
What we need to make up for our two percent lost
income is one of those government jobs we can abuse and get
ourselves suspended from while still collecting our government pay
check! Being paid by the city or state to do nothing for just one
week would make up for that two percent lost to higher taxes.
Beware unintended consequences! It's too soon in
the new year to fall into the usual righteous outrage
— I'm sure we'll have plenty of that to
go around soon enough. It's just so delicious when what goes around
comes around and blows up in government's face.
We were outraged last summer upon learning that
taxpayers were paying $275,844 to send voter registration letters to
477,000 welfare recipients, along with postage-paid return
envelopes. This was the result of a settlement with the liberal
group Demos, chaired by Elizabeth Warren's daughter, Amelia Warren
Tyagi. According to the State House News Service on August 10, "the
Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts was the only state of
several facing similar lawsuits to settle their cases with an
agreement to mail registration letters," and was followed by charges
"that the Patrick administration and Warren's campaign were using
taxpayer dollars to boost Democratic voter enrollment."
The results of that mailing increased the voting
rolls by 31,000 new voter registrations.
"Be careful what you wish for"
— so many appropriate clichés, so
little space!
If it wasn't for U.S. Sen. Warren's daughter we
would likely never know that 19,000 of those welfare recipients have
gone missing, though their EBT cards are still being recharged
monthly with our hard-earned cash. This just goes to prove that "the
middle-class is getting hammered" again.
Though the oxymoronic Department of Transitional
Assistance has had and has sat on this information ever since, we still wouldn't
know — if the Boston Herald hadn't
pried it loose with a Freedom Of Information Act request.
Using a conservative estimate of $400 a month
payment to each of the 19,000 "disappeared" welfare dependents,
that's $91 million a year in waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement
that can easily and immediately be eliminated. Just terminate the
plastic, revoke the account, stop making direct deposits into them
until and unless the welfare phantoms resurface with extended hands
groping for our pockets.
That $275,844 mailing cost should now become a
good if unintentional investment. Geez, I wonder why all those
overpaid DTA bureaucrats didn't come up with such a simple idea long
ago . . .
It's encouraging to witness what a few fresh
citizen-legislators can expose and ignite. State Rep. Shaunna
O'Connell (R-Taunton) is the point of the spear launched at EBT Card
fraud and abuse, beginning as a freshman legislator last year. She
did a great job as a guest on Fox News' Greta van Susteren's "On
The Record" last night.
Reps. Jim Lyons (R-Andover) and Marc Lombardo
(R-Billerica) — also freshmen
citizen-legislators last session and also re-elected
— are still battling away for us
taxpayers. In their first terms they took on exposing how much
taxpayer money was being squandered on undocumented residents and
those whose residential status cannot be verified [CLT Update, Jun.
15, 2012, "$118
million more for illegals acknowledged by Patrick administration No
wonder they say we need more taxes!"]
Now they're taking on the ridiculous federal
court order that the state (taxpayers) must provide a sex change
operation for a convicted murderer, as well as Robert/Michelle
Kosilek’s legal expenses. Rep. Lombardo estimated the legal bill
alone could exceed $700,000.
Rep. Lyons, with co-sponsor Lombardo, has filed a
bill that would give all Massachusetts residents the same legal
benefits as the brutal wife-killer.
Sometimes sarcasm and the absurd are the most
effective means of exposing utter absurdity —
look what happened with CLT's
Voluntary Tax Check-off!
Much to our astonishment it was adopted in 2002 and has been
available on state tax returns since the 2003.
State House News Service
Friday, January 4, 2012
Weekly Roundup – Opening Act
By Matt Murphy
Rep. Marc Lombardo, now a second-term
Republican from Billerica, said he was disappointed [House
Speaker Robert] DeLeo did not pledge again not to raise
taxes. “Not hearing that this year makes me worried about
what the new year will bring. Now is not the time to be
raising taxes. We have a $32 billion budget, so the way I
see it we don't have a revenue problem,” he said.
We anticipate the coming year to be very trying.
Big tax hike battles appear inevitable and looming. The
tax-borrow-and-spend cabal has for some time been quietly gearing up
for the coming onslaught,
marshalling their forces. It's coming. We'd better be ready to
fight for our survival with everything we've got.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 3, 2013
State politicians face 1.8 percent pay reduction
By Stephanie Ebbert
For the second time in recent years, state politicians face a pay
cut, an automatic reduction triggered by the declining income of
households in Massachusetts.
Members of the House and Senate will see a 1.8 percent drop in pay
this year, as will the governor and lieutenant governor, treasurer,
attorney general, auditor, and secretary of state. The governor’s
salary is expected to drop to about $137,315.
The cut will reduce legislators’ base pay by about $1,100 to
$60,032, effective Jan. 1, said Treasury spokesman Jon Carlisle.
However, many legislators receive additional pay for serving in
leadership positions or as committee chairmen. Those stipends, which
range from $7,500 to $35,000 for the House speaker, will not be
affected, Carlisle said.
The cuts will save more than $234,000, according to Carlisle. But as
legislators’ salaries shrink, their aides’ pay is growing. House
Speaker Robert A. DeLeo recently granted 3 percent raises to all 460
House employees for a total cost of $764,000, the Globe previously
reported. Senate President Therese Murray also gave 3 percent raises
to a handful of her direct staff.
The latest pay cuts are the result of a 1998 constitutional
amendment that tied legislators’ salaries to median household
income. A 2007 law extended the measure to cover statewide office
holders, as well, according to the Executive Office of
Administration and Finance.
Their pay is now automatically adjusted every two years, based on a
calculation by the governor’s administration. A letter Governor
Deval Patrick sent to Treasurer Steven Grossman Wednesday said the
new reduction was based on the US Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey and reports of average weekly wages.
“This bears out the purpose and fairness of the constitutional
amendment that the voters approved, by tying officials’ pay to
what’s happening for other families in Massachusetts,” said Michael
J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
“This is a reflection of what’s happening in the larger economy.”
When the amendment was proposed, some tax-control activists had
opposed it, fearing that regular pay adjustments would only
rubber-stamp raises that legislators might otherwise find it
politically unpalatable to award themselves. One such opponent,
Citizens for Limited Taxation executive director Barbara
Anderson, said she was surprised to learn of the pay reductions.
“They’re going to get a cut?” she said Thursday. “Oh, good, so this
time it’s working for us.”
Typically, Anderson said, the amendment has resulted in regular
raises for legislators. It is, she said, “probably the only
constitutionally guaranteed pay raises anywhere in the world. That
is not what constitutions are for.”
Starting in 2010, however, the amendment resulted in a pay decrease
for lawmakers, as the lasting effects of the recession were factored
into the amendment equation. That year, legislative salaries were
scaled back 0.5 percent, to $61,133. This year brought a larger
reduction as the state grapples with continued sluggishness in the
economy.
The automatic trigger does not entirely depoliticize raises, of
course. In down times, lawmakers have faced political pressure to
decline pay increases or donate them to charity. The constitutional
amendment gives the governor some leeway on how to calculate
household income.
Governor Mitt Romney’s administration calculated the rate in a way
that some government observers viewed as suppressing legislative
raises.
“I think that’s to the credit of the Patrick administration that
they seem to be playing it straight,” said Anderson, adding, “It’s
still a bad idea to have it in the constitution.”
Last month, the governor announced budget cuts to help cover a $540
million shortfall, including further reduction in community funding
for teachers and firefighters.
But at the same time, the Patrick administration released $20
million for an approximately 2 percent raise for 29,000 human
services workers who had been without a raise for five years.
In July, he gave nonunion managers a 3 percent bump, at a total cost
of $10 million.
WBZ TV-4
Thursday, January 3, 2013
I-Team: Why Public Employees Are Getting Paid To Stay Home
By Karen Anderson
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO
BOSTON (CBS) – If you get upset when you hear about public employees
accused of misconduct getting paid to stay home, you’re not alone.
Cities and towns shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars every
year to employees who have been charged with wrongdoing, including
rape, drunk driving and selling drugs.
The reason? Government employees just have more rights than workers
in the private sector.
An I-Team investigation found public employees in dozens of towns
across the state — from Acton to Hingham, from Northbridge to Boston
— sent home, accused of misconduct of all kinds, including crimes
like theft, domestic assault and battery, extortion, drunk driving,
and rape, all in just the last two years.
They are government employees ordered off the job, but still being
paid their full salaries by cities and towns.
The cost? “It could be hundreds of thousands of dollars, that’s for
sure,” says Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella.
Mazzarella put two employees on paid leave recently: a teacher
charged with selling cocaine and a police officer accused of hurling
racial slurs at former Red Sox outfielder Carl Crawford.
“Yeah, people get extremely upset when they find out somebody has
been charged with something, if there has been an allegation
sometimes very serious, and that that person might still be
collecting a check,” Mazzarella says.
The mayor says he handles these situations on a case by case basis.
For the police officer, it was a quick termination, but consider the
secretary in the Newton Police Department whose been charged with
stealing department money. She’s been on paid leave for 15 months
now, at a cost of more than $75,000 to the city of Newton.
“In the end, the people who get cheated out of this are the taxpayer
who have to finance this burden, no matter what happens,” says
Mazzarella.
Barbara Anderson, who heads the budget watchdog group
Citizens for Limited Taxation, points out that very often in the
private sector, when someone commits some kind of misconduct,
they’re simply fired.
“In the public sector,” Anderson says, “you’ve just got all these
things standing between you and being able to get rid of an
employee, no matter how provable his offense. And that’s a problem.”
But it’s reality. Boston attorney Thomas Donohue says most public
employees, especially those in unions, have the right to a hearing
before they can be fired. And if there’s a criminal case,
investigators often ask local officials to hold off on holding
hearings or taking any action against the employee.
“Often times the law enforcement agency doesn’t want their case
played out before they get to the criminal court,” says Donohue.
To make matters even more complicated, there is no set of laws that
tells local officials when to stop paying employees out on paid
leave.
“Each case is different, and so applying one law to each different
case would be difficult,” Donohue says.
Meanwhile, that police department secretary in Newton, who denies
the charges against her, is still being paid every week as her case
winds its way through the courts.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 4, 2013
Welfare recipients ‘missing’
State scrambles as voter mail exposes holes in system
By John Zaremba
Red-faced state officials admitted last night they are trying to
find as many as 19,000 missing welfare recipients — after the
controversial taxpayer-funded voter registration pitches the state
mailed to their addresses last summer were sent back marked “Return
to sender, address unknown.”
The Department of Transitional Assistance contacted 477,000 welfare
recipients who were on their books from June 1, 2011, to May 31,
2012, after settling a voter-rights lawsuit brought by
Democratic-leaning activist groups that demanded an aggressive voter
information effort by the state. That $274,000 push by DTA resulted
in 31,000 new voter registrations — but revealed an alarming number
of welfare recipients whose residency in Massachusetts can’t be
confirmed.
“DTA is in the process of contacting those clients for which a
forwarding address was provided to verify their addresses, as a
change of address might impact their eligibility,” a statement from
the agency said.
DTA critics expressed astonishment at the agency’s faulty address
records — which were only uncovered by accident — saying it’s
further evidence that the electronic benefits system sorely needs
reform.
“Wow,” said state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell, R-Taunton, upon hearing of
the number of
returned mailings.
“The fact that 19,000 of these came back undeliverable tells me DTA
has no idea where these people live, obviously, and is not doing the
background checks they should be doing,” O’Connell said.
“It goes to show this program is just fraught with fraud and abuse
and needs a complete overhaul,” said O’Connell, who has made her
name on Beacon Hill as a leading legislator for welfare reform.
It was not clear last night how many of the missing clients have
moved out of state or are otherwise no longer eligible to receive
Massachusetts benefits.
DTA spokesman Alec Loftus said he did not know how many clients left
forwarding addresses, and could not say what the state is doing to
locate those who did not leave forwarding addresses, while their
benefits continued to be paid through direct deposit to bank
accounts.
Those recipients who did leave forwarding addresses but failed to
respond to subsequent letters seeking confirmation were stripped of
their benefits, Loftus said. Those actions took place last summer,
but were only revealed late yesterday in response to a Herald
request. Loftus could not say how many clients have been booted from
the system as a result of the address snafu.
However, Loftus said last night the address database that was used
in the mailings may have also “likely included many former clients
who are no longer receiving benefits and may have moved to a new
address, as well as applicants who were
denied benefits.”
Gov. Deval Patrick’s office
declined to comment.
The Eagle-Tribune
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Lyons files bill seeking state to pay legal fees
for those seeking sex change procedures to make 'profound point'
By Paul Tennant
BOSTON – State Rep. James Lyons is so outraged at a ruling requiring
the state to pay the lawyers’ fees of a convicted murderer who wants
a sex change that he plans to file a bill that would give all
Massachusetts residents the same legal benefits.
Lyons, R-Andover, said he will introduce the measure after
Wednesday, when the new Legislature takes office. He’s being joined
in this effort by Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica.
Michelle Kosilek, 63, was convicted of killing Cheryl Kosilek by
strangling her. In 1990, when the murder happened in Mansfield,
Michelle Kosilek was named Robert Kosilek.
Robert Kosilek changed her name to Michelle Kosilek in 1993,
claiming she suffered from a gender identity disorder. She also sued
the state Department of Correction, demanding that the agency pay
for a sex change operation.
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf upheld her demand in September and
ordered the state to provide the operation. The judge also ordered
the state to pay Kosilek’s legal expenses, which Lombardo estimated
exceed $700,000.
The state has appealed Wolf’s ruling to the federal Court of
Appeals. Kosilek, an inmate at the Massachusetts Correctional
Institute at Norfolk, has not yet undergone the sex change
operation, according to Diane Wiffin, spokeswoman for the Department
of Correction.
“We don’t comment on pending litigation,” she said.
Attorney Frances Cohen, who represents Kosilek, could not be reached
for comment.
Lyons said if the state is going to be forced to pay a convicted
murderer’s legal fees resulting from a demand for a sex change, then
the Legislature should consider extending that privilege to every
Massachusetts resident.
Asked if he thinks the bill has any chance of passing, Lyons did not
give a direct yes-or-no answer, saying, “We’re trying to make a
profound point. ... This misuse of taxpayers’ money has to stop.”
He said he, Lombardo and other legislators want to “keep the issue
alive.”
“If innocent taxpayers are forced to fund the unlimited expenses of
wife murderers – even when those bills are unrelated to a trial
ascertaining criminal guilt or innocence – then shouldn’t those
law-abiding citizens have access to the same benefits?” asked Lyons.
“It’s the height of absurdity to mandate that taxpayers have an
obligation to pay the massive bills of vicious murderers, but those
same law-abiding citizens have no right to equal legal benefits.”
“This is an issue of fundamental fairness,” Lyons emphasized. “The
hard working citizens who follow the rules and pay their taxes do
not qualify for benefits like this. If we provide extravagant
benefits like this to a vicious murderer, then why deny them to the
law abiding citizenry? It’s a simple matter of fairness and
justice.”
“It seems that every day that passes with this case, a new absurd
ruling is made that costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of
dollars,” Lombardo said. “I’m outraged that any taxpayer dollars are
being spent on heinous convicted murderers, never mind that those
dollars are being used to pay legal fees for efforts to have a
taxpayer-funded sex change. The taxpayers continue to get a raw deal
with this case. We need some reassignment of priorities in our state
government.”
Lyons and Lombardo were both elected to their first terms in 2010,
then re-elected Nov. 6.
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Lombardo co-sponsors bill, refers to Kosilek's legal costs
By Evan Lips
BOSTON - Chances are slim that the state Legislature will pass a
bill in 2013 guaranteeing the same taxpayer-funded legal
representation for law-abiding residents that convicted murderer
Michelle Kosilek is going to receive.
But that's not the point, said Billerica state Rep. Marc Lombardo,
who is co-sponsoring a bill with fellow Republican Rep. James Lyons
of Andover that is raising eyebrows.
The goal of their proposal is simple — to point out the "absurdity
of having taxpayers foot the $724,000 legal bill racked up by a
convicted, vicious wife-killer who wants to force the state to pay
for his sex-change operation." Lombardo, of course, is referring to
Kosilek.
In September, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf ruled in favor of
Kosilek's appeal, reversing an earlier lower-court ruling. Kosilek
had sued the state Department of Correction in an effort to force
the state to pay for a sex-change operation.
Kosilek changed her first name from Robert to Michelle three years
after the 1990 strangulation murder of his then-wife, Cheryl McCaul.
In supporting Kosilek's suit, Wolf found fault in the lower court's
decision against funding the operation since it "was based on fear
of criticism and controversy, articulated at times as a concern
about cost to the taxpayer."
In addition, Wolf ruled in September that the state is likely on the
hook to pay Kosilek's legal bills. He cited case law pertaining to
prisoners' legal bills and wrote that "the possible award of
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees is reserved for future
consideration."
Last month, Wolf made it official, saying taxpayers must pick up the
entire $724,000 tab for the decade-long legal battle.
Lyons said he knows full well that people will think his proposal is
crazy, but added that "what's crazy is the fact we're paying the
legal benefits of a convicted wife-killing murderer to the tune of
$700,000."
"If there's money lying around to fund this, then where's the money
to take care of our own law-abiding citizens?" he asked.
Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance, said Wednesday that Lyons and Lombardo "seem to have
struck a rich nerve," and that their proposal "highlights the
wasteful spending on Beacon Hill of our tax dollars."
"They are proving that for some on Beacon Hill, our money just isn't
that real to them," Craney said.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said she "loves the sarcasm."
Anderson knows what it's like to file a bill just to prove a point.
In 2000, the anti-tax crusader said she was tired of hearing the
response, "I don't mind paying more," from the pro-taxation crowd.
Her organization filed a bill in the House of Representatives to
create a new checkbox on income-tax returns giving Bay Staters the
option of paying more taxes if they choose to.
The
voluntary-tax bill was approved and now appears on all state
income-tax forms.
"We filed that to be sarcastic," she said. "Sometimes, with all of
the noise, you have to find a way to bring attention to an issue,
and I think this is a great way to do it."
The people who think about the Lyons/Lombardo proposal literally and
wonder if the state can afford it "just don't get it," Anderson
noted.
Lombardo said it was "the absurdity of it all" that drove him to
join Lyons in drafting the bill.
"Clearly, we're trying to make a profound point about the absurdity
of innocent taxpayers being told to fund the appeal of a convicted
murderer," Lyons said.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Poll shows strong opposition to gas tax hike
By Matt Murphy
Massachusetts residents would overwhelmingly oppose a 15-cent
increase in the gas tax to help pay for transportation needs,
according to the partial results of a poll obtained by the News
Service and conducted for a coalition that supports raising the
income tax to invest in cities and towns.
The poll, conducted by veteran Boston pollster Tom Kiley for the
Campaign for Our Communities, showed 83 percent of Massachusetts
residents would disapprove of a proposal to hike the gas tax to 36
cents per gallon, including 68 percent who “strongly disapprove.”
A total of 17 percent of respondents said they would support such a
gas tax increase, with only 7 percent “strongly” approving. The poll
sampled 600 Massachusetts voters from Dec. 12 through Dec. 15.
Gov. Deval Patrick on Thursday said his administration’s
long-awaited transportation financing plan will be rolled out over
the next month in two phases, starting with a report due to the
Legislature on Monday that will detail a menu of options to pay for
infrastructure improvements and maintenance.
By law, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation Board is
required to produce a financing plan by Jan. 7 to address what has
been suggested to be a $1 billion a year gap between available
resources and need. Patrick said he will be briefed on the MassDOT
report later Thursday or Friday, but won’t make specific
recommendations until his annual State of Commonwealth address on
Jan. 16, or when he files his budget, which is due by Jan. 23.
“We will have a transportation plan which is not just about plugging
holes and patching what is broken but really about investing in a
transportation system worthy of a 21st Century economy and
Commonwealth,” Patrick told reporters.
Asked specifically about a gas tax increase, Patrick said, “I tried
the gas tax a couple years ago and it fell with a great thud. I am
not certain that a gas tax is going to do for us what needs to be
done, but we will see what is proposed in the transportation finance
report. I think there are going to be a number of options in that
report and that may be one.”
Patrick in 2009 filed a proposal to increase the gasoline tax by 19
cents to forestall MBTA fare increases and make other investments,
but faced stiff opposition in the Legislature where the House and
Senate ultimately decided to increase the sales tax instead and
dedicate a portion of the new revenue to transportation.
Asked about an income tax hike, Patrick said none of the ideas for
new revenue “are perfect.” He declined to say whether the report
would include an income tax increase.
The
Campaign for Our Communities is a coalition of labor groups,
local government boards and advocates who have endorsed an increase
in the state income tax to 5.95 percent, while also raising the
personal exemption level to tamp down the impact of an increase on
low- and middle-class families. The coalition has also called for
raising the tax rate on investment income to 8.95 percent with an
exemption for low- and middle-income seniors.
Both proposals, according to the group, would generate $1.37 billion
in additional revenue annually for Massachusetts.
Andi
Mullin, director of the campaign, did not return a call seeking
comment.
The News Service was not able to obtain information about other
revenue proposals included in the poll.
According to the poll done by Kiley, voters would prefer that any
new revenue plan should include investments in areas outside
transportation, including public schools and health care.
While 18 percent said the focus of new revenue should be to pay for
transportation, 77 percent said lawmakers should look to address all
major funding needs, with 45 percent ranking K-12 education above
roads, bridges and tunnels on their priority list and 22 percent
saying health care should be the top priority. Thirty-two percent of
those polled said infrastructure should be the top priority.
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|