|
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 |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
The State of Dysfunction
|
Thirty-plus years ago, Bay State taxes really
were among the highest in the nation. So what changed? Many deserve
credit, but at the top of any list would be Barbara Anderson,
founder of Citizens for Limited Taxation. She created CLT in
1974 to battle against a graduated income tax and then won a major
set of victories in the 1980s that sharply limited property taxes.
Anderson was irascible then, and she remains that way today, earning
a good share of liberal wrath. Yet she helped usher in an era of
significantly more responsible spending and — not coincidentally — a
strong and sustained economic boom. A 16-year parade of Republican
governors and substantially more tax-averse legislators (especially
in the House) helped keep things in check....
Earlier this month the Tax Fairness Commission,
set up by the Legislature, released a set of recommendations to make
the tax code “fairer.” I have much sympathy with the commission’s
argument that lower-income families pay too much, but many of its
proposals are worrisome. One, in fact, harkens back to CLT’s
founding: It wishes to amend the state constitution to allow income
taxes to be graduated....
The interests of taxpayers are more diffuse
(remember Patrick justifying a gas tax increase by saying it was
merely “the equivalent of one large cup of coffee a week?”) and the
benefits of stable taxation harder to see. Like a movie monster that
just won’t die, Taxachusetts could rise again.
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 28, 2014
‘Taxachusetts’ is a misnomer, at least for now
SEE BARBARA'S NOTE, BELOW COMMENTARY
“Article 23 of the Massachusetts Constitution
reads: ‘No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be
established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever,
without the consent of the people, or their representatives in the
Legislature.’ What part of ‘under any pretext whatsoever’ does the
Registry of Motor Vehicles not understand?”
―Chip Ford
Director of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
QUOTABLE QUOTES
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Friday, March 14, 2014
What does “RMV” really stand for?
Registry of Motor Vehicles?
“Reaming Massachusetts Vigorously”?
How about “Retirement Money Vacuum”? Because
that’s what the just-announced Registry of Motor Vehicles fee hikes
are all about.
Last year the Herald reported that the MBTA had
finally reached the retirement tipping point: More employees of the
transit agency were retired and collecting pensions than were
working and paying into the system. This is hardly a surprise at a
government agency where more than a third of the retirees clocked
out before they reached 55 years old. In fact, more than 1,000
retired in their 40s!
What does that have to do with the hellhole that
is the average RMV office, you ask? That’s where most of your
license and registrations fees are going — not to paying for stellar
transportation services to the Massachusetts driver, but to paying
all those retirees who are not working at the MBTA.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 14, 2014
Registry an ATM for T
By Michael Graham
A House-Senate committee on Monday approved a
$1.7 billion borrowing bill, dramatically raising the bottom line on
legislation sought by Gov. Deval Patrick and padding the legislation
with spending authorizations for trees, cranberry bog acquisitions
and money to purchase coastal property.
The Committee on Environment, Natural Resources
and Agriculture, chaired by Sen. Marc Pacheco and Rep. Anne Gobi,
added nearly $800 million to the $911 million plan submitted by Gov.
Patrick.
State House News Service
Monday, March 17, 2014
Committee adds $800 million to Patrick's environmental bond
Some legislative leaders on Beacon Hill want the
commonwealth — as in you the taxpayers — to incur $50 million in
additional debt so the government can plant more trees.
We’ve heard of “shovel-ready” — but $50 million?
...
As the State House News Service reports,
Patrick’s bill contained projects valued at $911 million. But the
Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture has
pushed it up to $1.7 billion.
Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) told the News
Service the tree planting initiative will have dual benefits — trees
absorb carbon dioxide emissions, for one, and of course they provide
shade on hot days.
What is this, budgeting by second grade science
lesson? ...
But bond bills — whether this one, or another
addressing transportation spending — also provide a useful lesson in
how the political class in Massachusetts establishes priorities, and
what it considers “emergency” spending. They also indicate just how
seriously Pacheco and his colleagues take the warnings of credit
rating agencies about the state’s level of debt — that is, not very
seriously at all.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
On borrowed time
Two years after it sparked a massive outcry by
hiking fares 23 percent, the chronically cash-strapped MBTA wants to
raise its rates again, bumping up the cost of a monthly bus and
subway pass by $5.
The 5 percent fare hikes, which will increase the
cost of a single subway and bus ride by 10 cents and the average
monthly commuter rail pass by $12, are expected to raise $20 million
to $25 million as part of the T’s $1.9 billion budget for the next
fiscal year. No service reductions are planned....
But Barbara Anderson of Citizens for
Limited Taxation said the fare hikes are a better way to fund
the T than government subsidies.
“The T is badly run. They can never get enough of
our money,” she said. “At least with the fare increases, the people
riding the T will have to pay some of their own way, as opposed to
the bailout, which is everybody else paying to give them a cheaper
ride.”
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
MBTA seeks hike in commuter rail, subway, bus fares
Let the good times roll.
While private sector workers are struggling to
pay our hefty tax burden, Bacon Hill is spending and mismanaging
like drunken Democrats.
Why not spend, spend, spend when the commonwealth
has surpluses? Have the governor and the Legislature forgotten that
we needed federal stimulus bailout money five years ago?
Last year the state collected $627 million above
revenue projections and this fiscal year we have a $668 million
surplus so far....
Massachusetts is the most indebted state per
capita in the nation. In other words, we have maxed out our credit!
Instead of paying our bills, tightening our spending habits and
ending the mismanagement, the State House is racking up more
expenses. We need credit counseling!
Right now, the Legislature is negotiating behind
closed doors the transportation bond bill which authorizes $13
billion in spending. They also have passed a $1.2 billion capital
projects bond bill and a $177 million military bond bill.
Last November the Legislature bonded $869 million
for info-technology. The technology will be out of date before we
have this expense paid off.
The $34 billion state budget was insufficient so
the House and Senate passed a $194 million supplemental budget.
The Boston Herald
Monday, March 31, 2014
Time to cut off Deval Patrick & Co.
By Holly Robichaud
Concerned that lax protocols have put people
seeking health insurance in Massachusetts at risk of identity theft,
a Congressional committee is demanding answers from Gov. Deval
Patrick about the state’s broken Health Connector website and its
security protections....
“I don’t think we have a reason to be concerned,”
Patrick said.
Asked whether any issues have arisen with
security, Patrick said, “There haven’t been that I know of.” ...
The letter from Issa . . . noted that
Massachusetts received more than $180 million in federal grants to
set up its exchange, which has only enrolled fewer than 13,000
people as of March 1, Issa’s letter said, calculating that every
person enrolled through the exchange cost federal taxpayers $14,000.
State House News Service
Monday, March 31, 2013
Issa questions Connector site security, official called to Capital
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Why must Massachusetts constantly be one of the
most dysfunctional state governments in the nation, if not the most?
No matter how revenue much Bacon Hill rakes in
from us taxpayers in one form or another, the pols spend it even
faster. And then they borrow (bond) even more, piling on to the
already highest state debt per capita in the nation.
And it's not just the obscene profligate spending
― that would be bad enough of itself.
Worse is how all those tens of billions taken from us are
squandered, wasted, thrown away through malfeasance, misfeasance and
incompetence. The level of arrogant ineptitude especially at the
executive level is consistently staggering, for example:
The state drug lab scandal causing the release of
hundreds of once-convicted drug-dealers, retrials, attorneys' fees
and court costs paid by us taxpayers; failed executive oversight of
the compound drug pharmacies, a scandal that's led to numerous
deaths around the country; the many and various scandals surrounding
the governor's Department of Children and Families; the meltdown of
the state healthcare "Connector" website, with perhaps massive
identity fraud a result not too far off, taxpayers now forced to pay
health insurance indefinitely for tens of thousands of those who
can't "connect" and pay for their own.
The pols screw up on a grand scale, Massachusetts
is liable, we taxpayers pay the damage. Again, and again, and again.
Rather than taking these hugely expensive
collective debacles seriously, instead Beacon Hill doubles down on
the governor's
$911 million request for "environmental needs" and raises it by $800
million, the committee approving another $1.7 billion of
borrowing. Hey, it's only money ― other
people's money. If they need more to pay off the massive loans,
they'll just tap the Registry of Motor Vehicles again, or hike
another tax or two. They assume they'll never run out of our money.
Election 2014 can't get here fast enough. At
least we'll have a new governor who can't possibly be as
incompetent or disengaged. If only we can hold on till then, and
start taking back our government.
Today's Special Elections Update:
The two candidates CLT's 2½
PAC endorsed both appear to have lost in very close special
elections today.
According to the Springfield Republican this
evening, John Velis, a Democrat, defeated Republican Dan Allie for
the state representative seat by a vote of 2,697 to 2,354
― 53% of the 21 percent voter turnout
in the 4th Hampden District.
According to RedMassGroup.com, Democrat Jason
Lewis is declaring victory over Monica Medeiros (R) in the special
election for senator in
5th Middlesex District.
In another close special House election (16th Suffolk District;
Chelsea, Revere, and Saugus), Republican Todd Taylor reportedly has
won Chelsea and Saugus. Revere will determine the final outcome.
'Kill
the Initiative & Referendum Process' Amendment Update:
We've been working diligently with some of our
allies on Beacon Hill to have it removed from the final Election
Laws bill before it comes up for a vote. We're hopeful but remain
vigilant and engaged.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
BARBARA'S NOTE
(CORRECTIONS):
Of course we appreciate the Boston
Globe article by Tom
Keane giving CLT credit for many achievements over the years,
but I must note that I didn't "create" Citizens for Limited
Taxation: that would be Edward F. King of West Roxbury, who is
still a member, now our Chairman Emeritus.
The study cited in Keane's article has some flaws; we'll be
updating the Massachusetts tax burden data later this month, in
time for April 15th and Tax Freedom Day.
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Friday, March 28, 2014
‘Taxachusetts’ is a misnomer, at least for now
By Tom Keane
Massachusetts is not, in fact, “Taxachusetts.” Rather, the Bay State
is right in the middle, neither high nor low, imposing less of a
burden on its citizens than certain other states filled with
anti-tax braggadocio (ahem, that would be you, New Hampshire). But
“Taxachusetts” is also less about reality than it is a state of
mind. We may not tax heavily now, but we used to — and if certain
folks had their druthers, we would once again.
The financial website WalletHub just released its ranking of the
best and worst states to be a taxpayer. On top was Wyoming (with
average annual taxes of $2,365) while Massachusetts ($6,884) came in
at 21. Some states with greater tax burdens defy stereotypes. South
Carolina, for example, was 23rd, Georgia 26th, and the
aforementioned Granite State was 28th ($7,419). That seems a puzzle.
With no sales or income taxes, how can New Hampshire be worse off
than Massachusetts?
Because politicians are crafty people. New Hampshire crows about the
taxes it doesn’t have even as it finds other ways to reach into
pocketbooks; its property taxes, for example, are among the highest
in the nation.
In fact, the myth of Taxachusetts has been widely reported. The
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center observes the Bay State takes
10.4 percent of its citizens’ incomes as taxes, less than the US
average of 10.6 percent. The nonpartisan StateMaster looked at taxes
as a percent of GDP and ranked Massachusetts right in the middle, at
25. The Tax Foundation notes that, when it comes to taxes,
Massachusetts is a “beacon of moderation.”
The Tax Foundation’s comment was made in 2007, by the way. So why
does everyone still think of us as Taxachusetts? Perhaps it’s just
that we all like clever wordplay (Connecticut has higher taxes than
Massachusetts, but “Connectitax” just doesn’t have the same ring).
Perhaps, as your mother likely once told you, a bad reputation is
hard to shake. Or perhaps, like a trained tiger, the impulse to bite
is never far from the surface.
We used to bite hard. Thirty-plus years ago, Bay State taxes really
were among the highest in the nation. So what changed? Many deserve
credit, but at the top of any list would be Barbara Anderson,
founder of Citizens for Limited Taxation. She created CLT in
1974 to battle against a graduated income tax and then won a major
set of victories in the 1980s that sharply limited property taxes.
Anderson was irascible then, and she remains that way today, earning
a good share of liberal wrath. Yet she helped usher in an era of
significantly more responsible spending and — not coincidentally — a
strong and sustained economic boom. A 16-year parade of Republican
governors and substantially more tax-averse legislators (especially
in the House) helped keep things in check.
But the tiger is getting restless. Last summer, Governor Deval
Patrick led the charge for a major tax boost. One that passed — a
tax on computer-based services — would have cost the state’s
high-tech firms perhaps $500 million annually. After a threatened
referendum and a raft of bad press, a chastened Legislature
eventually repealed the measure. Earlier this month the Tax Fairness
Commission, set up by the Legislature, released a set of
recommendations to make the tax code “fairer.” I have much sympathy
with the commission’s argument that lower-income families pay too
much, but many of its proposals are worrisome. One, in fact, harkens
back to CLT’s founding: It wishes to amend the state constitution to
allow income taxes to be graduated.
This report, last year’s services tax, and a stream of other
tax-hike ideas suggest we’ve become a little complacent about
taxation. Granted, there are always good projects out there that
deserve spending. Who wouldn’t like better roads, increased social
services, and the like? The demands for more are insistent, and they
are pushed by those with a strong interest in getting them through.
The interests of taxpayers are more diffuse (remember Patrick
justifying a gas tax increase by saying it was merely “the
equivalent of one large cup of coffee a week?”) and the benefits of
stable taxation harder to see. Like a movie monster that just won’t
die, Taxachusetts could rise again.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Friday, March 14, 2014
Volume 39 - Report No. 11; March 10-14, 2014
QUOTABLE QUOTES
HIKE REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLE FEES – The Massachusetts Department
of Transportation Board of Directors voted to increase annual motor
vehicle inspections from $29 to $35, non-commercial auto
registration fees from $50 to $60 and road test fees from $20 to
$35. The fees are scheduled to increase on July 1 following public
hearings on the hikes in May.
Supporters say the hikes will raise $55 million to $63 million in
fiscal year 2015 and will support road and bridge projects and
improved customer service.
Opponents say the fees are nothing more than an unnecessary tax
hike.
“The fees collected will support road and bridge projects, improved
customer service and allow the state’s Department of Transportation
to properly fund its operating expenses.”
―Registrar of Motor Vehicles Celia J.
Blue on new hikes in three Registry of Motor Vehicles fees
“Article 23 of the Massachusetts Constitution reads: ‘No subsidy,
charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed,
laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent
of the people, or their representatives in the Legislature.’ What
part of ‘under any pretext whatsoever’ does the Registry of Motor
Vehicles not understand?”
―Chip Ford, Director of
Operations, Citizens for Limited Taxation
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 14, 2014
Registry an ATM for T
By Michael Graham
What does “RMV” really stand for?
Registry of Motor Vehicles?
“Reaming Massachusetts Vigorously”?
How about “Retirement Money Vacuum”? Because that’s what the
just-announced Registry of Motor Vehicles fee hikes are all about.
Last year the Herald reported that the MBTA had finally reached the
retirement tipping point: More employees of the transit agency were
retired and collecting pensions than were working and paying into
the system. This is hardly a surprise at a government agency where
more than a third of the retirees clocked out before they reached 55
years old. In fact, more than 1,000 retired in their 40s!
What does that have to do with the hellhole that is the average RMV
office, you ask? That’s where most of your license and registrations
fees are going — not to paying for stellar transportation services
to the Massachusetts driver, but to paying all those retirees who
are not working at the MBTA.
When you fight your way through streets pocked with potholes to get
to the RMV office so you can stand in line for an hour to be told
that the last RMV employee gave you the wrong form — virtually none
of the money you pay for that delightful experience will go to
benefiting you as a driver. About 90 percent of the $600 million the
RMV collects this year will go not to running the agency — but to
Beacon Hill.
Where it will promptly be dumped into the spending sewer of the MBTA.
A system with fewer workers than retirees is obviously unsustainable
— particularly an MBTA that has over-spent so much it’s now billions
of dollars in debt.
One solution would be to bring costs down, control spending and end
the current, bloated system where the average MBTA employee earns
more than his private sector counterpart but does less work.
And then I woke up and remembered I live in Massachusetts ...
That’s why Gov. Deval Patrick has always pushed the other
solution: taking more of our money and dumping it into his messed-up
mass transit system.
Since Patrick took office, we’ve had toll hikes, sales tax hikes,
gas tax hikes — and don’t forget that Patrick just raised some
registry fees in 2009.
And every time, a portion of that money has gone to prop up the MBTA.
The budget has exploded — growing twice as fast as inflation every
year, so that MBTA painters can take home $100,000 a year and
machinists more than $150K.
The result is a system that, as the Pioneer Institute reported,
spends almost twice as much on bus maintenance, for example, as the
average transit system in the country. That’s because we pay an
average(!) $111,634 in salary and benefits to MBTA maintenance
workers. Working for the MBTA you can make almost 80 grand pumping
gas!
And then when these folks retire on full health care and pension
benefits ... well, somebody’s gotta pay, and as long as T riders
only cover a third of the costs, that “somebody” is going to be you.
When Patrick pushed through his first RMV fee hike, I felt sorry for
my fellow Bay Staters. Paying more and getting less is a lousy deal.
Paying more as a driver to fund the retirement of some 50-year-old
hack instead of paving crappy roads *really* stinks.
But the people doing this to us are the people we re-elect again and
again. They’re making no secret of what they’re doing with our
money, or of the fact that they plan to do it again in a few years.
If Beacon Hill treats us taxpayers as if we’re a bunch of suckers,
it’s only because we are.
State House News Service
Monday, March 17, 2014
Committee adds $800 million to Patrick's environmental bond
By Andy Metzger
A House-Senate committee on Monday approved a $1.7 billion borrowing
bill, dramatically raising the bottom line on legislation sought by
Gov. Deval Patrick and padding the legislation with spending
authorizations for trees, cranberry bog acquisitions and money to
purchase coastal property.
The Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture,
chaired by Sen. Marc Pacheco and Rep. Anne Gobi, added nearly $800
million to the $911 million plan submitted by Gov. Patrick.
“The authorization that came in we thought was far short of what we
needed for the environmental needs of the Commonwealth,” Pacheco
told the News Service.
At Patrick’s request, the House and Senate this session have been
advancing through the branches a series of big-ticket long-term
borrowing bills that administration officials say are needed to keep
capital spending and public works projects on track. While credit
rating agencies have raised the state’s debt burden as a concern,
administration officials say the proposed borrowing is within
affordability limits.
The committee also favorably reported a bill (S 2028) filed by
Pacheco that requires the administration to develop a climate change
adaptation plan, listing the state’s vulnerabilities and
establishing a voluntary program where property owners could sell
their repeatedly damaged coastal property to the state.
The bill would fund the proposed new coastal buyback program with
about $50 million, said Pacheco, who said that program was added by
the committee.
Bond bills do not allocate money the way a budget does, but instead
authorize the administration to borrow, generally for long-lasting
capital projects. The bond bill (H 3332) that cleared committee
Monday will face further review by other committees and likely the
full House and Senate.
Additionally the bill would devote $65 million to coastal
infrastructure, $55 million for a climate center, and $30 million to
help cities and towns create parks.
There are few specific projects earmarked in the bill. Among the
earmarks are $800,000 for the Oyster Pond Environmental Trust
purchase of 22 acres in Falmouth, $10 million for the Bristol County
Agricultural High School in Dighton to create an Eastern Regional
Center for Urban Sustainability, and $4.4 million for the Whitney
Pond Dam, in Winchendon.
The bond bill would increase from $2 million to $5 million the total
tax credits available annually for environmental conservation land
donations, and increase the maximum amount of tax credits that can
be claimed for each donation from $50,000 to $75,000.
The bill would fund various governmental and non-profit tree
planting efforts with $50 million, which Pacheco said has the twin
benefits of soaking up atmospheric carbon and providing shade on hot
days.
The acquisition and restoration of cranberry bogs – which can damage
water quality with their runoff – would receive funding under the
bill. There is additional money for land acquisition and recreation
paths.
The bill would include $19 million for a Department of Environmental
Protection solid waste master plan, a 10-year roadmap the DEP
developed in 2010. On Oct. 1, the DEP plans to implement mandatory
composting for large-scale facilities, as part of an attempt to
reduce food waste.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
A Boston Herald editorial
On borrowed time
Some legislative leaders on Beacon Hill want the commonwealth — as
in you the taxpayers — to incur $50 million in additional debt so
the government can plant more trees.
We’ve heard of “shovel-ready” — but $50 million?
For tree planting?
Does anyone else think the folks who spend their days on Beacon Hill
are losing touch with the real world?
The tree-planting is one of a slew of projects tossed into a
borrowing bill for environmental projects that was filed by Gov.
Deval Patrick — and nearly doubled in size by a legislative
committee.
As the State House News Service reports, Patrick’s bill contained
projects valued at $911 million. But the Committee on Environment,
Natural Resources and Agriculture has pushed it up to $1.7 billion.
Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) told the News Service the tree
planting initiative will have dual benefits — trees absorb carbon
dioxide emissions, for one, and of course they provide shade on hot
days.
What is this, budgeting by second grade science lesson?
It’s tempting to dismiss these long-term borrowing bills,
particularly in their formative stages, as just so much political
pandering. They’re almost literally wish lists. Lawmakers use them
to satisfy supporters and special interests, but given the limits on
annual state borrowing the likelihood that most of the authorized
projects will see the light of day soon is slim.
But bond bills — whether this one, or another addressing
transportation spending — also provide a useful lesson in how the
political class in Massachusetts establishes priorities, and what it
considers “emergency” spending. They also indicate just how
seriously Pacheco and his colleagues take the warnings of credit
rating agencies about the state’s level of debt — that is, not very
seriously at all.
After all, what’s the big deal about $50 million for tree-planting —
or another $50 million to buy up coastal properties that suffer
repetitive storm losses, or $55 million for a statewide climate
center — when the pols are playing with “house” money?
The state is confronted with serious challenges — expensive
challenges. A kitchen-sink approach to fiscal management ignores
that reality.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
MBTA seeks hike in commuter rail, subway, bus fares
By Richard Weir
Two years after it sparked a massive outcry by hiking fares 23
percent, the chronically cash-strapped MBTA wants to raise its rates
again, bumping up the cost of a monthly bus and subway pass by $5.
The 5 percent fare hikes, which will increase the cost of a single
subway and bus ride by 10 cents and the average monthly commuter
rail pass by $12, are expected to raise $20 million to $25 million
as part of the T’s $1.9 billion budget for the next fiscal year. No
service reductions are planned.
“We know the impact this will have on our customers. But it’s a very
modest increase and one that will go toward cost increases that all
of us experience,” said Jonathan Davis, the T’s chief financial
officer, noting 5 percent fare hikes every two years, as state
lawmakers have prescribed, “are better for our customers” than more
“significantly shocking” fare hikes like the one passed in July
2012.
The T that year raised fares an average of 23 percent while also
receiving a $49 million bailout from the state.
Transit users yesterday decried the hikes, which, if approved next
month, will take effect July 1.
“There is not enough people who can afford the T as it is, and for
you to raise it, it’s unjust,” said Roxbury resident Hakim
Sutherland, a member of the T Riders Union, an advocacy group.
But Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation said the fare
hikes are a better way to fund the T than government subsidies.
“The T is badly run. They can never get enough of our money,” she
said. “At least with the fare increases, the people riding the T
will have to pay some of their own way, as opposed to the bailout,
which is everybody else paying to give them a cheaper ride.”
The Boston Herald
Monday, March 31, 2014
Time to cut off Deval Patrick & Co.
By Holly Robichaud
Let the good times roll.
While private sector workers are struggling to pay our hefty tax
burden, Bacon Hill is spending and mismanaging like drunken
Democrats.
Why not spend, spend, spend when the commonwealth has surpluses?
Have the governor and the Legislature forgotten that we needed
federal stimulus bailout money five years ago?
Last year the state collected $627 million above revenue projections
and this fiscal year we have a $668 million surplus so far.
How has the Patrick administration managed the extra tax dollars?
No, we are not repaying the federal government to lower the national
debt. When Deval is not leaving on a jet plane, his administration
is finding ways to generate even more revenue. The money grab du
jour is a 20 percent increase in registry fees. Why give us a break?
It has been a long nine months since the last tax package passed.
Massachusetts is the most indebted state per capita in the nation.
In other words, we have maxed out our credit! Instead of paying our
bills, tightening our spending habits and ending the mismanagement,
the State House is racking up more expenses. We need credit
counseling!
Right now, the Legislature is negotiating behind closed doors the
transportation bond bill which authorizes $13 billion in spending.
They also have passed a $1.2 billion capital projects bond bill and
a $177 million military bond bill.
Last November the Legislature bonded $869 million for
info-technology. The technology will be out of date before we have
this expense paid off.
The $34 billion state budget was insufficient so the House and
Senate passed a $194 million supplemental budget.
This new spending doesn’t include the gross mismanagement. The
failing Health Connector website is costing $69 million, but that’s
just the tip of the iceberg. Last week Patrick announced 84,000
people don’t have to pay for their health insurance until the
website is fixed. We are still waiting for welfare reform to pass,
so the chance the problems with the website will be resolved in
under a year is nil. How much will this new giveaway cost? If each
“free” policy runs $500 per month that is a grand total of $504
million per year. As you know, once someone gets something for free,
it stays that way.
Bacon Hill is squandering our money because they have easy access to
our wallets. We need to cut off their supply. Then maybe they will
think about finding savings and start acting responsibly. There are
still 29 days left to get signatures to run for office.
State House News Service
Monday, March 31, 2013
Issa questions Connector site security, official called to Capital
By Andy Metzger
Concerned that lax protocols have put people seeking health
insurance in Massachusetts at risk of identity theft, a
Congressional committee is demanding answers from Gov. Deval Patrick
about the state’s broken Health Connector website and its security
protections.
Health Connector Executive Director Jean Yang will testify about
problems with the state’s exchange before the U.S. House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform Thursday, according to committee
staff. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican,
last week expressed concerns about security risks with the state
Connector website in a letter to Patrick, which questions why so
many state websites with moderate and high risk levels were allowed
to connect to a federal data hub.
“Massachusetts failed to give employees the required security
awareness training, including training on handling federal tax
information, and did not require background or credit checks of
employees before allowing them to have access to the IT system used
to operate the exchange,” Issa wrote, citing a Sept. 18, 2013
security assessment. “Furthermore, the report noted that the
exchange did not plan regular vulnerability scanning or penetration
testing ‘upon go-live date.’ It is unclear when, if at all, the
numerous deficiencies in the security of Massachusetts’s exchange
were corrected.”
Patrick told reporters Monday afternoon that he had not yet read the
letter from Issa but was aware of it, suggesting the congressman may
have alerted the media to the letter before it was actually
delivered to the governor’s office.
“I don’t think we have a reason to be concerned,” Patrick said.
Asked whether any issues have arisen with security, Patrick said,
“There haven’t been that I know of.”
Apart from the Sept. 18 assessment, the chief information security
officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services gave
Massachusetts and nine other states a “moderate” risk assessment and
deemed 35 states “high risk”, recommending only four states be
allowed to connect to the data hub, according to Issa’s March 25
letter.
Federal officials had flagged security concerns ahead of the Oct. 1,
2013 launch, according to emails obtained by the committee and
referenced in the letter. Ryan Brewer, the former chief of
information security and current advisor to CMS, wrote that allowing
states to connect to the hub without and appropriate review
“introduces an unknown amount of risk” to the hub and the federally
facilitated marketplace.
“This in turn puts the [personally identifiable information] of
potentially millions of users at risk of identity theft and fraud to
the CMS marketplace healthcare subsidy program,” Brewer wrote.
Brewer’s successor as chief information security officer at CMS,
Teresa Fryer, indicated a predilection for permitting states to
connect to the federal hub.
“[N]ormally I just review and sign what Ryan [Brewer] gives me
anyway because the front office is signing them whether or not they
are a high risk,” Fryer wrote in an email quoted by Issa.
Issa requested Massachusetts officials provide all communications
between state and federal employees referring to the federal data
hub, dating back to May 1, 2013, and any audits of the Connector’s
development, readiness or security dating back to July 1, 2012.
As tens of thousands were unable to use the state’s Connector site
to sign up for health insurance, Massachusetts policymakers have
focused on providing coverage, including putting about 125,000
people into temporary Medicaid while they attempt to determine
eligibility.
A concern about protecting the information of people who signed up
for health insurance online has been raised by some, but has not
been a focal point for policymakers.
"We should be able to report out on that perhaps even as early as
Thursday,” Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz told
Rep. Viriato deMacedo at a Feb. 10 budget hearing where the Plymouth
Republican questioned the security of data on the state’s site.
Asked about a report on the topic from Polanowicz, an HHS spokesman
did not offer any new information, referencing a statement to the
News Service earlier Monday from Connector spokesman Jason Lefferts.
Asked about the concerns raised by Issa, Lefferts had written, “In
order for states to connect to the federal data services hub, the
federal government set high data security standards and the
Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange was one of 33 states that
met those standards before Oct. 1. The Commonwealth’s strong
protections are safeguarding personal information every day and
their effectiveness is backed up by the fact that we haven’t had a
data breach.”
The Connector was late to highlight myriad problems with the
Connector website, which was overhauled to comply with the federal
Affordable Care Act.
The letter from Issa – who has also led investigations into a deadly
attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, and a much-criticized
federal law enforcement gun trafficking investigation dubbed “Fast
and Furious” – noted that Massachusetts received more than $180
million in federal grants to set up its exchange, which has only
enrolled fewer than 13,000 people as of March 1, Issa’s letter said,
calculating that every person enrolled through the exchange cost
federal taxpayers $14,000.
“While the functional problems with the exchange are well known,
little is publicly known about the major security vulnerabilities
that were present with the exchange on October 1, 2013, and which
potentially remain today,” Issa wrote.
Pundits have pointed to the troubled rollout of President Barack
Obama’s signature policy, modeled in part on the 2006 Massachusetts
health reform, as a key for Republicans seeking to take back the
U.S. Senate and to solidify their control of the U.S. House.
There are state-level policy considerations as well. Republican
gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker has said he would seek a
waiver from the national law.
“On the hearing on Thursday, we have been invited to Thursday’s
hearing and are still working on the details,” Lefferts wrote to the
News Service. “We look forward to meeting with the Subcommittees and
talk about how implementing the Affordable Care Act has led to new,
subsidized coverage for tens of thousands of people in
Massachusetts.”
The Committee on Health Care Financing, which has been without a
House chairman since Jan. 21, held a hearing in February where
lawmakers questioned Yang and Patrick’s special assistant Sarah
Iselin, criticizing the failed rollout and the administration’s
response to it.
"I'm not leaving this hearing feeling any more comforted than when I
came in," said Rep. Majorie Decker, a Cambridge Democrat, after the
Feb. 12 hearing.
In addition to Yang, health insurance exchange officials from
California, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, and Oregon will testify at
the hearing in Washington, D.C., House Oversight spokeswoman Caitlin
Carroll told the News Service.
“Here is to hoping we learn more details about what exactly happened
in Massachusetts, as our state officials don't seem keen on speaking
on the topic locally, and our elected officials on Beacon Hill have
not provided a regular outlet to facilitate those conversations,”
wrote Pioneer Institute Director of Health Care Policy Josh
Archambault, noting the directors of other troubled exchanges around
the country have been fired or resigned.
In an early February report, MITRE, a consultant hired to examine
the Connector site’s problems, reported that it appeared the state’s
health insurance exchange and eligibility system had a “deficiency”
in connection with its integration efforts as teams constructed
functions and capabilities “in silos.” The security architecture,
MITRE reported, was designed to work in concert with the portal,
“serving protected content such as account creation, security
attribution, and login.”
“These two enterprise services were not designed and appropriately
integrated or tested, resulting in account creation without
appropriate security attributes,” MITRE reported.
Matt Murphy and Michael Norton contributed reporting
|
| |
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
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|