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
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Out with the old, in with the
new
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which faces
fiscal problems of its own, continues to be in the forefront of
efforts to block changes to the state’s property tax limitation law,
Proposition 2˝, which it says would impose an unfair burden on
homeowners....
CLT is hoping the election of Charlie Baker will
help discourage Democratic initiatives to pad government payrolls
via tax increases.
The Salem News Friday, December 12, 2014
Fighting the fight for Prop. 2˝ By Nelson Benton
November tax collections were strong enough to
trip the trigger requiring the state income tax rate to drop to 5.15
percent from 5.2 percent on Jan. 1, 2015.
The Department of Revenue on Wednesday reported
collecting $1.59 billion in taxes in November, a 1.5 percent
increase over last November....
Massachusetts voters in 2000 passed an initiative
petition calling for a 5 percent income tax rate. Rate reduction
efforts were frozen in 2002, when a set of triggers was adopted to
guide further rate cuts.
Over the first five months of fiscal 2015, tax
collections are up 2.7 percent over the same period in fiscal 2014.
The state budget signed by Patrick in July calls for a 5.6 percent
increase in spending....
Reacting to the income tax cut, the Massachusetts
Budget and Policy Center noted Patrick's recent spending cuts to
school transportation, job training, health care, and "other
investments that support and strengthen our people and our economy."
Center officials said the income tax reduction was a reason for the
spending reductions.
"While our Commonwealth could be making
investments to expand opportunity for all of our children and
improve lives in our communities, this automatic tax cut will
primarily benefit the wealthy and it will likely force cuts in
education, transportation, and other investments in our people and
our economy," MassBudget President Noah Berger said in a statement.
State House News Service Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Mass. residents to get New Year's income tax cut
The first couple of days after the news broke
about the state legislative commission and its proposed fat pay
raises for top officials, there was something some of us were
expecting to hear but didn't: How do pay raises for lawmakers square
with the state constitution?
I'm no constitutional scholar and you probably
aren't one, either. But if you lived in Massachusetts and paid
attention and voted in 1998, you were aware that Ballot Question 1
came with a promise: Write this amendment into the Constitution, and
we the Legislature will stop sneaking around when we decide we want
to pay ourselves more money....
As it happens, Barbara Anderson,
[president] of Citizens for Limited Taxation, was doing a
not-so-slow burn as I was. She was as surprised by the commission's
recommendations as anyone.
"It is so bizarre. I wrote my column about it,"
she told me. "I don't even know where to start. The timing. Whose
bright idea was this? Who are these geniuses who think that
Massachusetts suffers from a lack of a governor's mansion?"
Naturally Citizens for Limited Taxation fired off
memos to the Legislature and governor pointing out the clear
language of the Constitution and vowing to file a lawsuit if this
ever passes.
Fact is, the constitutional amendment has
actually been doing what it was supposed to do, raise, and sometimes
lower, legislative pay, tracking median household income without
rancorous debate.
Leave it alone.
The New Bedford Standard-Times Thursday, December 4, 2013
Who remembers the state constitution? By Steve Urbon
Do you deserve a raise? Well of course you
do. And if asked, surely you could come up with 10 or more
reasons why you aren’t paid enough.
Better yet, why not ask a buddy to put the
reasons together for you, write it up in a big report and then
have your buddy submit it to the payroll clerk? Now that would
be better — makes it look like your fingerprints aren’t on it
... even though everyone knows that they are.
That’s the charade that played out this week,
as a blue-ribbon panel released a report arguing that our top
legislators and elected officials deserve handsome pay raises.
Just like the rest of us, they are woefully underpaid.
But unlike the rest of us, they can do an
end-run around the real bosses — the taxpayers — and simply get
the House members and senators in the Legislature to do the
dirty work....
The timing of this report reminds us of a
nasty old habit here in our state. Massachusetts lawmakers have
a notorious way of rewarding themselves with fat raises shortly
after elections are over and it’s relatively safe to incur the
public’s wrath. Longtime followers of state politics may recall
one of the worst examples — the 55 percent pay raise that
lawmakers gave themselves in 1995, shortly after the 1994
election had been decided. It caused a furor among taxpayers,
many of whom were still having a hard time making ends meet in
the wake of the collapse of the “Massachusetts Miracle” economy.
Lawmakers shrewdly reasoned that the furor would be forgotten by
the time the 1996 election was held, and they were right.
A Salem News editorial Wednesday, December 3, 2014
A poorly timed pay raise proposal
An advisory commission is recommending pay
increases for all the top elected state officials in
Massachusetts, including hefty hikes in the salaries for the
governor, the House speaker and Senate president. A fiscal
watchdog is critical. Legislators have reacted cautiously....
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, blasted the panel’s
proposals.
"My first reaction is you've got to be
kidding me. In the middle of a budget deficit half way through
the fiscal year when the governor is talking about cutting local
aid?"
Pointing to this year’s race for governor,
Anderson scoffed at the suggestion that a higher salary was
needed to attract talented people.
"There were what ten people who ran in the
primaries. These people not only want to run, they leave jobs
with higher salaries to run, leave secure jobs to run."
WAMC - Northeast Public Radio Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Big Pay Hikes Proposed For Top Elected State Officials
Departing Senate President Therese Murray
suggested Thursday evening that the state Legislature will not
approve controversial pay hikes for the governor, top lawmakers,
and other statewide elected officials this year.
“The Senate can’t act unless the House does,
and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” she said,
speaking to reporters after delivering her farewell speech in
the Senate chamber.
The comments come amid growing unease on
Beacon Hill about passing the increases as the state cuts
funding for environmental protection and mental-health services
to close a budget shortfall of at least $329 million....
The Legislature could approve pay raises when
it reconvenes next year, but some of them might not take effect
until the session that begins in 2017....
Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission,
acknowledged this week that pay raises for elected officials are
controversial. But he said they were justified based on the
officials’ responsibilities, compensation in other states, and
the pay offered to private sector executives.
The Boston Globe Friday, December 5, 2014
State Senate president suggests pay raise vote unlikely this
year
Last week we learned that House Speaker
Robert DeLeo had dished out 6 percent across-the-board raises to
459 House staffers, even as he and his colleagues are staring
into a $329 million hole in the state budget. Turns out the
Senate has been doing some pay “adjustments” of its own.
Senate President Therese Murray’s office
didn’t provide the Herald with comprehensive numbers for salary
increases provided to individual senators’ staffers, which
Murray must approve (hey, who needs transparency?). But the
Herald reported on some individual beneficiaries....
Now, it’s important to acknowledge that these
salary hikes came before news broke of the budget deficit. In
some cases the added pay really does reflect added
responsibility. In our view DeLeo’s decision to jack up the
entire House staff’s salary — with full *knowledge* of the
budget deficit — was far more problematic.
Still, it’s important for taxpayers to
understand the nitty gritty details of taxpayer-funded
compensation, since the perpetual cry on Beacon Hill is that it
isn’t nearly enough.
A Boston Herald editorial Saturday, December 6, 2014
Hey, it’s just money...
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, has a different opinion. She
told Beacon Hill Roll Call, "The Massachusetts constitution
allows rank-and-file legislators’ pay to increase with median
household income. The commission's report changes 'median
household income' to another determinant, which would allow a
higher increase for legislators; but the change would require a
constitutional amendment, which couldn’t be approved by voters
until 2018."
Beacon Hill Roll Call Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Legislature's selected commission says politicians should get
big pay hikes
There's a glimmer of good news in the recent
recommendation by a special advisory commission to boost
salaries paid to the governor and other top public officials:
the findings were released in the full light of day, with two
public hearings and online access to the study explaining the
recommendations.
Transparency is welcome. But it doesn’t
change the optics or the bottom line. This is not the right time
to raise salaries — not when the state faces a $329 million
budget shortfall and many Massachusetts families still face
uncertain economic times....
The state’s conflict of interest law
prohibits public employees from participating in matters that
affect their own financial interest. To avoid that problem, the
commission’s proposals would have to be passed by the current
lame duck Legislature, to take effect in January when new
officials are sworn in. According to departing Senate President
Therese Murray, it’s unlikely that will happen, given the
controversy stirred up by the commission’s suggestions.
“The Senate can’t act unless the House does,
and I don’t see that there’s a movement to do that,” said
Murray, after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate
chamber.
This is one time legislative inaction is the
preferred outcome.
A Boston Globe editorial Tuesday, December 9, 2014
With Mass. facing budget gap, it’s not the time to raise
salaries
Criticism of the recent report by a
nonpartisan commission calling for reforms and overdue increases
in compensation for public leaders focuses on two main points:
the terrible timing against a backdrop of budget cuts and the
contention that salary increases aren’t necessary to attract
talented individuals to public service. As members of the
commission, we want to address these two challenges head-on, and
highlight several points that did not receive much public
attention....
While any recommendation to increase
compensation for state leaders is controversial, especially in a
tough fiscal climate, the commission believes these increases,
coupled with the adoption of major reforms, should be considered
and debated seriously.
For democracy to work so that average
citizens can be civic leaders, conversations around the adequacy
of public compensation need to take place in the open, as we
have tried to do, and with regularity. It may not be an easy
conversation, but for our government to work effectively and
honestly, this is just the kind of mature discourse that is
needed.
The Boston Globe Friday, December 26, 2014
Increase pay for public office holders By Ira Jackson and Cathy Minehan
As they grapple with budget problems in the
dying days of the Patrick administration, aides to the governor
are also busy trying to calculate an adjustment in the base pay
for lawmakers....
Under the constitution, Patrick must rule by
the first Wednesday in January of odd-numbered years -
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 - the day before Charlie Baker is sworn
in as his successor, on the size of pay adjustments for the 200
members of the state Legislature.
The constitution requires that the base
compensation of lawmakers "be increased or decreased at the same
rate as increases or decreases in the median household income
for the commonwealth for the preceding two year period, as
ascertained by the governor."
Administration officials declined to discuss
their approach to the upcoming adjustment in legislative base
pay, or the timing of their announcement, noting only that an
adjustment must be made by the first Wednesday in January, or
Jan. 7, 2015....
"Legislative pay has long been a source of
controversy on Beacon Hill; before 1998, it was determined by
lawmakers themselves," the commission, chaired by former state
revenue commissioner Ira Jackson, said in a preliminary report.
"A public furor followed passage of the infamous 'Halloween' pay
raise of 1980, when lawmakers approved a $1,800 pay raise during
an Oct. 31 session."
That increase was later overturned through a
referendum.
State House News Service Monday, December 29, 2014
Patrick expected to adjust base pay of lawmakers
Gov.-elect Charlie Baker is throwing cold
water on a Beacon Hill push to hike the pay for state lawmakers,
saying the “timing isn’t right” for a raise considering the new
administration is inheriting a huge hole in the budget from
lame-duck Gov. Deval Patrick....
“It surely is going to go up. The question is
how much,” Michael Widmer, outgoing president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, said of lawmakers’ pay,
which is tied to median household income under a 1998
constitutional amendment but is left to the governor to
determine....
One indicator Patrick has used — the U.S.
Census’s American Community Survey — is updated only through
2013, and to help fill in the gap for 2014, his office could
turn to state wage data, as he has before....
But Patrick could use an entirely different
method, like the one proposed by the committee studying state
pay that included Widmer. It urged moving to federal data that
would bump lawmakers’ pay by 6.6 percent, or nearly $4,000 a
year.
The Boston Herald Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Baker decries raises for state lawmakers Deval to boost payday before he leaves office
Could there be some behind-the-scenes
deal-making in the works?
Beacon Hill salaries have been of course a
matter of some controversy in recent months. Under the state
Constitution the governor every two years must calculate any
change in median family [sic —
household] income, then base salaries for lawmakers are adjusted
accordingly. But hanging over that task this year is a report
from a very “special” commission that recently called for
jacking up salaries for many of the top brass....
But even that modest change would require
amending the Constitution....
The current leadership on Beacon Hill didn’t
exactly throw cold water on the idea of adopting some of the
salary recommendations in the lame-duck session that ends next
week. It would be a long-shot, yes, but it’s remarkable what
power a deal that is made attractive to all parties (well,
except the taxpayers) can have.
But a naked money grab when few are paying
attention — and when there’s a hole in the state budget that
keeps getting bigger — would be an affront to the taxpayers.
Just in case anyone has any ideas.
A Boston Herald editorial Tuesday, December 30, 2014
It pays to be transparent
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
As 2014 fades into the rearview mirror, so far
the Legislature has not yet acted to unconstitutionally hike its own
base pay — but out-going Governor Patrick may do it for them in the
week ahead. If any pay raise for Legislators is based on
anything but "median household income" it will be illegal, a direct
violation of the state constitution.
But Patrick could use an entirely
different method, like the one proposed by the committee
studying state pay that included Widmer. It urged moving to
federal data that would bump lawmakers’ pay by 6.6 percent,
or nearly $4,000 a year.
Of course our out-going governor has "a pen and a
phone" too, like his mentor who has no regard whatsoever for
constitutions, limitations on executive power, or the rule of law.
The good news is that the twenty-five year old
"temporary" state income tax increase is about to be reduced, albeit
only by another five one-hundredths of one percent. The Best
Legislature Money Can Buy gave voters the middle-finger Beacon Hill
salute in 2002 and "froze" the voting majority's 2000 rollback
mandate. At least the rate is moving — glacially slowly — in
the right direction .
Even this miniscule rollback galls the Gimme
Lobby to no end.
"While our Commonwealth could be making
investments to expand opportunity for all of our children
and improve lives in our communities, this automatic tax cut
will primarily benefit the wealthy and it will likely force
cuts in education, transportation, and other investments in
our people and our economy," MassBudget President Noah
Berger said in a statement.
This fiscal year's (FY2015) budget, passed in
July, was a 5.6 percent increase over last year's (CLT Update — Jul.
5, 2014 — "New
state budget increases spending by $2.5 billion").
Gov. Deval Patrick last month cited the
income tax cut, worth $70 million this fiscal year, as well
as underperforming non-tax revenues and the challenge of
paying for a job creation law passed last summer as reasons
for opening up the $36.5 billion budget and making spending
cuts.
My goodness, the poor state. Keeping a
quarter-century old broken promise with an occasional five
one-hundredths of one percent reduction is breaking its financial
back. $70 million out of a $36.5 billion budget of relentless
overspending is just so cruel to that Gimme Lobby, so selfish and
uncaring of us greedy taxpayers!
The state should never have had that $70
million and multi-millions more of our money to play with and spend.
With the overwhelming passage of CLT's ballot question #4 in 2000,
the rate was supposed to be
rolled back to 5 percent by 2004 — a decade ago.
Happy New Year!
|
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
The Salem News
Friday, December 12, 2014
Fighting the fight for Prop. 2˝
By Nelson Benton
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which faces fiscal problems of
its own, continues to be in the forefront of efforts to block
changes to the state’s property tax limitation law, Proposition 2˝,
which it says would impose an unfair burden on homeowners.
Certainly those in Peabody, Beverly and other North Shore
communities who have seen their tax bills increase recently in spite
of the voter-mandated limits, might agree.
Writing in a
recent newspaper back-and-forth with Melrose Mayor Robert Dolan,
longtime CLT director (and fellow Salem News columnist) Barbara
Anderson of Marblehead rightly noted, “Along with
cutting/limiting property taxes, Prop 2˝ encouraged the sharing of
state revenues with cities and towns. Unfortunately, too much of
that local aid windfall was negotiated away to public employee
unions, providing extraordinary benefits, which is why some
communities now carry unfunded pension and health insurance
liabilities. This problem shouldn’t be solved with tax hikes on
other working people who struggle to pay their own retirement and
health insurance”
CLT is hoping the election of Charlie Baker will help discourage
Democratic initiatives to pad government payrolls via tax increases.
State House News Service
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Mass. residents to get New Year's income tax cut
By Michael Norton
November tax collections were strong enough to trip the trigger
requiring the state income tax rate to drop to 5.15 percent from 5.2
percent on Jan. 1, 2015.
The Department of Revenue on Wednesday reported collecting $1.59
billion in taxes in November, a 1.5 percent increase over last
November.
Tax collections missed the monthly benchmark by $9 million and are
trailing the fiscal 2015 benchmark by just over $40 million.
Gov. Deval Patrick last month cited the income tax cut, worth $70
million this fiscal year, as well as underperforming non-tax
revenues and the challenge of paying for a job creation law passed
last summer as reasons for opening up the $36.5 billion budget and
making spending cuts.
Patrick slashed $198 million in spending unilaterally and asked
lawmakers to pass other spending cuts. Legislative leaders have not
taken action on his proposal, while taking a dim view of his call to
reduce local aid to cities and towns by more than $25 million.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Brian Dempsey told the
News Service Wednesday that he hopes to advance a budget-balancing
bill through the House during December's lightly attended informal
sessions and before Governor-elect Charles Baker takes office in
January. Dempsey said he is actively examining a corporate tax
amnesty program recommended by House Minority Leader Brad Jones and
is still reviewing Patrick's plan for spending cuts at state
departments.
Massachusetts voters in 2000 passed an initiative petition calling
for a 5 percent income tax rate. Rate reduction efforts were frozen
in 2002, when a set of triggers was adopted to guide further rate
cuts.
Over the first five months of fiscal 2015, tax collections are up
2.7 percent over the same period in fiscal 2014. The state budget
signed by Patrick in July calls for a 5.6 percent increase in
spending.
Revenue Commissioner Amy Pitter reported Wednesday that tax refunds
in November were greater than expected while sales, corporate and
business tax collections were lower than expected. Withholding
collections were strong, revenue officials said, and individual
estimated tax payments were better than expected.
A two-month tax amnesty program that allowed delinquent taxpayers to
pay up without paying penalties ended on October 31, and revenue
officials are preliminarily estimating $57 million in payments made
in connection with that program.
Reacting to the income tax cut, the Massachusetts Budget and Policy
Center noted Patrick's recent spending cuts to school
transportation, job training, health care, and "other investments
that support and strengthen our people and our economy." Center
officials said the income tax reduction was a reason for the
spending reductions.
"While our Commonwealth could be making investments to expand
opportunity for all of our children and improve lives in our
communities, this automatic tax cut will primarily benefit the
wealthy and it will likely force cuts in education, transportation,
and other investments in our people and our economy," MassBudget
President Noah Berger said in a statement.
The New Bedford Standard-Times
Thursday, December 4, 2013
Who remembers the state constitution?
By Steve Urbon
The first couple of days after the news broke about the state
legislative commission and its proposed fat pay raises for top
officials, there was something some of us were expecting to hear but
didn't: How do pay raises for lawmakers square with the state
constitution?
I'm no constitutional scholar and you probably aren't one, either.
But if you lived in Massachusetts and paid attention and voted in
1998, you were aware that Ballot Question 1 came with a promise:
Write this amendment into the Constitution, and we the Legislature
will stop sneaking around when we decide we want to pay ourselves
more money.
The amendment passed easily, with 60 percent of the voters
apparently persuaded that the Legislature really wanted to be kept
away from temptation and wouldn't play tricks to get more money. It
was time to try this because recent years had been shameful.
Starting in late 1979, the Legislature had craftily awarded itself
pay raises on several occasions. But in 1994 they really outdid
themselves, passing, with Gov. William Weld's blessing, a 55 percent
pay raise. And they did it in a lame-duck session like the one we
have now, just to add insult to injury.
That was about it. The ill will didn't dissipate and lawsuits to
block the raises had failed. So along came the constitutional
amendment, and we the people bought it.
It was a simple, small paragraph, and the voters guide spelled out
what it would do:
"As of the first Wednesday in January of 2001, and every second year
thereafter, the base compensation would be increased or decreased at
the same rate as increases or decreases in the median household
income for the Commonwealth for the preceding new year period."
The median household income, which is determined by the census after
a lag of a year or two. That's what it calls for. No wiggle room.
Except that the pay raise commission suggested a new formula, using
the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to measure the quarterly change
in salaries and wages in Massachusetts for the most recent eight
quarters. Calculated that way, lawmakers' pay would have increased
by $4,000 last year, instead of dropping by 1.8 percent.
That can't be legal, can it? I asked.
As it happens, Barbara Anderson, [president] of Citizens
for Limited Taxation, was doing a not-so-slow burn as I was. She
was as surprised by the commission's recommendations as anyone.
"It is so bizarre. I wrote my column about it," she told me. "I
don't even know where to start. The timing. Whose bright idea was
this? Who are these geniuses who think that Massachusetts suffers
from a lack of a governor's mansion?"
Naturally Citizens for Limited Taxation fired off memos to the
Legislature and governor pointing out the clear language of the
Constitution and vowing to file a lawsuit if this ever passes.
Fact is, the constitutional amendment has actually been doing what
it was supposed to do, raise, and sometimes lower, legislative pay,
tracking median household income without rancorous debate.
Leave it alone.
The Salem News
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
A Salem News editorial
A poorly timed pay raise proposal
Do you deserve a raise? Well of course you do. And if asked, surely
you could come up with 10 or more reasons why you aren’t paid
enough.
Better yet, why not ask a buddy to put the reasons together for you,
write it up in a big report and then have your buddy submit it to
the payroll clerk? Now that would be better — makes it look like
your fingerprints aren’t on it ... even though everyone knows that
they are.
That’s the charade that played out this week, as a blue-ribbon panel
released a report arguing that our top legislators and elected
officials deserve handsome pay raises. Just like the rest of us,
they are woefully underpaid.
But unlike the rest of us, they can do an end-run around the real
bosses — the taxpayers — and simply get the House members and
senators in the Legislature to do the dirty work.
The report, written by a committee chaired by University of
Massachusetts dean Ira Jackson, argues that the governor deserves a
$250,000 annual salary, which is a nice bump up from the paltry
$151,000 he currently makes. Included in that $250,000 salary is a
$65,000 housing allowance. Massachusetts is one of only five states
that doesn’t have an executive mansion, and thus the supposed reason
why we need one — or at least a housing allowance.
People in Massachusetts have never taken a particular liking to
housing their governors, or to executive mansions. Just ask Thomas
Hutchinson, a lieutenant governor who build a magnificent mansion
for himself and proceeded to make some politically unpopular
decisions in the parlor. He managed to bolt out the door just as the
angry mob bashed its way in, trashed the house and even tore the
fancy cupola off the roof. That was in 1765, when Massachusetts
politics was a little more rambunctious than today. Still, we Bay
Staters have never had a particular liking for gubernatorial digs —
there have been numerous attempts since the 1850s to buy one or
build one, and they’ve all failed. So the blue ribbon committee came
up with a clever way to get around this political hot potato.
Under the blue ribbon commission’s recommendations, various other
elected officials would also be in for substantial raises. Among
them would be the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, who
would see their salaries grow to $175,000, a 72 percent raise. Well
now, that would take some serious hoot-spa to walk into the boss’
office and say it’s time to cough up a 72 percent raise at the same
time that the boss needs to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in
spending from programs for the poor, school kids, and various others
who don’t have a very high seat at the table.
The self-serving report pays little heed to the political realities
of state government. One of the most obvious is the fact that none
of our recent governors has had a hard time scratching up money to
pay the rent and the household bills. Indeed, we’ve had a long
string of well-heeled governors, and none of them has griped about
the pay. The governors office attracts job applicants who have
interests beyond the paycheck.
The timing of this report reminds us of a nasty old habit here in
our state. Massachusetts lawmakers have a notorious way of rewarding
themselves with fat raises shortly after elections are over and it’s
relatively safe to incur the public’s wrath. Longtime followers of
state politics may recall one of the worst examples — the 55 percent
pay raise that lawmakers gave themselves in 1995, shortly after the
1994 election had been decided. It caused a furor among taxpayers,
many of whom were still having a hard time making ends meet in the
wake of the collapse of the “Massachusetts Miracle” economy.
Lawmakers shrewdly reasoned that the furor would be forgotten by the
time the 1996 election was held, and they were right.
WAMC — Northeast
Public Radio
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Big Pay Hikes Proposed For Top Elected State Officials
By Paul Tuthill
An advisory commission is recommending pay increases for all the top
elected state officials in Massachusetts, including hefty hikes in
the salaries for the governor, the House speaker and Senate
president. A fiscal watchdog is critical. Legislators have reacted
cautiously.
The panel’s proposal, if adopted, would make the Massachusetts
governor the second highest paid nationally — behind Pennsylvania —
raising the annual salary from the current $151,800 to $185,000.
There is also a recommendation for a $65,000 housing allowance for
the governor.
The two top legislative leaders would become the highest paid in the
country, with salaries jumping from $102,279 to $175,000. Pay hikes
are also recommended for the lieutenant governor, attorney general,
treasurer, secretary of state, and auditor.
Ira Jackson, the chairman of the commission, said the
recommendations are based on a review of the responsibilities of
each elected official, along with comparisons with other states and
with top executives in the private sector.
"We find that the compensation for the governor in particular is
inadequate."
The panel estimated the net annual cost of the proposals would be
just under $1 million, and Jackson said that should be easily
absorbed into the state’s $36 billion budget with no additional
burden on taxpayers.
"We propose that if the legislature embraces our recommendations
that there be a statutory requirement that mandates( the officials)
all identify how they will save the increases in their salaries in
their office budgets and the legislature similarly. There would have
to be a public accounting."
He stressed the panel’s proposals include reforms such as a ban on
the House speaker and Senate president earning outside income except
from investments and an elimination of per diem reimbursements for
legislators to commute to the State House from their homes.
Jackson, who is dean of the McCormack Graduate School at UMass
Boston, acknowledges that public sector pay raises are
controversial.
"We don't think this should be ignored. We are going to build up
more inequities and we will preclude the kind of talent we need and
want in a democracy," said Jackson.
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, blasted the panel’s proposals.
"My first reaction is you've got to be kidding me. In the middle of
a budget deficit half way through the fiscal year when the governor
is talking about cutting local aid?"
Pointing to this year’s race for governor, Anderson scoffed at the
suggestion that a higher salary was needed to attract talented
people.
"There were what ten people who ran in the primaries. These people
not only want to run, they leave jobs with higher salaries to run,
leave secure jobs to run."
A spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo said the compensation
panel’s report is being reviewed. Likewise, a statement from Senate
President Therese Murray offered no clue on where she stands on the
recommendations.
Democratic State Rep. Angelo Puppolo of Springfield concedes it is a
not a good time to talk about pay raises when the state is facing a
large projected budget deficit requiring mid-fiscal year spending
cuts.
"Timing-wise I think it is not the best time to do this."
The lame duck legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick would have to act
on the commission’s recommendations before January or the raises
could not take effect for years because of the state’s
conflict-of-interest law. Governor-elect Charlie Baker said he would
veto a pay raise bill.
The Boston Globe
Friday, December 5, 2014
State Senate president suggests pay raise vote unlikely this year
By David Scharfenberg
Departing Senate President Therese Murray suggested Thursday evening
that the state Legislature will not approve controversial pay hikes
for the governor, top lawmakers, and other statewide elected
officials this year.
“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that
there’s a movement to do that,” she said, speaking to reporters
after delivering her farewell speech in the Senate chamber.
The comments come amid growing unease on Beacon Hill about passing
the increases as the state cuts funding for environmental protection
and mental-health services to close a budget shortfall of at least
$329 million.
Governor-elect Charlie Baker and Attorney General-elect Maura Healey
have come out against the proposed salary hikes. And three sitting,
statewide elected officials have offered only tempered support,
suggesting more modest increases or hikes phased in over time.
A salary advisory commission established by the Legislature released
its recommendations for the pay increases Monday.
The panel suggested boosting the governor’s annual pay from $151,800
to $185,000, the attorney general’s salary from $130,582 to
$175,000, and the Senate president’s and House speaker’s
compensation from $102,279 to $175,000.
If adopted, the increases would make the Massachusetts governor the
second-highest paid in the nation, after Pennsylvania. The
legislative leaders would be the best-paid in the country, according
to the commission’s report.
Lawmakers would probably have to pass increases before the end of
the year if they were to take effect for the new class of statewide
officials and legislators taking office in January.
But winning approval for the hikes this month would be difficult
even without substantial political headwinds. The Legislature is in
informal sessions until the end of the year. And a single lawmaker
has the power to block legislation.
If legislative leaders gavel in a formal session in December, the
proposed increases would stand a better chance of passage. But
Murray, speaking on an unrelated question, said “there will not be a
formal session” this month.
The Legislature could approve pay raises when it reconvenes next
year, but some of them might not take effect until the session that
begins in 2017.
Murray, who is leaving the Legislature, would not benefit from any
pay hikes approved this month. But House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
would see a substantial raise. And the increase would have a
long-term impact on his pension, which is calculated based on his
top three earning years.
DeLeo released a statement earlier this week thanking the advisory
commission for its work and saying “the report will now be
reviewed.” A spokesman for the House speaker declined to offer any
new comments Thursday.
Ira A. Jackson, chairman of the commission, acknowledged this week
that pay raises for elected officials are controversial. But he said
they were justified based on the officials’ responsibilities,
compensation in other states, and the pay offered to private sector
executives.
The panel estimated that its proposed hikes, which also would cover
the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer, and auditor,
would have a yearly net cost of about $934,000, out of a total state
budget of more than $36 billion.
Murray, in her remarks to reporters Thursday, indicated that she has
an idea of what she will do when she leaves office. But she said she
will not reveal her intentions until January, when the new class of
lawmakers is sworn in.
Her future plans have been a subject of speculation for months on
Beacon Hill.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, December 6, 2014
A Boston Herald editorial
Hey, it’s just money...
The next time an elected official laments the plight of the
underpaid Beacon Hill staffer, we implore taxpayers to remember this
moment.
Last week we learned that House Speaker Robert DeLeo had dished out
6 percent across-the-board raises to 459 House staffers, even as he
and his colleagues are staring into a $329 million hole in the state
budget. Turns out the Senate has been doing some pay “adjustments”
of its own.
Senate President Therese Murray’s office didn’t provide the Herald
with comprehensive numbers for salary increases provided to
individual senators’ staffers, which Murray must approve (hey, who
needs transparency?). But the Herald reported on some individual
beneficiaries.
Murray’s legal counsel got a $20,000 raise when she took on chief of
staff duties back in April; her salary jumped from $130,000 to
$150,000. A policy adviser saw her salary grow by 12 percent, while
Murray’s spokeswoman got a 7 percent raise. And all 10 staffers in
the Senate clerk’s office got raises, too; the clerk himself scored
5 percent.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer (D-Barre),
who like Murray is leaving the Senate in a few weeks, doled out 8
percent raises to his chief of staff and his budget director this
year. And Senate minority leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) gave his
chief of staff a nearly 20 percent raise, noting that he had taken
on added responsibilities. That does lead us to wonder, when you’re
the “chief of staff” how many more responsibilities really are there
to take on?
Now, it’s important to acknowledge that these salary hikes came
before news broke of the budget deficit. In some cases the added pay
really does reflect added responsibility. In our view DeLeo’s
decision to jack up the entire House staff’s salary — with full
*knowledge* of the budget deficit — was far more problematic.
Still, it’s important for taxpayers to understand the nitty gritty
details of taxpayer-funded compensation, since the perpetual cry on
Beacon Hill is that it isn’t nearly enough.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Legislature's selected commission says politicians should get big
pay hikes
The commission concluded that the methods used to make that
adjustment vary from governor to governor because the decision by
the governor has to made in January, and the median household income
figures published by the Census Bureau from the prior year are not
available at that time.
The panel said it has researched a number of options and data
sources for calculating the change and recommends using data from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) that measures the quarterly
change in salaries and wages. The panel argues that the BEA figures
are more up-to-date compared to the census ones. If the BEA system
of calculating had been in use starting in 2007, the current
legislative salary would be $6,378 higher at $66,410 instead of
$60,032.
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, has a
different opinion. She told Beacon Hill Roll Call, "The
Massachusetts constitution allows rank-and-file legislators’ pay to
increase with median household income. The commission's report
changes 'median household income' to another determinant, which
would allow a higher increase for legislators; but the change would
require a constitutional amendment, which couldn’t be approved by
voters until 2018."
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
A Boston Globe editorial
With Mass. facing budget gap, it’s not the time to raise salaries
There's a glimmer of good news in the recent recommendation by a
special advisory commission to boost salaries paid to the governor
and other top public officials: the findings were released in the
full light of day, with two public hearings and online access to the
study explaining the recommendations.
Transparency is welcome. But it doesn’t change the optics or the
bottom line. This is not the right time to raise salaries — not when
the state faces a $329 million budget shortfall and many
Massachusetts families still face uncertain economic times.
The commission did its homework and presents a well-researched case
for salary hikes for the state’s six constitutional offices, as well
as for the House speaker and Senate president. But the research
falls short of demonstrating any pressing need to follow the
recommendations.
At $151,800, the current salary for the governor of Massachusetts is
the 11th highest in the country. However, some 1,200 state employees
earn more than that — and, according to the commission, that’s a key
rationale for hiking the governor’s paycheck to $185,000. Yet, doing
that would make the governor of Massachusetts the
second-highest-paid governor in the country. And that’s without
factoring in an additional $65,000 housing allowance the commission
also recommends.
Under the commission’s proposal, the salaries of the House speaker
and Senate president would also increase from $102,279 to $175,000 —
an increase that would make them the highest-paid legislative
leaders in the country.
The commission argues that the current compensation formula for
statewide office holders is outdated and should be increased to
attract more qualified people, presumably from the private sector.
But attracting quality private sector candidates isn’t a real
problem here. Take the recent governor’s race: Of five candidates on
the general election ballot, three were wealthy businessmen,
including the winner, Republican Charlie Baker.
Besides, if a candidate begins a quest for office with the feeling
that a public sector salary represents nothing but sacrifice, that’s
the wrong midset. It might be nice to have more candidates of modest
income who are actually in touch with life as most people live it.
The state’s conflict of interest law prohibits public employees from
participating in matters that affect their own financial interest.
To avoid that problem, the commission’s proposals would have to be
passed by the current lame duck Legislature, to take effect in
January when new officials are sworn in. According to departing
Senate President Therese Murray, it’s unlikely that will happen,
given the controversy stirred up by the commission’s suggestions.
“The Senate can’t act unless the House does, and I don’t see that
there’s a movement to do that,” said Murray, after delivering her
farewell speech in the Senate chamber.
This is one time legislative inaction is the preferred outcome.
The Boston Globe
Friday, December 26, 2014
Increase pay for public office holders
By Ira Jackson and Cathy Minehan
Criticism of the recent report by a nonpartisan commission calling
for reforms and overdue increases in compensation for public leaders
focuses on two main points: the terrible timing against a backdrop
of budget cuts and the contention that salary increases aren’t
necessary to attract talented individuals to public service. As
members of the commission, we want to address these two challenges
head-on, and highlight several points that did not receive much
public attention.
First, we are acutely aware of the difficult fiscal climate in the
Commonwealth. The commission was created by legislation and mandated
to report back in less than 90 days. The timing, while far from
ideal, was not in our control. However, there is never a good time
to have a serious public discourse about compensation for state
leaders. The last time it happened was in 2008, and the commission’s
proposed salary increases for the governor and other constitutional
officers were not implemented.
Second, we recognize that public office is a tremendous privilege
that offers intrinsic satisfaction and rewards. The commission
commends the numerous sacrifices people make to enter public
service. During its deliberations, we sought to establish a
compensation system that enables the state to attract and retain
diverse, highly qualified professionals to public service regardless
of their means or proximity to Boston. In other words, personal
wealth should not be a prerequisite for public service.
The report also made a number of other recommended reforms,
including:
●
Funding any compensation increases in a cost-neutral manner to
taxpayers through efficiencies and savings identified by state
lawmakers and reported on an annual basis to ensure accountability
and transparency;
●
Prohibiting outside employment through a first-in-the-nation statute
precluding the constitutional officers, House speaker, and Senate
president from earning outside income, other than passive income;
●
Eliminating legislative per diem payments;
●
Determining the biennial adjustment in legislative pay through a
consistent, transparent process using data from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis;
●
Calculating any increase or decrease in compensation for all
constitutional cfficers and the House Speaker and Senate president
every two years using the Bureau’s data.
Guided by its legislative mandate, the commission conducted a
transparent, data-driven process that included eight open public
meetings, two public hearings, and extensive analysis of the current
system. The commission’s report, with input from the public, builds
a foundation for public trust.
What is the appropriate level of compensation for the chief
executive of the Commonwealth, who manages an annual budget in
excess of $36 billion? Should the attorney general earn less than
the state’s district attorneys and judges? What statewide reforms
are needed to strengthen public trust in our constitutional offices
and the Legislature?
Based on our analysis of the data, the commission recommends
establishing three tiers of salaries for the state’s top leaders
that we believe reflect the duties and responsibilities of the jobs
they perform. If no action is taken on these recommendations and we
kick the can down the road, we are only making things more difficult
to resolve in the future.
While any recommendation to increase compensation for state leaders
is controversial, especially in a tough fiscal climate, the
commission believes these increases, coupled with the adoption of
major reforms, should be considered and debated seriously.
For democracy to work so that average citizens can be civic leaders,
conversations around the adequacy of public compensation need to
take place in the open, as we have tried to do, and with regularity.
It may not be an easy conversation, but for our government to work
effectively and honestly, this is just the kind of mature discourse
that is needed.
Ira Jackson is dean of the McCormack Graduate School of Policy
and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston and
former commissioner of revenue. Cathy Minehan is dean of the Simmons
College School of Management and former president of the Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston.
State House News Service
Monday, December 29, 2014
Patrick expected to adjust base pay of lawmakers
By Michael Norton
As they grapple with budget problems in the dying days of the
Patrick administration, aides to the governor are also busy trying
to calculate an adjustment in the base pay for lawmakers.
While most lawmakers receive additional pay associated with
assignments given to them by legislative leaders, their base pay has
fallen since 2009, a year when some lawmakers rejected a 5.6 percent
pay raise or donated their raises to charity because the state was
in the midst of painful budget cutting.
Under the constitution, Patrick must rule by the first Wednesday in
January of odd-numbered years —
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015 — the day
before Charlie Baker is sworn in as his successor, on the size of
pay adjustments for the 200 members of the state Legislature.
The constitution requires that the base compensation of lawmakers
"be increased or decreased at the same rate as increases or
decreases in the median household income for the commonwealth for
the preceding two year period, as ascertained by the governor."
Administration officials declined to discuss their approach to the
upcoming adjustment in legislative base pay, or the timing of their
announcement, noting only that an adjustment must be made by the
first Wednesday in January, or Jan. 7, 2015.
Two years ago, Patrick cut the base pay of lawmakers by $1,100 to
$60,033 based on median income information drawn from the U.S.
Census Bureau's American Community survey and other reports of
average weekly wages in Massachusetts.
Lawmakers also took a pay cut in January 2011 when the governor
directed a reduction of one half of 1 percent, or $307, reducing the
base salary to $61,133.
Rep. Garrett Bradley (D-Hingham) and former Rep. Karyn Polito
(R-Shrewsbury), who is set to be sworn in as lieutenant governor on
Jan. 8, were among lawmakers who rejected a $3,243, or 5.6 percent,
raise in January 2009, when Patrick set the base salary at $61,440.
At the time, Polito said money set aside for raises would be better
spent on local aid increases and to offset toll increases.
According to research performed by a public compensation commission
set up earlier this year, the average total pay for state
legislators came to $73,175 in 2013, with lawmakers averaging
$13,142 in special compensation on top of their $60,033 base salary.
Each lawmaker receives $7,200 a year for expenses and is eligible
for per idem payments for travel, ranging from $10 to $100 based on
their proximity to Beacon Hill.
Voters agreed to tie legislators' salaries to median household
income through a 1998 constitutional amendment, which went into
effect in 2001.
"However, the lack of timely median household income data has forced
administrations to improvise when estimating the growth in income
for the year preceding the start of each session," according
findings released by the public compensation commission. "As a
result, there is no consistent method for determining the biennial
change in legislative salaries."
Along with salary increases for constitutional officers and
legislative leaders, the commission recommended in December the
elimination of per diems, an increase in legislative office
expenses, and a "totally transparent" way to determine legislators'
base salary.
"Legislative pay has long been a source of controversy on Beacon
Hill; before 1998, it was determined by lawmakers themselves," the
commission, chaired by former state revenue commissioner Ira
Jackson, said in a preliminary report. "A public furor followed
passage of the infamous 'Halloween' pay raise of 1980, when
lawmakers approved a $1,800 pay raise during an Oct. 31 session."
That increase was later overturned through a referendum.
Gintautas Dumcius contributed reporting.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Baker decries raises for state lawmakers
Deval to boost payday before he leaves office
By Matt Stout
Gov.-elect Charlie Baker is throwing cold water on a Beacon Hill
push to hike the pay for state lawmakers, saying the “timing isn’t
right” for a raise considering the new administration is inheriting
a huge hole in the budget from lame-duck Gov. Deval Patrick.
“The governor-elect does not feel the timing is right for pay raises
for legislators given the fact that there is a massive budget
deficit as well as a host of serious issues taxpayers’ funds would
be better spent addressing,” Baker spokesman Tim Buckley said.
Despite a deficit that’s been pegged as high as $750 million,
lawmakers are primed to get their first pay raise in six years, one
fiscal watchdog says — though how big of a boost will be determined
by Patrick, who leaves office next week.
“It surely is going to go up. The question is how much,” Michael
Widmer, outgoing president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, said of lawmakers’ pay, which is tied to median
household income under a 1998 constitutional amendment but is left
to the governor to determine.
Patrick’s aides yesterday declined to say how they’ll calculate the
raise, saying only that they will “comply with the constitutionally
required timeline” of deciding by the first Wednesday of January.
That puts the deadline on Jan. 7 — the day before Baker is to be
sworn in.
Though the amendment automatically calls for the raise to be based
on typical household income, the Corner Office has wide latitude in
calculating it.
One indicator Patrick has used — the U.S. Census’s American
Community Survey — is updated only through 2013, and to help fill in
the gap for 2014, his office could turn to state wage data, as he
has before.
In 2009, Patrick ordered a 5.5 percent increase in the midst of the
recession, though several lawmakers — including then state rep. and
current Lt. Gov.-elect Karyn Polito — rejected it. Two years later,
Patrick ordered a 0.5 percent cut, and followed with another 1.8
percent cut in 2013, putting legislators’ pay at its current
$60,032, not including perks such as travel expenses and leadership
bonuses.
The census data this time showed a roughly 2.2 percent increase in
2013, while average weekly wages in the first three months of 2014
rose 3.1 percent from the previous quarter, according to data kept
by the Office of Labor and Workforce Development. Together, it would
equate to a 5.3 percent increase.
But Patrick could use an entirely different method, like the one
proposed by the committee studying state pay that included Widmer.
It urged moving to federal data that would bump lawmakers’ pay by
6.6 percent, or nearly $4,000 a year.
“The economy is clearly improving, income is improving,” Widmer told
the Herald. “The whole rationale for this whole constitutional
amendment made sense. It took it out of the political arena. ... And
I think that’s fair.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
A Boston Herald editorial
It pays to be transparent
Patrick administration officials are staying mum as they work on
calculating an adjustment in legislative pay, according to the State
House News Service, which they are required to do by Jan. 7.
Could there be some behind-the-scenes deal-making in the works?
Beacon Hill salaries have been of course a matter of some
controversy in recent months. Under the state Constitution the
governor every two years must calculate any change in median family
[sic — household] income, then base
salaries for lawmakers are adjusted accordingly. But hanging over
that task this year is a report from a very “special” commission
that recently called for jacking up salaries for many of the top
brass.
Among the panel’s recommendations was a sensible one — to set up a
precise method for calculating changes in median income. Right now
it’s left to the governor to “ascertain” that figure.
But even that modest change would require amending the Constitution.
Meanwhile the rest of the panel’s recommendations seemed to come
from another planet. They recommended increasing salaries for the
House speaker and Senate president to $175,000, for example, which
would top all 50 states.
The current leadership on Beacon Hill didn’t exactly throw cold
water on the idea of adopting some of the salary recommendations in
the lame-duck session that ends next week. It would be a long-shot,
yes, but it’s remarkable what power a deal that is made attractive
to all parties (well, except the taxpayers) can have.
But a naked money grab when few are paying attention — and when
there’s a hole in the state budget that keeps getting bigger — would
be an affront to the taxpayers. Just in case anyone has any ideas.
|
|
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
|