|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
House passes $18M money grab,
on to Senate
|
Gov. Charlie Baker went heavy on
bipartisanship and teamwork in his State of the Commonwealth
address last night and there’s a lot to be said for that.
But there is one issue on which the Republican governor
needs to make a clean break with his BFFs in the Democratic
Legislature, and that is the huge pay-and-pension grab that
could be headed to his desk this week....
But the House and Senate seem to have enough
votes to override a possible veto, giving Baker little
leverage. The raise is happening just weeks into a two-year
session, under the assumption that voters will forget all
about it when they go back to the polls in two years. And
the sheer size of the increases on the table— nearly 50
percent in some cases — suggests the sponsors fear little
backlash.
Baker’s best option is a veto. In addition
to being the right thing to do, who knows, it might even
breathe new fiscally conservative life into the House and
Senate two years from now....
Rosenberg and DeLeo are pulling a fast one
here. Baker can’t be a party to that.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Veto raises
The controversial pay package poised to pass
the Legislature could cost as much as $18 million next
fiscal year to cover proposed salary hikes — at a time when
budget-watchers are predicting as much as a $615 million
budget gap....
The move quickly drew the ire of some
Republican lawmakers and fiscal watchdogs, though the timing
— Gov. Charlie Baker is expected to release his closely
watched budget proposal today — could shield it from more
public scrutiny.
“After five months of taxpayer-funded paid
vacation, on its return self-enrichment is the Legislature’s
first priority without even a public hearing,” said Chip
Ford of the group Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“This tells constituents of each legislator all they need to
know.” ...
State Rep. Brian Dempsey, the House chairman
on ways and means, said the Legislature’s current budget can
already absorb the $1.4 million in extra costs the pay hikes
would bring. But he said lawmakers are “working with the
judiciary” to find the money in their own budget, with the
potential of adding money to cover it in the governor’s
forthcoming mid-year, supplemental budget.
Dempsey sought to downplay the budget
impact, saying, “As you look at a $40 billion budget, it’s
something that is very manageable.”
Come next year, as more judicial salaries
are phased in, the annual cost could range as high as $18
million, Dempsey said. Meanwhile the Massachusetts Budget
and Policy Center, a left-leaning budget-watcher, has
estimated next year’s budget gap could be as much as $615
million.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Legislative pay hikes could hit $18M
Leaders defend raises as budget grows
Massachusetts legislative leaders have
insulated their proposed pay raises from the public’s wrath
by folding judicial salary increases into the package they
are jamming through the Legislature this week.
The state Constitution bars any ballot
referendum aimed at repealing the salaries of judges,
removing any chance that citizens could place the issue
before voters in the 2018 state elections. Because the
legislative and judicial raises appear in the same
legislation, both would be safe from being reversed by
voters.
The judicial pay raises appeared, without
notice, in the pay raise legislation that Senate President
Stanley C. Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
released late Monday. The proposal would increase their
salaries by 40 percent, to $142,500, and give huge raises to
their leadership teams and committee chairmen and vice
chairmen.
Neither DeLeo’s or Rosenberg’s office could
immediately comment Wednesday on the decision to add judges’
salaries to the pay package, which, when fully implemented,
could cost up to $18 million. Judges last got a raise in
2013....
The maneuver drew ire from Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
the state’s leading anti-tax group, which has mounted repeal
efforts against legislative pay raises in the past.
“There is not a single trick or scam they
haven’t pulled on this thing,’’ said Ford.
“It is just shameless arrogance because they
know they can get away with it,’’ he said, noting that the
public attention has been preoccupied by both the Washington
political scene and the New England Patriots’ Super Bowl
prospects....
Using the constitutional exclusion of
judges’ compensation as a way to avoid a referendum question
comes as the leadership has also found a way to circumvent
the state’s conflict of law, which bars lawmakers from
voting on any bill in which they have a direct financial
interest.
The proposed raises are actually increases
in the stipends received by dozens of members of the
legislative leadership in both the House and Senate, both
Democrats and Republicans. But DeLeo and Rosenberg have held
off making those appointments in the newly elected
Legislature to allow all the 198 other lawmakers the legal
ability to vote for the raises.
A state constitutional amendment, approved
by voters in 1998, bars legislators from changing their base
legislative salary, which is now set at $62,500 and is
adjusted every two years based on the state’s median income.
One hurdle facing the raise package is a
potential veto from Governor Charlie Baker who has so far
not said what he would do when the measure reaches his desk.
If he were to veto the plan, lawmakers would need a
two-thirds majority vote to override him.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Voters won’t be able to repeal proposed raises for lawmakers
Hidden deep in the huge pay hike package
that Beacon Hill leaders are jamming through the Legislature
for themselves are a slew of salary increases for court
clerks and assistant clerks — and even for an old political
hand, Steve Murphy, the Suffolk County register of deeds.
Murphy’s salary is never actually mentioned
in the bill. But his salary — and only his among the state’s
21 registers of deeds — would jump by $19,700 to more than
$142,000 if the proposal is approved.
Maura Doyle, another longtime Suffolk County
political figure who is now the clerk of the Supreme
Judicial Court for Suffolk County, would also get a
little-noticed pay raise: Her salary would increase from
$153,523 to close to $167,000.
Doyle and Murphy — neither of whom could be
reached for comment late Tuesday — are just two of scores of
court employees across the state whose pay is set as a
percentage of judges’ salaries. So when judges get raises —
as they would in the new legislation — these other employees
do too.
The total cost of the bill — which includes
pay raises for legislative leaders, constitutional officers,
court personnel, and judges — would be as much as $18
million when fully implemented over the next 18 months,
according to legislative leaders.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Pay package includes raise for Suffolk register of deeds
He was too scared of his own shadow to even
mention the hacks’ scheme to vote themselves a $40,000 pay
raise this afternoon.
Not one single word.
What a pitiful sight last evening, the
Republican governor rolling over and giving a tongue bath to
the wrinkly reprobates in the legislative leadership.
The skids are greased, the fix is in, and
the payroll Charlies are poised to hand themselves their
second pay increase in a month. The really obscene dough
goes to Speaker Bob DeLeo, the unindicted co-conspirator,
and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, whose pay is about
to jump $40,000 a year, to $142,500.
It’s one thing to feed at the public trough.
This is licking the plate....
“There are thousands of citizens in
Massachusetts,” Gov. Charlie (Tall Deval) Baker said last
night in his State of the Commonwealth address, “who are
still very much in the game in their 60s, 70s, even 80s.”
Was he referring to the two tax-fattened
hyenas in the chambers — Rosenberg, age 67, and DeLeo, who
turns 67 in March. They’re in the game all right, gaming the
system.
They’re already looking at maximum 80
percent state pensions, so even a reduced $40,000 pay hike
means an extra $32,000 in their pensions.
Almost three grand a month — extra!
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Tall Deval falls short in fighting hacks’ pay hikes
By Howie Carr
In its first major decision of the new
session, the Massachusetts House rammed through a nearly $18
million package of pay raises for the Legislature, judges
and the state's six statewide constitutional officers amid
signs that Gov. Charlie Baker could be leaning toward
vetoing the bill.
While cautioning that he can't be sure of
the final details of the bill (H 58), Gov. Charlie Baker
suggested shortly after the vote that little has changed
since 2014 when he threatened a veto following the
publication of a report that became the basis for the pay
raise package.
"We said in 2014 we didn't think the pay
raise made sense at that point in time and I don't see a lot
that's changed with respect to that," Baker said during a
press conference on his budget proposal.
The House voted 115-44 to approve the
package that would increase pay, in some manner, for all 200
legislators on Beacon Hill as well as for the state's six
statewide constitutional officers and judges....
Nine Democrats joined with all 35 Republican
members of the House in opposing the bill, including Reps.
Denise Provost, Jonathan Hecht, James Dwyer, Colleen Garry,
Diana DiZoglio, Thomas Calter, Paul Heroux, Jonathan Zlotnik,
and freshman Michael Connolly.
The branches may try to move the bill to
Baker's desk on Thursday. The House scheduled a 2 p.m.
session on Thursday, possibly to give the pay raise bill a
final enactment vote if it comes back from the Senate, which
is scheduled to take up the bill at 11 a.m. In the 40-member
Senate, everyone has one of the leadership or chairmanship
roles that would come with higher stipends under the
bill....
The House quickly dispensed with a few
amendments to the bill and Rep. Shaunna O'Connell, a Taunton
Republican, failed to convince her colleagues to recommit
the bill to committee for further public hearings.
O'Connell argued that the process used by
Democratic leadership with a "hastily schedule hearing" last
week and a quick vote Wednesday made it difficult for the
public to voice their opinions.
The hearing was on the 2014 report and
lawmakers opted against holding a public hearing on the
bill, which emerged for the first time on Monday night.
"I don't think it's very difficult to argue
that this bill is being rushed through to avoid public
scrutiny and make it go away very quickly," O'Connell said.
Rep. Geoffrey Diehl, of Whitman, questioned
whether his colleagues deserved a raise after taking
questionable actions in recent years, including indexing the
gas tax to inflation and passing a tax on technology
services, which were both later reversed.
"If anything, we should adopt New
Hampshire's one hundred dollars in pay until we prove we're
worth it," Diehl said.
Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican,
offered several amendments, including one to delay the
implementation of the raises until after the next election
and another to limit the increase in stipends for
legislative leaders to just 4 percent.
Both were defeated.
"To suggest to the taxpayers that it is fair
to give out 40 and 50 percent raises when we're looking at
9c cuts and declining revenues, it's simply unfair," Lyons
said.
Only five amendments were filed in total.
One amendment filed by Rep. Lenny Mirra pertaining to the
retirement eligibility for lawmakers was determined to be
beyond the scope of the bill and two others were withdrawn.
Rep. Tricia Farley Bouvier was the only
Democrat to propose an amendment to the bill, and withdrew
her proposal recommending that lawmakers who live 100 miles
or more from the State House receive $25,000 a year for
office expenses, up from the proposed $20,000 for any
lawmakers living 50 miles or more away from the capital....
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Baker casts shade on pay raises, but Dems may have
veto-proof majority
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
There were a lot of news reports all day and a flurry of afternoon action in
House chambers. In the end, the House easily passed for engrossment the
massive pay raise money grab by a vote of
116-44. The entire Republican caucus voted against it, as did
nine Democrats.
You can find the House roll call vote below —
Exhibit 1 for the Campaign 2018 prosecution. How'd
your state Rep. vote? Ready for a new one already? No problem, we'll
remind you in two years when it's time to drain this swamp.
Now it's on to the Senate, which will vote on the self-serving money
grab tomorrow. That's where our focus will be tomorrow. You can
find your state Senator
here.
The Legislature's plan is to pass it in the Senate then drop it on
Governor Baker's desk by tomorrow night, before leaving for their weekend. If that happens as expected by
most, we're hoping it doesn't end badly for the governor, that he vetoes this
arrogant obscenity and doesn't let himself become contaminated by the fallout,
dragged down by complicity.
We'll be watching the Senate tomorrow, as we did with the House today. If
it passes, we're ready to urge the governor to do the right thing and veto.
Stay tuned, more to come tomorrow . . .
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
CLICK ON IMAGE BELOW
TO OPEN ENLARGED PDF FILE
or
Click Here
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Veto raises
Gov. Charlie Baker went heavy on bipartisanship
and teamwork in his State of the Commonwealth
address last night and there’s a lot to be said
for that. But there is one issue on which the
Republican governor needs to make a clean break
with his BFFs in the Democratic Legislature, and
that is the huge pay-and-pension grab that could
be headed to his desk this week.
Perhaps Baker could cut a deal with House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stan
Rosenberg, who are leading the charge for the
raises — er, increases in leadership “stipends.”
He could pull a Bill Weld, extracting
legislative support for one of his priorities
(Weld famously signed off on a controversial pay
hike in exchange for a capital gains tax cut).
But the House and Senate seem to have enough
votes to override a possible veto, giving Baker
little leverage. The raise is happening just
weeks into a two-year session, under the
assumption that voters will forget all about it
when they go back to the polls in two years. And
the sheer size of the increases on the table—
nearly 50 percent in some cases — suggests the
sponsors fear little backlash.
Baker’s best option is a veto. In addition to
being the right thing to do, who knows, it might
even breathe new fiscally conservative life into
the House and Senate two years from now.
There are some sweeteners in the deal; presiding
officers would be barred from earning outside
income, for example, which might thwart a future
Sal DiMasi-type scandal. The governor himself
would score a raise, although he has said he
won’t accept one.
“Fair-minded people will consider the fact that
the stipends for presiding officers have not
changed for 33 years,” Rosenberg said Monday.
“Who works for the same amount 33 years later?”
Not many people. But 33 years ago the Senate
president was Billy Bulger. It’s disingenuous
for any politician who stands repeatedly for
election — with full knowledge of what the job
pays — to suddenly cry poor mouth.
Rosenberg and DeLeo are pulling a fast one here.
Baker can’t be a party to that.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Legislative pay hikes could hit $18M
Leaders defend raises as budget grows
By Matt Stout
The controversial pay package poised to pass the
Legislature could cost as much as $18 million
next fiscal year to cover proposed salary hikes
— at a time when budget-watchers are predicting
as much as a $615 million budget gap.
The annual cost, as described by a top House
official, doesn’t include the roughly $6.5
million hit it would make in this year’s budget,
with questions still looming about how to pay
the bulk of them — about $5 million — created by
the proposed judge and magistrate salary bumps.
The move quickly drew the ire of some Republican
lawmakers and fiscal watchdogs, though the
timing — Gov. Charlie Baker is expected to
release his closely watched budget proposal
today — could shield it from more public
scrutiny.
“After five months of taxpayer-funded paid
vacation, on its return self-enrichment is the
Legislature’s first priority without even a
public hearing,” said Chip Ford of the
group Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“This tells constituents of each legislator all
they need to know.”
Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo and
legislative leaders jumped to the defense
yesterday of the pay raises, which would net
DeLeo and Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg
a near 50-percent pay hike to $142,500, before
factoring in expenses.
“This is something that has been long overdue,”
the Winthrop Democrat said of the proposal,
which would also give $25,000 raises, in
increments, to the state’s judges and clerk
magistrates.
State Rep. Brian Dempsey, the House chairman on
ways and means, said the Legislature’s current
budget can already absorb the $1.4 million in
extra costs the pay hikes would bring. But he
said lawmakers are “working with the judiciary”
to find the money in their own budget, with the
potential of adding money to cover it in the
governor’s forthcoming mid-year, supplemental
budget.
Dempsey sought to downplay the budget impact,
saying, “As you look at a $40 billion budget,
it’s something that is very manageable.”
Come next year, as more judicial salaries are
phased in, the annual cost could range as high
as $18 million, Dempsey said. Meanwhile the
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a
left-leaning budget-watcher, has estimated next
year’s budget gap could be as much as $615
million.
The proposal could come up for a vote as early
as today in the House, followed by the Senate
tomorrow. Baker has said he doesn’t intend to
take a pay hike, but has not said whether he’d
oppose the proposal, which would hike his salary
from $151,000 to $185,000 and award him a
$65,000 housing stipend.
DeLeo addressed the package after emerging from
a caucus with other House Democrats, who could
be heard applauding at times from outside the
first-floor hearing room.
DeLeo said some even joked about positions they
would seek in light of a host of padded stipends
the bill promises.
“I think the mood was understanding,” DeLeo said
of the lawmakers. “I think the mood was
appreciative.”
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Voters won’t be able to repeal proposed raises
for lawmakers
By Frank Phillips
Massachusetts legislative leaders have insulated
their proposed pay raises from the public’s
wrath by folding judicial salary increases into
the package they are jamming through the
Legislature this week.
The state Constitution bars any ballot
referendum aimed at repealing the salaries of
judges, removing any chance that citizens could
place the issue before voters in the 2018 state
elections. Because the legislative and judicial
raises appear in the same legislation, both
would be safe from being reversed by voters.
The judicial pay raises appeared, without
notice, in the pay raise legislation that Senate
President Stanley C. Rosenberg and House Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo released late Monday. The
proposal would increase their salaries by 40
percent, to $142,500, and give huge raises to
their leadership teams and committee chairmen
and vice chairmen.
Neither DeLeo’s or Rosenberg’s office could
immediately comment Wednesday on the decision to
add judges’ salaries to the pay package, which,
when fully implemented, could cost up to $18
million. Judges last got a raise in 2013.
The maneuver drew ire from Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, the state’s leading anti-tax
group, which has mounted repeal efforts against
legislative pay raises in the past.
“There is not a single trick or scam they
haven’t pulled on this thing,’’ said Ford.
“It is just shameless arrogance because they
know they can get away with it,’’ he said,
noting that the public attention has been
preoccupied by both the Washington political
scene and the New England Patriots’ Super Bowl
prospects.
Pam Wilmot, the executive of Common Cause
Massachusetts, said her group supports a
vigorous debate on compensation adjustment, but
she faulted the fast-track process that the
Legislative is following.
“We have consistently said, given the
controversial nature of this, it should be an
open and transparent debate and allow the public
to weigh in — that is not happening here,’’ she
said.
Using the constitutional exclusion of judges’
compensation as a way to avoid a referendum
question comes as the leadership has also found
a way to circumvent the state’s conflict of law,
which bars lawmakers from voting on any bill in
which they have a direct financial interest.
The proposed raises are actually increases in
the stipends received by dozens of members of
the legislative leadership in both the House and
Senate, both Democrats and Republicans. But
DeLeo and Rosenberg have held off making those
appointments in the newly elected Legislature to
allow all the 198 other lawmakers the legal
ability to vote for the raises.
A state constitutional amendment, approved by
voters in 1998, bars legislators from changing
their base legislative salary, which is now set
at $62,500 and is adjusted every two years based
on the state’s median income.
One hurdle facing the raise package is a
potential veto from Governor Charlie Baker who
has so far not said what he would do when the
measure reaches his desk. If he were to veto the
plan, lawmakers would need a two-thirds majority
vote to override him.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Pay package includes raise for Suffolk register
of deeds
By Frank Phillips
Hidden deep in the huge pay hike package that
Beacon Hill leaders are jamming through the
Legislature for themselves are a slew of salary
increases for court clerks and assistant clerks
— and even for an old political hand, Steve
Murphy, the Suffolk County register of deeds.
Murphy’s salary is never actually mentioned in
the bill. But his salary — and only his among
the state’s 21 registers of deeds — would jump
by $19,700 to more than $142,000 if the proposal
is approved.
Maura Doyle, another longtime Suffolk County
political figure who is now the clerk of the
Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, would
also get a little-noticed pay raise: Her salary
would increase from $153,523 to close to
$167,000.
Doyle and Murphy — neither of whom could be
reached for comment late Tuesday — are just two
of scores of court employees across the state
whose pay is set as a percentage of judges’
salaries. So when judges get raises — as they
would in the new legislation — these other
employees do too.
The total cost of the bill — which includes pay
raises for legislative leaders, constitutional
officers, court personnel, and judges — would be
as much as $18 million when fully implemented
over the next 18 months, according to
legislative leaders.
The legislation, released late Monday and
fast-tracked for the governor’s desk this week,
contains salary increases for judges whose
salaries are automatically used to determine the
pay levels of the court personnel.
Somehow, in a long-forgotten State House deal, a
Suffolk register of deeds apparently persuaded
the Legislature to peg the register’s salary at
75 percent of the salary of an associate justice
of the Superior Court.
Those justices, who last received pay hikes in
2013, would receive $25,000 raises in four
incremental steps over the next 18 months under
the bill, going from $165,097 to $190,087.
Doyle’s salary is tied to the pay of the chief
justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. She gets
81.57 percent of Chief Justice Ralph Gants’s
salary, which would go from $181,239 to
$206.239.
How her salary became linked to the chief
justice’s is also forgotten political lore. But
one of her predecessors, John Powers, the late
South Boston Democrat and Senate president in
the early 1960s, was known for cutting deals
with his former colleagues at the State House.
They will see their salaries fatten as part of
an 18-page bill that Senate President Stanley C.
Rosenberg and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo are
pushing through the Legislature.
The legislation would raise Rosenberg’s and
DeLeo’s salaries from $102,500 to $142,500 and
give huge increases to those lawmakers in
leadership posts, including committee chairmen
and vice chairmen.
The legislative raises alone are expected to
cost close to $1 million. House Ways and Means
Chairman Brian Dempsey estimates the annualized
cost of the entire package will be between $12
million and $18 million, according to the State
House News Service.
The legislative hikes, as well as raises for the
governor and constitutional officers, were
proposed in 2014 by special commission created
by the Legislature. Based on its recommendation,
Attorney General Maura Healey, who is paid about
$130,500, and State Treasurer Deborah Goldberg,
who makes $128,000, would see their salaries
rise to $175,000. The salaries of Secretary of
State William F. Galvin, Lieutenant Governor
Karyn Polito, and State Auditor Suzanne Bump
would go to $165,000.
The governor’s salary would rise from $151,000
to $185,000 — though Governor Charlie Baker has
said he and Polito would not accept the raises.
But the Republican governor, who has worked to
build good relationships with the Democratic
leadership, has remained silent on whether he
will sign the bill when it gets to his desk.
The legislation has yet to stir the strong
outrage that has historically emerged when
legislators try to give themselves raises. Part
of that can be attributed to the public
attention drawn to other major news events — the
inauguration of Donald Trump and the New England
Patriots’ victory Sunday, which landed the team
in the Super Bowl.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Tall Deval falls short in fighting hacks’ pay
hikes
By Howie Carr
He was too scared of his own shadow to even
mention the hacks’ scheme to vote themselves a
$40,000 pay raise this afternoon.
Not one single word.
What a pitiful sight last evening, the
Republican governor rolling over and giving a
tongue bath to the wrinkly reprobates in the
legislative leadership.
The skids are greased, the fix is in, and the
payroll Charlies are poised to hand themselves
their second pay increase in a month. The really
obscene dough goes to Speaker Bob DeLeo, the
unindicted co-conspirator, and Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg, whose pay is about to jump
$40,000 a year, to $142,500.
It’s one thing to feed at the public trough.
This is licking the plate.
And their defense will be, well, the (Pabst)
Blue Ribbon commission recommended $175,000 a
year, and we split the difference.
“There are thousands of citizens in
Massachusetts,” Gov. Charlie (Tall Deval) Baker
said last night in his State of the Commonwealth
address, “who are still very much in the game in
their 60s, 70s, even 80s.”
Was he referring to the two tax-fattened hyenas
in the chambers — Rosenberg, age 67, and DeLeo,
who turns 67 in March. They’re in the game all
right, gaming the system.
They’re already looking at maximum 80 percent
state pensions, so even a reduced $40,000 pay
hike means an extra $32,000 in their pensions.
Almost three grand a month — extra!
There’s some question as to whether this stickup
is actually constitutional, given that the
Legislature pushed through a referendum question
in 1998 specifically decreeing that they can no
longer legally do what they are poised to do
this afternoon.
But hey, what’s some stupid law among friends?
Which is why the state judges have been cut in
on the heist. They get a $25,000 pay raise,
pushing them up close to $200,000. That should
answer any questions about the legality of
what’s about to happen. Massachusetts has the
best judges money can buy.
“We built a bipartisan team,” Baker said. This
means he hired Democratic hacks too. “Worked in
partnership with the Legislature.” They said
“Jump!” and he said “How high?”
“And looked for common ground.”
Pay raises, and fatter pensions — that’s common
ground, Beacon Hill-style.
Of course, Tall Deval had to take a
not-so-veiled shot at Donald Trump, whom he
refused to endorse, or vote for, before
attending his inauguration in D.C. last week. A
real profile in courage, Tall Deval.
“It’s one thing to stand in a corner and shout
insults at your opponents,” he said. “It’s quite
another to climb into the arena and fight for
common ground.”
But Tall Deval didn’t fight, he toppled over,
without a punch being thrown, Sonny
Liston-style.
And by the way, Tall Deval, despite all this BS
about how you’re the most popular governor in
the U.S., in 2014, you got 1,044,000 votes. Last
November, Trump got 1,083,000 votes in
Massachusetts. No wonder you’re almost as
petrified of Trump as you are of DeLeo and
Rosenberg.
Thanks, Tall Deval. Thanks for nothing.
Listen to Howie 3-7 p.m. weekdays on WRKO AM
680.
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Baker casts shade on pay raises, but Dems may
have veto-proof majority
By Matt Murphy and Michael Norton
In its first major decision of the new session,
the Massachusetts House rammed through a nearly
$18 million package of pay raises for the
Legislature, judges and the state's six
statewide constitutional officers amid signs
that Gov. Charlie Baker could be leaning toward
vetoing the bill.
While cautioning that he can't be sure of the
final details of the bill (H 58), Gov. Charlie
Baker suggested shortly after the vote that
little has changed since 2014 when he threatened
a veto following the publication of a report
that became the basis for the pay raise package.
"We said in 2014 we didn't think the pay raise
made sense at that point in time and I don't see
a lot that's changed with respect to that,"
Baker said during a press conference on his
budget proposal.
The House voted 115-44 to approve the package
that would increase pay, in some manner, for all
200 legislators on Beacon Hill as well as for
the state's six statewide constitutional
officers and judges.
Members of legislative leadership and committee
chairs would see substantial pay hikes, while
all lawmakers would see their office expense
budgets increase. House Speaker Robert DeLeo and
Senate President Stanley Rosenberg would see
their salaries grow by $45,000 to $142,547 a
year.
House Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey, who
introduced the bill on the floor, defended the
pay raises, and the decision not to go as far as
the commission recommended, at least with
respect to salaries for the speaker and Senate
president.
"This bill does not fully embrace the
recommendations made by the commission. We felt
that it was important to take into consideration
the need to make some changes, but do so in a
way that is sensitive to the challenges we
face," Dempsey said.
House officials estimate the bill will cost $4.1
million this fiscal year, and $17.8 million over
the course of a full year beginning in fiscal
2018. Of that annual cost, $2.8 million more
will go toward salaries and office expenses for
lawmakers, while $12.4 million will go toward
pay hikes for judges and court clerks.
All six constitutional officers - governor,
lieutenant governor, auditor, attorney general,
treasurer and secretary of state - would also
get raises under the bill, including an increase
for the governor from $151,800 to $185,000 a
year with a new $65,000 housing allowance. Baker
has said he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito would not
take a raise.
Nine Democrats joined with all 35 Republican
members of the House in opposing the bill,
including Reps. Denise Provost, Jonathan Hecht,
James Dwyer, Colleen Garry, Diana DiZoglio,
Thomas Calter, Paul Heroux, Jonathan Zlotnik,
and freshman Michael Connolly.
The branches may try to move the bill to Baker's
desk on Thursday. The House scheduled a 2 p.m.
session on Thursday, possibly to give the pay
raise bill a final enactment vote if it comes
back from the Senate, which is scheduled to take
up the bill at 11 a.m. In the 40-member Senate,
everyone has one of the leadership or
chairmanship roles that would come with higher
stipends under the bill.
The House quickly dispensed with a few
amendments to the bill and Rep. Shaunna
O'Connell, a Taunton Republican, failed to
convince her colleagues to recommit the bill to
committee for further public hearings.
O'Connell argued that the process used by
Democratic leadership with a "hastily schedule
hearing" last week and a quick vote Wednesday
made it difficult for the public to voice their
opinions.
The hearing was on the 2014 report and lawmakers
opted against holding a public hearing on the
bill, which emerged for the first time on Monday
night.
"I don't think it's very difficult to argue that
this bill is being rushed through to avoid
public scrutiny and make it go away very
quickly," O'Connell said.
Rep. Geoffrey Diehl, of Whitman, questioned
whether his colleagues deserved a raise after
taking questionable actions in recent years,
including indexing the gas tax to inflation and
passing a tax on technology services, which were
both later reversed.
"If anything, we should adopt New Hampshire's
one hundred dollars in pay until we prove we're
worth it," Diehl said.
Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican, offered
several amendments, including one to delay the
implementation of the raises until after the
next election and another to limit the increase
in stipends for legislative leaders to just 4
percent.
Both were defeated.
"To suggest to the taxpayers that it is fair to
give out 40 and 50 percent raises when we're
looking at 9c cuts and declining revenues, it's
simply unfair," Lyons said.
Only five amendments were filed in total. One
amendment filed by Rep. Lenny Mirra pertaining
to the retirement eligibility for lawmakers was
determined to be beyond the scope of the bill
and two others were withdrawn.
Rep. Tricia Farley Bouvier was the only Democrat
to propose an amendment to the bill, and
withdrew her proposal recommending that
lawmakers who live 100 miles or more from the
State House receive $25,000 a year for office
expenses, up from the proposed $20,000 for any
lawmakers living 50 miles or more away from the
capital.
Lyons also withdrew his amendment to require the
speaker of the House and Senate president to
publicly disclose their tax returns to prove
they are in compliance with a proposed ban on
the top ranking legislators from earning outside
income.
—Andy Metzger
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
|