|
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
Friday, January 27, 2017
Gov. Baker vetoed disgusting pay
grab — Now what?
|
Acting less than 24 hours after the House,
the Senate on Thursday voted 31-9 in support of an $18
million package of pay raises for lawmakers, judges and
constitutional officers, with Democratic leadership securing
a veto-proof majority that all but assures the bill will
become law even if Gov. Charlie Baker vetoes it.
The House passed its pay raise bill (H 58)
on a 116-44 vote and the Senate passed its proposal (S 16)
with three Democrats joining all six Republican senators in
opposition. The Democrats voting against the bill were Sens.
Anne Gobi, Michael Moore and Walter Timilty.
Timilty declined to comment on his vote when
approached outside the chamber, but Gobi, a Spencer
Democrat, called her decision a "conscientious vote."
"I just thought it was too much considering
the situation many of the people in the commonwealth are
going through," Gobi told the News Service....
Legislative leaders worked behind the scenes
over the winter on the pay raise bill before springing the
topic into the public realm last Tuesday by calling for a
hearing on Thursday on a two-year-old report on pay levels
for public officials. Lawmakers on Monday night unveiled
their bill. With the potential for larger paychecks on the
horizon, the branches whisked the legislation through....
The only amendment proposing a change to the
bill that wasn't withdrawn before debate began was a Sen.
Donald Humason plan proposing to delay the raises until
January 2019 after the next election cycle. Humason said
postponing the pay raises would be in keeping with how
Congress and many city council's deal with compensation
changes for elected officials.
The amendment was rejected on a voice vote.
The House plans to convene at 2 p.m.
Thursday, making it likely that the pay raise bill could
land on Gov. Baker's desk before the end of the day. Baker
on Wednesday hinted that he might veto the bill, but both
branches appear to have sufficient support to override the
governor.
Newton Mayor Setti Warren, a Democrat who is
actively exploring a possible run for governor in 2018,
urged Baker to veto the bill after the Senate's vote,
calling it a "poorly rushed-through pay raise plan" that
should have been subjected to more debate and transparency.
Legislative leaders did not hold a public
hearing on the proposal.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Pay raise law appears inevitable after swift, veto-proof
votes
Massachusetts legislators are about to pull
off the Great Pay Heist of 2017.
After a hurry-up process that slights
transparency and takes refuge in convenient fictions and
pretzel logic, the House passed the pay raises on Wednesday,
with the Senate expected to follow suit on Thursday....
Consider just two aspects of this
unfortunate episode. Legislators have attached an emergency
preamble so the new pay will begin to flow immediately. And
they have slipped in an increase for the judiciary. That
will render the pay hike immune to an initiative petition
repeal effort, since the state constitution excludes
judicial compensation as a subject for ballot questions....
Those rationalizations are so flimsy as to
be laughable. The speaker’s office, meanwhile, failed to
respond at all to a request for comment on the same issues.
Rosenberg also claims that the process “has
not been rushed” because (1) the pay-raise commission made
its recommendation in 2014 and (2) the Legislature last week
held a hearing on a raise. That hearing, however, wasn’t on
specific legislation. And the cost of the pay package under
discussion was estimated at less than $1 million, not the
nearly $18 million the total package will now cost. Further,
no mention was made of the judicial pay hike.
Given lawmakers’ disregard for a proper
process, for transparency, and for their constituents,
Governor Baker should veto this pay hike and tell
legislators to go about this the right way. The Legislature
may have the votes to override him — but at least his veto
would strike a lonely note for good government.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Governor Baker, veto this pay hike!
Everything about the proposed legislative
pay raises is disturbing: the post-election timing, the
estimates that it could cost as much as $18 million, and the
stunning haste lawmakers have shown in pushing through a
self-serving agenda, with practically no time for debate or
for the public to react.
Governor Charlie Baker has hinted he might
veto the bill. The numbers on Beacon Hill say Baker's veto
would likely be overridden, but that doesn't change how the
governor should reject this unsavory legislation.
Pay raises for legislators are never
popular, but reasonable people could argue it's time for
Massachusetts lawmakers to get a hike. The nature by which
this is being hustled through, however, will anger even
those citizens who would be willing to consider it....
There is a callousness attached to this
bill, not just because of the dollars involved (though that
always matters), but for the transparent disregard of public
reaction. Legislators know the public will always balk at
this type of bill, so they're pushing it through with speed
that is often absent on other measures that would directly
help the public welfare and need.
Baker knows his veto could very well be
overridden. For a governor who needs bipartisan support and
promotes it in his speeches, picking his spots to challenge
the Democratic Legislature is important.
But in this case, consistency of message is
even more important. If this bill winds up becoming law, it
should do so over the objections of the governor, and not
with his support.
That won't change the outcome, but it would
let voters know which of their elected officials were in
favor of this measure and endorsed how it was done, and
which were not.
A Springfield Republican editorial
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Override or no, Baker should veto raises
Maybe it’s the rarified air in some
Statehouse offices. Or maybe it’s a symptom of being out of
touch with constituents. But the process this week at the
Legislature to approve an expansive — and expensive —
package of pay raises for public officials is starting to
wear thin....
The news service reported DeLeo describing
the mood in Tuesdays caucus as “very good.” Reporters
outside the hearing room — did we already mention it was
closed? — heard several rounds of applause from those
inside.
Wouldn’t you applaud if you were in a
private club talking about pay raises?
“I think I heard more than a couple of jokes
about what people might be interested in and whatnot,” DeLeo
said about the potential jockeying for leadership posts and
committee chairmanships that could soon come with
significant extra income.
We’re not laughing....
We’re not opposed to the governor’s office
receiving a raise (compensation would go from $151,800 to
$185,000, under the current bill, plus a housing allowance)
because it’s a complex, full-time job with tremendous
responsibility. The House and Senate, on the other hand,
don’t need raises, but odds are this will sail through like
a herring gull in a gale despite opposition from fiscally
responsible legislators like state Sen. Bruce Tarr of
Gloucester, the Senate minority leader, and state Rep. Jim
Lyons of Andover, who filed an amendment to the bill that
would put off any raises until after the next election.
We wonder if the discussion about these pay
raises would be different if DeLeo and his leadership
colleagues took this issue into the streets and town halls
for feedback from voters.
A Salem News editorial
Thursday, January 26, 2017
On legislative raises, one more time
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker vowed Thursday
to veto a bill approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate
and House that would give nearly $18 million in annual pay
raises to top legislators, statewide elected officials and
judges.
Baker said in a statement that one of his
core responsibilities "is the responsible custody of the
people's tax dollars, and we will veto this legislation
because given the current fiscal outlook for the state, now
is not the time to expend additional funds on elected
officials' salaries."
The Senate and House, however, approved the
bill by veto-proof margins....
Critics faulted the bill's timing, which
comes as Beacon Hill is working to keep the state budget
balanced.
The group Citizens for Limited Taxation
called on Baker to veto the bill, criticizing lawmakers
for rushing through the legislation. DeLeo and Rosenberg
first announced their intention to revisit the issue just
last week.
"These cynical actions demonstrate that when
the leadership and enough beholding members in the
Legislature want something badly enough they just take it,"
said Chip Ford, the group's executive director.
Associated Press
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Gov. Baker to veto bill hiking pay raises for top lawmakers
Hours after formally receiving their plan,
Gov. Charlie Baker on Thursday afternoon informed
legislative Democrats that he intends to veto a
controversial package of pay raises worth $18 million for
lawmakers, judges and constitutional officers in a move that
may carry more political weight for the Republican governor
than practical implications.
With veto-proof majorities in both branches
backing the bill (H 58), the pay raises are all but assured
to go through. But with conservative groups and even one
possible Democratic challenger for governor in 2018 - Newton
Mayor Setti Warren - urging a veto, Baker's stance against
the raises may be enough to shield him from the political
blowback without damaging his relationships with Democrats
who run the Legislature....
A senior advisor to Baker said he will veto
the bill Friday, returning it the House where they can begin
to prepare for an override vote. It's not clear yet how much
pressure, if any, the governor will apply to lawmakers in a
bid to switch votes and earn enough support to sustain his
veto - overrides require two thirds support in both branches
to take effect....
Acting less than 24 hours after the House on
Thursday, the Senate voted 31-9 in support of the pay raises
after very little debate and the branches took the final
procedural votes needed to get the bill to the governor.
The House enacted the pay raises on a 116-43
vote, and the Senate passed its proposal (S 16) with three
Democrats joining all six Republican senators in opposition.
The Democrats voting against the bill were Sens. Anne Gobi,
Michael Moore and Walter Timilty.
Assuming the votes hold, opponents would
need to switch 10 additional Democrat votes in the House and
five in the Senate to sustain Baker's veto. All 41
Republicans in the House and Senate voted against the
bill....
Legislative leaders did not hold a public
hearing on the proposal.
Paul Craney, executive director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, also chided lawmakers, who
consider themselves part of a full-time working Legislature
even though activity in the House and Senate can be
sporadic, with busy spells sometimes followed by long lulls.
"Being a member of the Massachusetts
Legislature is now the best part time job in America,"
Craney wrote to the News Service.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Baker will veto pay raises, but can he flip votes to kill
bill?
Gov. Charlie Baker said he will veto the
proposed legislative pay raise, even though it appears to be
veto-proof.
"We will veto this legislation because given
the current fiscal outlook for the state, now is not the
time to expend additional funds on elected officials’
salaries," Baker said in a statement tonight.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Gov. Baker says he'll veto legislative pay raise
As he had signaled earlier in the week,
Governor Charlie Baker late Thursday confirmed he will veto
an $18 million pay raise package for legislators, judges,
scores of court clerks, their assistants, and other court
personnel across the Commonwealth.
Baker offered no sharp criticism of the pay
hikes and instead praised the Democrat-dominated
Legislature, expressing hope that his veto would not disrupt
their strong working relationship.
“Lieutenant Governor [Karyn] Polito and I
are deeply thankful for our collaborative relationship with
the Legislature that has produced positive results for the
people of Massachusetts,’’ Baker said. “And while we
disagree on the issue of compensation, we are optimistic
that we will continue to work together to carry out the
responsibilities entrusted to us by the people of
Massachusetts.
“One of those core responsibilities is the
responsible custody of the people’s tax dollars, and we will
veto this legislation because given the current fiscal
outlook for the state, now is not the time to expend
additional funds on elected officials’ salaries,” he
said....
The veto-proof majorities all but guarantee
the raises will become law. And because the package includes
raises for judges, it is protected from an initiative
petition repeal effort, since the state Constitution
excludes judicial compensation as a subject for ballot
questions.
Baker is expected to formally issue his veto
on Friday. Lawmakers will return to Beacon Hill for expected
override votes next week.
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2018
Baker will veto pay raises for legislators
I hate to be cynical about this latest
Beacon Hill pay heist but . . .
Did you notice that Gov. Charlie “Tall Deval”
Baker didn’t come out against it until after the first vote
in the House Wednesday afternoon?
You know, the 115-44 vote that showed that
the hacks had the numbers to override a veto by the
governor. So at that point, Baker could go out and
fearlessly announce his intention to veto the bill, since it
would be an absolutely pointless gesture.
Tall Deval is against the pay raises —
wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Is it too late to nominate him for a
Profiles in Courage award?
Do you suppose he’ll want to get involved in
any attempt to repeal the pay hikes via a ballot question?
Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Baker’s vetoing
the bill. It’s a real stinkeroo. He really didn’t have any
choice, did he, considering that this is the hacks’ second
pay raise in a month?
But how pathetic is it that House Speaker
Bobby DeLeo, the unindicted co-conspirator, and Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg can get away with making
themselves the highest-paid legislators in the country, and
95 percent of the Democrats in the General Court say
absolutely nothing....
This is what happens when you have a
one-party state. The party in power loses all fear. When you
know you won’t have any opposition in the next election, you
can make any bad vote you want....
Stanley Rosenberg said yesterday they wanted
a show of power. I’d say 31-9 gets the job done. What a guy
— he’s been lurking in the State House corridors since 1980,
since Jimmy Carter was president.
And now he’s going to make $147,000-plus a
year. Who says crime doesn’t pay?
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Hey, Tall Deval, thanks for absolutely nothing
By Howie Carr
Fiscal watchdogs irked by the Legislature’s
lightning passage of an $18 million pay hike could have an
avenue to challenge the veto-proof measure at the ballot box
after all, offering them hope of trying to claw back parts
of it in 2018....
The Boston Globe reported that the state
constitution outlines that any law that includes judicial
compensation can’t be repealed in its entirety by a ballot
referendum, seemingly making the pay hike untouchable.
But state law offers another path: Advocates
say they could potentially pursue an initiative petition,
which allows residents to seek to repeal a particular
section of a law. That could allow opponents to target any
of the 50 sections that don’t involve judicial pay raises
but addresses those of lawmakers or other officials.
“This thing was such an insult to anyone
paying taxes, it would behoove us to look at some way to
rescind or at least limit the damage,” said Chip Faulkner
of Citizens for Limited Taxation, which opposes the
pay hikes. “This is another approach and one we’re certainly
going to take a look a it. It’s outrageous what they
(lawmakers) did.”
Attorney General Maura Healey’s office,
which certifies ballot initiatives, said the initiative
petition process could “theoretically” be used to target a
section of a law, but noted her office would have to review
any specific petition to ensure it is legal.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Ballot question can roll back pay hikes...just not all at
once
Gov. Charlie Baker needled the legislative
pay hikes that lawmakers approved for themselves this week
as "fiscally irresponsible," but defended the Legislature's
process and stopped short of saying he'll lobby lawmakers to
sustain the veto he handed down on Friday....
"For most people, the timing of this is
inappropriate, and the scale and size of the adjustment is
as well," Baker said Friday during a press conference he
called in his office to discuss the matter.
While Baker was coy about whether he would
directly lobby lawmakers to reverse their votes, the party
he leads was direct about its intentions. Digital ads are
being launched by Republicans targeting freshman Democrats
who voted for the pay raises —
ten House newcomers voted for the bill and two new senators.
"These freshman Democrat legislators may be
pleased enough with their performance in the past few weeks
to merit a raise, but their employers
— the
taxpayers —
might disagree. By voting to give themselves a
taxpayer-funded raise before they have accomplished much of
anything, these freshmen have shown they're wasting no time
adjusting to the Beacon Hill insider culture," MassGOP
spokesman Terry MacCormack said in a statement.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office and
Senate President Stan Rosenberg's office declined to respond
Friday to the governor's veto and criticisms. A House source
said the House plans to vote on overriding the governor's
veto next week....
Baker added at his press conference that he
and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito "hope this action will at least
ensure that the citizens have more time to make their voices
heard."
Baker said hundreds of people have called
his office with concerns about the pay raises and Baker
implored them to "share their concerns with their own
senators and representatives, many of whom agree with our
decision."
Legislative leaders have taken heat this
week for the way they went about boosting their paychecks,
having never held a public hearing on the bill itself but
instead holding one on a 2014 report recommending even
greater pay increases, and hurrying the package through
their branches.
But Baker on Friday defended the process,
despite vetoing the bill and suggesting citizens direct
their concerns at the Legislature.
"In fairness to them, OK, on the hearing,
they had the hearing on the 2014 report," he said. "The
process they pursued on this has been public. I mean,
everybody voted on it, they're on the record on it."
In his veto letter though, Baker faulted the
process, saying the bill passed "without a reasonable
opportunity for public comment."
State House News Service
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker rips "irresponsible" pay raise bill, GOP targets
freshman Dems
On Friday Baker showed little inclination to
use the leverage of his office to lobby House or Senate
members to switch their votes and support his veto. Only 13
House members — all of them Democrats who voted for the pay
raise since the entire 35-member GOP caucus voted against
the bill — would have to be persuaded to switch.
“I am going to start with the folks who
supported our position,’’ Baker said when asked if he would
lobby the Legislature. “I think their insights on this is
the best place to start.”
Because the package includes raises for
judges, it is protected from a referendum repeal effort. The
state Constitution excludes judicial compensation as a
subject for referendum ballot questions.
But Baker suggested that the legislative pay
raise sections of the bill could be separated out and
targeted for repeal via an initiative petition. That process
would require far more voter signatures to get on the 2018
ballot and would likely be litigated. Opponents appear not
to be as organized as they have in previous pay raise
battles.
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker vetoes ‘fiscally irresponsible’ pay raises
Gov. Charlie Baker today vetoed the massive
pay hike package lawmakers jammed through the State House
this week, calling the bill "fiscally irresponsible."
Baker said the pay hikes, which lawmakers
said could cost nearly $18 million a year, makes for
"unplanned" financial burdens on the state's budget and adds
to the state's pension liability down the road.
The Swampscott Republican, who addressed the
media this morning, also said the bill would also
"effectively repeal the term limits voters set for
constitutional officers at the ballot box in 1994."
Baker's action ultimately could be moot. The
bill passed both the House, 116-44, and the Senate, 31-9,
with veto-proof majorities, signaling there's enough support
to override his opposition.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker vetoes pay raise for lawmakers; will likely be
overruled
You get a raise, and you get a raise and you
get a raise.
These may not have been the exact words used
by House and Senate Democratic leaders when they pitched
their caucus on a controversial $18 million package of pay
hikes for lawmakers, constitutional officers and judges, but
it might have been just as effective as whatever was said.
The House on Wednesday and the Senate on
Thursday passed the big pay raise package as their first
major order of business this session with veto-proof
majorities. Republicans unanimously opposed the bill,
blasting the scale of the raise and the process used to ram
it through, but only 12 Democrats joined the cause.
So when Gov. Charlie Baker finally spoke up
on Thursday night against the bill and vetoed it Friday
morning, the confrontation between Baker and Beacon Hill
Democrats felt more like political theater than a full-on
escalation of hostilities.
The governor didn't do much to change that,
prefacing his comments on the veto much the way he began and
ended his State of the Commonwealth earlier in the week
— with
praise for the Legislature as a partner in bipartisan
compromise that he hopes will continue.
It was as if Baker meant to say, "I'm sorry,
guys. I have to do this. Please understand." ...
While that may be unlikely to happen, one
veteran political operative said the pay raise imbroglio may
have turned the tables on the electoral landscape in 2018,
assuming voters' memories are that long.
Doug Rubin, former chief of staff and
campaign manager for Gov. Deval Patrick, started the week by
suggesting he thought Baker would lose a re-election bid in
2018 if he signed the pay raise bill.
After Baker's veto, Rubin had more to say on
Twitter: "The political dynamics in MA heading into 2018
greatly favored D's...until the way Leg just handled pay
raise gave R's big opening."
STORY OF THE WEEK: When you control your own
pay, who decides what you're worth?
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: "It just makes me feel
good that — I'm going to say
something really crazy but
—
there's no Democrat or Republican," Rep. Patricia Haddad
said after hearing Baker's "State of the Commonweath"
address and before every Republican, including Baker,
opposed the Democrats' first initiative of the new year -
pay raises.
State House News Service
Friday, January 27, 2017
Weekly Roundup — Take the money and run
By Matt Murphy
. . . The raises, whisked through the
branches this week without a public hearing on the bill (H
58), are also opposed by every elected Republican on Beacon
Hill and a few Democrats. Baker on Friday issued his veto of
the bill, calling the legislation "fiscally irresponsible."
A veto override needs two thirds approval in
each branch to take effect.
Democratic legislative leaders had
veto-proof majorities this week when they passed the bill
but opponents could win the day if they can flip ten votes
in the House or five in the Senate.
There's a fair amount of outrage over the
pay raises on social media, among talk show callers and
among constituents who are calling lawmakers to express
their opinions. Whether it's enough to sway votes will be
the question until the override votes are taken.
The House plans a formal session Wednesday
to consider a rules proposal and the Senate plans to take up
rules changes on Thursday. An override bid, assuming
Democrats can keep their votes in place, is likely sooner
rather than later since legislative leaders clearly want to
enact the raises as soon as possible and Baker's quick veto
gives them that opportunity.
State House
News Service
Friday, January 27, 2017
Advances — Week of Jan. 29,
2017
Hacks on Beacon Hill will tell you that they
work hard and they deserve the money.
I’m not sure about that. But let’s say it’s
true. Therein lies the problem.
They work too hard.
They need some time off.
If they were part-time legislators, they
might not pass as many laws. They might not find as many
nooks and crannies to poke their noses in. Maybe we’d have
fewer statutes, fewer regulations, and more freedom.
We’d sure as heck have more money.
How could we survive with part-time
legislators?
Well, let’s consider an example. And not
that far away.
Among the English-speaking democratic
governments, New Hampshire has the fourth largest
legislature in the world. (It goes British Parliament,
United States Congress, Canadian Parliament, New Hampshire
Legislature.) ...
How can New Hampshire afford so many
legislators?
The state pays them $100 a year....
That’s because there are enough people in
the Granite State interested in contributing to their
government that they’re willing to do it in their spare
time, without making a career of it.
The New Boston Post
Thursday, January 25, 2017
Drinks Are On Bobby
By Matt McDonald
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Gov. Baker's veto avoided his being splashed by gutter mud from the drive-by
Democrats in the Legislature. It was better than if he hadn't
vetoed this abomination, but as Matt Murphy of the State House News Service
summed it up: "It was as if Baker meant to
say, 'I'm sorry, guys. I have to do this. Please understand.'"
In our
message to him we suggested at the very least that he send the Legislature's
bill back as two separate bills, splitting up the judicial pay section from the
politicians pay section.
Any governor can return legislation sent to him with his own amendments to it.
The Legislature then can either accept all of some of his amendments or reject
them and send it back for the governor's signature. At that point, the
governor can sign, veto, or pocket veto the bill through inaction
— and be right where Gov. Baker is now.
If the bill was split into two as we suggested, it would have made a straight
repeal referendum of the pay grab for legislators and constitutional officers
part much easier for citizens, instead of the far more onerous task requiring
significantly more signatures required for an initiative petition
— if it passes the legal hurdles. We've had
very poor results before the courts all the way up to the state Supreme Judicial
Court when the issue is pay and perks for legislators, or any constraint
on legislators — after all, it's the Legislature
which funds the Judiciary and sets judicial pay, or doesn't.
As it stands, an initiative petition would be required to create a whole new law
from scratch, to excise legislators and constitutional officers from the pay
grab law without touching the judiciary. (It is unconstitutional for a
citizen petition that affects the judicial branch.)
Though gathering the 100,000 or so signatures would be a herculean task, it's
not necessarily the most difficult part.
To even get the petitions printed would require first getting approval
from Attorney General Maura Healey — a beneficiary
of the law citizens would be trying to overturn.
If approved by the AG, then it goes to the Secretary of State
— also a beneficiary of the pay hikes. We've
been stopped there before as well.
Then there are potential challenges by those benefitting from the pay grab,
before the state ballot law commission and the courts all the way up to the
state Supreme Judicial Court.
We don't lightly call CLT “'The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers' — and their
Institutional Memory.” We've been fighting in the trenches for
taxpayers for decades, have worked on some dozen major petition drives, and have
the bruises to show for it. I created the CLT website when CLT and my
Freedom First merged in 1996 not only to keep our members informed, but to lay
down and preserve that "institutional memory" in perpetuity for us as
well as for you. What follows are some political obstructions we've
experienced with our referendum and initiative petition efforts, examples of
what organizers of such an initiative petition as described above would likely
confront.
http://www.cltg.org/cltg/clt2003/03-07-03.htm
1996 SJC opinion:
In 1995 CLT's Coalition for Payraise Repeal (CPR) ballot committee
did a successful initiative petition drive in response to the
Legislature's then-recent 55% pay raise. After we got the necessary
first round of signatures, the Legislature challenged the
constitutionality of our petition, seeking an advisory opinion from
the state Supreme Judicial Court. In the end, the SJC tossed out our
petition and the Legislature kept its outrageous pay grab.
http://www.cltg.org/cltg/cltg2001/01-12-14.htm
Next, let's look at the state Supreme Judicial Court
— or as I prefer to call it, the
Supreme Judicial Kangaroo Court. From experience, I adopted that
terminology many years ago after personally confronting it. This was
before my old organization, Freedom First, merged with CLT in 1996
to officially form Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government.
CLT had its own stark experience when it tried to do by initiative
petition "Rules Reform" of the Legislature back in the early-80s.
After the signatures were turned in, the SJKC ruled literally that
what the Legislature does internally is none of the peoples'
business and threw it out.
http://www.cltg.org/cltg/cltg2001/01-12-14.htm
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
Judges wary of challenging Beacon Hill
By Frank Phillips
The state's Supreme Judicial Court offered only tepid opposition to
a budget rider pushed through by the Legislature two weeks ago to
strip judges of their power to hire probation officers
— an assault on judicial independence.
Hearing no vocal protest, Acting Governor Jane Swift obliged House
Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and went along with the change, which
gutted a major court reform without any debate.
The judges' acquiescence, if disappointing to some, was not
surprising. The judiciary has long avoided offending the
Legislature, perhaps gunshy after retaliation against judges who
failed to cooperate with legislators' demands. . . .
Judges cannot be blamed if they fear retribution from the
Legislature, which maintains control over individual appropriations
to each of the state's 61 courthouses —
an unusual system that allows legislators to reward and punish
individual judges through the budget process....
http://www.cltg.org/cltg/cltg2001/01-12-14.htm
Coalition for Payraise Repeal (CPR)
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
For further information contact:
Chip Ford / Barbara Anderson
SJC Denies Release of Hostage Petitions
This afternoon the SJC ruled that the Secretary of State can kill
the initiative petition process on a whim, putting the
once-constitutional right of the people in serious jeopardy.
In one paragraph and without explanation, Justice Lynch ordered that
the Coalition for Payraise Repeal's motion was denied. CPR had asked
the court to force Secretary of State William F. Galvin to release
our hostage petitions as he used to be required to do by the state
constitution.
"We figured the fix was in as soon as Justice Lynch interrupted our
attorney's opening statement to argue 'practicality' while ignoring
constitutionality," said Chip Ford, chairman of CPR. "Consistency
from the Beacon Hill Establishment has followed this effort from
beginning to end; consistent denial of the law, the constitution and
the people's rights under it."
"The court issued no explanation for its one-sentence ruling,
because there is no credible explanation that could be made," said
Barbara Anderson, CPR vice-chairman and executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. "We still had faith in the courts to
stay above the political fray, but even the highest court in the
state has joined in the assault on the initiative petition process."
. . .
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
'Animal House' still lags in implementing reforms
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
"They have finally caught on to what I've always been afraid they
would recognize — they can get away
with anything," said Citizens for Limited Taxation chief Barbara
Anderson.
http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg98-1/cltg010598.html
NEWS ADVISORY
Contact: Chip Ford
January 5, 1998
Teachers throw spitballs at walls; hope something sticks
William A. McDermott, one of an army of attorneys retained by the
Massachusetts Teachers Association in its assault on voter
decision-making, again has filed a frivolous challenge to signatures
obtained by a ballot committee of Citizens for Limited Taxation &
Government.
In "Frivolous Bill" McDermott’s last challenge, he argued that the
Coalition for (Legislative) Payraise Repeal had "mutilated" its own
petitions by stamping its return address on a blank portion of the
petition forms. After three days of hearings in 1996, it was thrown
out as "frivolous" by the state Ballot Law Commission. That bizarre
challenge to a petition which would cut legislators salaries had
been brought by a McDermott employee, who presumably was personally
offended all on her own by the idea of a lower-paid
citizen-legislature — offended enough to hire her boss! ...
http://cltg.org/cltg/cltg98-1/cltgnews032098.html
As Jim St. George of TEAM recently acknowledged of their
challenge, it’s less expensive to tie up your opponents in court and
hope to defeat them there than it is to wage a campaign of ideas and
hope to win over the voters.
So you can see the hurdles any petition to rein in the Legislature is up
against. This is not to say it can't be done —
we are exploring the possibilities and feasibility, and will be in contact with
other individuals and groups with a similar interest. It is to say
that going forward would entail a tremendous amount of work and a tremendous
amount of money, and could well be shot down at any of many points. We've
gotten the tens of thousands of required signatures only to have a petition
tossed out. We've won ballot campaigns by large margins only to have the
courts toss out the results (term limits, etc.), or the Legislature give the
voters the Beacon Hill Middle Finger Salute (income tax rollback). But
we've also won more than we've lost.
It's worth consideration, but for now I'm ending another very long day
— my tenth 18-20 hour work-day in a row since
we
first learned of that sudden hearing a week ago this past Tuesday. (Can I
vote myself a pay raise?) It's midnight again and I need some sleep!
Make sure you download and save these critical roll call votes.
Remember how your state representative and state senator voted on this obscene,
self-serving money grab the next time they come looking for your vote.
With any luck, and if the state Republican party gets its act together, we'll
have somebody — anybody
— else to vote for, a choice on our ballots.
HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE
SENATE ROLL
CALL VOTE
H.58
— THE OBSCENE PAY GRAB BILL
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Pay raise law appears inevitable after swift,
veto-proof votes
By Matt Murphy
Acting less than 24 hours after the House, the
Senate on Thursday voted 31-9 in support of an
$18 million package of pay raises for lawmakers,
judges and constitutional officers, with
Democratic leadership securing a veto-proof
majority that all but assures the bill will
become law even if Gov. Charlie Baker vetoes it.
The House passed its pay raise bill (H 58) on a
116-44 vote and the Senate passed its proposal
(S 16) with three Democrats joining all six
Republican senators in opposition. The Democrats
voting against the bill were Sens. Anne Gobi,
Michael Moore and Walter Timilty.
Timilty declined to comment on his vote when
approached outside the chamber, but Gobi, a
Spencer Democrat, called her decision a
"conscientious vote."
"I just thought it was too much considering the
situation many of the people in the commonwealth
are going through," Gobi told the News Service.
She was also carrying a copy of the letter she
intends to send to Treasurer Deborah Goldberg
declining the pay increase should it become law,
and said she hoped her colleagues who also voted
no would similarly not accept the raise.
"You can't be hypocritical. If you vote no, you
shouldn't take the dough, so I won't take the
money," Gobi said.
Legislative leaders worked behind the scenes
over the winter on the pay raise bill before
springing the topic into the public realm last
Tuesday by calling for a hearing on Thursday on
a two-year-old report on pay levels for public
officials. Lawmakers on Monday night unveiled
their bill. With the potential for larger
paychecks on the horizon, the branches whisked
the legislation through.
While base pay rates of legislators are adjusted
every two years based on changes in median
income, Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen
Spilka defended the pay raises on the floor,
arguing that stipends for leadership and senior
committee positions had not been adjusted since
either 1982 or 1994.
Spilka, of Ashland, promised that the $4.1
million cost of the raises over the final six
months of this fiscal year would not require a
special budget bill to appropriate more money
for salaries, but rather would be absorbed into
existing budget.
The only amendment proposing a change to the
bill that wasn't withdrawn before debate began
was a Sen. Donald Humason plan proposing to
delay the raises until January 2019 after the
next election cycle. Humason said postponing the
pay raises would be in keeping with how Congress
and many city council's deal with compensation
changes for elected officials.
The amendment was rejected on a voice vote.
The House plans to convene at 2 p.m. Thursday,
making it likely that the pay raise bill could
land on Gov. Baker's desk before the end of the
day. Baker on Wednesday hinted that he might
veto the bill, but both branches appear to have
sufficient support to override the governor.
Newton Mayor Setti Warren, a Democrat who is
actively exploring a possible run for governor
in 2018, urged Baker to veto the bill after the
Senate's vote, calling it a "poorly
rushed-through pay raise plan" that should have
been subjected to more debate and transparency.
Legislative leaders did not hold a public
hearing on the proposal.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 26, 2017
A Boston Globe editorial
Governor Baker, veto this pay hike!
Massachusetts legislators are about to pull off
the Great Pay Heist of 2017.
After a hurry-up process that slights
transparency and takes refuge in convenient
fictions and pretzel logic, the House passed the
pay raises on Wednesday, with the Senate
expected to follow suit on Thursday.
There’s certainly a case to be made for a decent
pay raise on Beacon Hill. But not in this
indecent fashion. Good government and
transparency concerns mean that this bill
deserves a gubernatorial veto.
Consider just two aspects of this unfortunate
episode. Legislators have attached an emergency
preamble so the new pay will begin to flow
immediately. And they have slipped in an
increase for the judiciary. That will render the
pay hike immune to an initiative petition repeal
effort, since the state constitution excludes
judicial compensation as a subject for ballot
questions.
Because they are constitutionally constrained
from raising their base salary of $62,500,
lawmakers are targeting this pay increase for
legislative leaders. On Beacon Hill, of course,
such leaders abound. In the 40-person Senate,
every member in both parties has a pay-enhancing
leadership post.
Most committee chairs will see their stipends
doubled, from $15,000 to $30,000. The Ways and
Means chairmen will get a $40,000 boost. Bonus
pay for the posts of speaker pro tem and Senate
president pro tem — positions that didn’t exist
15 years ago — will jump from $15,000 to
$50,000. The actual speaker and Senate president
will get $45,000 raises.
In fairness, the legislative leadership has
secured an informal opinion from the general
counsel at the State Ethics Commission
essentially saying legislators can move ahead
with the pay hike as long as they file a written
disclosure that they are taking action that will
substantially affect their financial interests.
Still, the recognized best practice for avoiding
ethical concerns with raises that legislators
vote for themselves is to stipulate that the
increases take effect at the start of the *next*
legislative session. That way, lawmakers aren’t
casting a direct vote to increase their pay; if
voters disapprove, they can express their
sentiments by defeating legislators who backed
the pay hike.
In this case, however, legislators are using
wafer-thin rationalizations to sidestep process
concerns. Here’s one: By pushing this package
through before the leadership posts have been
formally filled, lawmakers technically aren’t
voting to raise their own pay, but rather
compensation for the positions they will soon
hold.
Senate President Stan Rosenberg, who sometimes
poses as a process liberal, even cites that
fiction to justify the hurry-up pay-hike
offense. “Pay adjustments need to be made now,
at the beginning of our two-year term, before
people have leadership and chair assignments and
are not voting on their own raises,” he said in
a statement to a Globe editorial writer. And why
is the emergency preamble necessary? “Because we
have to do our rules and appointments within the
next couple of weeks, and that ought to be on
the books and law by that time,” Rosenberg said
later at a media availability.
Those rationalizations are so flimsy as to be
laughable. The speaker’s office, meanwhile,
failed to respond at all to a request for
comment on the same issues.
Rosenberg also claims that the process “has not
been rushed” because (1) the pay-raise
commission made its recommendation in 2014 and
(2) the Legislature last week held a hearing on
a raise. That hearing, however, wasn’t on
specific legislation. And the cost of the pay
package under discussion was estimated at less
than $1 million, not the nearly $18 million the
total package will now cost. Further, no mention
was made of the judicial pay hike.
Given lawmakers’ disregard for a proper process,
for transparency, and for their constituents,
Governor Baker should veto this pay hike and
tell legislators to go about this the right way.
The Legislature may have the votes to override
him — but at least his veto would strike a
lonely note for good government.
The Springfield Republican
Thursday, January 26, 2017
A Springfield Republican editorial
Override or no, Baker should veto raises
Everything about the proposed legislative pay
raises is disturbing: the post-election timing,
the estimates that it could cost as much as $18
million, and the stunning haste lawmakers have
shown in pushing through a self-serving agenda,
with practically no time for debate or for the
public to react.
Governor Charlie Baker has hinted he might veto
the bill. The numbers on Beacon Hill say Baker's
veto would likely be overridden, but that
doesn't change how the governor should reject
this unsavory legislation.
Pay raises for legislators are never popular,
but reasonable people could argue it's time for
Massachusetts lawmakers to get a hike. The
nature by which this is being hustled through,
however, will anger even those citizens who
would be willing to consider it.
In 2014, Baker remarked that legislative raises
might be appropriate if economic times were
better. In Massachusetts, though, they are not
noticeably better today than in 2014, if they're
better at all, and budget challenges facing the
Commonwealth lend an added layer of distaste for
the current proposal.
Nine House Democrats and all 35 Republicans
voted against a bill to increase compensation
for the Senate president and House Speaker by
more than 50 percent, with hefty expense stipend
raises for all lawmakers. Of 125 Democrats, 116
supported it.
There is a callousness attached to this bill,
not just because of the dollars involved (though
that always matters), but for the transparent
disregard of public reaction. Legislators know
the public will always balk at this type of
bill, so they're pushing it through with speed
that is often absent on other measures that
would directly help the public welfare and need.
Baker knows his veto could very well be
overridden. For a governor who needs bipartisan
support and promotes it in his speeches, picking
his spots to challenge the Democratic
Legislature is important.
But in this case, consistency of message is even
more important. If this bill winds up becoming
law, it should do so over the objections of the
governor, and not with his support.
That won't change the outcome, but it would let
voters know which of their elected officials
were in favor of this measure and endorsed how
it was done, and which were not.
The Salem News
Thursday, January 26, 2017
A Salem News editorial
On legislative raises, one more time
Maybe it’s the rarified air in some Statehouse
offices. Or maybe it’s a symptom of being out of
touch with constituents. But the process this
week at the Legislature to approve an expansive
— and expensive — package of pay raises for
public officials is starting to wear thin.
If you’ve heard us raise this concern recently,
we hope you’ll indulge us one more time.
On Tuesday, State House News Service reported
top House Democrats were confident the package —
called “long overdue” by House Speaker Robert
DeLeo — would pass.
DeLeo led a closed caucus with House Democrats
on Tuesday to detail the package, which was
expected to sail through the House yesterday
before receiving a similarly enthusiastic
response in the Senate today.
The news service reported DeLeo describing the
mood in Tuesdays caucus as “very good.”
Reporters outside the hearing room — did we
already mention it was closed? — heard several
rounds of applause from those inside.
Wouldn’t you applaud if you were in a private
club talking about pay raises?
“I think I heard more than a couple of jokes
about what people might be interested in and
whatnot,” DeLeo said about the potential
jockeying for leadership posts and committee
chairmanships that could soon come with
significant extra income.
We’re not laughing.
The pay raises could cost $6.5 million this
fiscal year and between $12 million and $18
million in fiscal 2018. Gov. Charlie Baker, who
along with Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito has pledged not
to accept any raise, should veto the measure
once it reaches his desk. Such a veto would
likely be overriden, but it would at least send
a message that there are some elected officials
on Beacon Hill who understand the need for
fiscal probity.
All 200 members of the Legislature would get a
raise if this package passes. The state’s six
constitutional officers — the governor, attorney
general, auditor, treasurer, secretary of state
and lieutenant governor — would get pay raises,
as would judges. Committee chairs and members of
the legislative leadership would get substantial
pay hikes.
In all, the raises would cost taxpayers nearly
$16 million a year, enough to raise alarms with
fiscal watchdogs.
“We do have a concern that we would add to a
deficit at a time that the state has fiscal
challenges,” Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
President Eileen McAnneny told the State House
News Service Tuesday.
“We certainly agree that public service is an
important role and that people should be paid
adequately. So I think providing a pay raise is
an important exercise and we don’t have any
problem with that,” McAnneny said. “I think the
concern that we have as we learn more about it
is that the price tag is growing and that it
could potentially add to the deficit. The
special commission made a recommendation that
the money that would pay for these pay increases
essentially come from existing budgets, and so
that would remain our recommendation.”
We’re not opposed to the governor’s office
receiving a raise (compensation would go from
$151,800 to $185,000, under the current bill,
plus a housing allowance) because it’s a
complex, full-time job with tremendous
responsibility. The House and Senate, on the
other hand, don’t need raises, but odds are this
will sail through like a herring gull in a gale
despite opposition from fiscally responsible
legislators like state Sen. Bruce Tarr of
Gloucester, the Senate minority leader, and
state Rep. Jim Lyons of Andover, who filed an
amendment to the bill that would put off any
raises until after the next election.
We wonder if the discussion about these pay
raises would be different if DeLeo and his
leadership colleagues took this issue into the
streets and town halls for feedback from voters.
Associated Press
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Gov. Baker to veto bill hiking pay raises for
top lawmakers
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker vowed Thursday to
veto a bill approved by the Democrat-controlled
Senate and House that would give nearly $18
million in annual pay raises to top legislators,
statewide elected officials and judges.
Baker said in a statement that one of his core
responsibilities "is the responsible custody of
the people's tax dollars, and we will veto this
legislation because given the current fiscal
outlook for the state, now is not the time to
expend additional funds on elected officials'
salaries."
The Senate and House, however, approved the bill
by veto-proof margins.
The Senate voted 31-9 in favor of the
legislation earlier Thursday, a day after the
House approved the measure by a 115-44 vote. A
handful of Democrats joined Republicans in both
chambers in opposing the bill.
The bill wouldn't change the $62,547 annual base
pay for lawmakers, but would increase additional
stipends paid to Democratic and Republican
leaders and to the chairs of key legislative
committees.
The annual salary for House Speaker Robert DeLeo
and Senate President Stan Rosenberg, both
Democrats, would climb about $45,000 to more
than $142,000 a year, while the heads of the
House and Senate Ways and Means Committees would
get a $35,000 raise.
The bill also would boost Baker's annual salary
from $151,800 to $185,000, and for the first
time provide the governor a $65,000 housing
allowance.
Other constitutional officers, including the
attorney general and state treasurer, would also
get substantial raises, and annual salaries for
judges would increase by $25,000.
Rosenberg defended the increase, saying
lawmakers are being forced out of office because
of the low pay.
"We are losing young people every election
cycle." Rosenberg said. "Particularly the
younger members who are trying to start families
and start their career, they cannot live on
this."
The Senate rejected a Republican amendment that
would have delayed the start of the pay raises
for two years. Most of the raises would become
effective immediately.
Critics faulted the bill's timing, which comes
as Beacon Hill is working to keep the state
budget balanced.
The group Citizens for Limited Taxation
called on Baker to veto the bill,
criticizing lawmakers for rushing through the
legislation. DeLeo and Rosenberg first announced
their intention to revisit the issue just last
week.
"These cynical actions demonstrate that when the
leadership and enough beholding members in the
Legislature want something badly enough they
just take it," said Chip Ford, the group's
executive director.
Newton Mayor Setti Warren, a possible Democratic
challenger to Baker in 2018, also slammed what
he called a "rushed-through pay raise plan."
The measure also would end travel allowances for
legislators in favor of a single annual lump sum
payment to cover all expenses: $15,000 for those
who live within 50 miles of the Statehouse and
$20,000 for all others.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Baker will veto pay raises, but can he flip
votes to kill bill?
By Matt Murphy
Hours after formally receiving their plan, Gov.
Charlie Baker on Thursday afternoon informed
legislative Democrats that he intends to veto a
controversial package of pay raises worth $18
million for lawmakers, judges and constitutional
officers in a move that may carry more political
weight for the Republican governor than
practical implications.
With veto-proof majorities in both branches
backing the bill (H 58), the pay raises are all
but assured to go through. But with conservative
groups and even one possible Democratic
challenger for governor in 2018 - Newton Mayor
Setti Warren - urging a veto, Baker's stance
against the raises may be enough to shield him
from the political blowback without damaging his
relationships with Democrats who run the
Legislature.
"Lt. Governor Polito and I are deeply thankful
for our collaborative relationship with the
Legislature that has produced positive results
for the people of Massachusetts - and while we
disagree on the issue of compensation, we are
optimistic that we will continue to work
together to carry out the responsibilities
entrusted to us by the people of Massachusetts,"
Baker said in a statement early Thursday night.
"One of those core responsibilities is the
responsible custody of the people's tax dollars,
and we will veto this legislation because given
the current fiscal outlook for the state, now is
not the time to expend additional funds on
elected officials' salaries."
A senior advisor to Baker said he will veto the
bill Friday, returning it the House where they
can begin to prepare for an override vote. It's
not clear yet how much pressure, if any, the
governor will apply to lawmakers in a bid to
switch votes and earn enough support to sustain
his veto - overrides require two thirds support
in both branches to take effect.
Despite threatening to veto legislative pay
raises in the fall of 2014 when he was still
governor-elect, Baker gave legislative leaders
wide berth after they surfaced the idea of pay
raises last week and then rammed their expansive
bill through this week.
In the span of two days, House Speaker Robert
DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
mustered veto-proof majorities in both branches
for the $18 million suite of pay raises that
include $45,000 raises for the Legislature's top
two Democrats bringing their salaries to over
$142,000. In addition to $2.8 million in salary
and office expense increases for itself, the
Legislature voted for $25,000 raises for judges
and hikes in the pay for all six constitutional
officers, including the governor.
Acting less than 24 hours after the House on
Thursday, the Senate voted 31-9 in support of
the pay raises after very little debate and the
branches took the final procedural votes needed
to get the bill to the governor.
The House enacted the pay raises on a 116-43
vote, and the Senate passed its proposal (S 16)
with three Democrats joining all six Republican
senators in opposition. The Democrats voting
against the bill were Sens. Anne Gobi, Michael
Moore and Walter Timilty.
Assuming the votes hold, opponents would need to
switch 10 additional Democrat votes in the House
and five in the Senate to sustain Baker's veto.
All 41 Republicans in the House and Senate voted
against the bill.
Even if the pay raises become law, Baker has
said he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito would decline
the increases in their own pay, including the
proposed $65,000 housing allowance for the
governor that would added to his new $185,000
salary. The raises and the new housing
allowance, should they survive, would be
available for Baker's eventual successor and
future governors.
Through spokespeople, Attorney General Maura
Healey declined to comment on whether she would
accept the raise and Treasurer Deborah Goldberg
said she would decide if it became law, while
Auditor Suzanne Bump said she would accept the
pay hike. The auditor's salary will increase
from roughly $140,000 to $165,000.
A spokesman for Secretary of State William
Galvin did not respond to a request for comment.
Timilty, a former House member whose first vote
in the Senate came on the issue of raises,
declined to comment on his vote when approached
outside the chamber Thursday.
Gobi, a Spencer Democrat, called her decision to
oppose the measure a "conscientious vote."
"I just thought it was too much considering the
situation many of the people in the commonwealth
are going through," Gobi told the News Service.
She was also carrying a copy of the letter she
intends to send to Treasurer Goldberg declining
the pay increase should it become law, and said
she hoped her colleagues who also voted no would
similarly not accept the raise.
"You can't be hypocritical. If you vote no, you
shouldn't take the dough, so I won't take the
money," Gobi said.
Legislative leaders worked behind the scenes
over the winter on the pay raise bill before
springing the topic into the public realm last
Tuesday by calling for a hearing on Thursday on
a two-year-old report on pay levels for public
officials. Lawmakers on Monday night unveiled
their bill. With the potential for larger
paychecks on the horizon, the branches whisked
the legislation through.
While base pay rates of legislators are adjusted
every two years based on changes in median
income, Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen
Spilka defended the pay raises on the floor,
arguing that stipends for leadership and senior
committee positions had not been adjusted since
either 1982 or 1994.
Spilka, of Ashland, promised that the $4.1
million cost of the raises over the final six
months of this fiscal year would not require a
special budget bill to appropriate more money
for salaries, but rather would be absorbed into
existing budget.
The only amendment proposing a change to the
bill that wasn't withdrawn before debate began
was a Sen. Donald Humason plan proposing to
delay the raises until January 2019 after the
next election cycle. Humason said postponing the
pay raises would be in keeping with how Congress
and many city council's deal with compensation
changes for elected officials.
The amendment was rejected on a voice vote.
Newton Mayor Warren, a Democrat who is exploring
a possible run for governor in 2018, took on
leaders of his own party after the vote and
urged Baker to veto the bill, calling it a
"poorly rushed-through pay raise plan" that
should have been subjected to more debate and
transparency.
"Beacon Hill should be focused on putting
together a balanced budget without the using
even one dollar of one-time revenues, not this.
Until Beacon Hill prioritizes issues like the
crushing debt too many students need to assume
to earn a college degree, no pay increase for
elected leaders should be considered," Warren
said in a statement. "I'm strongly opposed to
the pay raise process that is occurring and urge
Beacon Hill to stop, focus their time and energy
on higher priorities and put this proposal on a
more transparent path."
Legislative leaders did not hold a public
hearing on the proposal.
Paul Craney, executive director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, also chided
lawmakers, who consider themselves part of a
full-time working Legislature even though
activity in the House and Senate can be
sporadic, with busy spells sometimes followed by
long lulls.
"Being a member of the Massachusetts Legislature
is now the best part time job in America,"
Craney wrote to the News Service.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 26, 2017
Gov. Baker says he'll veto legislative pay raise
By Matt Stout
Gov. Charlie Baker said he will veto the
proposed legislative pay raise, even though it
appears to be veto-proof.
"We will veto this legislation because given the
current fiscal outlook for the state, now is not
the time to expend additional funds on elected
officials’ salaries," Baker said in a statement
tonight.
State Senators approved the pay-hike package by
a 31-9 vote today, sending the controversial
bill along with little resistance and in less
than 25 minutes and ensuring it's protected by a
veto-proof majority.
Just three of the chamber's 34 Democrats voted
against the bill, which awards Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg and Speaker of the House
Robert DeLeo each a near 50 percent pay hike,
along with significant raises to the state's
judges and court clerks.
Combined with the House's a 116-44 vote, the
bill -- if the votes hold -- would override any
veto by Baker, where the bill has now landed.
Among the Democrats to vote against was newly
sworn in state Sen. Walter Timilty, a former
House member whose father, Walter, would get a
more than $20,000 raise under the bill as
Norfolk County's clerk of courts.
Timilty, a Milton Democrat, declined to talk to
reporters about his vote as he walked from the
chamber, adding that he "maybe" will address
questions later today.
"See you guys," he said as he walked away.
State Sen. James Timilty, a nephew of the court
clerk and cousin to his fellow Senator, did vote
for the bill. The Walpole Democrat filed a
conflict of interest disclosure at 11:32 a.m.
this morning, shortly before the session
started, acknowledging that he bill would hike
his uncle's pay, but saying he believed he could
still participate "objectively and fairly."
James Timilty was not immediately available for
comment, according to his office.
Walter Timilty filed a similar disclosure with
the state Ethics Commission yesterday.
Senators Anne Gobi and Michael Moore were the
other Democrats to join the Senate's six
Republicans in opposing the bill.
The legislation was drawing heat from others,
too. Newton Mayor Setti Warren, a likely
gubernatorial candidate, released a statement
urging Baker to veto "the poorly rushed-through
pay raise plan."
Any veto, however, could just be symbolic at
this point, given the heavy support it has in
the Legislature.
"Legislators do valuable work and, like any
citizen of the Commonwealth, they deserve to be
paid a reasonable wage for their work, but this
cannot be a discussion that happens quickly or
behind closed doors," Warren said in a statement
released shortly after the vote.
The pay raises would make Rosenberg and DeLeo
the highest paid legislative leaders in the
country -- at $142,500 a year each -- though
Rosenberg defended the salaries, pointing to the
state's cost of living.
"We wanted to make sure that we had a strong
showing today, and we did," Rosenberg said of
the vote. "And the governor will have to make
his decision. I have no idea what he plans to
do."
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2018
Baker will veto pay raises for legislators
By Frank Phillips
As he had signaled earlier in the week, Governor
Charlie Baker late Thursday confirmed he will
veto an $18 million pay raise package for
legislators, judges, scores of court clerks,
their assistants, and other court personnel
across the Commonwealth.
Baker offered no sharp criticism of the pay
hikes and instead praised the Democrat-dominated
Legislature, expressing hope that his veto would
not disrupt their strong working relationship.
“Lieutenant Governor [Karyn] Polito and I are
deeply thankful for our collaborative
relationship with the Legislature that has
produced positive results for the people of
Massachusetts,’’ Baker said. “And while we
disagree on the issue of compensation, we are
optimistic that we will continue to work
together to carry out the responsibilities
entrusted to us by the people of Massachusetts.
“One of those core responsibilities is the
responsible custody of the people’s tax dollars,
and we will veto this legislation because given
the current fiscal outlook for the state, now is
not the time to expend additional funds on
elected officials’ salaries,” he said.
The governor’s statement came several hours
after the Senate voted 31-9 in support of the
18-page pay raise bill and a day after the House
approved the measure in an equally lopsided
vote, 116-44.
The veto-proof majorities all but guarantee the
raises will become law. And because the package
includes raises for judges, it is protected from
an initiative petition repeal effort, since the
state Constitution excludes judicial
compensation as a subject for ballot questions.
Baker is expected to formally issue his veto on
Friday. Lawmakers will return to Beacon Hill for
expected override votes next week.
Massachusetts legislators are barred by a 1998
constitutional amendment from raising their base
salary, now set at $62,500; those salaries are
instead tied to the state’s median household
income and are reviewed every two years. This
month, lawmakers received a 4.19 percent
increase in their base pay, which increased to
$62,547.
The raises now under consideration are actually
increases in “leadership stipends” that have not
changed since they were put in place 33 years
ago.
For example, Senate President Stan Rosenberg and
House Speaker Robert DeLeo — who have engineered
the bill’s lightening swift enactment — would
see their stipends jump from $45,000 to $80,000
above their base salaries.
In addition, DeLeo, who lives in Winthrop, would
receive an extra $15,000 for travel expenses, as
would all other legislators who live within 50
miles of the State House. Rosenberg, whose
residence is in Amherst, would get $20,000, as
would his colleagues who live more than 50 miles
from Beacon Hill. (These payments would take the
place of existing stipends for office expenses
and per-diem travel.)
DeLeo and Rosenberg had obtained an informal
opinion from the State Ethics Commission that
said legislators were not violating the state’s
conflict-of-interest law by voting on the
raises. On Thursday the Senate rejected an
amendment by Senator Donald F. Humason, a
Republican from Westfield, that would have
delayed the pay raise until the next Legislature
took office in January 2019.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Hey, Tall Deval, thanks for absolutely
nothing
By Howie Carr
I hate to be cynical about this latest Beacon
Hill pay heist but . . .
Did you notice that Gov. Charlie “Tall Deval”
Baker didn’t come out against it until after the
first vote in the House Wednesday afternoon?
You know, the 115-44 vote that showed that the
hacks had the numbers to override a veto by the
governor. So at that point, Baker could go out
and fearlessly announce his intention to veto
the bill, since it would be an absolutely
pointless gesture.
Tall Deval is against the pay raises —
wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Is it too late to nominate him for a Profiles in
Courage award?
Do you suppose he’ll want to get involved in any
attempt to repeal the pay hikes via a ballot
question? Don’t hold your breath on that one.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Baker’s vetoing the
bill. It’s a real stinkeroo. He really didn’t
have any choice, did he, considering that this
is the hacks’ second pay raise in a month?
But how pathetic is it that House Speaker Bobby
DeLeo, the unindicted co-conspirator, and Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg can get away with
making themselves the highest-paid legislators
in the country, and 95 percent of the Democrats
in the General Court say absolutely nothing.
For the record, nine of the 125 Democrats in the
House and three of the 34 in the Senate voted
against the pay raises for their masters.
This is what happens when you have a one-party
state. The party in power loses all fear. When
you know you won’t have any opposition in the
next election, you can make any bad vote you
want.
Think about the freshmen legislators. This was
their first vote. Now they have to vote on the
override. Their Republican opponents in 2018 can
take out ads:
“Rep. So-and-so’s first two votes in the
Legislature were to give a $45,000 pay raise to
a speaker who had to spend more than a
half-million dollars in legal fees after he was
named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a
federal corruption indictment.”
Good stuff. Too bad that in all likelihood, Rep.
So-and-so won’t even have a GOP opponent next
year to run that ad against him.
Why don’t the Republicans ever recruit anybody
to run against these shameless greedy hacks?
Think of all the money Tall Deval spent on
lesser races last year. Unfortunately, he was
much more interested in putting up his own
candidates for state committee than for the
state Legislature.
So now he controls the GOP state committee — 20
of its members have hack state jobs. Talk about
a small pond. But, by God, they do what the
governor tells them to, just like he does what
DeLeo and Rosenberg tell *him* to do.
Stanley Rosenberg said yesterday they wanted a
show of power. I’d say 31-9 gets the job done.
What a guy — he’s been lurking in the State
House corridors since 1980, since Jimmy Carter
was president.
And now he’s going to make $147,000-plus a year.
Who says crime doesn’t pay?
Listen to Howie 3-7 p.m. weekdays on WRKO AM
680.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Ballot question can roll back pay hikes...just
not all at once
Matt Stout
Fiscal watchdogs irked by the Legislature’s
lightning passage of an $18 million pay hike
could have an avenue to challenge the veto-proof
measure at the ballot box after all, offering
them hope of trying to claw back parts of it in
2018.
The bill, which landed on Gov. Charlie Baker’s
desk last night, appears certain to become law —
despite Baker’s promised veto — after it breezed
through both branches with an overwhelming
veto-proof vote margin.
The package hikes the pay of House Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Stanley C.
Rosenberg by nearly 50 percent, but also doles
out $25,000 raises to the state’s judges. The
Boston Globe reported that the state
constitution outlines that any law that includes
judicial compensation can’t be repealed in its
entirety by a ballot referendum, seemingly
making the pay hike untouchable.
But state law offers another path: Advocates say
they could potentially pursue an initiative
petition, which allows residents to seek to
repeal a particular section of a law. That could
allow opponents to target any of the 50 sections
that don’t involve judicial pay raises but
addresses those of lawmakers or other officials.
“This thing was such an insult to anyone paying
taxes, it would behoove us to look at some way
to rescind or at least limit the damage,” said
Chip Faulkner of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which opposes the pay hikes. “This
is another approach and one we’re certainly
going to take a look a it. It’s outrageous what
they (lawmakers) did.”
Attorney General Maura Healey’s office, which
certifies ballot initiatives, said the
initiative petition process could
“theoretically” be used to target a section of a
law, but noted her office would have to review
any specific petition to ensure it is legal.
That path may be a final hope for critics, after
the Senate passed the legislation, 31-9,
yesterday, with just three of the chamber’s 34
Democrats voting against it. The House passed it
Wednesday by a 115-44 margin.
Baker, who’s said he’ll turn down his own pay
raise, said in a statement he plans to veto the
bill today because “now is not the time to
expend additional funds on elected officials’
salaries.”
State House News Service
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker rips "irresponsible" pay raise bill, GOP
targets freshman Dems
By Colin A. Young
Gov. Charlie Baker needled the legislative pay
hikes that lawmakers approved for themselves
this week as "fiscally irresponsible," but
defended the Legislature's process and stopped
short of saying he'll lobby lawmakers to sustain
the veto he handed down on Friday.
The controversial $18 million package of pay
raises for lawmakers, judges and constitutional
officers was swept through the House and Senate
this week with veto-proof majorities. Republican
lawmakers were united in their opposition to the
raises and Baker declared his veto plans after
receiving the bill.
"For most people, the timing of this is
inappropriate, and the scale and size of the
adjustment is as well," Baker said Friday during
a press conference he called in his office to
discuss the matter.
While Baker was coy about whether he would
directly lobby lawmakers to reverse their votes,
the party he leads was direct about its
intentions. Digital ads are being launched by
Republicans targeting freshman Democrats who
voted for the pay raises
— ten House newcomers voted for the bill
and two new senators.
"These freshman Democrat legislators may be
pleased enough with their performance in the
past few weeks to merit a raise, but their
employers - the taxpayers - might disagree. By
voting to give themselves a taxpayer-funded
raise before they have accomplished much of
anything, these freshmen have shown they're
wasting no time adjusting to the Beacon Hill
insider culture," MassGOP spokesman Terry
MacCormack said in a statement.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo's office and Senate
President Stan Rosenberg's office declined to
respond Friday to the governor's veto and
criticisms. A House source said the House plans
to vote on overriding the governor's veto next
week.
Baker added at his press conference that he and
Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito "hope this action will at
least ensure that the citizens have more time to
make their voices heard."
Baker said hundreds of people have called his
office with concerns about the pay raises and
Baker implored them to "share their concerns
with their own senators and representatives,
many of whom agree with our decision."
Legislative leaders have taken heat this week
for the way they went about boosting their
paychecks, having never held a public hearing on
the bill itself but instead holding one on a
2014 report recommending even greater pay
increases, and hurrying the package through
their branches.
But Baker on Friday defended the process,
despite vetoing the bill and suggesting citizens
direct their concerns at the Legislature.
"In fairness to them, OK, on the hearing, they
had the hearing on the 2014 report," he said.
"The process they pursued on this has been
public. I mean, everybody voted on it, they're
on the record on it."
In his veto letter though, Baker faulted the
process, saying the bill passed "without a
reasonable opportunity for public comment."
Assuming the votes hold, opponents would need to
flip 10 additional Democrat votes in the House
or five in the Senate to sustain Baker's veto.
All 41 Republicans in the House and Senate voted
against the bill.
Asked whether he will lobby Democrats to flip
their vote and uphold his veto, the Republican
governor said he is "certainly going to talk to
some of the folks who have been supportive of
our position on this and see what thoughts they
have about what might make sense going forward."
When a reporter pointed out that if his veto is
to be upheld he'll need people who don't already
agree with him to come around to his point of
view, Baker said, "They're members of both
parties and members of both branches, and I
think their insights on this is probably the
best place for us to start."
Baker also suggested, and gave as an explanation
of his veto, that the pay raise bill would
eliminate laws meant to limit statewide
officeholders from receiving pay for more than
two straight terms. But court decisions, media
coverage and state officials suggest that those
laws were overturned by the state's highest
court almost 20 years ago.
"Upon our further review, this legislation would
effectively repeal the terms limits voters set
for constitutional offices at the ballot box in
1994," he said. In a statement, he suggested it
was "perhaps as a consequence of this rushed
process."
The governor's office pointed to language in the
general laws that prohibits constitutional
officers
— except the governor
— from receiving compensation if they
serve more than two consecutive terms.
Voters approved the language as a 1994 ballot
initiative, but the Supreme Judicial Court
invalidated the entire ballot law in 1997,
according to Secretary of State William Galvin's
office.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Herbert
Wilkins
— a Gov. Frank Sargent appointee elevated
to chief justice by Gov. Bill Weld
— ordered that the ballot law was
"unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to limit
access to primary and general election ballots
to certain State officers identified in chapter
230 and seeks to eliminate the payment of
compensation and benefits to certain identified
in chapter 230 and seeks to eliminate the
payment of compensation and benefits to certain
of those State officers if they should be
reelected in an election in which their names
are not printed on the official ballot."
A Baker press aide said the governor's chief
legal counsel, Lon Povich, was not available to
discuss the term limits language and SJC
decision with the News Service.
Over two days this week, House Speaker Robert
DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
mustered veto-proof majorities in both branches
for the bill (H 58) that include $45,000 raises
for the Legislature's top two Democrats bringing
their salaries to over $142,000. In addition to
$2.8 million in salary and office expense
increases for itself, the Legislature voted for
$25,000 raises for judges and hikes in the pay
for all six constitutional officers, including
the governor.
The House enacted the pay raises on a 116-43
vote, and the Senate voted 31-9 in support of
the pay raises after very little debate.
Even if the pay raises become law, Baker has
said he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito would decline
the increases in their own pay, including the
proposed $65,000 housing allowance for the
governor that would be added to his new $185,000
salary. The raises and the new housing
allowance, should they survive, would be
available for Baker's eventual successor and
future governors.
A potential Baker rival in the 2018 election,
Newton Mayor Setti Warren, took to Twitter
Thursday night to urge fellow Democrats to
change their minds about the bill. "I urge my
fellow @massdems to rethink this one before the
override vote. If 5 senators or 10 Reps
reconsider, no pay raise," Warren wrote.
The tweet drew a pointed response from one House
Democrat. Rep. Paul Mark, a Democrat from the
western Massachusetts town Peru, tweeted
Thursday night, "I urge candidates for governor
to practice what they preach & stop pandering to
the right" with a link to a Boston Globe article
about a $27,000 pay raise Warren proposed for
himself as Newton mayor in 2012.
Warren was not available Friday, but advisor
Kevin Franck provided a "fact sheet" detailing
the circumstances of Warren's 2012 mayoral pay
increase.
The raise was approved by Newton's Board of
Aldermen after a public input process, the fact
sheet said, "he didn't decide his own raise."
"Mayor Warren agrees that the salaries of public
service positions should be competitive to ...
attract talented candidates and reward hard
work," the fact sheet said. "He has said the
question of legislative pay raises is a valid
one. His criticisms have been about the
process."
Through an advisor, Jay Gonzalez, a Democrat who
served as the architect of Patrick's budgets and
finance policy for more than three years and is
now considering a run for governor, did not
respond to a request for comment Friday.
—Andy Metzger
contributed reporting
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker vetoes ‘fiscally irresponsible’ pay raises
By Frank Phillips
Governor Charlie Baker vetoed a pay raise
package for legislative leaders, judges and
others on Friday, calling the proposal “fiscally
irresponsible” and “enacted without sufficient
debate.”
In his letter to the Legislature vetoing the
bill, Baker also said that by mandating the
raises go into effect immediately, the
legislation places an “unplanned, additional
burden” on the current fiscal year’s state
budget.
Baker’s veto follows lopsided votes in the
Legislature in favor of the pay raises: The
Senate approved the package 31-9, and the House
voted 116-44 in favor earlier in the week.
The veto-proof majorities all but guarantee the
lawmakers will be able to override Baker’s veto
next week and force the raises into law.
On Friday Baker showed little inclination to use
the leverage of his office to lobby House or
Senate members to switch their votes and support
his veto. Only 13 House members — all of them
Democrats who voted for the pay raise since the
entire 35-member GOP caucus voted against the
bill — would have to be persuaded to switch.
“I am going to start with the folks who
supported our position,’’ Baker said when asked
if he would lobby the Legislature. “I think
their insights on this is the best place to
start.”
Because the package includes raises for judges,
it is protected from a referendum repeal effort.
The state Constitution excludes judicial
compensation as a subject for referendum ballot
questions.
But Baker suggested that the legislative pay
raise sections of the bill could be separated
out and targeted for repeal via an initiative
petition. That process would require far more
voter signatures to get on the 2018 ballot and
would likely be litigated. Opponents appear not
to be as organized as they have in previous pay
raise battles.
The package, estimated to cost $18 million when
fully implemented, was first proposed by a
commission in 2014.
Baker also complained that the legislation
removes a 1994 term limit provision for
constitutional officers, who would get a huge
wage hike. But the Supreme Judicial Court ruled
in 1997 that the term limit statute violated the
state Constitution and it never went into
effect.
Massachusetts legislators are barred by a 1998
constitutional amendment from raising their base
salary; those salaries are instead tied to the
state’s median household income and are reviewed
every two years. This month, lawmakers received
a 4.19 percent increase in their base pay, from
$60,032 to $62,547.
The legislative raises in the package Baker
vetoed on Friday are actually increases in
“leadership stipends” that have not changed
since they were put in place 33 years ago.
For example, Senate President Stan Rosenberg and
House Speaker Robert DeLeo would see their
stipends jump from $45,000 to $80,000 above
their base salaries.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2017
Baker vetoes pay raise for lawmakers; will
likely be overruled
By Matt Stout
Gov. Charlie Baker today vetoed the massive pay
hike package lawmakers jammed through the State
House this week, calling the bill "fiscally
irresponsible."
Baker said the pay hikes, which lawmakers said
could cost nearly $18 million a year, makes for
"unplanned" financial burdens on the state's
budget and adds to the state's pension liability
down the road.
The Swampscott Republican, who addressed the
media this morning, also said the bill would
also "effectively repeal the term limits voters
set for constitutional officers at the ballot
box in 1994."
Baker's action ultimately could be moot. The
bill passed both the House, 116-44, and the
Senate, 31-9, with veto-proof majorities,
signaling there's enough support to override his
opposition.
The legislation gives Speaker of the House
Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg a near 50 percent pay hike, pushing
their pay to $142,500 a year, while also raising
stipends for many legislative leadership
positions, the salaries of constitutional
officers and pay for judges.
But Baker said his office has heard from
"hundreds" of residents decrying the pay raises
and urged people to press their lawmakers, "many
of whom agree with our decision."
"We hope this action will at least ensure that
citizens have more time to make their voices
heard," Baker said.
Asked if he'd personally lobby lawmakers, Baker
said he'd talk to "folks who have been
supportive of our position," but didn't indicate
if he would press those who passed the bill,
which he would need to flip in order to keep his
veto intact.
Baker also said there's questions if parts of
the bill could be targeted at the ballot box,
saying it could be "subject to further review
and discussion." The Herald reported today that
an avenue could exist through an initiative
petition, which allows residents to seek to
repeal a particular section of a law.
Given the bill includes raises for judges, it's
barred under the constitution from being subject
to a referendum. But an initiative petition, a
different process, could theoretically be used,
though the Attorney General's office said it
would have to review any petition that was
submitted.
"It may be possible to put sections of the law
before the voters and have voters vote on that,"
Baker said.
The New Boston Post
Thursday, January 25, 2017
Drinks Are On Bobby
By Matt McDonald
If you were the governor of a state where the
other party outnumbered your party in the
Legislature 3½ to 1, you might look for ways to
make the legislators happy.
And if you had it in your power to give those
legislators a pay raise, you might do it.
You might say to yourself, “How am I ever going
to get anything done unless these people are
willing to work with me? And how I am going to
get them to work with me unless I give them a
raise?”
Governor Charlie Baker made such a decision in
late December.
Cost the rest of us $500,000.
But what happens when you give in? They always
want more.
The ill-gotten gains have hardly had time to
jangle in their pockets and the Democrats on
Beacon Hill are already looking for another
score.
This time, Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg are apparently about
to get a $45,000-a-year raise. Then there’s an
increase of $37,500 to the majority and minority
leaders, and an increase of $40,000 to the
chairman of each house’s Ways and Means
committee. State legislators would get $15,000
extra to take the place of the per diems (which
amount to special pay for driving to work), plus
more if they live far from Boston.
Increases for the governor, the lieutenant
governor, the attorney general, the secretary of
state. Increases for judges.
The governor says he may veto the bill. But the
speaker thinks he may have enough votes to
override the governor.
Let’s set aside the outrageous numbers. Let’s
forget about the estimated $4.1 million total
cost per year mention on the floor of the house,
of which $1.4 million is for the legislators.
(One report says the true figures are $6.5
million for the rest of the current fiscal year
and $12 to $18 million next fiscal year.)
Something is fundamentally wrong with the
political system in Massachusetts.
How did we get here?
By overvaluing government.
Hacks on Beacon Hill will tell you that they
work hard and they deserve the money.
I’m not sure about that. But let’s say it’s
true. Therein lies the problem.
They work too hard.
They need some time off.
If they were part-time legislators, they might
not pass as many laws. They might not find as
many nooks and crannies to poke their noses in.
Maybe we’d have fewer statutes, fewer
regulations, and more freedom.
We’d sure as heck have more money.
How could we survive with part-time legislators?
Well, let’s consider an example. And not that
far away.
Among the English-speaking democratic
governments, New Hampshire has the fourth
largest legislature in the world. (It goes
British Parliament, United States Congress,
Canadian Parliament, New Hampshire Legislature.)
The House of Representatives in New Hampshire
has 400 members. That’s almost three times the
size of the House of Representatives in
Massachusetts for a state with one-sixth the
population. So government in New Hampshire is
very representative.
How can New Hampshire afford so many
legislators?
The state pays them $100 a year.
A hundred bucks a year? Are you serious?
Yes.
Oddly enough, getting candidates isn’t a
problem. Neither is getting contested elections.
That’s because there are enough people in the
Granite State interested in contributing to
their government that they’re willing to do it
in their spare time, without making a career of
it.
Whether it’s for ego, power, prestige, community
service, or all of the above, people in New
Hampshire run for the state Legislature knowing
that they aren’t going to make money doing it.
Now, New Hampshire isn’t perfect. It has its
problems. And its legislature is often, well,
mediocre.
But so is the one in Massachusetts. And so is
almost every legislature everywhere. The last
impressive body of legislators was the Second
Continental Congress.
In New Hampshire, though, it’s mediocrity on the
cheap.
Even more important, though, is that New
Hampshire legislators tend to abide by the
Hippocratic Oath — “First do no harm …”
We could use some of that around here. |
| |
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
|