|
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
Sunday,
January 29, 2017
Please call
your State Representative & State Senator ASAP
Click on the above link and
just type in your street address and zip code;
everything you need to know to contact them will appear.
|
So Gov. Charlie Baker bought himself a
little time by vetoing the $18 million legislative pay raise
bill — which may or may not turn around a few more
Democratic votes.
Every now and then real citizens, calling
their elected senators and representatives can raise the
temperature enough to turn around what everyone assumed was
a done deal. Opponents would need the votes of 10 more
Democrats in the House or five in the Senate to sustain the
veto. (All Republicans voted against the raises.)
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Hypocrisy on pay raise
House lawmakers, backed by an overwhelming
majority, will likely move next week to override Gov.
Charlie Baker’s veto of their controversial pay-raise
package, all but ensuring the pay hikes become law despite
“hundreds” of complaints flowing into the governor’s office.
In vetoing the legislation, Baker yesterday
panned the bill — and the lightning-fast speed that
lawmakers used to pass it — as “fiscally irresponsible” and
a “hasty process.” ...
Baker punctuated his opposition by saying
“hundreds” of people have called his office to decry the
raise. “We expect them to hear from people the same way we
did,” he said of lawmakers.
The bill breezed through the House, 116-44,
and the Senate, 31-9, with only a handful of Democrats
opposing it. With the majorities there to override the veto,
House lawmakers are expected to take it up next week, a
source said, though exactly when wasn’t clear.
Baker indicated he had no plans to try to
flip votes personally, needing 10 in the House and another
five in the Senate to ensure the bill doesn’t become law.
“I am going to start with the folks who
supported our position,” Baker said.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Charlie Baker touts hundreds of complaints about pay boost
Legislative leaders are confident they have
the votes to override a veto as evidenced by the 116-44 and
31-9 vote which are more than two-thirds needed. Opponents
would have to switch ten Democratic votes in the House and
five in the Senate to sustain the governor’s veto....
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said, “These cynical
actions demonstrate that when the leadership and enough
beholden members in the Legislature want something badly
enough ― they just take it. Disguising it as something at
all legitimate required a whole two days.” Ford continued,
“There was little if any trickery and manipulation that
didn’t go into this shameless effort on behalf of
legislative leadership and others with much to gain.”
“Strange — no one’s talking about the effect
these raises will have on bringing out more candidates
against incumbents,” said Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington,
who supported the raises. “It’s going to happen. These are
the first salary adjustments in recent memory big enough to
draw the interest of potential competitors employed in the
private sector today.”
Paul Craney, executive director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance said, “The move sends the
worst type of message. Good work should be rewarded but
there’s no good in this. Salaries and pensions will go up
for these lawmakers and they’ll be quick to call for more
tax hikes.”...
“I don’t think anyone that works in the
Legislature as a representative or senator is struggling to
put food on their table or get health care for their
families,” responded Rep. Shauna O’Connell, R-Taunton. “And
we have people in Massachusetts that are struggling. We have
a budget deficit right now. And the first thing that we go
in and do, the very first session we have, is to vote on a
substantial pay raise.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Friday, January 27, 2017
$18 Million in pay hikes
Let’s be honest: If left to the ordinary
taxpayer, legislators on Beacon Hill would never get a
raise.
But that doesn’t justify the smash and grab
that looks all but certain to become legally sanctioned this
week after Governor Charlie Baker’s veto of an $18 million
pay raise for legislative leaders, constitutional officers,
judges, and court workers becomes so much road kill....
In politics, as in robbing banks, timing is
everything, and the timing for pushing the pay grab through
couldn’t be better.
As House Speaker Bob DeLeo and Senate
President Stan Rosenberg contemplate their soon-to-be status
as the highest-paid state legislative leaders in the
country, they may want to take a moment to send a fruit
basket down to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, in Washington, D.C.
Donald Trump, simply by being Donald Trump, created so many
daily, hourly distractions in his first week as president
that there was little chance that grass-roots opposition to
the pay raise would materialize.
It also didn’t hurt that the Patriots
punched their ticket to the Super Bowl last Sunday. Most of
the oxygen that not so long ago would have been spent
howling about sticky fingers on Beacon Hill is instead
devoted to debating whether Boston College’s own Matt Ryan
can beat Tom Brady. The demographics of talk radio around
here have shifted so that it’s sports, not politics,
generating most of the heat, not to mention ad dollars.
Barbara Anderson, the fiery taxpayer
advocate, would have been all over the pay raise gambit, but
she died last April....
What better time, in the middle of a perfect
storm of apathy, preoccupation, and distraction, to smash
the window and grab the jewels? ...
Whichever way you slice it, the same people
who complain they can’t get a fair shake from a cynical
public have just done a marvelous job in making that public
even more cynical....
Consider this: In 2015, the last full year
of per diem requests, lawmakers were paid $410,702 to drive
to work. Combined with the $7,200 they each got in expenses,
that’s a cost of roughly $1.85 million to the state.
Under the new system, per-diems would be
gone, replaced by expense accounts of $15,000 for those who
live within 50 miles of the State House and $20,000 for
those who live beyond 50 miles.
Even if all 200 lawmakers got just $15,000,
it would cost $3 million a year, an added cost of at least
$1.15 million. Many, of course, live beyond the 50-mile
radius, meaning this “reform” is a costly one.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Beacon Hill lawmakers may deserve a raise, but not like this
By Kevin Cullen
The “reforms” lawmakers buried amid the
pages of their pay-hike package were designed, as far as
public relations efforts go, to provide a sort of candied
shell to the pill that is their enormous raises.
But the measures, which include barring the
Legislature’s top leaders from taking earned outside income
and eliminating travel per diems, will actually cost House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
next to nothing as their pay skyrockets — and in the case of
the latter, will actually put more money in their pockets.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Pols & Politics: Lawmakers net big pay bump, even with
‘reforms’
Legislative spin cycle
A 1998 constitutional amendment ties
biennial changes in base pay for legislators to changes in
the state’s median household income, and lawmakers just
received a 4.1 percent hike in their base pay. But here’s
where it gets complicated. Lawmakers have discretion over
additional compensation, like bonuses, for party leaders and
committee chairs. And that’s where the bill makes dramatic
changes. For example, the added compensation for the Senate
president and House speaker goes from $35,000 to $80,000.
For the chairs of the House and Senate Ways and Means
Committees, the annual bonuses jump from $25,000 to $60,000.
. . .
Associated Press
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Some questions, answers about the Beacon Hill pay raise plan
Gov. Charlie Baker on Friday vetoed a bill
that aims to raise the pay of legislative leaders and other
elected officials, calling it "fiscally irresponsible." But
legislators in favor of the measure appear to have enough
votes to override him.
"Given the commonwealth's fiscal outlook as
we continue to right-size our budget, close the structural
deficit and reduce the reliance on one-time revenues without
raising taxes, we felt it was important to veto this
fiscally irresponsible legislation," Baker told reporters at
a press conference in his Statehouse office, with Lt. Gov.
Karyn Polito standing next to him....
Baker said the fact that the pay raises for
lawmakers would take effect immediately would place
"unplanned burdens" on the state's financial situation,
months after he made midyear budget cuts to keep the budget
in balance. It would also raise the state's pension
obligations to these officials over time, since pensions are
based on salaries.
The bill also sets up a method for updating
the stipends every two years in a way that correlates with
overall wages in Massachusetts. Baker said that would ensure
that lawmakers' salaries grow at rates that "exceeded any
reasonable expectations for revenue growth."
The Springfield Republican
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Gov. Charlie Baker vetoes legislative pay raises
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
If ten House Democrat members of the 116 who voted for the pay grab (all
Republicans in both the House and Senate voted against it) switch their vote
when the Governor's veto is brought up, or just five Democrats in the Senate of
31 switch their votes, the radical pay grab will be killed.
Convincing just ten in the House or five in the Senate —
out of 200 legislators.
Though difficult, it is possible.
Making a phone call or two now is a lot less difficult than trying to accomplish
a petition drive later.
Call your friends and family members, or forward this to them.
Ask them to make a couple calls too.
If your state Representative or State Senator is a Democrat, please call them
immediately and request that they vote to sustain Gov. Baker's veto.
If you called them before, call them again.
Below is a list of the few Democrat Representatives and Democrat Senators who
voted against the despicable pay grab. Call them too
— thank them for their NO vote and encourage them
to stay strong and sustain the governor's veto. (They'll be under heavy
political pressure as well, to change their votes to YES!)
This shameless pay grab is on the fastest fast track anything ever has been.
Expect the governor's veto to come up and be voted on tomorrow.
Click on the above link and
just type in your street address and zip code;
everything you need to know to contact them will appear.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 28, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Hypocrisy on pay raise
So Gov. Charlie Baker bought himself a little
time by vetoing the $18 million legislative pay
raise bill — which may or may not turn around a
few more Democratic votes.
Every now and then real citizens, calling their
elected senators and representatives can raise
the temperature enough to turn around what
everyone assumed was a done deal. Opponents
would need the votes of 10 more Democrats in the
House or five in the Senate to sustain the veto.
(All Republicans voted against the raises.)
And it’s not simply the money — enormous though
that is — or the ripple effect (that is, it
impacts not just judges but every clerk whose
salaries are tied to those judicial salaries),
but the hypocrisy used to defend the bill. Take
this from Senate President Stan Rosenberg who
insisted his colleagues have so *many* financial
obligations.
“They do a lot of things out of pocket that most
people don’t have to do in their jobs, because
we’re expected to show up at everything. We’re
expected to make contributions. We’re expected
to buy ads in program books. And we’re not
complaining. It’s part of the job.”
Indeed it is. Which, no doubt is why Rosenberg
used his ample *campaign account* to make some
38 such charitable donations in the last quarter
alone, to everything from food banks to the
Friends of the Sycamore to the Amherst Halloween
Fund. And that doesn’t include political
donations.
Lawmakers have plenty of other people’s money to
spend. They don’t need more from the taxpayers.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Charlie Baker touts hundreds of complaints about
pay boost
By Matt Stout
House lawmakers, backed by an overwhelming
majority, will likely move next week to override
Gov. Charlie Baker’s veto of their controversial
pay-raise package, all but ensuring the pay
hikes become law despite “hundreds” of
complaints flowing into the governor’s office.
In vetoing the legislation, Baker yesterday
panned the bill — and the lightning-fast speed
that lawmakers used to pass it — as “fiscally
irresponsible” and a “hasty process.”
The Swampscott Republican, who signaled on
Wednesday he was against the raises after saying
for days he only wouldn’t accept it himself,
also said the hefty raises could add more strain
not just on the budget but the state’s pension
liability.
Baker punctuated his opposition by saying
“hundreds” of people have called his office to
decry the raise. “We expect them to hear from
people the same way we did,” he said of
lawmakers.
The bill breezed through the House, 116-44, and
the Senate, 31-9, with only a handful of
Democrats opposing it. With the majorities there
to override the veto, House lawmakers are
expected to take it up next week, a source said,
though exactly when wasn’t clear.
Baker indicated he had no plans to try to flip
votes personally, needing 10 in the House and
another five in the Senate to ensure the bill
doesn’t become law.
“I am going to start with the folks who
supported our position,” Baker said. The bill
hikes the pay of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
and Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg by
nearly 50 percent, to $142,500, while
guaranteeing other legislative leaders a range
of padded stipends. It also hikes Baker’s pay,
though he said he won’t take it, as well as
other constitutional officers.
Only Auditor Suzanne M. Bump has said she’ll
take the increase, which elevates her pay to
$165,000. Aides to Treasurer Deborah B. Goldberg
and Secretary of State William F. Galvin said
they haven’t decided, while Attorney General
Maura Healey has declined comment over recent
days.
Baker also said there are questions if parts of
the bill could be targeted at the ballot box. As
the Herald reported yesterday, an avenue could
exist through an initiative petition, which
allows residents to seek to repeal a particular
section of a law, instead of in its entirety.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Friday, January 27, 2017
$18 Million in pay hikes
By Bob Katzen
House approved 116-44, Senate approved 31-9 and
Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed an $18 million pay
raise package including hiking the salaries of
the two leaders who filed the bill, House
Speaker Robert DeLeo , D-Winthrop, and Senate
President Stan Rosenberg, D-Amherst, by $45,000
from $97,547 to $142,547. The measure also hikes
the pay of the Legislature’s two Republican
leaders, Sen. Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, and Rep.
Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, by $37,500 from
$85,047 to $122,547. Another provision hikes the
salaries of the state’s judges by $25,000 and of
court clerks over an 18-month period.
“Given the current fiscal outlook for the state,
now is not the time to expend additional funds
on elected officials’ salaries,” Baker said.
“This bill is the result of a hasty process that
included little substantive debate or time for
public comment.”
Legislative leaders are confident they have the
votes to override a veto as evidenced by the
116-44 and 31-9 vote which are more than
two-thirds needed. Opponents would have to
switch ten Democratic votes in the House and
five in the Senate to sustain the governor’s
veto.
The measure raises the governor’s salary by
$33,200, from $151,800 to $185,000; the
lieutenant governor by $30,068, from $134,932 to
$165,000; secretary of state by $34,738 from
$130,262 to $165,000; treasurer by $47,083 from
$127,917 to $175,000; auditor by $30,048 from
$134,952 to $165,000; and the attorney general
by $44,418 from $130,582 to $175,000. It also
bans these six constitutional officers and the
House speaker and Senate president from earning
outside income, other than passive income from
investments.
Supporters say that only $1.4 million is for the
legislative pay raises while the remainder is
for hikes for constitutional officers, judges
and court clerks.
The pay raise package made it through the
Legislature at lightning speed. It was only
Thursday, Jan. 18, when the temporary Joint
Committee on Ways and Means held a brief
one-hour hearing on a two-year-old report of the
Special Advisory Commission on the Compensation
of Public Officials. DeLeo and Rosenberg have
not yet appointed members of any committees so a
temporary Ways and Means Committee was hastily
appointed and assembled for the hearing. The
hearing was convened with less than 72 hours
notice to the public. Then just a week later on
Jan. 25, a pay raise package is approved.
Rosenberg defended the bill. “We followed
overall the recommendations of the independent
commission that was appointed two years ago,” he
said. “They came back and said that the
constitutional officers’ salaries are out of
line with national salaries and ought to be
increased ... Fair minded people will consider
the fact that the stipends for the presiding
officers have not changed for 33 years. Who
works for the same amount 33 years later?”
“The Beacon Hill power brokers robbed the
taxpayers,” said Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover).
“They voted to increase their salaries by over
50 percent. The Republican caucus voted
unanimously against this thievery and abuse of
power. We must end one party rule on Beacon
Hill.”
“This wasn’t myself just thinking during the
Christmas holiday that this would be a good
thing to do,” said DeLeo. “This is something
which I’ve been hearing about for years. From
Constitutional officers. I’ve been hearing from
House members and Senate members and an awful
lot of folks.”
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation, said, “These cynical actions
demonstrate that when the leadership and enough
beholden members in the Legislature want
something badly enough ― they just take it.
Disguising it as something at all legitimate
required a whole two days.” Ford continued,
“There was little if any trickery and
manipulation that didn’t go into this shameless
effort on behalf of legislative leadership and
others with much to gain.”
“Strange — no one’s talking about the effect
these raises will have on bringing out more
candidates against incumbents,” said Sen.
Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, who supported the
raises. “It’s going to happen. These are the
first salary adjustments in recent memory big
enough to draw the interest of potential
competitors employed in the private sector
today.”
Paul Craney, executive director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance said, “The move
sends the worst type of message. Good work
should be rewarded but there’s no good in this.
Salaries and pensions will go up for these
lawmakers and they’ll be quick to call for more
tax hikes.”
“These are serious jobs,” said Sen. Will
Brownsberger, D-Belmont. “And you want people to
compete for these jobs and you don’t want these
guys under financial strain. You’re talking
about the legislative leaders, you don’t want
them under financial strain any more than you
want a police officer walking the beat under
financial strain.”
“I don’t think anyone that works in the
Legislature as a representative or senator is
struggling to put food on their table or get
health care for their families,” responded Rep.
Shauna O’Connell, R-Taunton. “And we have people
in Massachusetts that are struggling. We have a
budget deficit right now. And the first thing
that we go in and do, the very first session we
have, is to vote on a substantial pay raise.”
In 1998, voters approved by a two-to-one margin
a constitutional amendment requiring governors
to calculate and announce an increase or
decrease in legislative salaries every two
years. The specific language requires
legislative salaries to be “increased or
decreased at the same rate as increases or
decreases in the median household income for the
commonwealth for the preceding two-year period,
as ascertained by the governor.”
Under that formula, legislators’ salaries were
increased by $2,515 for the 2017-2018
legislative session. The current base pay for
legislators is now $62,547. That hike came on
the heels of a salary freeze for the 2015-2016
legislative session, a $1,100 pay cut for the
2013-2014 session and a $306 pay cut for the
2011-2012 session. Prior to 2011, legislators’
salaries had been raised every two years since
the $46,410 base pay was first raised under the
constitutional amendment in 2001.
The new $62,547 salary means legislative
salaries have been raised $16,137, or 34.8
percent, since the mandated salary adjustment
became part of the state constitution.
Currently, 101 or more than half of the state’s
200 legislators receive a stipend. Thirty-eight
of the 40 senators and 63 of the 160
representatives receive bonus pay for their
service in Democratic or Republican leadership
positions, as committee chairs or vice chairs
and as the ranking Republican on some
committees. Currently, annual stipends for these
positions range from $7,500 to $35,000 above
their annual base salary. The bill would
increase many of those stipends and the new
range would be from $15,000 to $65,000.
The bill requires that every two years the
salaries of the governor, the other five
constitutional statewide officers and the House
speaker and Senate president be increased or
decreased based on data from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA) that measures the
quarterly change in salaries and wages. It also
requires that the same formula be used every two
years to increase or decrease the stipends that
99 other legislators receive for their service
in Democratic or Republican leadership
positions, as committee chairs or vice chairs
and as the ranking Republican on some
committees. There is a caveat that the amount of
money they receive can never be less than it is
right now in January 2017.
The measure puts an end to legislative per diems
which are travel, meals and lodging
reimbursements collected by the legislators.
These reimbursements are given to legislators
above and beyond their regular salaries.
The amount of the per diem varies and is based
on the city or town in which a legislator
resides and its distance from the Statehouse. In
2016, 103 or more than one-half of the state’s
200 legislators were paid per diems totaling
$278,601.
Another provision increases the annual general
expense allowance for each legislator from
$7,200 to $15,000 for members whose districts
are within a 50-mile radius of the Statehouse
and to $20,000 for districts located outside of
that radius. The most recent increase in the
general expense allowance was a hike from $3,600
to $7,200 in 2000.
This allowance is used at the discretion of
individual legislators to support a variety of
costs including the renting of a district
office, contributions to local civic groups and
the printing and mailing of newsletters.
Legislators are issued a 1099 from the state and
are required to report the allowance as income
but are not required to submit an accounting of
how they spend it.
Under current federal law, which the bill does
not affect, these same legislators who live more
than 50 miles from the Statehouse are eligible
for a special federal tax break. A 1981 federal
law allows them to write off a daily expense
allowance when filing their federal income tax
return. The complicated system determines a
daily amount, ostensibly for meals, lodging and
other expenses incurred in the course of their
jobs, which can be deducted for every
“legislative day.”
Under the Massachusetts Legislature’s system and
schedule, every day of the year qualifies as a
legislative day. The Legislature does not
formally “prorogue” (end an annual session)
until the next annual session begins. This
allows these legislators to take the deduction
for all 365 days regardless of whether the
Legislature is meeting or not. Legislators do
not even have to travel to the Statehouse to
qualify for the daily deduction.
The amount of the deduction is based on the
federal per diem for Massachusetts. It varies
from year to year. The daily per diem for
legislators for 2016 varies in different parts
of the state and is seasonal. It ranges from
$162 per day to $366 per day or between $59,130
and $133,590 annually. It is estimated that more
than one-third of the state’s 200 legislators
qualify for this deduction and are eligible to
pay little or no federal income tax on their
legislative salaries.
Other provisions of the pay hike package give a
$65,000 housing allowance for the governor.
Massachusetts is one of only six states that
supplies neither a governor’s residence nor a
housing allowance.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Beacon Hill lawmakers may deserve a raise, but
not like this
By Kevin Cullen, Globe Columnist
Let’s be honest: If left to the ordinary
taxpayer, legislators on Beacon Hill would never
get a raise.
But that doesn’t justify the smash and grab that
looks all but certain to become legally
sanctioned this week after Governor Charlie
Baker’s veto of an $18 million pay raise for
legislative leaders, constitutional officers,
judges, and court workers becomes so much road
kill.
The pay raise passed both chambers of the
Legislature last week, largely along partisan
lines. It passed the House, 116 to 44, where
nine Democrats broke ranks to join all
Republicans in opposing it. In the Senate, where
Republicans can’t even field a softball team,
the margin was even bigger, 31 to 9, with three
Democrats bucking their leadership to oppose it.
Baker, a Republican, vetoed the pay raise, but,
given the size of the Democratic majorities, the
veto is mostly symbolic, the legislative
equivalent of trying to block a tsunami with
sandbags.
Theoretically, if 13 House Democrats or a
half-dozen in the Senate change their minds,
Baker’s veto would be upheld. But if you hold
your breath waiting for that to happen, you will
become quite blue and then you will become quite
dead.
Baker, who won’t accept the raise for him that
is part of the package, was absolutely right
when he said the pay raise was “fiscally
irresponsible” and “enacted without sufficient
debate.”
The Democratic leadership that pushed the bill
through may be fiscally irresponsible, but they
can add, and they’ve got the votes.
In politics, as in robbing banks, timing is
everything, and the timing for pushing the pay
grab through couldn’t be better.
As House Speaker Bob DeLeo and Senate President
Stan Rosenberg contemplate their soon-to-be
status as the highest-paid state legislative
leaders in the country, they may want to take a
moment to send a fruit basket down to 1600
Pennsylvania Ave, in Washington, D.C. Donald
Trump, simply by being Donald Trump, created so
many daily, hourly distractions in his first
week as president that there was little chance
that grass-roots opposition to the pay raise
would materialize.
It also didn’t hurt that the Patriots punched
their ticket to the Super Bowl last Sunday. Most
of the oxygen that not so long ago would have
been spent howling about sticky fingers on
Beacon Hill is instead devoted to debating
whether Boston College’s own Matt Ryan can beat
Tom Brady. The demographics of talk radio around
here have shifted so that it’s sports, not
politics, generating most of the heat, not to
mention ad dollars.
Barbara Anderson, the fiery taxpayer
advocate, would have been all over the pay raise
gambit, but she died last April.
Baker said his office has received hundreds of
calls opposing the pay raise.
Hundreds? Wow. Not long ago, it would have been
thousands.
I say this more in sadness than anger: There is
no opposition.
What better time, in the middle of a perfect
storm of apathy, preoccupation, and distraction,
to smash the window and grab the jewels?
In a week when the new president made Lady
Liberty blush, establishing a religious test for
refugees, it would have been nice to learn that
our local leaders don’t regard us as cynically.
But when something walks like a pension grab and
quacks like a pension grab, it’s a pension grab.
To be fair, most state reps and senators work
hard. It’s one of those jobs that you’re
invariably on the clock. If somebody comes up to
you at the supermarket, you can’t just say, “I’m
not working right now.” Well, actually, you can,
but the person you say that to will tell 100
others and after the next election you will be
bagging groceries at that same supermarket.
There is a good argument to raise the
compensation packages for legislators, as well
as judges and people who work in the courts. But
the way this was done left no room for argument.
It was simply pushed through, with no public
input. The size of the increases, some 40
percent for DeLeo and Rosenberg, is completely
out of proportion, especially when those same
leaders are complaining about budget cuts that
hurt the vulnerable.
Since 1998, a constitutional amendment has
barred legislators from raising their base
salary, which is tied to the state’s median
household income and reviewed every two years.
This month, legislators received a 4.19 percent
increase in their base salary, to a spartan
$62,547. But it’s the stipends, for travel and
office expenses and committee assignments, that
supplement those salaries, and it was the
stipends that the leadership targeted for large
increases, even as that same leadership stood
most to gain from those boosts.
They were too cute by half. By tying the bill to
a pay increase for the judiciary, legislators
have made the pay hike immune to a typical
referendum repeal effort. They will enrich
themselves while disenfranchising the people
they work for.
Whichever way you slice it, the same people who
complain they can’t get a fair shake from a
cynical public have just done a marvelous job in
making that public even more cynical.
Rosenberg, who like DeLeo will see his salary
rise from $102,000 to $142,500, showed some real
chutzpah in defending the way the raises had to
be rushed through before he and DeLeo hand out
committee chairmanships.
Technically, those leadership positions haven’t
been filled for this legislative term yet, so,
technically, Rosenberg says, legislators are not
voting to raise their own pay.
That is an Orwellian, disingenuous dodge, as
every member of the Senate gets a committee
leadership position of some sort.
Senator Anne Gobi from Spencer was one of the
Democrats who voted against the pay increase.
She went one better, saying she would refuse to
accept the increase if it passes. She said it
was a matter of conscience.
Gobi represents one of the biggest, and poorest,
districts in Massachusetts, some 28 towns in the
middle of the state, stretching from the
Connecticut border in the south to the New
Hampshire border in the north.
She represents farmers who have just gone
through the worst drought in 50 years. She
represents homeowners in Charlton whose wells
are tainted with toxins, whose houses are worth
nothing. She represents people who live along
the Route 2 corridor, the other Massachusetts.
Representative Jim Dwyer, a Woburn Democrat,
voted against the raise, saying he accepted the
need to raise leadership stipends that have not
increased in 33 years, but not the size or the
way it was being done.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh got national attention
last week when he said he’d shelter undocumented
immigrants in his City Hall office if Trump sics
federal agents on them.
Frankly, if I had federal agents on my tail, I’d
head right past dreary City Hall Plaza, bang a
right on Beacon, and seek sanctuary in the
offices of Bob DeLeo and Stan Rosenberg. The
digs are much better and, from this week on,
those boys will have a lot more walking around
money.
The Boston Herald
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Pols & Politics: Lawmakers net big pay bump,
even with ‘reforms’
Legislative spin cycle
By Matt Stout
The “reforms” lawmakers buried amid the pages of
their pay-hike package were designed, as far as
public relations efforts go, to provide a sort
of candied shell to the pill that is their
enormous raises.
But the measures, which include barring the
Legislature’s top leaders from taking earned
outside income and eliminating travel per diems,
will actually cost House Speaker Robert DeLeo
and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg next to
nothing as their pay skyrockets — and in the
case of the latter, will actually put more money
in their pockets.
The first change tucked into the 18-page
legislation, which lawmakers will now try to
enact on a veto override, bars DeLeo, Rosenberg
and the constitutional officers from having an
outside job. It’s a move good government
advocates have long touted, and one lawmakers
made sure not to miss as they defended the
pay-raise package.
“This is a first-in-the-nation innovation,”
state Sen. Karen Spilka announced from the
Senate floor.
“There’s a requirement that there be no other
outside income,” DeLeo himself reminded
reporters, “which I think also is important.”
But according to the last three statements of
financial interest Rosenberg filed with the
state, he hasn’t reported any outside work that
would now be barred. DeLeo, meanwhile, has a law
office in Revere, but he didn’t make more than
$5,000 from it in either 2015 or 2014.
The year before that, he reported making between
$5,000 and $10,000.
If the bill becomes law, DeLeo aides said he
will close down the office to adhere to the new
rules. But both he and Rosenberg will also get
$45,000 raises at the exact same time, more than
making up for the loss.
DeLeo all but recognized the change wouldn’t
cost him much. He chalked up his outside income
to “not much” when asked by reporters last week.
State House aides noted that his predecessors
also had outside law practices.
But the requirement of being speaker, of course,
already leaves little time for a second job. Sal
DiMasi, for example, testified at his corruption
trial that after taking the speakership, “income
from his outside law practice decreased
significantly,” according to prosecutors.
The legislation also eliminates the state’s long
controversial practice of providing per diems to
lawmakers, who get paid a certain amount to
drive to the State House based on where they
live.
DeLeo, however, doesn’t take a per diem.
Rosenberg at one point earned more than any of
his colleagues to travel, but since being
elected Senate president he has put in for just
$5,700 and $5,520 each of the last two years,
according to data from the state treasurer’s
office.
With expenses now ballooning to $15,000 for
DeLeo and $20,000 for Rosenberg, that means
their extra pay will rise by thousands in the
wake of the old system.
The reforms, lawmakers argue, are supposed to
increase transparency. And they very well may.
But what’s also crystal clear: They stand to
make little to no impact on their personal bank
accounts, either.
Speaking of per diems ...
Eliminating the travel bonuses has been pushed
for years.
But a simultaneous hike in expenses means that
while getting rid of them is good practice, it
will also cost the state more.
Consider this: In 2015, the last full year of
per diem requests, lawmakers were paid $410,702
to drive to work. Combined with the $7,200 they
each got in expenses, that’s a cost of roughly
$1.85 million to the state.
Under the new system, per-diems would be gone,
replaced by expense accounts of $15,000 for
those who live within 50 miles of the State
House and $20,000 for those who live beyond 50
miles.
Even if all 200 lawmakers got just $15,000, it
would cost $3 million a year, an added cost of
at least $1.15 million. Many, of course, live
beyond the 50-mile radius, meaning this “reform”
is a costly one.
Associated Press
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Some questions, answers about the Beacon Hill
pay raise plan
By Bob Salsberg
Massachusetts lawmakers this week approved
nearly $18 million in annual pay raises for top
legislators, statewide elected officials, and
judges. Republican Governor Charlie Baker vetoed
the bill Friday, calling it ‘‘fiscally
irresponsible.’’ The Senate voted 31-9 in favor
of the legislation Thursday, a day after the
House approved it by a 115-44 vote. That’s a
large enough margin in both chambers, controlled
by Democrats, to override Baker’s veto.
Some questions and answers about the pay raise
plan:
Who gets raises?
Statewide elected officials including the
governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney
general, judges and clerks, and many members of
the state Legislature will get bigger paychecks
if the measure becomes law. Baker’s annual
salary, for example, would climb from $151,800
to $185,000; Supreme Judicial Court Chief
Justice Ralph Gants would go from $181,000 to
$206,000; Democratic House Speaker Robert DeLeo
from $97,547 to $142,547.
Who doesn’t get raises?
Rank-and-file lawmakers who do not hold
leadership positions within their parties or
committee chairmanships would not get raises
beyond their current $62,547 base pay, though
some might be in line for more compensation for
expenses. The bill also would not affect mayors
or other municipal officials and members of the
state’s congressional delegation, whose salaries
are dictated by federal law.
Aren’t legislative salaries dictated by the
state constitution?
A 1998 constitutional amendment ties biennial
changes in base pay for legislators to changes
in the state’s median household income, and
lawmakers just received a 4.1 percent hike in
their base pay. But here’s where it gets
complicated. Lawmakers have discretion over
additional compensation, like bonuses, for party
leaders and committee chairs. And that’s where
the bill makes dramatic changes. For example,
the added compensation for the Senate president
and House speaker goes from $35,000 to $80,000.
For the chairs of the House and Senate Ways and
Means Committees, the annual bonuses jump from
$25,000 to $60,000.
What about expenses?
Legislators currently receive $7,200 for annual
expenses related to their jobs along with a per
diem travel allowance tied to how far their
district is from the Statehouse. The bill would
simplify the system by handing legislators a
single lump sum payment for all expenses:
$15,000 for those who live within 50 miles of
the capitol, $20,000 for those who live beyond
50 miles.
What’s up with the governor’s housing
allowance?
The bill proposes a $60,000 housing allowance
for the governor on top of the salary increase —
something that has never in recent times been
offered or even requested. Massachusetts, after
all, is among the US states with no official
governor’s residence, and no plans to establish
one. Baker, like other governors before him,
commutes to work from his Swampscott home.
How does Massachusetts compare with other
states?
According to the Council of State Governments,
the average salary for all US governors in 2016
was $137,415 (not including housing, travel, and
staff allowances). Ten governors earned higher
salaries than in Massachusetts. Base pay for
Beacon Hill legislators was the seventh highest
in the nation in 2016, according to a survey by
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Supporters of pay hikes note Massachusetts is a
high cost-of-living state and salaries for top
executives in the private sector often dwarf
elected officials’ pay. They also note the
state’s legislative session is one of the
longest in the country, making it essentially a
full-time job for representatives and senators.
Why is all this happening now?
Legislative leaders said it was important to
pass the bill at the beginning of the 2017-2018
session to provide clarity on salaries before
leadership and committee assignments were
officially made. But some have also suggested
that lawmakers wanted to put as much distance as
possible between this vote and the next state
election in 2018, while others noted the votes
were taken at a time the public’s attention was
diverted by the start of Donald Trump’s
presidency and the New England Patriots’ return
to the Super Bowl.
The Springfield Republican
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Gov. Charlie Baker vetoes legislative pay raises
By Shira Schoenberg
Gov. Charlie Baker on Friday vetoed a bill that
aims to raise the pay of legislative leaders and
other elected officials, calling it "fiscally
irresponsible." But legislators in favor of the
measure appear to have enough votes to override
him.
"Given the commonwealth's fiscal outlook as we
continue to right-size our budget, close the
structural deficit and reduce the reliance on
one-time revenues without raising taxes, we felt
it was important to veto this fiscally
irresponsible legislation," Baker told reporters
at a press conference in his Statehouse office,
with Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito standing next to him.
The bill, which the House and Senate passed this
week, would raise the stipends paid to anyone
with a leadership position or committee
chairmanship in the House and Senate, and would
raise expense payments for all members. It would
significantly boost the pay of the governor and
all the constitutional officers, such as the
attorney general and treasurer. It would also
raise the salaries of judges and judicial staff.
Baker said the fact that the pay raises for
lawmakers would take effect immediately would
place "unplanned burdens" on the state's
financial situation, months after he made
midyear budget cuts to keep the budget in
balance. It would also raise the state's pension
obligations to these officials over time, since
pensions are based on salaries.
The bill also sets up a method for updating the
stipends every two years in a way that
correlates with overall wages in Massachusetts.
Baker said that would ensure that lawmakers'
salaries grow at rates that "exceeded any
reasonable expectations for revenue growth."
The bill would raise the stipend for the House
speaker and Senate president to $80,000, rather
than $35,000. The chairmen of the budget-writing
Ways and Means Committee would get an extra
$65,000 annually instead of the $25,000 they get
today. The majority and minority leaders would
get an extra $60,000 rather than $22,500. The
salaries of the constitutional officers would
become $165,000 or $175,000, up from between
$122,000 and $135,000 today.
In his veto message Baker wrote that the bill
"is fiscally irresponsible, would eliminate
voter-approved term limits for constitutional
officers, and was enacted after limited debate
and without a reasonable opportunity for public
comment."
Baker was referring to a little-noticed
provision of the bill that he says would repeal
language in the Massachusetts General Laws
establishing two-term limits for constitutional
officers, which were approved by voters on the
ballot in 1994.
The Republican/MassLive.com is seeking
clarification from legal experts about the
status of that law, since although the language
appears in state law, the Supreme Judicial Court
appears to have struck down the term limits in
1997. Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin
has been in office since 1995 and is receiving
pay.
Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Galvin, said the
term limits were struck down by the 1997 SJC
ruling, but the language remained on the books
simply because the Legislature never took steps
to remove it.
"It sat there for 20 years but there's no
meaning because it's unconstitutional," McNiff
said.
Baker's veto may have little practical effect,
since legislators currently have veto-proof
majorities in favor of the pay raises in both
houses. The House passed the bill 115-44, with
nine Democrats and all 35 Republicans voting
against it. The Senate passed it 31-9, with
three Democrats and all six Republicans voting
against it. It takes a two-thirds vote to
override a veto.
Baker said he hopes that, by vetoing the bill,
he will give the public more time to weigh in
with their legislators.
"Last week, hundreds of constituents shared
concerns with our office, and I encouraged them
to share those concerns with their own senators
and representatives," Baker said.
He added, "For most folks in Massachusetts, the
timing on this is just inappropriate and the
scale and size of the adjustment is, too."
Baker would not commit to trying to flip enough
votes to sustain his veto. He said only that his
first step would be to talk to lawmakers on both
sides of the aisle who also oppose the pay
raises.
There are legal questions related to whether or
not parts of the salary adjustment could be put
on the ballot for an attempted repeal in 2018.
By law, anything dealing with judges or courts
cannot be voted on, but it is an open question
whether the parts of the law dealing only with
elected officials can be.
Lawmakers who support the pay raises argue that
lawmakers' salaries need to be sufficient to
attract talented individuals and let them
support their families. The stipends paid to
legislative leaders have been unchanged for
decades, although legislators' base salary is
adjusted every two years according to a formula.
Everyone on Beacon Hill today knew the salary
when they ran for the job, and many of them have
second jobs, such as working as lawyers, Baker
said. He and Polito have said they will not
accept their pay raises.
Setti Warren, a likely Democratic candidate for
governor in 2018, urged Beacon Hill Democrats to
flip their votes to sustain Baker's veto.
"In principle I agree that legislators and other
elected officials should be paid a reasonable
wage, but the process of rushing this
legislation through has been unseemly," Warren
said. "If you think you deserve a raise, make
the case to the people you represent, and then
solicit their feedback."
The raises are based on a report issued by a
bipartisan commission in 2014. Lawmakers held a
public hearing on the report before releasing
the bill, but did not have a hearing on the
actual bill. |
| |
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
|