|
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
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
A tax hike on us to fund the
pols' obscene pay grab?
|
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo — long the
bulwark in the struggle between the anti-tax governor and
pro-tax Senate president — is now saying tax hikes are on
the table for his budget proposal, raising the potential of
a heated debate just weeks after the Legislature gave itself
a controversial $18 million pay raise....
It also comes on the heels of lawmakers’
controversial override of Baker’s veto in order to pad their
own pay, a move that raised DeLeo’s and Senate President
Stanley C. Rosenberg’s salaries by nearly 50 percent to
$142,500 a year.
The awkward timing of raising taxes and
their own pay in the same year won’t be lost on voters come
re-election time next year, critics say.
“If we have $18 million to throw around, we
don’t need a tax hike. That’s outrageous,” said Chip Ford
of the group Citizens for Limited Taxation, which
advocated against the pay-raise package.
“The arrogance, it’s just beyond control.
They actually believe that there will never be any
repercussions. But I think they’re going to see
repercussions in 2018,” Ford said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
DeLeo says state may get tax hike
Comes on heels of $18M in lawmaker raises
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said last week
that it’s too soon to decide whether the state can afford to
restore the mid-year budget cuts that Gov. Charlie Baker
made in December. One might say that a move to restore the
spending would be “premature.”
That of course was the word that DeLeo and
Senate President Stan Rosenberg used to challenge Baker when
he announced the cuts, the leaders insisting at the time
that revenues might improve and Beacon Hill should stick
with what it had laid out for spending last July. Rosenberg
pledged to restore the cuts.
Baker, however, wasn’t willing to gamble.
His was the right call, as DeLeo’s current level of patience
confirms....
And curiously we heard no cries of lament
from those same lawmakers when they voted in favor of a
self-serving pay hike package, which is expected to cost
taxpayers $18 million. Perhaps we missed it when they took
to the podium during the pay raise “debate” to insist that
lawmakers delay the compensation package, and use whatever
funds would have been spent to line politicians’ pockets to
instead restore Baker’s cuts.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
A budget backlash
This is why people hate politicians.
They take care of themselves first, while
pretending to care, first, about “the people.”
As the first order of business in 2017,
Massachusetts lawmakers voted themselves a very healthy pay
raise. Looking out from their Beacon Hill bubble, they are
confident the national distraction known as President Trump
will keep the press off their case and public outrage to a
minimum.
With that, they underestimate the
trickle-down anger of the November election. A little over
one million people in Massachusetts voted for Trump. The
nearly two million who didn’t still have reason to despise
the arrogance that fueled this pay hike....
This package flew through Beacon Hill
without a single public hearing. Governor Charlie Baker
vetoed the measure with a wink and the knowledge that
Democrats had the votes to override him — which they did,
116-43 in the House and 31-9 in the Senate....
“Congratulations taxpayers, you now have the
highest-paid House speaker and Senate president of any state
legislature in the nation,” said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation....
When the state cuts health programs for the poor. When there
isn’t enough money to raise reimbursement rates for in-home
nursing care for the disabled. When lawmakers start talking
about the need for more revenue. When they say they need
more time to work out the details of the marijuana
legalization law.
When that happens, the public will look back at this pay
raise and remember, once again, what they hate: how easy it
is to jam through a law that, first, benefits lawmakers.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Lawmakers take care of themselves
By Joan Vennochi
Hard on the heels of a controversial Beacon
Hill pay hike, a Walsh administration board is quietly
laying the groundwork for the mayor to dole out hefty raises
to top city officials that could go into effect this fall
after what is expected to be a hotly contested mayoral
election.
The city’s Compensation Advisory Board,
which was appointed by Mayor Martin J. Walsh, will soon hire
a consulting firm to examine the “adequacy of salaries” for
department heads and Walsh Cabinet officials who are not
covered by union pay structures. The board will then make
recommendations to Walsh, who has the power to approve or
dismiss them....
The possibility of City Hall raises comes
after state lawmakers, acting on the recommendation of a
two-year-old report to increase salaries, jacked up their
pay by as much as 45 percent. Those raises faced heavy
criticism and fiscal watchdogs said Walsh could face similar
heat as he runs for re-election.
City Hall watchdog Joe Slavet said the
Legislature’s brazen raises may have emboldened City Hall.
“There’s a tendency to follow the leader,
they see what’s happening at the state level and maybe it’s
giving them a little confidence to move this at this time,”
Slavet said.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which spoke out against
the Legislature raises, said, “These are politicians
rewarding themselves, whether in the Legislature or in
Boston City Hall, and they’re doing the same thing to the
electorate, they’re shafting people while the taxpayers come
up with the dough.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Boston board may look to follow Legislature’s lead, hike pay
One almost expected to see Gov. Charlie
Baker don a sweater this week a la Mike Dukakis during the
Blizzard of ‘78.
The chief executive needs some PR help given
the reverses he’s suffered since last November’s election,
when voters soundly rejected his recommendation that they
lift the cap on the number of charter schools in the
commonwealth. Nor, despite great personal popularity, was he
able to significantly lift the Republican Party’s numbers in
the Legislature.
The latter cost him any chance of blocking
the big pay raise the House and Senate leadership granted
itself at the start of the current legislative session....
Speaking of which, received this missive
this week from Marblehead’s Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation: “I was
finally able to take my first time off and away from my desk
yesterday. I wish I could say it was all worth it, but the
Beacon Hill cabal steamrolled right over their constituents
like we don’t exist.
“As I said a week or two back, ‘If they want
something badly enough — they just take it.’
“But we did make them face the consequences
by making it public and turning up the heat. The publicity
CLT triggered was devastating. The obscene pay grab was
universally recognized for what it is. We did not go
silently into the night. Their covert plan of stealth was
exposed and shredded.”
The Salem News
Friday, February 10, 2017
Baker in a tight spot
By Nelson Benton
The head of a statewide retailers group is
urging lawmakers to bring back the tax-free holiday this
year, especially after Beacon Hill pols voted themselves a
sizable pay raise.
“It didn’t go unnoticed, I’ll put it that
way,” John Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, said of the pay hike. “I had a number of
members reach out and also counterparts in other states that
noticed it.”
Massachusetts opted out of a tax-free summer
weekend for the first time in seven years in 2016 with
lawmakers arguing the lost revenue would be too much of a
blow to the state budget. Hurst said he would reach out to
Gov. Charlie Baker and the Legislature to reinstate the tax
holiday this summer.
“It is indeed a little bit ironic that the
price tag is virtually identical to what just occurred with
increases in salaries,” Hurst said during an interview on
Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, February 11, 2017
In wake of pols’ pay hike, retailers seek tax-free holiday
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Chutzpah; noun, informal: The state or
quality of being impudent or arrogantly self-confident. Shameless
audacity; impudence. Behavior that is extremely confident and often
rude, with no respect for the opinions or abilities of anyone else.
Chutzpah perfectly describes the attitude of the vast majority of denizens on
Beacon Hill — who purport to represent us when they
campaign for our votes. But all they truly care about is themselves, and
how, like parasites, they can feed off of us. They have made this
indisputably clear over these past few weeks.
When the Boston Herald's Matt Stout interviewed me yesterday I had a lot
more to say than what was reported:
● I pointed out to him that if the
Legislature imposes higher taxes on us then it will certainly help us to defeat
their proposed Graduated Income Tax (aka, "The Millionaire's Tax," aka "The Tax
Fairness Amendment"). Along with voting for anyone but the incumbent,
voting against their Grad Tax constitutional amendment on the 2018 ballot will
give voters a means to vent their anger, reject their unmitigated arrogance.
● I marveled at how the Beacon Hill
establishment apparently missed what happened last November, when Donald J.
Trump received 49% of the vote in the Massachusetts Republican primary, even
managed to get 17% of the vote against Hillary Clinton in the Bluest Bastion of
Liberalism. "It was the citizens' response to this sort of arrogance and
self-dealing that has given us President Donald Trump," I told him.
"Beacon Hill didn't get the message the rest of American got loud and clear.
Their day is coming. Voters of all persuasions are fed up."
● I pointed out to Matt that the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts
had
decried the rejection of the traditional "sales tax holiday" last August
— just as the Legislature departed for its extended five-month
taxpayer-paid vacation. Jon Hurst, the Association spokesman, recently
noted that the obscene pay grab the Legislature took for itself will cost as
much as the "unaffordable" deprivation of a weekend's worth of sales tax revenue
the state estimated it would "lose."
Gov. Charlie Baker's stance on any tax hike is sounding as weak and wobbly as
his "opposition" to the obscene pay grab. When tax hikes last came up in
December, he said: "I’m going to do the best I can to talk my colleagues
in the Legislature out of raising taxes.”
Among conservatives and many moderate voters Gov. Baker has little going for him
but his anti-tax position. That is pretty much the only
thing that distinguishes him from the Democrats. If any new taxes or tax hikes
are passed on his watch, then there's really no purpose for keeping him in his
corner office. He won election in 2014 over Martha Coakley by 1.9 percent,
just 40,165 votes of the two million cast statewide. He will need all the
votes he can muster to pull that off again.
He will need our enthusiastic support to prevail.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
DeLeo says state may get tax hike
Comes on heels of $18M in lawmaker raises
By Matt Stout
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo — long the bulwark
in the struggle between the anti-tax governor
and pro-tax Senate president — is now saying tax
hikes are on the table for his budget proposal,
raising the potential of a heated debate just
weeks after the Legislature gave itself a
controversial $18 million pay raise.
“In terms of next year’s budget, I’m not ruling
out the possibility of any increase in taxes,”
DeLeo told reporters yesterday, before calling a
broad-based tax hike the “least thing that I’d
probably want to do.”
“But on the other hand,” the Winthrop Democrat
said, “I think it’s only fair to give people the
proper ability to raise the concerns about the
budget, (including) for those who wish to talk
about increased taxes. ... I think that’s only
right and proper in this case, in this fiscal
year.”
DeLeo’s reluctance to swear off new tax
proposals is an abrupt departure from past
years, when he was quick to align himself with
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and declare his
opposition to new taxes in the state budget.
But while DeLeo has often reaffirmed that stance
in his annual address to House lawmakers, he
chose not to deliver a speech this year. That’s
raised questions of whether he would shift the
balance of power in the budget debate and more
closely align with the more progressive state
Senate, where there’s always an appetite to seek
out new revenue.
It also comes on the heels of lawmakers’
controversial override of Baker’s veto in order
to pad their own pay, a move that raised DeLeo’s
and Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg’s
salaries by nearly 50 percent to $142,500 a
year.
The awkward timing of raising taxes and their
own pay in the same year won’t be lost on voters
come re-election time next year, critics say.
“If we have $18 million to throw around, we
don’t need a tax hike. That’s outrageous,” said
Chip Ford of the group Citizens for Limited
Taxation, which advocated against the pay-raise
package.
“The arrogance, it’s just beyond control. They
actually believe that there will never be any
repercussions. But I think they’re going to see
repercussions in 2018,” Ford said.
Rosenberg defended the pay-raise package, saying
lawmakers have the money in their budget to
cover their own pay hikes, meaning they only
need to find the dough to cover the $25,000
raises for judges and clerks included in the new
law.
“There are some people who would never accept
legislators getting pay raises under any
circumstances,” the Amherst Democrat said. “We
understand that.”
A new tax on short-term rentals, such as those
through Airbnb, seems all but guaranteed to
appear in next year’s budget and was included in
Baker’s own spending proposal. But the
Swampscott Republican has repeatedly said he’d
oppose any across-the-board tax proposal.
“I’m going to do the best I can to talk my
colleagues in the Legislature out of raising
taxes,” he said in December.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
A budget backlash
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said last week that
it’s too soon to decide whether the state can
afford to restore the mid-year budget cuts that
Gov. Charlie Baker made in December. One might
say that a move to restore the spending would be
“premature.”
That of course was the word that DeLeo and
Senate President Stan Rosenberg used to
challenge Baker when he announced the cuts, the
leaders insisting at the time that revenues
might improve and Beacon Hill should stick with
what it had laid out for spending last July.
Rosenberg pledged to restore the cuts.
Baker, however, wasn’t willing to gamble. His
was the right call, as DeLeo’s current level of
patience confirms.
To be fair to DeLeo and Rosenberg, some of their
alarmist colleagues used much more dramatic
language to describe the $98 million in cuts (in
a $40 billion budget), running along the lines
of, “How will the commonwealth survive?” While
some programs have felt a pinch, few taxpayers
have probably noticed the earmarks trimmed from,
say, the tourism budget. (Baker trimmed $8
million in pork from that line item alone.)
And curiously we heard no cries of lament from
those same lawmakers when they voted in favor of
a self-serving pay hike package, which is
expected to cost taxpayers $18 million. Perhaps
we missed it when they took to the podium during
the pay raise “debate” to insist that lawmakers
delay the compensation package, and use whatever
funds would have been spent to line politicians’
pockets to instead restore Baker’s cuts.
Building a state budget tends to be as much an
art as it is science, with budget-writers
squirreling away pockets of cash here and there
to patch over shortfalls or retain funding for
their pet projects. In the case of the pay
raise, lawmakers felt entirely comfortable
supporting another $18 million in spending
despite sluggish revenues. That they are in no
rush to restore Baker’s cuts confirms that he
was right to make them when he did — and that
the pay raise push was even more poorly-timed
than it first appeared.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Lawmakers take care of themselves
By Joan Vennochi
This is why people hate politicians.
They take care of themselves first, while
pretending to care, first, about “the people.”
As the first order of business in 2017,
Massachusetts lawmakers voted themselves a very
healthy pay raise. Looking out from their Beacon
Hill bubble, they are confident the national
distraction known as President Trump will keep
the press off their case and public outrage to a
minimum.
With that, they underestimate the trickle-down
anger of the November election. A little over
one million people in Massachusetts voted for
Trump. The nearly two million who didn’t still
have reason to despise the arrogance that fueled
this pay hike.
The compensation package, which includes raises
for state officeholders and judges, totals $18
million. No effort was made to explain the
rationale for doing it now. No comparative data
with other state legislatures was put forward.
For example, according to data from Ballotpedia,
salaries range from over $100,000 for California
lawmakers to $200 per two year term for those in
New Hampshire. Lawmakers in New Mexico earn only
a $163 per diem.
This package flew through Beacon Hill without a
single public hearing. Governor Charlie Baker
vetoed the measure with a wink and the knowledge
that Democrats had the votes to override him —
which they did, 116-43 in the House and 31-9 in
the Senate.
Attuned to the optics, Baker said he won’t take
the raise; neither will Lieutenant Governor
Karen Polito. Attorney General Maura Healey and
state Treasurer Deb Goldberg — both Democrats —
are also turning it down. But the legislative
leaders who engineered the pay heist have no
concerns about cashing in on it.
In Massachusetts, the legislative base salary
before the pay hike was $62,547, plus stipends
capped at $15,000 for a leadership position. The
legislation dramatically increases stipends,
eliminates any cap, and allows lawmakers to be
compensated for more than one leadership
position. The raises will hike some salaries as
much as 45 percent.
Senate President Stanley Rosenberg said the pay
increase is necessary because lawmakers with
young families can’t live on the current salary.
Arguing that there’s never a good time for a pay
hike, House Speaker Robert DeLeo said now is as
good a time as any. DeLeo’s salary and that of
Rosenberg will increase by $45,000 to $142,000
under the new law.
“Congratulations taxpayers, you now have the
highest-paid House speaker and Senate president
of any state legislature in the nation,” said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens
for Limited Taxation.
How do legislative salaries compare with those
of their constituents? When the US Census Bureau
released figures in 2015, the median household
income in Massachusetts was $67,846, and it has
risen since then. But there’s a vast range in
earnings across the state, with some
municipalities far below that. Besides, matching
private-sector salaries is not supposed to be
the goal of those in public service.
Even some Democrats acknowledge the process
looks bad.“I think it was the wrong time to do
this and the wrong way to do this, and there may
be repercussions for the Massachusetts
Legislature that they weren’t anticipating down
the road,” Doug Rubin, a Democratic consultant
and former chief of staff to Governor Deval
Patrick, told Boston Herald Radio.
Incumbent lawmakers in Massachusetts, especially
Democrats, rarely pay at the ballot box.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the Legislature, who
voted against the pay raise, along with a small
number of Democrats who joined them, will take
the salary increase along with everyone else.
So what repercussions might they face?
When the state cuts health programs for the
poor. When there isn’t enough money to raise
reimbursement rates for in-home nursing care for
the disabled. When lawmakers start talking about
the need for more revenue. When they say they
need more time to work out the details of the
marijuana legalization law.
When that happens, the public will look back at
this pay raise and remember, once again, what
they hate: how easy it is to jam through a law
that, first, benefits lawmakers.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Boston board may look to follow Legislature’s
lead, hike pay
By Dan Atkinson
Hard on the heels of a controversial Beacon Hill
pay hike, a Walsh administration board is
quietly laying the groundwork for the mayor to
dole out hefty raises to top city officials that
could go into effect this fall after what is
expected to be a hotly contested mayoral
election.
The city’s Compensation Advisory Board, which
was appointed by Mayor Martin J. Walsh, will
soon hire a consulting firm to examine the
“adequacy of salaries” for department heads and
Walsh Cabinet officials who are not covered by
union pay structures. The board will then make
recommendations to Walsh, who has the power to
approve or dismiss them.
Twenty of those positions are grouped into
six-figure salary ranges set by city law, and a
2013 recommendation from the board called for
raising the ranges by roughly 10 percent. That
would have increased salary ranges that
previously topped out at $165,000 — a range that
includes Corporation Counsel Eugene O’Flaherty
and city CFO David Sweeney — to $180,000. But
the recommendation was ignored by then-Mayor
Thomas M. Menino.
Walsh’s Cabinet has another 20 officials not
covered under those salary ranges, including
Chief of Staff Dan Koh, who made $156,560 in
2015; Chief of Operations Patrick Brophy, who
made $142,000, and Chief of Policy Joyce Linehan,
who made $144,200. Salaries for senior staff in
the mayor’s office are generally set based on
what similar positions receive in union contract
raises, according to Sam Tyler, of the Boston
Municipal Research Bureau.
The board will review salaries of officials not
covered by city law, although it is still
determining who they will be. Mayoral spokesman
Nicole Caravella said city officials were
writing a request for proposals for consultants
and the scope of new positions under review
would be released when it went out for bid.
When asked if Walsh would make a decision on
raises before the election, Caravella was
non-committal, saying, “The board can come back
with recommendations at any time.”
The possibility of City Hall raises comes after
state lawmakers, acting on the recommendation of
a two-year-old report to increase salaries,
jacked up their pay by as much as 45 percent.
Those raises faced heavy criticism and fiscal
watchdogs said Walsh could face similar heat as
he runs for re-election.
City Hall watchdog Joe Slavet said the
Legislature’s brazen raises may have emboldened
City Hall.
“There’s a tendency to follow the leader, they
see what’s happening at the state level and
maybe it’s giving them a little confidence to
move this at this time,” Slavet said.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for
Citizens for Limited Taxation, which spoke
out against the Legislature raises, said, “These
are politicians rewarding themselves, whether in
the Legislature or in Boston City Hall, and
they’re doing the same thing to the electorate,
they’re shafting people while the taxpayers come
up with the dough.”
Walsh’s five-member board is chaired by former
City Councilor John Tobin, who replaced former
chairwoman Deborah Shah after she abruptly
resigned last year. It is required to review
salaries and make recommendations every two
years. The final report to Walsh, who is facing
a challenge from City Councilor Tito Jackson,
isn’t due until March next year. Tobin said he
expected it would be ready “much sooner” than
that.
Board officials said they expected to get their
analysis back by late summer or early fall and
would use it to make their own recommendations
for Walsh. Even if he gets the report before the
election, Walsh could wait to move on
recommendations until after Nov. 7, Tyler said.
“The mayor has the full discretion to make a
decision on raises whenever appropriate,” Tyler
said.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, February 11, 2017
In wake of pols’ pay hike, retailers seek
tax-free holiday
By Chris Villani
The head of a statewide retailers group is
urging lawmakers to bring back the tax-free
holiday this year, especially after Beacon Hill
pols voted themselves a sizable pay raise.
“It didn’t go unnoticed, I’ll put it that way,”
John Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts, said of the pay
hike. “I had a number of members reach out and
also counterparts in other states that noticed
it.”
Massachusetts opted out of a tax-free summer
weekend for the first time in seven years in
2016 with lawmakers arguing the lost revenue
would be too much of a blow to the state budget.
Hurst said he would reach out to Gov. Charlie
Baker and the Legislature to reinstate the tax
holiday this summer.
“It is indeed a little bit ironic that the price
tag is virtually identical to what just occurred
with increases in salaries,” Hurst said during
an interview on Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting”
show. “I am not going to stand here and say that
raises for Beacon Hill were not a good thing.
But on the other hand, I feel pretty positive
that the economic and tax situation must be
looking pretty good and I assume Beacon Hill
will deliver for Main Street and our consumers
this August.”
The Legislature last month passed a
controversial pay-raise package, bumping the
salaries or stipends for members of all three
branches — including a nearly 50 percent hike
for legislative leadership.
Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo and Senate
President Stanley C. Rosenberg will now each
make $142,500 a year. |
| |
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
|