Almost
two million dollars, maybe even more.That’s the answer to
today’s big question: how much does the 30-year-old Pee Wee
Herman look-alike spouse of the 68-year-old state Senate
president stand to collect from the taxpayers over the next
half-century or so in so-called “survivors benefits” from
his sugar daddy’s state pension?
And that doesn’t even include the health insurance that
Bryon “Hands” Hefner will get for life for only 20 percent
of the cost of the premium.
This highway robbery, by the way, goes a long way to
explaining the unseemly haste of the Legislature’s pay heist
earlier this year.
The disgraced Rosenberg, who in the wake of the scandal
has now taken what will most likely turn out to be a
permanent leave of absence, wanted to make sure his husband
was taken care of in perpetuity.
So Rosenberg and his House counterpart, the unindicted
coconspirator Robert DeLeo, gave themselves 60 percent pay
raises and then made them repeal-proof by attaching them to
equally monstrous pay raises for the state’s very ethical
judiciary.
A state pension is based on your three highest-earning
years. In 2015 and 2016, Rosenberg collected a little more
than $100,000 (although, with his legal residence more than
50 miles from the State House, he’s always been able to
write tens of thousands off his federal income tax, making
his real income much higher).
This year, with his ill-gotten gains, Rosenberg is on
pace to grab more than $142,000. This is why the hacks
attached an “emergency preamble” to their theft, so they
could start collecting — and also setting up their eventual
kisses in the mail — immediately....
Mr. Pee Wee Rosenberg will be able to collect around
two-thirds of Mr. Rosenberg’s $76,500.
In other words, around $51,000 a year.
These days, American males live on average into their
80s, so let’s say Rosenberg has another maybe 17 years
before he reaches the checkout counter. That would set Hands
Hefner up to start collecting at age 47 or thereabouts — and
if he lasts to age 85, that means he grabs just under $2
million as his cut of disgraced Sen. Rosenberg’s state
pension.
Ain’t love grand?
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Hands’ Hefner could net $2M from sugar daddy’s benefits
By Howie Carr
Massachusetts lawmakers could have made a bold statement
but instead they copped out.
The end result is that Massachusetts now has, in effect,
two Senate presidents — an “acting” one, Harriette Chandler,
and a shadow one, Stanley C. Rosenberg — who will keep his
seat and his aura of power while his colleagues conduct an
ethics investigation stemming from sexual assault
allegations against his husband.
Once again, lawmakers put their own interests above the
interests of the public and alleged victims.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Lawmakers flub Sen. prez process
One has to assume Tom McGee Is more than happy to be
leaving the state Senate chamber for the corner office at
Lynn City Hall.
The holidays find his soon-to-be-former colleagues
scrambling to deal with a president, Stan Rosenberg, under
siege due to allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against
his husband and former aide, Bryon Hefner. As of this week
Rosenberg had taken a “temporary” leave of absence from the
presidency pending an ethics investigation and a number of
top Democrats were trying to set themselves up to replace
him.
Noted one of McGee’s soon-to-be-former constituents,
Marblehead’s Chip Ford of Citizens for Limited
Taxation, “We can only imagine how the other members of
the state Senate are taking this. They were settled in for
another long, comfy vacation, a couple of months off for the
holidays. They were not expecting to return to work until
after the New Year — but now they’ve needed to return to
deal with this seedy scandal.”
The matter has made for plenty of lively conversation
both within and without the Statehouse.
Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr speculated on how much
“Hands” Hefner might profit from his spouse’s state-financed
pension. And even Rosenberg ally Sen. Joan Lovely, D-Salem,
tweeted that the allegations against Hefner are “very
serious and disturbing.”
Very disturbing indeed given the current environment both
on Beacon Hill and in the nation’s capital. It may be that
Rosenberg will have no choice but to follow fellow Democrats
John Conyers Jr. of California and Al Franken of Minnesota
into political obscurity.
The Salem News
Friday, December 8, 2017
Unsettled time for senators
By Nelson Benton
Questions dealing with the minimum wage, sales tax, paid
family and medical leave, nurse staffing and a campaign
finance commission may be one step closer to coming before
voters next year, after their backers submitted signatures
to Secretary of State William Galvin's office.
Campaigns backing seven ballot questions turned in their
paperwork by a Wednesday deadline, according to Galvin's
office, though the petitions have not yet been certified as
having enough signatures from registered voters -- 64,750
were required -- to move on to the Legislature, the next
step in the process....
Opponents of a constitutional amendment already cleared
for next year's ballot, which would impose a 4 percent
surtax on incomes over $1 million, have filed a lawsuit
seeking to keep it from coming before voters.
The Raise Up Massachusetts Coalition, which is behind the
surtax proposal, is also backing ballot questions that would
gradually raise the hourly minimum wage from $11 to $15 and
institute a paid family and medical leave insurance program.
Its members collected 139,055 signatures to advance the
minimum wage question and 135,597 to advance the question
that could give workers up to 16 weeks of job-protected paid
leave for family illnesses.
The group aiming to reduce the sales tax to 5 percent and
establish an annual tax-free weekend, the Massachusetts Main
Street Fairness Coalition, said it turned in 117,638
signatures in support of its question.
"There exists significant support for reducing the state
sales tax and creating an annual sales tax holiday with the
voters, as evidenced by recent public polls and the ease at
which we were able to collect signatures," said Retailers
Association of Massachusetts President Jon Hurst, who is
also serving as coalition chair.
While the Democrat-controlled Legislature leans against
major reductions in broad-based taxes, Hurst has said he
would be willing to work with lawmakers on a compromise that
would prevent the need to take the sales tax question to the
ballot....
If ballot question proponents are unable to advance their
initiatives in the Legislature in 2018, campaigns will have
until June 19 to file an additional 10,792 signatures with
Galvin's office, with a maximum of 2,698 from any one
county.
State House News Service
Thursday, December 7, 2018
Signature deadline leaves fewer ballot questions in the mix
A proposed constitutional amendment that
roughly 70 percent of Bay State lawmakers voted to put
before voters is "truly radical," a group of business
representatives told the state's highest court in a
brief filed Monday.
Christopher Anderson, the president of the
Massachusetts High Technology Council, and others have
appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court to block from the
2018 ballot the proposal to impose a 4 percent surtax on
incomes over $1 million to fund transportation and education
programs.
"Our constitution never has mandated that a
specific tax be imposed – let alone that a specific tax rate
be collected – and, in the century since Article 48
introduced the initiative petition process, the Court
repeatedly has affirmed that initiative petitions cannot be
used to embed spending earmarks in the Constitution,"
attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in Monday's brief.
"Allowing this initiative on the ballot would undermine the
Legislatures' authority with respect to both spending and
taxes in one fell swoop, setting the stage for public
finances to be determined not in the deliberative
legislative process, but in the free-for-all of special
interest-fueled initiative petitions."
Raise Up Massachusetts led the
signature-gathering effort to advance the ballot question,
and the group's spokesman, Steve Crawford, dismissed the
legal effort to torpedo the measure.
"It's disappointing that a few wealthy
corporate executives and their lobbyists are trying to take
away the public's right to vote on the Fair Share Amendment,
but we believe their arguments have no merit," Crawford said
in a statement. "We're confident that the Attorney General
properly certified the Fair Share Amendment. We expect that
the SJC will uphold that certification and uphold the right
of the citizens of Massachusetts to amend their
Constitution."
Oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 5.
State House News Service
Monday, December 11, 2017
Income surtax opponents call proposal "truly radical"
Business groups fighting to block the
so-called millionaire tax from next year’s statewide ballot
say the proposed constitutional amendment is “truly radical”
and should not go to the voters, according to a
brief filed with the state’s highest court.
“Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to exclude
from the 2018 ballot an initiative petition that threatens
to undermine our representative system of government and our
separation of powers, and the long-standing consensus that
the Legislature must maintain ultimate control over public
finances,” wrote Kevin Martin, an attorney representing the
businesses....
Their attorneys argue that the state
constitution forbids initiative petitions from being “used
to embed spending earmarks in the Constitution.”
“Allowing this Initiative on the ballot
would undermine the Legislature’s authority with respect to
both spending and taxes in one fell swoop, setting the stage
for public finances to be determined not in the deliberative
legislative process, but in the free-for-all of special
interest-fueled initiative petitions,” Martin wrote.
Martin also argues that the initiative
improperly combines unrelated subjects by forcing money
raised through the tax to be spent only on education and
transportation.
“The Initiative is truly radical,” he wrote.
According to Martin’s brief, the state
constitution currently mandates a flat income tax rate, and
voters resoundingly tossed bids to authorize a graduated
income tax in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1994.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Business groups fight ’18 ballot question
‘Truly radical’ tax plan
It’s easy to complain that the proposed
“millionaire’s tax” set to go before Massachusetts voters
next year is just a cynical effort to squeeze the wealthy to
fund more government jobs. Easy, because it happens to be
true.
But it’s even more worrisome to consider, as
the plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit charge, that the
initiative “threatens to undermine our representative system
of government and our separation of powers, and the
long-standing consensus that the Legislature must maintain
ultimate control over public finances.”
And if that sounds like a big deal, that’s
because it is....
Buy the legal soundness of the suit or not —
and we do — there can be little dispute that the lawmakers
who support this initiative appear willing to trade away
their authority over the state’s finances in exchange for
political support. Regardless of the outcome of this case,
there ought to be consequences for that.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Three legal strikes
Two years in a row Massachusetts had to
write down its revenue forecast late in the fiscal year,
throwing the state budget into chaos — and dragging out the
fiscal pain that occurs when spending plans don’t align with
available revenues.
So has Beacon Hill
learned its lesson?
Not bloody likely....
It’s usually their behavior after the “consensus
revenue” figure is determined that creates the biggest set
of problems. They fail to set realistic spending levels
—underfunding certain accounts, for example, which gives
them enough wiggle room to fund their own priorities and pet
projects, all while hoping that a wave of higher tax
revenues will lift all boats. And when it doesn’t, well,
that happens in the middle of the year when the governor is
the one who has to make the unpleasant choices to bring the
budget back into balance.
Legislative
Democrats thus avoid the heat — and the fallout.
And so the discipline really needs to come on the front
end — with a very conservative revenue forecast, and
realistic budget proposals that dispense with the flotsam
and jetsam. Hope springs eternal.
A Boston
Herald editorial
Monday, December 11, 2017
Caution flag on budget
