 |
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
45 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Monday, August 5, 2019
Gov.
Charlie Baker is a "disappointment" at best
|
Gov. Charlie Baker has wielded his veto pen
every year since taking office in 2015, in part, to fulfill
his campaign pledges to reduce government spending and weed
earmarks from the state budget.
But this week, in an unprecedented move, the
second-term Republican governor signed a $43.3 billion
budget bloated with tens of millions of dollars worth of
earmarks — without vetoing any spending measures.
Lawmakers padded the budget with funding for
pet projects and programs in their districts during
protracted deliberations, which helped drive up the cost of
the final spending plan by $600 million.
Baker said he didn’t need to exercise his
veto powers to trim spending, as he has done in the previous
four years, because the state government is in “pretty good
shape financially.”
“There are no money vetoes in here,” he told
reporters at a budget signing on Wednesday. “Basically, we
came to the conclusion that this budget is balanced now.”
His decision was welcomed by lawmakers, but
panned by conservative watchdogs who accused the governor of
abandoning his campaign pledges of fiscal restraint and
responsibility....
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said Baker should have
exercised his veto powers to trim some of the spending —
even if only to send a message to lawmakers.
“He’s a Republican governor, who’s supposed
to be fiscally conservative, and you mean to tell me he
couldn’t find any wasteful spending in a $43 billion
budget?” he said. “Something is wrong here.”
The Gloucester Times
Friday, August 3, 2019
Baker cedes in fight over earmarks
Gov. Charlie Baker does a great Oprah
Winfrey impression.
But instead of telling a cheering audience
that “you get a car! And you get a car!” Baker gives away
truckloads of taxpayers’ money to fund whatever projects
legislators ask for. Though many days late, the governor
didn’t come up a dollar short, rubber-stamping the fiscal
year 2020 state budget to a tune of $43.3 billion.
Without vetoing any spending.
People like when you give them money. It
makes them happy. Just look at any rally for U.S. Sens.
Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or U.S. Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez when they start the “free stuff” spiel — the
crowds roar with approval.
Liz, Bernie and AOC are odd fiscal role
models for a Republican governor, but these are odd times.
OK’ing a $43.3 billion budget with nothing
off the table certainly made their day on Beacon Hill.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said he was “very
pleased” to see a budget without any monetary vetoes, and
couldn’t remember a previous instance when a governor did
not veto any spending....
The governor used to be more fiscally — dare
we say it — conservative. Last year he vetoed $48.9 million
from a $41.7 billion budget. And he slashed more than $250
million from 2017’s budget, holding the state’s rise in
costs to 1.3%.
Baker said that he did not slash any
spending this year because “this budget’s balanced.”
But just because you allegedly can spend all
the money, doesn’t mean you should.
A Boston Herald editorial
Sunday, August 4, 2019
Baker goes on spending spree
No fiscal vetoes for 2020 budget
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Really nothing
has changed about Gov. Charlie Baker since he was first
elected. He campaigns as a Republican but once
elected molts back to his true colors of a Democrat.
"Fool me
once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me."
That's why I voted for Charlie's opponent in the
Republican primary, and for the first time in my life
left my ballot blank for governor in the general
election last November. I wasn't fooled twice by
Charlie.
Too bad he was
reelected and given four more years to further degrade
what remains of a Republican brand in Massachusetts
while driving the state into its next fiscal crisis.
It baffles me
why anyone even runs as a Republicans at all. It
would be much easier for wannabe Republican candidates
running in Deep Blue Massachusetts to just drop the
façade, come clean with the voters, and officially
switch their registrations to Democrat. When
occasionally elected, "Republicans" mostly vote as and
with Democrats anyway, so why persistently handicap
themselves with a scarlet letter “R” after their names
for no reason I can fathom? Maybe those who call
themselves Republicans in Massachusetts are just more
stupid than Democrats?
Baker's not
fooling anyone who's paying attention even casually.
Everyone was warned. More than two years ago, in
his Boston Herald column of June 4, 2017 ("Baker a
broken record of disappointment"), Howie Carr observed:
Where was Gov. Charlie
Baker?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot,
Tall Deval is a Republican, or claims to be. I
guess that explains his no-show yesterday at the
state Democrat party convention in Worcester.
Still, for Tall Deval not
to be invited to make at least a cameo
appearance with his closest political pals at
their annual hackerama must have been very …
disappointing, to use what is his new favorite
word....
As his first term in the
Corner Office continues, it seems that the
Republican-in-Name-Only (RINO) governor finds
himself more and more “disappointed,” not just
with his party affiliation, but also with the
drift of public affairs in general.
It appears that the only
thing that’s not disappointing Tall Deval is his
continuing high favorability ratings. And what
better way to preserve them than to never take a
stand on anything beyond saying you’re
“disappointed.”
"Disappointment" is contagious, sweeping over the
commonwealth these days. In its editorial
yesterday The Boston Herald took its best shot at the
alleged Republican spendthrift governor, pointing out:
"But just because you allegedly can spend all the money,
doesn’t mean you should."
In Charlie's
world if he "can spend all the money"
demonstrably he does.
Charlie Baker
has been a disappointment for a long time.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The
Gloucester Times
Friday, August 3, 2019
Baker cedes in fight over earmarks
By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter
Gov. Charlie Baker has wielded his veto pen
every year since taking office in 2015, in part,
to fulfill his campaign pledges to reduce
government spending and weed earmarks from the
state budget.
But this week, in an unprecedented move, the
second-term Republican governor signed a $43.3
billion budget bloated with tens of millions of
dollars worth of earmarks — without vetoing any
spending measures.
Lawmakers padded the budget with funding for pet
projects and programs in their districts during
protracted deliberations, which helped drive up
the cost of the final spending plan by $600
million.
Baker said he didn’t need to exercise his veto
powers to trim spending, as he has done in the
previous four years, because the state
government is in “pretty good shape
financially.”
“There are no money vetoes in here,” he told
reporters at a budget signing on Wednesday.
“Basically, we came to the conclusion that this
budget is balanced now.”
His decision was welcomed by lawmakers, but
panned by conservative watchdogs who accused the
governor of abandoning his campaign pledges of
fiscal restraint and responsibility.
“It’s a failure in our democratic process when
the branch of government charged with reining in
spending does not exercise its duty to use the
line item veto,” said Paul Craney, a spokesman
for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a
conservative watchdog group. “It’s sends a
signal to the Legislature that it’s OK to spend
as much as they want.”
Craney noted that every Massachusetts governor
in recent history — both Republican and Democrat
— has used their executive veto powers to reduce
budgetary spending.
To be sure, Baker has vetoed hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of earmarks and other
spending proposals added to previous budgets,
but lawmakers have overridden him to restore the
funding.
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said Baker
should have exercised his veto powers to trim
some of the spending — even if only to send a
message to lawmakers.
“He’s a Republican governor, who’s supposed to
be fiscally conservative, and you mean to tell
me he couldn’t find any wasteful spending in a
$43 billion budget?” he said. “Something is
wrong here.”
Earmarks were virtually eliminated during the
recession to plug budget shortfalls.
But as the state’s economy improves, they’ve
made a comeback.
House lawmakers loaded their version of the
budget with 1,400 amendments ahead of
deliberations in April.
In the upper chamber, senators filed nearly
1,200 budget amendments.
Baker vetoed $49 million from the $41.7 billion
budget he signed a year ago, weeding out about
300 earmarks. Lawmakers, however, restored most
of those cuts.
Lawmakers say the requests are important to
their home districts as well as the state’s
economy.
They point out that adding earmarks to the
budget is often the only way to get money for
local projects and initiatives, because the
executive branch largely controls capital
expenses.
“These aren’t wasteful pork projects,” said
state Rep. Lenny Mirra, R-West Newbury, who
secured several local earmarks, including
$40,000 for a new bathroom facility on Plum
Island. “They are very much needed in our
communities.”
Lawmakers said better-than-expected tax
collections — roughly $1.9 billion through the
end of last year — freed more money to fund
local projects without impacting state finances.
Baker was also under pressure to sign off on the
spending package, which lawmakers delivered to
his administration on July 22, three weeks after
the start of the state’s new fiscal year.
Massachusetts was the last in the nation with a
July 1 fiscal year to deliver a budget to the
governor’s desk — for the second year in a row.
But Craney points out that using the budget as a
vehicle to approve earmarks circumvents the
checks and balances normally required for
government-funded programs.
Earmarks are not subject to the state’s
competitive bidding law or other fiscal
requirements, he notes, and decisions about
adding them to the budget are made in
closed-door meetings.
“It’s horse trading,” Craney said. “If a
lawmaker feels strongly that their district
needs something, (it) should be put in a bill
and debated on the floor of the House and
Senate.”
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts
Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s
newspapers and websites.
The Boston
Herald
Sunday, August 4, 2019
A Boston Herald editorial
Baker goes on spending spree
No fiscal vetoes for 2020 budget
Gov. Charlie Baker does a great Oprah Winfrey
impression.
But instead of telling a cheering audience that
“you get a car! And you get a car!” Baker gives
away truckloads of taxpayers’ money to fund
whatever projects legislators ask for. Though
many days late, the governor didn’t come up a
dollar short, rubber-stamping the fiscal year
2020 state budget to a tune of $43.3 billion.
Without vetoing any spending.
People like when you give them money. It makes
them happy. Just look at any rally for U.S.
Sens. Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders or U.S.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when they start
the “free stuff” spiel — the crowds roar with
approval.
Liz, Bernie and AOC are odd fiscal role models
for a Republican governor, but these are odd
times.
OK’ing a $43.3 billion budget with nothing off
the table certainly made their day on Beacon
Hill.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said he was “very
pleased” to see a budget without any monetary
vetoes, and couldn’t remember a previous
instance when a governor did not veto any
spending.
The University of Massachusetts is happy — it
got the nod for a sweet $558,044,794. We know
they’ll spend it wisely.
UMass Dartmouth picked up $2.7 million, for
facilities costs associated with the college of
visual and performing arts. Even though the
funds may be expended for Bristol Community
College, they’ve got to be raising a frosty
lemonade in cheer out there.
Sharon is smiling, the town is getting $60,000
for a feasibility study for the reuse of its
historic public library. Speaking of studies,
Newton is due for $50,000 to determine whether
an informal trail on department land beside
Quinobequin Road can be turned into a formal
trail.
Winchester’s got to be pleased, they’re due to
collect $100,000 for the design and development
of the Sherman “Whip” Saltmarsh garden terrace.
Saltmarsh is a former selectman and state rep.
We’ve seen the renderings — it looks lovely, as
a $100,000-plus garden terrace should.
And the state’s got a Restaurant Commission now,
which, to the tune of $2 million, will promote
the industry.
There’s more, and we encourage you to visit
https://malegislature.gov/Budget/FY2020/FinalBudget.
It’s not light reading, but it is enlightening.
Drop us a line to tell us what you think at
letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com.
We’re not denigrating these projects, but we
wonder how we can afford all this. Did
Massachusetts win the Mass. State Lottery? Or
did a really good scrounge of the State House
sofa cushions produce a windfall?
The budget boosts spending 3.3% over fiscal 2019
estimates, and is built around a projected $30
billion in tax revenue, according to the
Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
One imagines they’ve projected that we won’t
have any revenue shortfall — not that that ever
happens.
The governor used to be more fiscally — dare we
say it — conservative. Last year he vetoed $48.9
million from a $41.7 billion budget. And he
slashed more than $250 million from 2017’s
budget, holding the state’s rise in costs to
1.3%.
Baker said that he did not slash any spending
this year because “this budget’s balanced.”
But just because you allegedly can spend all the
money, doesn’t mean you should.
A note to the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce:
you’re earmarked to get $50,000 for a great
white shark information network for the region
to boost beach safety and keep the tourists
coming back. A great, and necessary idea. But
you should have asked for another $50K for a
study of some sort.
It’s not like Baker was going to say no.
The Boston
Herald
June 4, 2017
Baker a broken record of disappointment
By Howie Carr
Where was Gov. Charlie Baker?
Oh, that’s right, I forgot, Tall Deval is a
Republican, or claims to be. I guess that
explains his no-show yesterday at the state
Democrat party convention in Worcester.
Still, for Tall Deval not to be invited to make
at least a cameo appearance with his closest
political pals at their annual hackerama must
have been very … disappointing, to use what is his
new favorite word.
As his first term in the Corner Office
continues, it seems that the
Republican-in-Name-Only (RINO) governor finds
himself more and more “disappointed,” not just
with his party affiliation, but also with the
drift of public affairs in general.
It appears that the only thing that’s not
disappointing Tall Deval is his continuing high
favorability ratings. And what better way to
preserve them than to never take a stand on
anything beyond saying you’re “disappointed.”
First, of course, there was the decision last
week by President Trump to pull the U.S. out of
the Paris climate accord.
“Very disappointed,” Charlie said. That was
after his office issued a statement calling the
decision “disappointing.”
The governor is often disappointed by his fellow
Republicans. Take the recent vote by the U.S.
House of Representatives to repeal Obamacare.
“I am disappointed by today’s vote,” he said.
Every month, the state Department of Revenue
issues numbers on how much money the
commonwealth has been able to separate from the
working people of Massachusetts. In April, the
DOR’s collections continued a recent trend of
tanking big-time.
“The April numbers are disappointing,” Baker
announced.
This is not to say that Tall Deval has become a
complete Johnny One-Note in his public
pronouncements. The other day, one of his
dearest friends in the reverend-clergy
community, the Rev. Archie Livingston Foxworth,
was lugged by the Boston Police Department in a
Chinatown hooker sting.
In his disappointment, the governor’s office
issued a statement.
“Gov. Baker is saddened by this news.”
In January, Baker flew to Washington to attend
the inauguration of President Trump, which was
surprising considering the governor was so
disappointed with the choices on the ballot Nov.
8 that he didn’t cast a vote for president.
“For the first time in my life, I’m not going to
vote for president,” he said, “which is hugely
disappointing.”
On Election Day, after (not) casting his ballot,
he sadly spoke to reporters at his precinct in
Swampscott.
“I’m obviously disappointed.”
And now the state Democratic convention has come
and gone, and Charlie didn’t get to deliver an
address.
He must have been disappointed. |
| |
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
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
