The Lies and Broken Promises
Continue
Our tax rollback of the "temporary" income tax increase has
been assigned to the ballot as Question Four.
Vote YES on QUESTION 4 if you want to Keep the Promise!
You can now vote on Question 4 on Dick Morris's
VOTE.COM website. If you want to cast your
vote, go to the site and select MA from the state menu on the left. So far the total
is:
Day 7, (July 20, 2000) 09:54 AM EST:
Total Votes: 2,007
Yes (1,416) - (71%)
No (591) - (29%)
Closing out the fiscal year, the Department of Revenue last
week announced that, "revenues for FY2000 were $15.700 billion, up $1.409 billion or 9.9 percent from FY1999"
(see news release). That's one-and-a-half-billion-dollars of
over-taxation that we're talking about, over and above last year's record over-taxation surplus!
Yet the Gimme Lobby is still crying that we "can't afford a
risky 'tax cut'"!
Gimme a break!
How about those sleazy Bacon Hill pols, slipping themselves
yet another pay raise even after their vows to the contrary! They conned voters into adopting their constitutional amendment
for automatic pay raises just so they'd "never have to vote on their own pay raises again"!
Just as we warned voters, if automatic pay raises for pols
was carved into the constitution, the pols would simply find other ways to line their pockets. Their greed and behavior is
just so darned predictable. Will voters ever learn?
Back in 1986, and again in 1994, we warned that if the
Legislature's mandatory seat belt law was not repealed by the voters, it was only a matter of time before it became "primary
enforcement" -- where a motorist could be pulled over just because the police
thought you were not wearing a seat belt, and fined if they were correct.
"Oh no, never!" we were promised. "Secondary enforcement
only!" the mandatory seat belt law zealots pledged. "You have to be stopped by the police for something else!"
The voters didn't buy it in 1986 and voted to repeal the
law. In 1994, the voters weakened, they foolishly bought the promise and voted to keep the law.
As always -- ALWAYS! -- the pols' promise has been broken
and the voters betrayed. As soon as the incrementalist figured that the public had sufficiently forgotten the promise and had
adjusted enough to the further loss of personal freedom, they flipped us the bird again.
Some have asked if I'll fight the just-adopted new primary
enforcement seat belt law, try to repeal it. Nope, not a chance. The voters decided in 1994, they chose to be patted on
the head, kissed on the cheek, and buckled-up by Big Brother. They ignored our warnings and protestations. They've got the
government they deserve - the very one we predicted.
They'll have to learn the hard way, when they start paying
their fines -- fines which they could easily have avoided when they had the opportunity but chose to reject it.
One more prediction from the past that I continue to stand
on: Within the next few years, failure to use a seat belt will count as a surchargeable offense against your auto insurance,
raising your rate. It's the only-too-obvious next step, though again we're promised "never." Anyone want to bet against me?
In November -- at long last -- we have the opportunity and
the means to MAKE the politicians keep AT LEAST ONE promise:
Vote YES on QUESTION 4 and KEEP THE PROMISE they have again
and again thumbed their collective noses at while flipping us the bird.
Vote YES ON QUESTION 4 and -- just like the greedy Bacon
Hill Cabal ... GIVE YOURSELF A PAY RAISE!!!
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
Lawmakers abandon pledge, hike pay
by Ellen J. Silberman
House members yesterday broke a 17-year-old pledge not to
raise their own pay during an election year, padding their paychecks by as much as $12,000 a year.
Without even a roll-call vote, lawmakers changed their rules
just long enough to give every member of the Legislature a $3,600 backdoor pay raise by doubling their office expense
budgets. Lawmakers legally can pocket any expense money they don't use.
Lawmakers also doubled their "per diem" travel expenses,
which could hike the pay of lawmakers who live far from the State House by another $9,000 a year. Lawmakers who live in the
Boston area could pocket an extra $1,000 this year to cover travel expenses.
Rep. James Marzilli (D-Arlington), who tried and failed to
force a roll-call vote on the rules change, called the raise "a travesty."
He was the only lawmaker in either chamber to speak publicly
against the raise, which is retroactive to July 1. House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Haley (D-Weymouth) defended the expense
increase saying lawmakers needed the twin hikes to pay for such new expenses as car phones.
Lawmakers put the extra cash in their own pockets as part of
the $21.6 billion fiscal 2001 budget, which also makes changes to the state's special-education rules that could drop 30,000
children and save taxpayers as much as $157 million a year.
The contrast left some lawmakers wondering how the House
leadership could abandon "children in wheelchairs" while padding their own pay checks.
The raises, which could cost taxpayers $1 million a year,
come less than two years after voters approved a Constitutional amendment that automatically increases lawmakers' salaries
every two years. If the economy continues to grow at the current rate, rank-and-file members will see their pay jump in
January more than $3,000 to $49,000-a-year.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) and Senate
President Thomas F. Birmingham (D-Chelsea) could see their salaries soar to $85,000 a year in January.
Campaign finance reform advocates originally proposed
padding the expense checks to help lawmakers abide by voluntary campaign spending limits that would effectively end the
practice of using campaign funds to pay office expenses. But the advocates quickly backed away from the House-hatched plan
to double office expenses without requiring any accounting -- or requiring lawmakers to abide by the spending limits
to get the extra cash.
Internal House rules bar lawmakers from increasing their own
compensation once it's too late for an opponent to file election papers. That deadline is long past and most lawmakers
are running unopposed this fall. The Senate also approved the salary increases without debate.
Karen E. Crummy contributed to this report.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 19, 2000
A Boston Herald editorial
No end to spending
Gov. Paul Cellucci is looking over the new state budget for
items to veto. The place to start is education.
The budget increases funds for education by a whopping $425
million. Some is needed, like the doubling of special MCAS help to $40 million, or the additional $27 million for early
childhood education.
The major extravagance is in regular no-strings aid to cities and towns, which the Legislature
wants to increase by almost 7 percent ($187 million) to $2.948 billion. The governor
should cut by $55 million, back to what he proposed.
With all the new special help they're getting, the cities
and towns could find it hard to spend the regular checks. Yes, we know, the Legislature will override the governor's veto,
just as it did last year, but that's no reason not to make the point that money is burning a hole in the
Legislature's pocket.
Which is why we're disappointed that the budget drops the
House-passed provision for cuts in the state income tax rate after 2002, tied to growth in personal income as the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation proposed. This could have served as a backup to the
restoration of the 5 percent rate the governor is supporting in a ballot question this fall. Voters
now have a greater incentive to pass it.
The governor should not lack targets for his pen. Among them
is a raise for members of the Governor's Council from $15,600 a year to $25,000. For a job that takes about an hour a
week, the councilors already make too much.
The new budget is 7 percent higher than the old one. It contains major initiatives that will be
under constant pressure to grow. One is the new senior pharmacy program, whose initial
$32 million outlay will more than triple within three years. Our Legislature still has to learn that
trees do not grow to the sky.
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