The MetroWest Daily News
Friday, March 1, 2002
Legislators feel your pain with furloughs
By Jon Brodkin
You won't find Many state representatives in the region
jumping for joy over a voluntary eight-day pay cut, but the lawmakers do see slashing their own salaries as a necessary
evil.
"The legislators should feel the same kind of pain as other
state workers," said Rep. Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston.
The cut, similar to one undertaken by court employees, was
proposed by House Speaker Thomas Finneran Wednesday, one day after state Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Newton, and a
group of lawmakers pitched the idea. It could save the state about $300,000 if all 160
House members agree to forfeit eight days of pay.
With estimated budget shortfalls of $1 billion this year and
$2 billion next year, the savings is "a drop in the bucket," said Rep. Patricia
Walrath, D-Stow.
But a voluntary pay cut sends a good message to constituents
and gives lawmakers a little more credibility when they cut other budgets, said Charles Euchner, executive director of the
Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, part of Harvard University's Kennedy School of
Government.
"It's a good public relations move," he said. "Even more
than that, it's a way of saying everybody's in this together."
The gesture won't give them an "inoculation from criticism,"
however. If lawmakers want to make a real sacrifice they would get rid of patronage and unnecessary programs, he said.
Losing those "threatens not just a couple thousand dollars but their very position in state
government," Euchner said....
Finneran, who urged House members to take the eight-day cut,
told them it could go up to three weeks, according to Rep. Cory Atkins, D-Acton, who will also accept a smaller
paycheck....
Legislators' base pay is just over $50,000, with eight days
pay being about $1,800. Lawmakers with leadership positions such as committee chairmanships earn more.
"No one likes it (the pay cut) but we're asking many people
to take pay cuts and many people will lose their jobs," Pope said. "These are very difficult times, I think we're very
lucky to have jobs."
While some lawmakers see the belt-tightening as more
symbolic than a real solution to the state's budget crisis, Pope said, "Every little bit adds up. I would like to think by
doing this I am letting a home-care worker work, because I really hated to see those cuts in the
home-care services."
Atkins is one who sees it as more symbolic, because
legislative salaries aren't that high. "A golf pro gets more than a legislator," she said.
While it appears most legislators are heeding Finneran's
call to forfeit salary, some may decide they can't afford to, legislators said.
"Some live literally paycheck to paycheck," Spilka said. For
herself, losing the money will make paying expenses a little tougher, but she thinks it's necessary to show good faith on
the part of lawmakers.
But she recognizes that a lawmakers' pay cut won't make life
better for those who are laid off. She was a layoff victim in 1989 when she was a labor relations attorney for the state, she
said.
"I'll never forget the feeling of getting notice and having
to come home and tell my family," she said. "Hopefully, we can save some jobs or save some services to vulnerable
populations."
Linsky also expressed hope the gesture will help the state
keep layoffs to a minimum. But he's not fooling himself that this is a cure-all.
"Obviously not a great deal of money is going to be saved by
the 160 members taking these furloughs," he said. But "We need to feel the same type of impact that the other state
employees feel."
A CLT BLAST FROM THE PAST
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 31, 2000
Pols pack budget with pork
by Ellen J. Silberman and Joe Battenfeld
House lawmakers have fattened their $21.7 billion budget
with more than $4 million in pet spending projects -- including another bailout for the Sail Boston extravaganza -- and a
$3,600 back door raise for each legislator.
The new details emerging from the budget plan yesterday
infuriated Cellucci administration officials as well as campaign finance reform advocates and tax cut proponents....
As the Herald reported yesterday, the House budget would
double members' "per diem" travel allowances and office expense accounts.
The move to double office expenses, which will cost
taxpayers $720,000 a year, is particularly controversial because lawmakers collect the allowances in monthly checks and
aren't required to account for how they spend the cash. "It might as well be handed over to
them in a brown bag, Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government
said.
In fact, the state reports the office expenses to the
Internal Revenue Service on 1099 forms and lawmakers are free to pocket whatever they don't spend on paper clips and phone
calls. And sources say many lawmakers don't like to part with a dime -- even when the stationery
runs out.
"Some of them treat it like their salary," one State House
source said.
Lawmakers -- particularly those who live more than 50 miles
from the State House - also add thousands to their salaries with "per diem" allowances meant to offset those travel costs.
House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Haley (D-Weymouth)
defended the increases, saying the office expense money would allow lawmakers to abide by the "Clean Elections"
campaign finance reform law by absorbing some of the "constituent service" expenses they
currently pay out of their campaign funds. The voter-approved law offers candidates public
funds if they agree to limit their campaign spending.
But the lack of accounting is raising concerns among
campaign finance advocates who pushed to get office expenses covered.
"There's no reporting whatsoever," said David Donnelly,
director of Mass Voters for Clean Elections.
The stipend increases 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 mor 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....
Return to top
ANOTHER CLT BLAST FROM THE
PAST
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Wednesday, April 12, 2000
Sows at the public trough
OUR VIEW:
Legislators are seeking to line their own pockets at our expense
On any given morning, Interstate 93 is packed with people
from the Merrimack Valley driving to their jobs in Boston.
Most of them are not being paid for the miles they drive to
get to work -- most, that is, except for state legislators.
You see, in the real world that you and we inhabit, getting
to work is our own responsibility.
But state legislators from the Valley and the rest of the
state see things differently. They feel getting them to work is the responsibility of the taxpayers of Massachusetts.
Legislators get a "per diem" travel allowance for their
commutes to Boston that varies with the distance they live from the Statehouse. Legislators from Lawrence, Methuen and
Haverhill get $13 a day. Those from towns closer to Boston like Andover and North
Reading -- get $9 a day.
But that's no longer enough.
There is a provision in the state budget currently working
its way through the House to double the per diem travel reimbursements.
The proposal also includes a doubling -- to $7,200 a year --
of the money legislators receive to run their offices and provide "constituent service." That's a fancy term for the
slush fund legislators use to be seen as great guys or gals. When you or we feel a need to donate to a
charitable cause, we make sacrifices and take the money from our personal funds. Not
so legislators. They get to be generous by handing out public money to their favorite causes.
And there's also a plan to give "key" Beacon Hill legislators an extra $7,500 a year in pay in
addition to their base salaries of $46,410 and the $7,500 bonuses received by
committee chairmen.
All this is on top of the automatic pay raises legislators
voted themselves last year.
Enough!
These latest outrages come as legislators are telling us
common folk we have to tighten our belts because of cost overruns at the Big Dig. "Lifetime" driver's licenses and auto
registration are gone and there's just no money to reduce the state income tax to its "permanent" level of
5 percent, they say.
Legislators say their increases are necessary because a new
campaign finance law passed by voters limits their ability to spend and raise money.
Tough.
If public service is too much of a sacrifice for these
money-grubbers, let them find gainful employment in the private sector.
We've had enough of them lining their own pockets at our
expense.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 1, 2002
Proposed tax cuts err on ugly side
by Cosmo Macero Jr.
So John Rogers is not off his rocker.
That is, the Democratic House Ways and Means chairman is
well aware that his full $2 billion menu of tax hikes won't fly any sooner than a lead balloon.
"The idea was just to make an illustration, not to endorse
any one (tax increase)," Rogers said yesterday - 24 hours after releasing a sobering message on taxes to his colleagues. "You
can't honestly balance the budget (now) without talking about the dreadful and odious T
word."
Fair enough. After all, state lawmakers are girding for a $3
billion revenue gap in next year's budget.
The problem is, there are precious few a la carte selections
on Rogers' list of mostly morbid income seizures and punishing revenue enhancements.
Figure the food and beverage industry will fight Rogers'
proposal to finally lift the sales-tax exemption on alcohol. But as public policy goes, and for $60 million in projected
annual revenue, it probably has legs.
Smokers have become sitting ducks. But a $1 increase on
every pack? So much for Democratic aversion to "regressive" tax policy. There's $280 million to be had.
"Sin taxes are the easiest sell," Rogers says.
Cele Hahn, the Republican state rep from Westfield, has to
be thinking her pet sales-tax exemption for private planes and corporate jets is at risk. It's the most recent tax break. And
who's going to shed tears for David Wetherell or the executives at Raytheon?
And I'll give you that nickel increase on the gas tax ($150
million in annual revenue) if you pledge a freeze on Turnpike tolls after the recession clouds lift.
But then it's all downhill.
In fact, you could re-package half the Rogers Tax Roster as
the Anti-Middle Class Act:
Slashing the personal exemption and killing deductions for
dependent seniors and disabled kin.
Blowing up the earned-income tax credit.
Gutting deductions for tuition and halting a rent-deduction
hike.
And of course, scoffing at the electorate and ratcheting the
income tax rate back to 5.6 percent.
Try to make sense, while you're at it, of eliminating the
tax credit for Title 5 septic repairs at a time when any barrier to fortifying the state's housing stock makes no sense.
And then there's elimination of the charitable deduction -
good for $180 million, anyway.
Exactly what the Catholic Church ordered: punishment from
above (as in Beacon Hill) just when Catholics across Eastern Massachusetts could use a good incentive to help bail out the
Archdiocese.
Rogers called the prospect of massive tax hikes the "brutal
truth" in his letter to House colleagues yesterday.
But the truth is, what taxpayers need in this time of crisis
is a little creative thinking.
Steve Grossman might be lagging in the delegate race, but he
gets big points for being innovative.
I'm still deciding whether Grossman's sudden embrace of the
tax rollback he tried so hard to stop was a flip-flop.
But tucked away in his dark-horse candidacy for the
Democratic gubernatorial nod are the kind of ideas that deserve attention.
Grossman's not buying the notion that "either we are going
to cut programs in a Draconian way or raise taxes.
"That to me represents a false choice," he says. "Leaders
have to ... find a different set of choices."
One simple choice is to make state government more efficient
- something on which the Legislature and acting Gov. Jane Swift have been painfully silent.
Among Grossman's more promising ideas:
Get a long-stalled bulk prescription-drug buying program
under way. Early results from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont suggest Massachusetts could save between $100
million and $180 million.
Implement a preferred-drug list under Medicaid to encourage
the use of generic drugs. Doctors would still be able to prescribe brand-name drugs for patients in special
circumstances. Projected savings: $70 million.
Re-examine state purchasing programs across the board.
Putting electricity contracts for state facilities out to bid could save more than $25 million annually alone.
Implement a tax amnesty program. The fear of huge penalties
is the lone factor keeping many tax delinquents from settling up. A similar program 20 years ago brought in $86 million,
Grossman says.
Sin taxes are an easy sell? Grossman's lone tax hike would
be 50 cents on every pack of cigarettes, with the $150 million in revenues earmarked for health care programs - defined
broadly.
"This is an approach. It's not cast in stone," Grossman
says. "When you're in a crisis, you have to look at all the options."
Return to top
The Springfield Union-News
Friday, March 1, 2002
Swift vows to veto any tax increase
By Dan Ring
BOSTON -- State tax collections plummeted again this month, but
acting Gov. Jane M. Swift yesterday insisted she would veto any tax increase passed by lawmakers....
During a Statehouse press conference, Swift ripped the
Democratic-controlled Legislature for considering 16 possible tax increases such as raising the state cigarette tax by $1
each pack and the gas tax from 21 cents per gallon to 26 cents, and imposing a sales tax on
alcohol.
"You're taking money out of the pockets of the poor and
middle class," Swift said. "That's what I reject."
Rep. John H. Rogers, D-Norwood, the chairman of the House
Ways and Means Committee, rocked Beacon Hill on Wednesday when he sent a letter to House members
proposing 16 different tax increases that could raise $1.98 billion, or possibly enough to
close the projected deficit for next year. Rogers said he wasn't advocating any specific tax.
Rogers wrote that declining tax collections are going to
"croak" state government with "gargantuan and ghastly losses" this fiscal year and next. Deep spending cuts are not enough
to balance the budget, he wrote.
"The brutal truth is this: we cannot tax and spend; we must
tax and cut," Rogers wrote.
But Swift yesterday made it clear that lawmakers will need a
two-thirds vote to override her veto of any tax hike. Swift said the state suffered 400,000 job losses when Beacon Hill
raised taxes in 1989 and 1990 during a prior recession.
"I thought it was the 1980s all over again," the Republican
acting governor said of the tax increases floated by Rogers. "It was wrong then. It's wrong now."
Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow, said yesterday that the
House is unlikely to approve all 16 proposed taxes, but they all must be considered. Petrolati said he favors freezing the
state income tax at its current 5.3 percent, a move that could save about $250 million.
"There's no other alternative," Petrolati said. "There's no
way we can cut $2 billion without letting blood run on the streets."
The income tax is scheduled to fall to 5 percent in January
2003 under a phased reduction approved by voters in November 2000....
Attempting to stop the misery, the Massachusetts Mayors
Association voted to support increasing the state income tax from 5.3 to 5.95 percent, a move that would save about $1.2
billion a year. Springfield Mayor Michael J. Albano said it would be easier for lawmakers to
vote once on a tax jump instead of passing multiple tax increases.
Albano said the current fiscal crisis in state government is
far worse than the early 1990s....
Return to top
