The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Rolling out the 'Finneran Gambit'
By Jeff Jacoby
The Massachusetts Constitution doesn't actually require
state legislators to be hypocritical, greedy, and contemptuous of the voters who elected them; they just tend to turn out that
way. So when The Boston Globe surveyed the House and Senate membership on whether
state income taxes should jump 6 percent next year, a large majority of those responding
naturally said yes.
The pretty euphemism is that this would not actually be a
tax hike, merely a "freeze" in the scheduled tax rollback. But under existing law, the income tax rate as of Jan. 1, 2003, is
5 percent. Any legislation changing that to a higher rate is a tax increase, plain and simple.
But where the Massachusetts state budget is concerned,
nothing is plain and simple.
Year after year, that budget has raced ahead of inflation,
nearly doubling from $13 billion in 1991 to more than $23 billion today. For most of those years, tax revenues flooded
the Treasury, pouring in faster than they could be spent. The Legislature flung money everywhere
- at the teachers lobby, at sports moguls, at convention centers, at the Big Dig, at
endless barrels of pork.
There was only one thing the Legislature insisted it
couldn't afford: relief for the taxpayers from whom all this money was being taken. Every proposal to reduce the state
income tax - which had been "temporarily" jacked up in 1989 and 1990 - was defeated or ignored. In
2000, the taxpayers finally did something about it. By a landslide, they voted for Question
4, the Citizens for Limited Taxation initiative to drop the income tax rate gradually from 5.95
percent to 5 percent.
Liberals howled that Massachusetts would revert to the dark
ages if Question 4 passed. The budget would be decimated, they said. Criminals would roam at will, the sick would die, the
poor would starve, bridges would crumble. Voters heard them out, weighed their arguments
(and CLT's counterarguments), and thought about the consequences. Then they voted for
Question 4 by a commanding margin.
The meaning of that vote could hardly have been plainer: The
people of Massachusetts considered tax relief more important than high government spending. They didn't mind cuts in
the state budget if that was the price of getting the tax rate back down to 5 percent. So now
that revenues have slowed and a $23 billion budget is no longer affordable, the Legislature's
path should be clear: Reduce spending - and keep the tax cut on schedule.
But the last thing the Legislature worries about is its
mandate from the voters. So what if the public wants lower taxes and lower spending? So what if growth in the state budget
has vastly outpaced growth in personal income? So what if Massachusett taxpayers already bear
the fourth-heaviest per capita tax burden in the United States?
The Legislature couldn't care less. Dancing to the tune
played by House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President Thomas Birmingham, the Democrats will insist that they need
the taxpayers' money more than the taxpayers do. They have begun to execute what CLT's
Chip Ford calls the Finneran Gambit: "Scare the hell out of everyone with Draconian
proposed budget cuts where they'll cause the most pain, agitate as many vocal
special-interest groups as possible ... then ride in next week with tax increases disguised as
salvation."
There are some honorable exceptions. Representative
Christopher Asselin, a Springfield Democrat, says he will honor his constituents's preference for spending cuts over tax hikes.
But most of his colleagues will do what the leadership wants - force the working men and
women of Massachusetts to make do with less so the government of Massachusetts can
spend more.
As a matter of decency and integrity, of course, legislators
voting to take away the people's tax cut should be willing to give up the lucrative perks they have bestowed on themselves.
For instance, they should give back the 8 percent pay hike
they pocketed last year, the fruit of a deceptive constitutional amendment they wrote to guarantee themselves a
raise every other year. They should stop taking a bonus for commuting to work, an outrageous benefit
that netted them an average of $4,216 each last year. They should abolish their
"office expense" accounts, a $7,200-per-member slush fund that can be spent on anything the
member wants. They should do away with the phony "leadership" pay that enriches one of
every four legislators - mostly Finneran or Birmingham loyalists - by up
to $15,000.
Don't hold your breath. The Sacred Cod hanging in the House
chamber will jump off the wall and do the Funky Chicken before senators and representatives start taking away their own
pay.
So get out your handkerchiefs, ladies and gentlemen. The
lawmakers you elected are about to spit in your face. You probably won't like the way it feels, but you should be used to
it by now. This is Massachusetts, after all.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
Return to top
Associated Press
Thursday, April 25, 2002
House budget plan cuts education,
courts, human services
By Steve Leblanc
BOSTON (AP) House leaders were putting the finishing touches on
their state budget plan Wednesday, and the results weren't pretty.
Withering cuts to school aid, the courts and human services
are among the $2 billion in reductions House Speaker Thomas Finneran said are needed as the state struggles with a
precipitous fall in revenue.
Although House members are scheduled to debate tax hikes
next week, Finneran said the budget assumes no new tax revenue and instead relies on program cuts and some reserve
funds.
"You have to prepare a budget in anticipation of no tax
increases whatsoever and be prepared to live with that budget," he said. "It's an honest budget. There are no gimmicks."
Budget writers were forced to reduce an anticipated $24
billion in spending by $2.7 billion, said Finneran, D-Boston. The House agreed to tap about $500 million of state savings,
but is still faced with a $2 billion gap.
The biggest single cut is a 10 percent reduction in state
education aid, a savings of about $320 million.
Budget writers also looked for cuts in human services and
the courts, according to House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers, D-Norwood.
The budget would end the court's Alternative Dispute
Resolution program, which encourages arbitration and mediation to avoid trials. The budget also cuts day care for parents who
must appear in court, and a program to train judges.
Rogers also said there will be about a 10 percent cut to
human service programs, including the departments of mental health, mental retardation, welfare and social services.
"We basically went through just about every single line item
that we could and cut about 10 percent," he said.
The budget plan is scheduled to be released Thursday.
Rogers said the plan also trims the operating budgets of the
House, the Senate, the governor's office and other state officeholders like the treasurer, auditor, state secretary and
attorney general.
Part of reason deep cuts are needed is because the state
aggressively increased its bottom line during the 1990s, fueled by capital gains tax revenues generated by the Internet
revolution, Rogers said.
The budget plan would rein in future spending by funneling
75 percent of all new capital gains taxes into one-time projects and putting the rest in the state's reserve fund. The
budget also recommends raising the cap on how much the state can put into the reserve fund.
Finneran said he didn't relish the idea of cutting human
services, but said there is little choice, unless taxes are raised.
"We'd do more if we could. But the pie we have is limited
and this year's pie is very limited," he said. "This is driven by dollars and cents, as callous as that might sound."
Republican critics have accused House leaders of producing a
"scorched earth" budget to scare lawmakers into supporting higher taxes.
Finneran said the budget was an honest reflection of the
state's revenue predictions.
"We don't have the revenue. That's the reality. The
Republicans can't dispute it because their leader no longer disputes it. She herself has shifted her position on at least
one tax," Finneran said.
Acting Gov. Jane Swift has softened her "no new taxes"
rhetoric, no longer pledging to veto any tax hike that reaches her desk.
In anticipation of the upcoming budget debate, House members
on Wednesday approved new rules that would make it harder to amend the House Ways and Means version of the
budget.
Next week, the House is scheduled to debate possible tax
increases. Among those gaining momentum are higher cigarette taxes, a freeze in the income tax rollback and a flat capital
gains tax.
Return to top
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
House plan cuts education, human services,
police benefits, more
By Michael Levenson and Michael Norton
STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, APRIL 24, 2002 ... Funding for public
education and human services has been cut by 10 percent in the $21.8 billion state budget plan House leaders will
release tomorrow, House Ways and Means Chairman John Rogers said Wednesday....
The list of budget cuts is only partial, he said, as the
full plan will be unveiled at a news conference tomorrow. The House's $21.8 billion budget actually calls for nearly $1
billion less spending than is projected for this year.
A budget deficit that could reach $2 billion by next fiscal
year meant human services and public education, cut by $320 million, could not be spared, House Speaker Thomas
Finneran said....
"Nobody likes to give up the ground," Finneran said. "It was
hard fought ground."
Some of the cutbacks may be reversed if the House endorses
tax hikes during debate next week. Critics have said House leaders are threatening deep budget cuts to prod lawmakers
into backing large tax increases. Finneran denied that, saying the House budget reflects the
grim fiscal picture, and is not politically motivated.
Finneran also would not say how much taxes should be hiked.
The question rests with the 160 House members, he said. House lawmakers are weighing new taxes on personal
income, capital gains, tobacco, gas, and liquor, among scores of tax and fee
proposals....
Meanwhile, an outside budget-monitoring group criticized the
way Finneran and other leaders are balancing the books this year. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
released a report today headlined: "Missed Opportunity in 2002 Creates Larger
Fiscal Problem in 2003."
In the bulletin, foundation officials said the fact that
Swift and Democratic legislative leaders are working together is promising, but questioned the proposal they've put on the
table. The plan to close this year's budget gap relies too heavily on reserves without addressing
structural problems that underscore a "huge mismatch" between state revenues and
spending, MTF said.
Specifically, MTF says the plan includes modest cuts in spending, delays pension system
payments, and draws heavily from reserves to support spending levels that are
unsustainable. In sum, MTF says the plan to close this year's deficit will only make budget problems worse
in the fiscal year that starts July 1.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Human services cuts expected
Funds slashing also eyed for judiciary
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's budget proposal calls for
slashing human services by 10 percent virtually across the board, with reductions of hundreds of millions of dollars from
services for the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, and others who rely most on state
assistance.
The proposal, to be released today, would also cut $30
million from spending on the judiciary, through elimination of several programs, which would likely force layoffs. It will
propose that public employees pay a larger portion of their health insurance costs - a
controversial idea that has been repeatedly proposed by the administration but rejected by
the Legislature in recent years.
House budget writers are recommending the elimination of
about 50 small offices and divisions throughout state government, and will propose a 10 percent cut to the Quinn
Bill, the education incentive program for police officers. K-12 education aid will take the largest
hit in the entire budget, with $320 million, or 10 percent of this year's spending,
slated to be trimmed. They would not provide details about the 50 offices.
"We have to retreat from the things that we like," Finneran
said in outlining portions of the $21.8 billion spending plan to reporters. "We have no choice. We'd do more if we could, but
the pie that we have is limited, and this year's pie is very limited - $2 billion less."
Finneran scoffed at the notion the budget proposal is
intended to frighten House members into raising taxes. He said the cuts proposed in the budget reflect reality.
"It's not a tactical maneuver at all," the Mattapan Democrat
said.
But the sequence of debate clearly points to an intent to
show House members the seriousness of the state's fiscal crisis before they authorize appropriations for next year.
House members will discuss new revenue sources, including proposals to increase the
income tax and the taxes on cigarettes and capital gains, starting Tuesday. Then, during the
week of May 6, they will debate the full budget, and are expected to direct
any money generated from the tax increases to restore state spending in hard-hit areas of government.
Yesterday, as the House prepared for its votes on taxes and
the budget, Finneran deputies pushed through a rules change that critics said would hand Finneran and his leadership team
even more power in the weeks to come. The House Ways and Means Committee was given
the power to revise the order of amendments during floor debate, which will make it difficult
for members to follow the action during the hectic few weeks of action on
the budget. The committee will also be allowed to substitute or consolidate amendments whenever it chooses.
"It gives a lot of latitude and authority," said state
Representative Frank M. Hynes, a Marshfield Democrat. "Someone can substitute for your amendment, and no one has to ask
you for your acquiescence. It abrogates your right to get a vote on a matter of importance to
you."
Advocates plan massive State House protests next week to
convince lawmakers that tax hikes are necessary. More than 3,000 are expected at four rallies Tuesday, said Stephen E.
Collins, executive director of the Massachusetts Human Services Coalition.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, April 25, 2002
Hang on to your wallets
By John Gregg
Back in December, some wisenheimer e-mailed an aide to state
Sen. Thomas Birmingham and asked why the Chelsea Democrat continued pushing for a freeze in the voter-approved
tax rollback.
A new budget was finally in place, and Birmingham's
Democratic opponents at the time - state Treasurer Shannon O'Brien, former state Sen. Warren Tolman, and former Democratic
Party honcho Steve Grossman - then all opposed stopping the tax rollback in its tracks.
"Just to (irritate) you for the fun of it - on the tax-cut
freeze, isn't that a dead issue, a) now that it's too late, and b) politically, given what O'Brien, Grossman and Tolman said?"
the smart-aleck wrote in his e-mail.
You're reading the know-it-all right now, and it looks like
a heaping plate of crow is heading my way.
Count on at least a freeze of the income-tax cut, especially
after the April 30th filing deadline for legislative races. Once most lawmakers see they don't have an opponent, those
votes for tax hikes will be greased.
With no Clean Elections money for legislative challengers -
thank you, Tom Finneran - most incumbents are home free, again.
I still don't think tax hikes are a good idea, but Birmingham deserves credit for the
consistency of his position on the tax rollback. For true liberals looking for a candidate,
Birmingham has accomplished much of what former Labor Secretary Robert Reich can only
talk about theoretically on the campaign trail.
Proposals by the House to cut local aid by 10 percent add
more fuel to the relentless drive to raise taxes.
Yesterday in the Globe, the chairwoman of the Winchendon
School Committee said the state has left "the golden years of the Education Reform Act and returned to the dark ages - to a
darkness I could not have believed possible."
Spare us that ridiculous rhetoric, please. The dark ages are
found in places like Afghanistan, where some parents are selling their children into bondage to pay for food.
While hardly ideal, it's not the end of the world if class sizes rise by four or five students, or
someone can't take tuba lessons at school.
And for those "progressives" who love to moan and groan
about the industry-specific tax cuts of the past decade, stifle it. That tax policy - such as an investment tax credit and
another break for manufacturers - played a huge role in spurring the Massachusetts economy
over the past decade.
Moreover, the value in fiscal year 2003 of all 12 business-related tax cuts is only $356
million. By comparison, the doubling of the personal exemption for all filers "costs"
the state more than $514 million a year.
Of course, the Senate won't touch the personal exemption
with a 10-foot pole - along with Education Reform, it's Birmingham's baby.
But before they go monkeying around with any tax hikes or
local aid, legislators have plenty of pork to consider. For starters, why not require state employees to pay more than 15
percent of their health premiums?
Why not lay-off some legislative aides? Those six or seven
staffers in each senator's office are a re-election machine, and often little else.
State Rep. John Locke, the Wellesley Republican who is
honoring his term-limits pledge and won't run for re-election when his fourth term ends this year, has identified up to $200
million in immediate savings.
Locke asks why Massachusetts needs a state sailing vessel,
the Schooner Ernestina (Cost to taxpayers, $250,000).
He notes the state earmarked almost $500,000 to move an
historic house in Westwood, when for $1.7 million it could rehire 200 laid-off DSS social workers. And he questions why
the Metropolitan District Commission is in the golf-course business.
"Why are we running golf courses when people are sleeping in
refrigerator boxes?" Locke said yesterday.
The same reason our taxes will probably go up again. Because
the Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, controls the purse strings.
And it has a new hook into our wallets.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, April 24, 2002
Editorial
Budget huddle
Yesterday's closed-door "caucus" of House members to
consider a variety of tax hikes, including reversing the voter-mandated rollback of the income tax rate, says a world
about the state of the state Legislature.
The caucus was billed as necessary to ensure lawmakers have
reliable figures for the tax debate after release this week of a bare-bones House budget, expected to total about $20.3
billion.
Not on the agenda were decisions reserved for Speaker Thomas
M. Finneran and his tight inner circle: how much pain to inflict on communities dependent on local aid; which voter
mandates to ignore; which cuts in popular services would most likely prompt the public to
embrace tax increases in lieu of belt-tightening.
The main target likely is the rollback of the income tax,
passed by ballot initiative in 2001 to force the Legislature to keep its 1989 promise that the emergency tax rate would be
temporary. Ominously, the word "temporary" seems to have been dropped from lawmakers'
lexicon this time around. Perhaps they have concluded their promises no longer carry much
weight.
Lawmakers' should not be surprised at their plunging
credibility. From term limits, to lawmakers' pay raises, to the Clean Elections Law, the leadership can barely disguise its
contempt for the voice of the people.
While plotting "revenue enhancement," lawmakers have shown
little sign of spending restraint. They have boosted their per-diem reimbursement account from $364,000 in 2000 to
$750,000 in 2001, and doubled their annual "office expenses" from $3,600 a year to
$7,200. Legislative patronage havens lurk in the state courts and other departments, and the
ever-generous Legislature even gave the anachronistic Governor's Council a whopping 60
percent raise.
This week's House budget unveiling, so carefully orchestrated behind closed doors, should
be quite a performance. But lawmakers should not delude themselves that
people will believe the only way to address shortfalls is to maximize revenue and minimize restraint.
