The state Senate is set to approve the entire $1.06 billion
tax package passed by the House and may raise additional taxes to help pay for increased spending on education and health
care, Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham said yesterday.
Birmingham said that more than two-thirds of senators
support the House tax package. That margin, combined with overwhelming House support, means the Legislature can override
a veto of the taxes that Acting Governor Jane Swift has promised.
The Chelsea Democrat called it a "fait accompli" that the
state will raise taxes in excess of $1 billion this year.
"This is a very good news story for those who care about our
public schools, who care about our health care institutions," Birmingham said. "What the Commonwealth needs today more
than anything else is stability. We have to display the traits of adults."
The package passed by the House would freeze the voter-approved income tax rollback,
raise taxes on cigarettes and capital gains, eliminate deductions for charitable
contributions, and reduce the amount of personal income that is exempt from taxation. House members
approved it 131-24 on May 2, after weeks of intense negotiations and lobbying by House
Speaker Thomas M. Finneran.
The Senate's stand represents a retreat by Birmingham, who
wanted to raise the income tax to 5.6 percent instead of shrinking the personal exemption, which he helped double to
$4,400 in 1998.
Birmingham's spokeswoman, Alison Franklin, previously
described a reduced personal exemption as the "last tax" that the Senate president would consider, and Senate Ways and
Means Chairman Mark C. Montigny said just three weeks ago that revisiting it is "almost
universally unattractive."
But, underscoring Birmingham's declining control over the
Senate, many of his colleagues bristled, saying they would face political backlash if they raised the income tax. Birmingham
said he now supports the goal of mirroring House action as much as possible to increase the
chances that the budget will be done before the July 1 start of fiscal 2003.
"We're not drawing lines in the sand," Birmingham said.
"This year of sharp fiscal crisis is not the time to be proprietary about proposals."
The House tax package would reduce the personal exemption by
25 percent, to $3,300 for a single tax filer, which would cost each taxpayer in the state $58. Birmingham said he was
pleased that it would maintain at least part of the increase he backed
four years ago, and said he believed the full exemption would eventually be reinstated if the economy improves,
through language inserted in the bill triggering its restoration after
economic growth.
Birmingham and Montigny announced the Senate support for
taxes yesterday afternoon after a three-hour closed door caucus during which the 34 Democratic senators discussed a
variety of tax hikes. The Senate is scheduled to take up the budget in the
first week in June. Other potential tax increases discussed include subjecting alcoholic beverages to the 5
percent sales tax, which would generate $55 million, or rethinking corporate
tax breaks awarded in the 1990s. But those options right now lack the support of two-thirds of
senators.
Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation and Government, said that Democratic lawmakers have lost control of their spending impulses in the rush to raise
taxes. She pointed out that the income tax rollback and the deduction for charitable
contributions were approved by the voters via initiative petitions.
"It's a slap in the face of the voters," Anderson said.
"They're taking advantage of a fabricated spending crisis. The Senate wants to spend more even than the House. There is no
limit to the appetite for spending."
A typical nonsmoking taxpayer would pay an extra $317 a year
under the tax package, according to the state Department of Revenue. A pack-per-day smoker would pay about
$275 a year more because of the 75-cent per pack increase to the cigarette tax,
which would give Massachusetts the highest such tax in the nation at $1.51 per pack.
The Senate could also pursue other avenues to generate revenue, such as tapping more of
the state's rainy day fund, using more of the settlement with the big tobacco companies
immediately, or limiting prizes from the state Lottery. All three options have been supported
by Swift, but rejected by the House.
Montigny said it's worth risking the ire of House leaders if
it means restoring cuts to education and health care. Senate leaders have vowed to restore a House-approved $30
million cut to a fund that pays for MCAS tutoring and to reverse a House
move that would throw 30,000 unemployed residents off Medicaid.
The Senate would also like to provide more money to local
education. The House budget essentially maintains local education spending at this year's level.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Report hints city exaggerated plight
Says Hub spent big during boom
By Scott S. Greenberger
Globe Staff
As the House weighed tax increases earlier this month,
mayors from across the Commonwealth stormed Beacon Hill to argue that without more money from the state, many
cities would face disaster.
Medford Mayor Michael McGlynn said state dollars would "save
cities and towns from enduring tremendous hardship." Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert warned of "devastating cuts" if
the tax hikes weren't approved. And Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in a
March speech that state budget cuts, coupled with a decline in federal aid to cities, would "kick
people when they are down."
But Menino's 2003 budget plan and a recently released report
by a fiscal watchdog group suggest the Hub, at least, isn't in desperate need of more state money.
Menino was able to submit a budget based on the worst-case
scenario - a 10 percent reduction in local aid - that preserved essential services without significant layoffs or program
cuts. Meanwhile, the report by the Municipal Research Bureau, a business-funded watchdog
group, says Boston spent too much during the recent boom. The study described Menino's
tight 2003 plan as "a budget correction."
Now that the House has approved a $1.06 billion tax package,
in part to restore local aid - and the Senate is poised to debate a similarly generous measure - some lawmakers are
wondering whether the mayors cried wolf.
State Representative George N. Peterson Jr., who opposed the
tax hikes, said he believes Boston and other municipalities, including his hometown of Grafton, were overstating the
impact of rejecting increases.
"We would have had to reassess programs - no question," the
minority whip said. "But you have to in fiscally constrained times, and that's not a bad thing. When you have ongoing
growth in programs, people tend not to look at the bottom line or efficiencies, and when hard
times come you sit down and begin to look at priorities again."
Acting Governor Jane Swift's chief of staff, Stephen Crosby,
said that "all big organizations grow bigger than necessary" when times are good. Swift opposed the tax increases.
"There's mission creep and patronage and good-faith
expansion of service delivery. Whether it's a business or a public sector institution, every once in a while it needs to be
squeezed to get back to the basics and an efficient level of performance," Crosby said.
Geoff Beckwith of the Massachusetts Municipal Association,
which lobbied vigorously for the tax increases, emphasized that many cities and towns whose property tax revenues didn't
increase significantly during the boom would have been devastated by a significant cut in state
aid.
In Boston, however, property tax revenue exploded - and so
did spending.
The Municipal Research Bureau report found that Boston's
operating budget grew by a quarter, or $342.7 million, between 1997 and 2002. The main cause of the increase: paying
the salaries and benefits of 1,114 new city workers, almost a thousand of them in the Boston
public schools. Overall, city spending on employees grew by $267.9 million, or 30 percent,
during the five years.
The study points out that Boston poured much of that money
into schools, using extra money the state funneled to cities and towns specifically for education reform. However, only half
of Boston's 920 new hires in the public school system were teachers, and enrollment only grew
by 22 students during those five years.
Some critics say the city built its budgets as if that
temporary state help - the state promised huge increases in school spending during the first seven years of education
reform - would continue to flow unabated.
Samuel R. Tyler, head of the Research Bureau, said that if
the city wanted to maintain a higher level of school spending indefinitely, it should have been looking for cuts in other
areas.
"There was no effort to spend less than the dollars
available, as they did in Cambridge and Somerville," Tyler said. "We think they should have controlled spending more."
Michael J. Widmer, executive director of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, said "any city official needs to assume that when you're going through a period of dramatic
increase in state funding, that's not going to last forever. You need a
long-term strategy that builds that fact into your finances."
But Lisa Signori, Boston's budget director, rejected the
idea that the city spent irresponsibly over the last five years, pointing to its high bond rating as evidence of fiscal
responsibility.
"We're required to have a balanced budget. We start with
the revenue side, and it's from there that we determine what we can spend," she said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Legislators to fix bill's error
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
House leaders said yesterday that they'll seek to fix a
drafting error in the budget plan passed last week that would strip Medicaid benefits from 70,000 more poor residents than
was intended.
The budget approved by the House would limit income
eligibility for all adult Medicaid recipients, not just for the long-term unemployed, as was intended. If that provision were
to become law, about 100,000 residents would lose health coverage, not the 30,000 estimated
by House leaders.
House budget writers will make sure the problem is resolved
before the final spending document is sent on to Acting Governor Jane Swift, said state Representative Daniel F.
Keenan, a Southwick Democrat who is vice chairman of the House Insurance Committee.
Keenan said the mistake will probably be corrected informally, with House leaders informing
Senate leaders of the error before the two bodies work out their differences in spending
priorities.
"It was a technical error," said Keenan, who helped lead a
Medicaid study group formed by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran. "It wasn't anyone's intent to change the federal
poverty level requirement for anyone other than the long-term unemployed."
Senate leaders said they'll be happy to accommodate the
changed language in budget negotiations. Health care advocates, who were alarmed when they discovered the impact of
the language, said they were satisfied with House leaders' response.
"It was pretty scary looking at it in writing," said Judy
Meredith, a lobbyist for Health Care for All, a Boston-based advocacy group. "As long as they acknowledge that it was a
drafting error, it's done. It's nothing to be bargained with. This is off the table."
Keenan said that the mistake shouldn't take away from the
fact that every member had an opportunity to participate in substantive budget discussions this year.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
A Boston Globe editorial
Good food fight
Obesity is conquering America, slowly spreading illness and
sometimes death.
Just as it has with cigarettes and alcohol, government
should help fight this unhealthy trend.
The battle is heating up in Congress. Yesterday the Senate
Health and Education Committee heard testimony on nutrition and exercise. Yale psychologist Kelly Brownell noted that
obesity now beats smoking as a cause of disease and death.
Republican Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, a physician, is
working on legislation to improve national nutrition and physical activity. The proposal is scaring members of the food
industry. On its Web site the National Council of Chain Restaurants raises concerns about the bill and
about possible regulations.
But the government should raise awareness. Most people don't
check the facts on McDonald's Web site. A quarter-pounder with cheese has 530 calories and a super-sized
order of fries has 610 calories - together well over half the 1,500 to 1,800
calories a day an adult woman needs.
A key battleground is schools. Without adequate funding, too
many are tempted by dubious vending machine deals. The sales generate money for school activities, but the machines
promote junk food.
Roberta Friedman of the Massachusetts Public Health
Association is starting a small experiment at one Boston high school, putting healthy snacks in the vending machines to see
if students buy them. She hopes to see a pilot launched in more schools. But she points out
that efforts must also address all students' choices, including the chips and soda pop sold in
nearby stores.
The state departments of Public Health and Education are
fighting the good food fight with grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Their goal is to design a
nutritional self-assessment tool for schools and help state officials make policy changes.
Two candidates for changes are lunch and physical education.
School menus should be nutritious and appealing. And instead of being cut, gym classes need makeovers - more time,
more offerings, and more ways to attract students who hate sports.
Research is another area where the government should do
more. The National Institutes of Health is spending $252 million in obesity research this fiscal year. That's only 1
percent of the NIH budget. President Bush calls for $274 million on obesity research, an insignificant
increase. More funding is needed to look at both the science and culture of
obesity, including factors such as links to breast cancer as well as race, ethnicity, and gender.
Ultimately, consumers, schools, government, and the food
industry need a comprehensive truce - a way to protect food choices but stop America's obesity epidemic.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Speaking fondly of Finneran
By Scot Lehigh
There was never a proud man, Francis Bacon tells us, who
thought so absurdly well of himself as a lover does of the person beloved.
Mr. Bacon, please meet Thomas M. Finneran.
The House has just finished raising taxes by $1 billion and
cutting (projected) spending by the same amount, and as he celebrated the achievement with an hourlong flight of the ego
on Friday, the speaker could hardly find superlatives grand enough to describe it all.
"The process was by far and away the best process that I've
ever seen," he told reporters. "It was a very impressive performance."
That wasn't all. "We did two political high-wire acts, and
we pulled them off in a remarkable way," he observed. "I am extremely proud of the members."
For 100 points and control of the board, read the following
quote and identify the one person he is still prouder of: "I'd say to my critics that they cannot name another person in the
House of Representatives that could have quarterbacked the billion dollars in taxes and done
it with the credibility with which that was achieved."
The speaker then gave the House an A-minus. Now, a skeptic
might be forgiven for suspecting that that's the easiest A-minus bestowed this year anywhere outside of Harvard
Square. That grade came even though the House caved on a modest attempt
to trim the Quinn Bill, instead adding almost $4 million to the dubious program while cutting social
services, and even though it retreated on a proposal to require state employees to
contribute more toward their health insurance. But to concede those failings, the speaker sniffed, would
be to accept someone else's notion of reform. His idea of a long-overdue action?
Raiding the Clean Elections account, apparently. The House having done that, the speaker is now
contemplating repealing the law outright. He will shortly let the voters know his
pleasure on the matter.
It's well-known that Finneran is (as a wit once said of
Disraeli) a self-made man who worships his own creator. But he's also a sentimentalist, and when he addressed the House
last week, the speaker allowed that he couldn't even say the name of the man who produced
the House budget without misting up. Now, it's certainly true that the mere mention of House
Ways and Means chairman John Rogers can evoke sudden emotions, but they usually run
toward the risible.
Finneran, however, seems to have a surrogate father-son
thing going with the House's young budgeteer. When the two showed up at a recent briefing in shirts of the exact same hue,
Dr. Evil and Mini-me was the duo that leapt to mind, though Geppetto and Pinocchio might be
more apt.
Not that the speaker is pulling the strings, mind you. The
real budget decisions were made not in the House chamber but in a nearby room where members went to cut deals out of the
public eye. Finneran told reporters that when he poked his head in, it
was only to tell Rogers to call his wife and tell her that he loved her.
That sort of gesture is important to the speaker. Indeed,
one easily envisions him sharing a similar moment. Picture the speaker stealing a minute from the crush of legislative
business to hold the object of his affection in his deep, soulful gaze. Imagine his husky tone as he
whispers: "During this trying time, it's more important than ever that I let you
know how I feel. I know I don't say it often enough, but I want you to know that I love you with all my
heart. And that the slings and arrows of public life mean nothing as long as I know
I have your love in return." And think of the joy flooding over him as the man in the mirror whispers
the same words back to him.
Now, let's give Finneran his due. When he walks into the
House chamber, he raises the average IQ by 20 points (caveat: in part because the House has suffered a talent exodus
since he took over). He's a forceful, charismatic leader, one not afraid
to speak his mind and stand his ground (caveat: that same self-confidence sometimes leads to a counterproductive
obstinacy). He's been a prudent brake on the legislative tendency to spend to excess in good
times (no caveats here). And he, more than any other person, deserves credit for the
rainy-day fund that has softened the current budget problems.
That says a lot about the speaker.
But the sad fact is, it's hardly half of what the Speaker
regularly says about himself.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Tuesday, May 21, 2001
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Budget daze
The seemingly endless fiscal 2003 budget debate now shifts
to the Senate, where fiduciary responsibility and Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham's gubernatorial aspirations are
intertwined.
The Senate document is apt to differ significantly from the
$22.8 billion House budget completed last week.
In a midnight session, the House completed its taxing-and-spending blueprint in accordance
with the political strategy carefully choreographed by the House leadership months
ago: 1) declare dead on arrival the governor's recommendations for balancing the budget with
minimal need for new revenue sources; 2) spread panic among special interests and public
employee unions about cuts, and 3) enforce strict party discipline to pass what turns out to
be $1.1 billion in tax hikes, the largest increase in state history.
Whatever the result of the coming Senate debate, the
legislative flouting of the democratic process is apt to continue unabated. In the end, all decisions of consequence
will be made by a handful of House and Senate leaders, in conference committee behind closed doors.
Lawmakers' seemingly sincere warnings in April that local officials should plan for
a 10 percent reduction in local aid evidently was part of that strategy. Compared with such a deep
cut, the level-funded aid package seemed almost to be a reprieve.
The House local aid formula relieved some of the pressure on
Worcester's city administration, which officially presents its fiscal 2003 budget to the City Council tonight.
As councilors are about to discover, however, the formula
for state aid -- which comprises more than half of the city's revenue -- will leave the city with a significant financial
crunch. While state aid remains flat, the city has committed itself to major spending increases --
notably in employee salaries and benefits, by far the biggest budget categories.
In a series of contract settlements that began last fall,
municipal employees won raises of about 4 percent over each of the next three years. It is far from certain that the hiring
freeze and other belt-tightening measures already in place will be adequate to cover the raises.
The issue is aggravated by a sharp increase in health
insurance costs, the result of an agreement finalized with municipal employees last week. The city's payout for Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, while $900,000 lower than initially demanded, is still about $6 million more
than the administration had expected to pay.
Adding to the city's money woes are a projected $13.3
million increase in the cost of the vocational high school and a $3 million shortfall in the pension fund caused by sagging
returns on investments.
Even with the level-funded local aid, belt-tightening will
be the watchword for budget writers in Worcester, and throughout Central Massachusetts.
Return to top
