The Boston Herald
Tuesday, June 25, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
Three-card monte 2003
The Massachusetts House continues its game of three-card
monte today as it considers more than 130 amendments to an already absurdly misnamed environmental bond bill.
Things got so out of hand last week that House Speaker Tom
Finneran (D-Mattapan) opted to postpone debate on the $424 million bill. But the amendments - at least $190 million
worth of them - just continued to pour in as the smell of political bacon began to waft through
the House chamber.
The bond bill apparently began as a good-faith effort to buy
some open space for conservation purposes - but even before amendments it includes things like $12 million to
renovate a public golf course in Weston, $3.2 million for an arena in Revere (and that would
contribute to the environment how?), $200,000 to repair a pool in Waltham and $50,000 for
a solar rooftop at a Falmouth recreation center.
Of course, the Senate version of this huge pork roast is
$919 million, a nearly unimaginable collection of projects big and small.
The good news here is that since the state operates under an
annual bond cap, which limits the amount of borrowing state government can do in any one year, most of these projects
will never see the light of day. Some of the more absurd ones will be the subject of
gubernatorial vetoes, others will wait in line for funds that may never come.
It's a silly way to do business, but then we're talking
about the Massachusetts Legislature here and elected officials who think that somehow after saddling their constituents with
the largest tax hike in state history, they should at least be able to go home and tell them they
scored a new roof for the rec center - even if it's not quite true.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, June 20, 2002
Editorial
Charge it!
While cities like Worcester struggle to make ends meet, the
Massachusetts House has gone on a shopping spree on the taxpayers' credit card.
Just a month after the House voted for $1.2 billion in new
taxes to close the budget gap, the leadership proposes borrowing $424 million for "environmental" projects.
The last thing Massachusetts needs is more borrow-and-spend
financing. It already has a staggering debt load of $13 billion -- the highest per capita nationwide.
Many of the projects have little to do with the environment
-- and many are pure pork. Cutting off the biggest slice was state Rep. John H. Rogers, D-Norwood, House Ways and
Means chairman. Earmarked for his district is almost $3 million for such projects as restoring
a swamp in Walpole and repairing fields in Norwood.
(During a meeting with the Telegram & Gazette editorial
board in April, Mr. Rogers vowed the House spending package would be fiscally responsible. Apparently, the pledge didn't
include bond issues.)
Whether through borrowing or taxation, earmarking is a poor
fiscal policy. Earmarks bypass priorities to send lawmakers' pet projects to the head of money list.
The money earmarked for Mr. Rogers' district could more than
pay for opening the new 100-bed low-security unit at the Worcester House of Correction. The unit may not be
opened for lack of funds to staff and equip it.
Even more worrisome is the Senate's environmental borrowing
plan, which is twice as expensive as that of the House. The reconciled bond bill is apt to be closer to the larger
package than the smaller one.
Tax-borrow-and-spend is never prudent fiscal policy. With
the state facing a multi-billion dollar budget spending gap in fiscal 2003, it is truly shameful.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Monday, June 24, 2002
A Boston Globe editorial
Receding Revenues
The Massachusetts House and Senate breathed a collective
sigh of relief when they approved similar budget packages that contained almost identical tax increases to get
Massachusetts through what promises to to be a difficult fiscal year 2003.
The Swift administration expects a $541 million revenue gap in the fiscal year, which begins July 1.
House and Senate conferees need to revise the budget once again to keep it in
balance.
But first, they and the administration are rethinking their
consensus revenue estimate for the coming year. On Patriots Day, House Speaker Thomas Finneran, Senate President Thomas
Birmingham, and Acting Governor Jane Swift agreed on a $14.716 billion estimate for 2003.
With that in mind, the House and Senate were able to approve their budget bills with the tax
increases.
The centerpiece of the tax plans was a decision to maintain
a 5.3 percent income tax rate. We on this page urged a temporary reversion to a 5.6 percent rate to raise more money,
but that has found little support in the Legislature. If the new consensus estimate is significantly
lower than the Patriots Day figure, legislators ought to consider the higher rate again
as a buffer against budget cuts.
The governor's new estimate grows out of the latest revenue
figures for the current fiscal year. Collections in May totaled $1.08 billion, a decrease of 26.9 percent from the previous
May. While sales tax figures have held steady, income tax receipts have declined almost 40
percent, and capital gains revenue has collapsed. The governor's new estimate for next
year assumes a decline in tax receipts over the current year - an extraordinary turnabout from the
1990s boom, but realistic given the latest numbers.
The unemployment rate is still low, at 4.4 percent, but
taxpayers are no longer receiving huge bonuses and other income incentives that generated steady growth in tax revenue. With no
general recession in sight, legislators ought to be reassured that state revenues will get out of
this trough without undue delay.
While they wait for the recovery, conferees need to preserve
the progress on education reform, the great legacy of state government from the 1990s. They also need to preserve the
coverage expansions in Medicaid, another significant improvement in the 1990s. In addition,
special attention is due to the needs of the courts, which have suffered from
legislative interference.
Legislative leaders hope to arrive at a new consensus figure
early this week. In fiscal year 2002 revenue estimates were reduced five times as tax revenues slid downward. This week,
legislative leaders and the governor should do their best not to err on the high side again.
Return to top
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Sunday, June 23, 2002
Editorial
Missed opportunity
The state budgets produced by the House and Senate are
wreaking fiscal havoc in communities statewide. The courts, human services and higher education will see their
budgets shrink in fiscal 2003. The state's fiscal reserves will be reduced drastically while
taxes and fees soar.
Yet, a budget analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation reveals that lawmakers have ignored opportunities to trim costs by hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A sample:
-
The Quinn bill. Offering police officers education
incentives is prudent policy. However, the system of annual salary bonuses of up to 25 percent is a mega-million-dollar
burden on state and local budgets. (Ominously, firefighters are seeking a similar bonus system.)
-
Court patronage. While cutting court funding by tens of
millions of dollars, the Legislature continues to use them as a patronage haven, mandating unneeded political hires that, by
one estimate, will cost $20 million in 2003.
-
Early retirement. The pension enhancement, intended for
state employees laid off after 20 or more years on the job, has been abused as a giveaway for employees younger than 55
who leave voluntarily. It should be repealed.
Many millions more could be saved by consolidating facilities and services, reforming public
construction procedures, ending mandated police details, reining in employee
health-insurance costs and tightening eligibility rules that allow well-off residents to hide
assets and get free nursing home care from Medicaid.
Unfortunately, few lawmakers are willing to spend the
political capital required to take advantage of such economies -- opting instead to resume the disastrous tax-borrow-spend
policies of the past.
Return to top
The Brockton Enterprise
Monday, June 24, 2002
Editorial
Another attack on taxpayers
In its zeal to wring every penny out of every taxpayer, the
Legislature finally may have gone too far.
One aspect of its rush to raise taxes on every living
creature is grossly unfair and quiet likely illegal. Time will tell.
You probably are well aware that the Legislature plans to
raise capital gains taxes, which will penalize investors, businesses, anyone with a mutual fund or retirement plan and
generally hurt the economy. But did you know that the tax hike is retroactive to Jan. 1? In other
words, financial decisions you made based on tax law several months ago could cost you
much more money than you expected. Legislators estimate the retroactive feature will raise
as much as an extra $200 million. That is money that is being stolen from taxpayers.
How can anyone justify making capital gains tax increases
retroactive? It is a basic violation of faith between taxpayers and their government and will lead to many lawsuits, if not
outright taxpayer revolution.
Despite the gibberish of tax-increase supporters, this is
not something that affects just "the rich" every liberal's favorite punching bag. It affects businesses, homeowners and
small investors who made good-faith business decisions based on current tax law and then had
their elected officials hit them from behind because it is easier to raise taxes than to make
difficult decisions.
What is the difference between this and raising any other
tax retroactively? What prevents the Legislature from saying, for instance, that the income tax for the year 1998 will now be
10 percent and everyone has to pay up. Absurd? Of course, but no more absurd than raising
the capital gains tax retroactively.
There apparently is no precedent for a legal challenge on
this issue, but we can guarantee one in this case. There is too much money at stake and too much deliberate pain being
inflicted on innocent people for there not to be a legal fight.
If this retroactive tax increase stands, it will be the
final breach of faith from politicians who have repeatedly proven they will pick any pocket and step on any toe to achieve
their goal of hoarding cash for their own barely defensible purposes.
Return to top
The Lowell Sun
Monday, June 24, 2002
Of saints and sinners on Beacon Hill
By Jim Campanini
The apostle Simon Peter denied Jesus thrice in a single day.
The betrayal wracked Simon Peter with such anguish he could not live without being granted God's forgiveness. Once
forgiven, Simon Peter went on to spread God's word faithfully and become
a saint.
In 2002, the Legislature committed its own political sins,
denying the people's will three times on the Clean Elections Law, income tax rollback and charitable deductions.
Will legislators ask voters for forgiveness come November?
And will there be redemption, particularly for Democrats who
control the House and Senate?
Personally, I don't see any saints in the making (unless
Sen. Fred Berry of Peabody gets stigmata for his appeal to raise the state income tax so that, among other giveaways,
noncitizens can receive free health and social services).
And I haven't heard of any acts of contrition to constituents.
In fact, when the House of Representatives approved a $1.2
billion tax package in May the largest in the Commonwealth's history legislators applauded themselves.
A budget crisis, you say?
Three days ago, House Speaker Tom Finneran tried to pack on
$424 million in pork-barrel projects for his beloved pit bulls. But when the chained chow-hounds found out, they wanted
in. They overwhelmed the environmental bond bill with 125 new amendments each one
pounding more costs on the debt-ridden Bay State until Finneran declared a break to the
feeding frenzy.
A $2.5-billion budget gap, you say?
Last week, the Senate exceeded the House's $23 billion state
budget plan by $200 million. Incredulously, senators voted 34-4 all in good conscience to solve the fiscal crisis with extra
spending.
Then, two days ago, Senate President Tom Birmingham
succeeded in raising the capital gains tax and making it retroactive to Jan. 1. This allows the state to seize even more
money from citizens who had the foresight to plan ahead, while the state didn't. Not only is this unfair, it
represents another betrayal. (In the mid-1990s, Gov. Bill Weld made a quid
pro quo agreement with legislators giving them annual pay raise reviews for a reduction in capital gains
taxes).
Senators, of course, showed no remorse.
Arrogance?
How else can one interpret the trampling of three voter-approved ballot initiatives, one of
which led to a constitutional showdown with the Supreme Judicial Court over
Clean Elections? House legislators had fun mocking Justice Margaret Sosman's ruling (either fund
or repeal the law), although it wasn't a laughing matter when the state was forced
to sell property to meet the law's financial obligations to candidates.
Disturbing?
Back in January, when Speaker Finneran launched his World
Commonwealth Tour to warn community leaders of dire 10 percent cutbacks in local aid, he spoke of "open, honest
debate" with "no sacred cows." He also dispatched several legislative scout
teams to rub elbows with the public.
Unlike years past, when Finneran and Birmingham settled
everything themselves and never did so on time there was real hope things had changed.
But two things stand out as to why the legislative process
remained corrupted.
First, Finneran, for all the good he tried to foster,
couldn't cut the cord to influence-peddling lobbyists. It detracted from legislators who actually tried to earn voters'
trust.
Second, Birmingham used the budget process to bolster his
dying gubernatorial campaign, entangling himself in conflicts of interest to win union endorsements. In doing so he passed up
winning citizens' respect, something he could have obtained by stepping down as Senate
president.
Finneran's case shows how things never really change on
Beacon Hill, at least not for the better.
On the eve of the House budget vote, Finneran held a
campaign fund-raiser at Anthony's Pier Four in which every lobbyist with a stake in the 1,500 line-item spending plan
attended. Finneran's entrance was classic, if not contemptuous. Stepping from his
chaffeur-driven car, he dismissed protesters outside the waterfront digs as "mere voters."
Inside, lobbyists rang the cash register to Finneran's
Victory Fund campaign account. Most notable were leaders from the teachers' and police unions. In the weeks prior to the
House vote, both unions mounted radio ad campaigns urging citizens to support lawmakers voting to
raise taxes for education and public safety.
When the House passed its budget the next day, the education
and public safety accounts went largely unscathed. Finneran's promised reform of the Quinn Bill, an $84 million state
giveaway to police officers, was ignored. So now police can continue to get college credit in
uncertified law enforcement programs in coffee shops according to a Boston Globe
investigation while taxpayers foot the bill.
But, 30,000 low-income Medicaid recipients who couldn't
spring for a lobbyist to Finneran's feast weren't so lucky. They were dismissed from the budget barbecue like "mere
voters."
As for Birmingham, he played the same game with the
education and police lobby, adding millions in extra spending to the Senate budget to ingratiate himself with the AFL-CIO and
others who had an endorsement to sell. Some Democratic colleagues, particularly Sen.
Robert Havern, publicly questioned Birmingham's motives.
In essence, Birmingham used Massachusetts taxpayers to gain
an advantage for himself. Politicians do this all the time, but not when they are a Rhodes Scholars touting character and
integrity in a tight gubernatorial race.
I doubt Finneran, Birmingham and the Legislature individually and collectively will seek
voters' forgiveness for their political sins. They won't because they don't trust us to
make decisions for the Commonwealth.
Yet as I keep a tally of all the legislative betrayals, I
can't help but think there will come a judgment day when the unforgiven aren't the "mere voters."
Jim Campanini is The Sun's editorial page editor.
Return to top
