The Telegram & Gazette
Tuesday, July 2, 2002
Editorial
Budget or bust
Massachusetts state government yesterday rang in the new
year -- fiscal 2003 -- but there was no reason to break out the champagne. For the fifth time in a row, the Legislature has
failed to agree on a budget before the beginning of the fiscal year.
State agencies will continue to function from month-to-month
on special budget resolutions. However, dragging out the budget process to the end of the session -- July 31 this year -- is
an open invitation to fast-gavel maneuvers, midnight feeding frenzies and other manifestations
of the toga party school of governance on Beacon Hill.
After receiving the governor's budget proposal in January,
the House Ways and Means Committee frittered away three months concocting a phony $20.6 billion budget proposal --
down $2 billion from the spending during fiscal 2002 -- with deep cuts
calculated to rally support for tax increases.
Unfortunately, the ploy worked all too well. The budget
proposals now being reconciled behind closed doors by a House-Senate conference committee, call for $1.2 billion in new
taxes and fees, the biggest tax hike in state history.
The wait for a budget probably will not be as long as it was
last year. The 2002 budget -- caught in a standoff between Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham and House Speaker
Thomas M. Finneran -- wasn't passed until five months into the fiscal year.
Nonetheless, the lethargic pace already has wreaked
considerable havoc. Local budget-writing across the state had to be delayed for lack of state aid figures. The hardship
was critical in communities, such as Worcester, that count on local aid for more than half of
their revenue.
Barring another House-Senate deadlock, the budget should be
voted by the time the 2001-02 session ends July 31. Whether it will be is uncertain.
Mr. Birmingham, who has declined to step down as Senate
president to run for governor, is busy juggling his legislative duties and his political ambitions. Mr. Finneran, who was
anointed speaker for life at the beginning of the legislative session, has become a law unto himself,
defying the Supreme Judicial Court and grinding the people's right of initiative
petition under his heel.
With all that on the legislative leaders' plates, it is no
wonder they can't find time to produce a budget in a timely manner.
Return to top
The Springfield Union-News
Wednesday, July 3, 2002
Budget's lateness a mild concern
By Dan Ring
BOSTON -- The state budget is late again, but no one is too
worried about it -- yet.
The budget was supposed to be done by Monday, the start of
the new fiscal year.
Except for 1999 and last year, when the budget wasn't
completed until around Thanksgiving, the annual spending plan usually is signed by the governor some time in July after the
start of the fiscal year. That's been the case for the majority of budgets in the last dozen years.
Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said
cities and towns are more concerned about possible surprise cuts in local aid by
members of a House-Senate committee that is crafting a compromise budget than the time of the financial
plan. Because tax collections plummeted more than expected in April and May,
negotiators might have to impose an additional $650 million in cuts on top of the nearly $1 billion in cuts
approved by the full House and Senate.
"Right now, it's steady as we go," Beckwith said.
After last year's budget negotiations dragged out to Nov.
21, nearly five months late, some expected lawmakers might get the budget done on time this year. In recent years, that's
happened only twice -- in 1995 and 1996.
So why is the budget late again this year?
Rep. Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow, an assistant majority
leader in the House, said that the state's fiscal crisis is one important reason.
Petrolati said the House waited about a month later than
usual to complete the budget partly because lawmakers needed to build consensus for approving about $1.2 billion in tax and fee
increases approved in both legislative branches. House Speaker Thomas M.
Finneran, D-Boston, traveled around the state in the spring to explain the need for the tax raises and
for cuts in many programs.
"If we could get this done in the next 10 to 14 days, that
would send the right message," Petrolati said yesterday.
The House of Representatives approved its version of the
state's estimated $23.2 billion budget on May 16. The Senate finished on June 13.
A six-member conference committee is working on a compromise
that will be sent to acting Gov. Jane M. Swift for her signatures and vetoes. Lawmakers want to finish the budget by
July 31 before the start of a five-month recess in formal sessions.
In the meantime, they've approved a one-month temporary
budget to keep state government operating.
Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, D-Chelsea, who is
running for governor, could face a backlash from voters if the budget impasse runs beyond this month.
"The longer this goes on, the worse it is for the Senate
president," Petrolati said.
Alison Franklin, a spokeswoman for Birmingham, said
Birmingham wants to finish the budget, but he doesn't want to sacrifice his priorities in education and health care.
The House, for example, is proposing to save about $90
million by cutting Medicaid for about 30,000 long-term unemployed adults. The Senate wants to salvage the program.
The House also wants to cut $18 million in statewide grants
for schools to hire more kindergarten to grade 3 teachers to improve student-teacher ratios. The Senate approved the
$18 million effort, which includes $54,456 for Amherst; $311,795 for Chicopee; $84,506
for Greenfield; $485,198 for Holyoke and $1.69 million for Springfield.
Birmingham also wants to increase Chapter 70 education aid
by $61.5 million, while the House wants to level fund the program at about $3.22 billion. There's a lot at stake for
local schools in the Chapter 70 fight. Under the Senate plan, the increase in aid to the localities
would be $2 million for Springfield, $2.4 million for Westfield; $790,000 for the
Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District; $1.36 million for Chicopee, and $530,000
for West Springfield.
The Senate wants to spend $9.6 million on Clean Elections
public financing of campaigns. The House approved no money for Clean Elections.
Birmingham is increasingly campaigning out of the Statehouse, but Franklin said he stays in
contact with members of the conference committee.
"He's not constantly out of the building," she said.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, said the fiscal 2003 budgets approved by the House and Senate are about $650 million out of balance.
"The conference committee has a tall order, to put it
mildly, to produce something close to a truly balanced budget," Widmer said.
It would be a miracle if the budget were finished by the
middle of July and a major achievement to finish it by July 31, he said.
"Given the track record, it they did it by the end of July,
it would be a positive note," he said.
Karen A. Powell of Springfield, co-owner of an auto repair
shop in East Longmeadow and a member of the Citizens for Limited
Taxation, said it would be abnormal if the budget were finished on time.
With lawmakers planning to freeze the income tax at 5.3
percent, cut personal exemptions by 25 percent and impose three other tax increases, Powell said this might be one of those
years when she isn't too eager to see the final product.
"Sometimes what they do with it scares me so much, I don't
want to see it done," she said.
Return to top
The Brockton Enterprise
Wednesday, July 3, 2002
Editorial
Legislature's usual business: A late budget
The new fiscal year arrived Monday and -- surprise! -- the
Legislature has no budget to show for it. So for the fourth time in five years, the Legislature has failed to do its job
and failed to have any respect for the people its members claim to represent.
To make matters worse, the budget conference committee --
three senators and three representatives -- have decided that budget discussions will be done in private, away from
the prying eyes of the public. It doesn't matter to them that the law says the meetings should
be conducted in public. All they had to do was find a loophole and -- voila! -- the door was
slammed shut in the public's face.
What a disgrace. House Speaker Thomas Finneran said he
supports open meetings, but he is being disingenuous. Finneran rules the House -- and pretty much the state -- with an iron
fist. If he had really wanted the meetings to be open, they would have been.
But maybe secrecy is better. Then we wouldn't have to be
ashamed of voting for this legislator or that one. Do we really want to know how this foul-tasting sausage will be made?
The result is sure to be displeasing, considering that the Legislature has created a phony
economic crisis in its attempt to push through $1 billion and more in tax increases.
We are wondering: If last year's budget was five month's
late and there was no crisis, how long will this year's budget take to finalize? Maybe they could just start on the following
year's budget and save the trouble.
The only good thing is that we won't be treated to any more
of those bizarre photos of Finneran and Senate President Thomas Birmingham sitting on a balcony having breakfast.
This was presented each day as a portrait of the great minds of the Legislature crafting a
distinguished budget. But all we got after five months was indigestion.
This year is different. Finneran claims to have stepped
aside, and Birmingham, now running for governor on a platform of who-knows-what, has been pushed aside. The only thing that
is certain is that if you pay taxes in Massachusetts, you will be hurt. You will be treated like a
cash cow, ready to be milked for whatever purposes your legislators deem worthy. And
no one will ask your opinion on how your money should be spent.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, July 3, 2002
Editorial
State budget; Late again
The new fiscal year is here and, for the fifth year in a
row, the Massachusetts Legislature has not completed its budget.
This comes as no surprise. The same people -- House Speaker
Tom Finneran and Senate President Tom Birmingham -- are running the Legislature as last year, the year before that
and the year before that. Last year, it took the two Toms until November to
agree on a budget. Three years ago it took nearly as long, as the pair pretended to negotiate on
Birmingham's balcony.
Hardly anyone recalls what principled disagreement was
behind that impasse, mostly because they refused to tell the voters at the time. It was the same last year. Other than weak
platitudes about how hard they were working and how difficult it was to balance a budget at
a time the economy was sputtering, Birmingham and Finneran, along with the legislators
they appointed to the conference committee, kept the public's business to themselves. In private,
they considered raising taxes, increasing fees and cutting services - then they
complained that the public didn't appreciate the seriousness of the state's financial situation.
That dismal budget performance sparked enough outrage that
Birmingham took notice. Next time, he pledged, the conference committee will meet in open sessions, to let the people in on
the process.
Last week, the conference committee broke Birmingham's
promise, voting to keep their deliberations behind closed doors. Birmingham and Finneran expressed disappointment that
was unconvincing given their well-documented control over their members. The turnabout is
especially embarrassing for Birmingham, making the would-be governor look either
hypocritical or impotent.
So, as in years past, the voters wait in the dark while
deals are being made that affect their wallets and their government services. If the legislative leaders hold true to
form, the conference committee will produce a document at the last possible minute. Legislators won't
have time to study the budget before having to vote on it, and citizens will have no
chance to figure out what's in the budget, let alone speak out on it, before it's gaveled into law.
The House and Senate have already approved versions of the
budget, and while the details differ, the big picture is the same: Both houses were too quick to raise taxes, too reluctant
to attack wasteful spending, and too secretive in their deliberations.
With the state's fiscal woes deepening, it's clear this will
be a painful budget. Taxes and fees will go up, and services will be cut. After last year's embarrassment, we might have
hoped for some improvement in the budget process, if not in the budget itself. But with the budget
already late, and the decisions being made again behind closed doors, it appears
those hopes were misplaced.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 5, 2002
Legislative challengers dwindling in Mass.
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
This election year will feature the smallest number of
contested races for the Legislature in nearly a quarter-century, according to a report being released today by
the Massachusetts Money and Politics Project.
Despite predictions of a flood of new challengers angered
over tax increases, 62 percent of lawmakers seeking reelection will have virtual free rides, with no major party opponent in
either the primary or general election. And because so few Republicans are seeking to unseat
Democrats, nearly three-fourths of legislative elections will be decided in the
primary.
"It's just a dismal level of competition," said George
Pillsbury, the project's director. "It really leaves voters without any way to hold their representatives accountable."
This year will feature the lowest level of competition in
state races since the Legislature was reduced to 200 members in 1978, Pillsbury said. Competition reached a high point in 1990
-- a year of intense voter unrest -- when only 73 percent of legislative races were contested.
But this November's election will be the sixth in a row in which the level of competition
drops from the previous election.
Just 27 percent of House and Senate races will have two
major-party candidates facing off in November, down from 29 percent in 2000 and 33 percent in 1998, the year of the last
gubernatorial election.
The stagnation in state government means that many people
will continue to feel shut out of the political process, said Giovanna
Negretti, executive director of Oiste, a statewide Latino political group. The current system is too hard for
challengers to break into, and until that changes, voter participation rates will continue to fall, she said.
"It's worrisome," Negretti said. "It doesn't leave a way for
a truly representative and democratic government when people run less and less and less each year."
Coming into the year, 2002 had the potential to be a big
year for competition. The staggering economy, the likely approval of new taxes by the Legislature, and the Clean
Elections law's promise of easy campaign cash for challengers were expected to spark new waves of
challengers.
Mitt Romney's candidacy for governor, which gives the Bay
State GOP its most exciting standard-bearer since William F. Weld, was also thought to give Republicans a chance to
begin to break the Democratic stranglehold on both the House and the Senate. The Green
and Libertarian parties were predicting banner years to boot.
But the vote on the $1.2 billion tax package was put off
until after the deadline for candidates to file nomination papers, which may have reduced the number of challengers. And
uncertainty over funding for Clean Elections scared candidates away. Romney fever didn't
trickle down to most races -- Republicans will appear on ballots against just 40 incumbent
Democrats in House and Senate races -- and the 19 legislative candidates fielded by third
parties doesn't represent a major change from previous years, Pillsbury said.
"We're not seeing any kind of rush of people running for
public office," he said.
This year will feature a slight uptick in the number of
contested primaries, especially among Democrats, with Clean Elections attracting a trickle of new challengers. But
Pillsbury said the extra competition there is mainly a result of the fact that 18 legislative seats will be open this
fall because of redistricting, retirements, and bids for higher office.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said the lack of competitive races shows that voters
are basically pleased with the recent accomplishments of state government. But if the
economy continues to struggle, and if legislative leaders prove incapable of dealing with the
troubles effectively, he said the 2004 election could be a different story.
"There's been a general level of contentment, and that's not
surprising, since we've had an extraordinary period of prosperity," Finneran said. "But when there's anger and
discontent, you would see a leap in contested elections."
Finneran said that fear of media scrutiny keeps potential
candidates away from runs. Pillsbury, whose group studies the links between campaign contributions and policy-making,
said the rising costs of campaigns scares away many would-be challengers.
"The biggest factor really is the cost of campaigns, and the
big advantage that incumbents have in fund-raising," he said. "When a Senate race costs $125,000, and the average House
campaign costs $45,000, it's hard to bring people into the process."
Republican party officials said they can hardly recruit
candidates because it is so hard to overcome fund-raising advantages.
"They've done anything they can to crush competition," said
Nate Little, a spokesman for the state Republican Party. "It's bad, and you see the results of it: Iron rule in the House and
the Senate, and we've had this tax hike hoisted upon us with no serious evaluation of other
options."
Return to top
