The Brockton Enterprise
Monday, July 29, 2002
Editorial
This is just the beginning of tax increases
If you think the state budget is a mess and you will be
taxed to death this year, just wait until next year. It may make the current fiscal year look like a Libertarian's dream.
"Everything's back on the table," said House Ways and Means
Chairman John Rogers, by way of explaining that more tax increases are in the offing. He said the state's cash reserves
are dangerously low because the Legislature approved taking $900 million to balance the
budget this year. That leaves just $170 million, meaning taxes will have to go even higher next
year just to level-fund the budget.
There seems little doubt that the income tax will increase
again next year, wiping out the entire voter-approved cuts. Also look for an increase in sales taxes, which will hurt
business, and an attempt to gut Proposition 2½..
As Barbara Anderson of Citizens for Limitation Taxation and
Government said of legislators, "They've lost all control."
How true. They also have lost all ability to be honest with
the public. Legislative leaders claimed they made difficult choices and that they raised taxes while cutting the budget.
That is a lie. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
estimates that the budget increased $600 million this year. The tax increases will cost each resident of the state
another $317 a year and that doesn't count the smokers who are being
taxed into oblivion. No other state in the country raised income taxes more than Massachusetts did this year.
Legislators claim their hands are tied, that "crucial" state
services cannot be cut. Medicare consumes nearly a quarter of the budget and entitlements gobble up another huge chunk. So
what does that mean, that taxes will just rise until every wallet in the state is drained? Where
is the sense of urgency on behalf of the people who actually work for a living and
support this state? Is there no limit to how much they will be ordered to pay?
The Legislature is a disgrace. It has no ability to create a
fair and reasonable budget. Its only answer to decreasing revenue is higher taxes. It wouldn't dare cut a single program
on its own if it meant costing votes.
But taxpayers vote too and they are the biggest constituency
in the state. People may have been hoodwinked this year into believing the was a budget "crisis," but when they get their
tax bills next year, they will not be so complacent.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Gov vetoes slash $355M
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
Acting Gov. Jane M. Swift slashed a $355 million swath yesterday through education, local
aid and public health programs - daring lawmakers to face fiscal "reality" and allow
the cuts to stand.
Unhampered by re-election ambitions, Swift said her vetoes
deal "honestly" with a $2.5 billion deficit - unlike the leaders of the late 1980s, who she said ignored spending
excesses.
"I am determined not to leave a similar mess unaddressed for
future legislators and a future governor," Swift said.
Swift's vetoes, issued 10 days after the Legislature put its
budget to bed, pare the spending plan back to $22.95 billion - a slight increase over last year's level, despite the fiscal
crisis.
Lawmakers had sent Swift a budget that overspent by $300
million - a hole papered over with "rainy day" savings funds - and openly pleaded with Swift to make the tough cuts they
avoided despite passing a $1.14 billion tax hike package.
Chastising lawmakers for their "irresponsible" raid on the
reserves, Swift warned that the budget would sink in red ink if the Legislature overrides vetoes en masse, as it has
traditionally done.
"They know the reality and they know the math," Swift said.
"The most important thing the Legislature will do in the next two or three days is what they don't do."
The biggest chunk of Swift's vetoes - a $75 million hit -
fell on the state's $4.2 billion K-12 education account, one of the most massive and fastest growing programs in state
government.
While calling the education cuts "very, very difficult,"
Swift noted she preserved $50 million to help kids who are struggling with MCAS, and supported a $45 million increase for
Chapter 70, which sends unfettered education reform aid to communities.
But in protecting Chapter 70 and MCAS remediation, Swift
squeezed virtually every other school program. The K-12 education cuts:
Eliminate a $27.9 million grant program to help schools set
up full-day kindergarten classes, an initiative lawmakers have prized.
Wipe out a $28.5 million pool to reimburse regular public
school districts for students they lose to charter schools. The special money has been a major appeasement for charter school
foes.
Kill all $10 million lawmakers had set aside for health
education; $3.2 million for after-school programs; $370,830 for programs for gifted and talented students; $489,483 for
alternative school programs for disruptive students.
"It will probably be myriad choices - like pink slips, like
layoffs, like larger class sizes," said Massachusetts Teachers Association President Cathy Boudreau. "Those are poor choices."
In the past, lawmakers have thoroughly repudiated and easily
overridden Republican governors' cuts to popular school programs.
But money is tighter this year than it has been in a decade,
and Speaker Thomas M. Finneran - who controls whether and which vetoes the Legislature will take up, either today or
tomorrow - is already frowning on pleas for reinstated spending.
The conservative House speaker would not be pinned down
yesterday on specifics, but he conceded Swift has a point about "restraint."
"To the extent that we engage in aggressive overrides, which
has been the case when we were enjoying prosperous times, that will make next year's challenge even more difficult,"
Finneran said.
But markedly different signals were emanating yesterday from
the Senate, where President Thomas F. Birmingham is running for governor and struggling to protect programs he
promotes on the campaign trail.
Birmingham said he was pleased with the preservation of
Chapter 70, amid a "nuclear winter" budget. But he expressed "regret" about other cuts, and said the Senate would
override "in a nanosecond" Swift's veto of $30 million in university faculty contracts.
Senate leaders will continue to fight the Legislature's
plan, which Swift supported, to save $70 million at Medicaid by kicking 50,000 people off their health care, Birmingham said.
"I would hope that we'll take up a significant number of the
veto overrides," Birmingham said. "I don't know."
Swift spared certain agencies she's championed in the past,
like the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Social Services.
But the acting governor mowed a path of destruction through
public health programs like osteoporosis awareness, prostate and breast cancer prevention, and smoking cessation.
Swift levied a heavy hit on the state's nationally acclaimed
anti-smoking efforts, slashing the account down to $10 million from last year's $48 million set-aside.
Smokers who want to quit - especially in the wake of a new
75-cent tax-hike - aren't going to have cessation programs available, said Cheryl Sbarra, director of tobacco control
programs for the Massachusetts Association of Health Boards.
"We're going to see people die," Sbarra said.
Swift also vetoed a $6 million human service salary reserve
aimed at giving small pay hikes to roughly 30,000 direct care workers who make less than $20,000 a year.
And Swift slashed nearly $20 million from MWRA and other
water and sewer rate relief - a 30 percent decrease from last year. That's going to mean double-digit rate hikes averaging
$240 per household per year, said Rep. Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop), MWRA caucus
chairman.
"I'm very concerned about the hue and cry from the people,"
DeLeo said. "Folks aren't going to be happy."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Swift vetoes $355m in state spending
Education, health, local aid affected
By Benjamin Gedan
Globe Correspondent
Acting Governor Jane Swift announced $355 million in budget
vetoes yesterday, reducing aid to cities and towns, education, and a number of public health programs.
Swift said the state's difficult fiscal condition forced her
to make unpleasant but necessary reductions, and she said lawmakers should let her vetoes stand.
"My greatest priority is to leave a budget that is honestly
balanced for the next Legislature," Swift said. "I believe this does go far enough."
The vetoes, especially a $75 million reduction in local
education spending and a $31 million cut in general aid to cities and towns, set off waves of protest among local
officials.
The municipal officials pledged to lobby legislators to
override the reductions. But House leaders, who must initiate any veto overrides, have indicated there is little chance of a
significant restoration of funds, and said they expect the majority of the vetoes to stand.
Legislative leaders delivered the budget July 19 to Swift,
anticipating she would veto at least $300 million. The move touched off criticism that the lawmakers were forcing the lame
duck governor to make the politically difficult spending choices.
Vetoes must be taken up by tomorrow's end of the legislative
session. If the reductions stand, spending would rise over last year's budget by less than 1 percent to $23.1 billion.
Rather than undertaking an across-the-board cut, Swift
appears to have targeted programs that she considers inessential in a time of revenue shortfalls and general
austerity. The public health programs she cut - including $5.1 million from breast cancer prevention and $2.3
million from prostate cancer prevention - avoid reductions to treatment,
instead targeting awareness and screening programs.
Speaking at a crowded news conference, Swift said the
toughest vetoes to make were to public schools, including the elimination of a $28 million state initiative to help local
districts pay for full-day kindergarten, and a $28 million program to reimburse cities and towns for
students who attend charter schools.
The cuts could mean elimination of kindergarten in some
districts, or teacher layoffs, said Fall River Mayor Ed Lambert, president of the Massachusetts Mayors' Association.
"We're very concerned about these vetoes and how deep they
go," Lambert said. "The cuts will have potentially devastating consequences."
The reduction of $31 million general local aid includes a 6
percent, or $13.4 million, reduction for Boston and a $1.5 million, 6 percent cut for Cambridge.
Those state funds help cities and towns pay employee
salaries, and provide police and fire protection.
Swift expressed hope that cities and towns might dip into
their own reserves to make up for the lost assistance. But the municipal officials say the communities are tapped out, too.
Swift is vetoing $38 million from the higher education
account, the bulk of which was to pay for 5 percent salary increases for employees of University of Massachusetts and
state colleges. Swift had initially signed off on the pay raises last summer, but now says the state
cannot afford them.
Public health advocates took issue with the acting governor's $35 million veto of antismoking
funds, saying it will destroy some of the nation's best antismoking initiatives.
"As a result of the callous decision to gut the tobacco
programs, literally thousands of children will start smoking who might not have," said Matthew L. Myers, president of the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Other cuts included $6.6 million from state courts, a 1
percent reduction; and $6.8 million from public safety, including cuts to the drug education DARE program. She also
eliminated $40 million in so-called "earmarks" - individual projects pushed by legislators for their
districts - that are scattered throughout the budget.
Swift also cut $9 million in state spending for financially
struggling hospitals, and $5 million in grants to community health centers.
Smaller state groups were likewise not spared the governor's
pen. The Mass. Cultural Council, for example, saw its budget cut by 46 percent - a reduction director Mary Kelley
says will virtually eliminate MCC grants to nonprofits across the Commonwealth.
"There's no way for us to absorb this kind of cut," Kelley
said. "We were supporting about 520 cultural organizations, from the Museum of Science to small dance studios," she said.
"It's going to mean a deep loss to the communities."
In making the cuts, Swift stressed her desire to leave
office having crafted a balanced budget, one that does not rely too heavily on state savings. It is now up to the legislators,
Swift said, to "face fiscal reality."
"They know the reality and they know the math," she said,
insisting that only her budget "resolves the continuing crisis."
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
A year of choices and of courage
In a letter to legislators explaining the rationale behind and the importance of the $355 million
in items vetoed in the state budget yesterday, acting Gov. Jane Swift made an
important, if partisan, observation.
"In the past, budget vetoes and budget overrides have had an
air of unreality," she wrote. "Each year spending went up. Since 1991, $1.2 billion in vetoes have been overridden,
approximately the same amount as this year's tax increase."
It had all became something of a game - a game that would be
silly if it weren't for the fact that the state's taxpayers will have to pay dearly for it this year. There's no one who
won't be touched by this most massive of tax increases. And it has happened because there will
always be those on Beacon Hill who when the good times are rolling can't find enough
worthy programs for their largesse.
Well, yesterday the gravy train came off the tracks. And
this governor was forced to make some painful choices - choices the taxpayers of this state can only hope legislators will
quietly accept as their session winds to a close tomorrow.
Among the governor's vetoes were cuts to the trial court
budget of some $6.6 million. That will cause some severe dislocations, but the figure is still not as draconian as
previously indicated.
Higher education will take a $38 million hit and that
negotiated retroactive 5 percent pay raise for faculty and administrators is out. But then how could some in good
conscience even expect a pay raise when others are being furloughed?
Oh, and those earmarks - bits of pork for legislators' pet
projects? Well, the governor in her veto message claims to have found - and vetoed - $40 million of them. If her aim is
accurate, they will never be missed.
Education is, of course, always more problematic. But it is
also where the real money is. Even with $75 million trimmed from the Legislature's budget, ``every district in the
commonwealth will remain at or above" the foundation budget. Kindergarten expansion is a
lovely idea, but at $28 million in new money, one that will have to wait. And the governor is
absolutely right when she notes that the $28 million she vetoed in charter school
reimbursements means the state has been paying twice for each charter school student.
There will be a huge temptation for legislators to kowtow to
state workers and retirees on the issue of health insurance. The latter have long benefitted from what amounts to a yearly
bonus for health care coverage that now costs taxpayers some $23 million a year. The
governor is also seeking to have current employees pick up a greater share of their own
premiums on a sliding scale that would have some pay 20 or 25 percent of
the cost, instead of the current 15 percent. That would save another $16 million.
It's time for legislators to act with the kind of discipline
and honesty the governor has shown. Taxpayers already know they are paying for past failures to budget wisely.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Pharmacy chain balks on Medicaid
By Bruce Mohl
Globe Staff
Filling a prescription is about to get a lot tougher for the
state's 900,000 Medicaid recipients, as a major pharmacy chain said yesterday that new provisions in the state budget would
force it to abandon the state-administered program for the poor and disabled and other
chains pondered action.
CVS Corp., which fills one-third of the state's nearly 12
million annual Medicaid prescriptions, said it will stop serving Medicaid patients shortly. The company, which
operates 299 stores with pharmacies in the state, said its hand was forced by Acting
Governor Jane Swift's decision yesterday not to veto budget language that would cut
Medicaid reimbursement rates a total of $60 million and impose a fee on non-Medicaid
prescriptions to raise an additional $72 million.
Walgreen's, which last week said it would withdraw from the
Medicaid-prescription business if Swift let the budget plan stand, said yesterday it wanted to study the budget language
more closely before taking any action. Other major pharmacy chains, including Brooks Pharmacy
and Stop & Shop, said they were still weighing their options. Smaller pharmacies said they
may be forced to shut down entirely or convert to convenience stores.
The budget Swift signed includes language calling for a
public hearing on the reimbursement rate to decide whether it is sufficient to attract enough pharmacies to the Medicaid
program, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled administered by the state and funded
jointly by the state and federal governments. If the new rates are found to be
inadequate, they could be revised upward.
The Legislature crafted the revenue-raising proposals to
offset the escalating cost of Medicaid. One of the proposals would cut the state's reimbursement rate on Medicaid
prescriptions from 10 percent above the so-called wholesale acquisition cost to 2 percent
below, saving the state an estimated $60 million a year.
The other proposal would impose a user fee on all non-Medicaid prescriptions, generating
$36 million, which would be matched by the federal government. Because health insurers
mandate that pharmacy customers with health insurance cannot be charged more than their
copayment, the new user fee would have to be absorbed by the pharmacies or passed on to
cash-paying customers.
Carlos Ortiz, CVS Corp.'s vice president for government
affairs, said the Woonsocket, R.I., pharmacy chain would stop serving Medicaid patients soon, but might resume if the rates
are raised.
"We are going to try to expedite the hearing process to have
[the hearing] as soon as possible," Ortiz said. Ortiz said CVS in the next few days would announce a timetable for
ending Medicaid service.
Swift did not address the pharmacy issue at her State House
press conference yesterday, where she unveiled $355 million in spending cuts in the Legislature's budget plan. She also
agreed with the Legislature's plan to eliminate Medicaid coverage for to up to 50,000
chronically unemployed and homeless people.
Swift's spokeswoman, Sarah Magazine, said the governor was
concerned about the budget's impact on access to prescriptions for Medicaid patients, but those concerns were
outweighed by the state's need for cost savings and new revenue.
Magazine had no information on when the public hearing on
the reimbursement rate would be held and declined to make administration officials available to discuss a timetable.
The budget doesn't say when the state must hold the hearing
on the rate. The budget says the findings must be published no later than 120 days after the hearing and allows state Medicaid
officials to come up with a new reimbursement rate "that is in the best interests of the
program recipients."
Many pharmacy officials have called the user fee a new tax
directed exclusively at them. Unlike the reimbursement rate, the pharmacies cannot challenge the user fee; it became law
with Swift's signature.
Carmelo Cinqueonce, executive vice president of the
Massachusetts Pharmacists Association, said Swift's failure to veto the measures was a terrible disappointment. He said
independent pharmacies that derive 80 percent to 90 percent of their revenue from Medicaid
prescriptions may not survive, even if reimbursement rates are increased later.
"These businesses may be gone and never recover," he said.
Mark A. Dumouchel, president of Eaton Apothecary, which
operates 10 Eaton pharmacies and the Strand Pharmacy in Dorchester, said the new Medicaid measures would be
devastating unless they are reversed quickly.
"If this is the way it's going to be, there is absolutely no
way we can remain in business," he said.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
No will, no way
By Brian McGrory
Globe Columnist
[...]
City and state officials have had the issue in front of them
for some 15 years, and here we are, with the first major tunnel scheduled to be open in just five months, and there is no plan
for the land above it.
Actually, forget a plan. We don't even have a mechanism to
create a plan, nor the money to fund it, nor the will to advocate it, nor the sense to publicly, properly air it. What
we have is what we always seem to get here in the sorry state of Massachusetts governance - a
sophomoric mess, unfolding against a loudly ticking clock, all in the pathetic privacy of
a politician's back room.
A couple of weeks ago, Jane Swift, Tom Menino, and Tom
Finneran stood around a podium at a downtown press conference announcing a tortured proposal, created in secret, to fund
and operate the mile-long piece of land. One of them called it a "blueprint for 21st century
Boston."
Right. That convoluted blueprint, calling for committees
that answer to panels that talk to trustees, was promptly ripped apart by virtually anyone and everyone who's given the
possibilities of this park more than two minutes of thought.
The bottom line: Everyone wants to oversee the new land; no
one wants to pay for it. So what we have is the possibility of a camel with five legs.
Be clear how this is playing out. Today is July 30. The
legislative session ends tomorrow, which means that if action doesn't occur by then, if a vote isn't taken on the blueprint,
the matter will be postponed until January.
Knowledgeable people on Beacon Hill (though, at times, that
seems an oxymoron) said yesterday that the Joint Transportation Committee will take a vote on it this afternoon. It will
then be presented for votes in the House and Senate by tomorrow. But how much careful
thought, how much constructive debate, can be dedicated to such a pivotal issue in less than
24 hours? The answer: barely any at all.
In other words, it's business as usual. We have a Legislature that routinely passes budgets
seasons late. Every vote of any consequence seems to be taken in the dark of the
night against the pressure of expiring time. We have public officials at every level who never step
up and inject an ounce of common sense or a drop of passion into the most prominent
issues of the day.
And the Central Artery land is no different. So now the
public is left with a choice of rushing mediocrity or searching for something better without the luxury of time.
Thank you, elected officials. You've done it all over again.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Monday, July 29, 2002
Bill targets corporate crime
By Jack Healy
Globe Correspondent
Seeking to crack down on corporate crime in Massachusetts,
Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham, a Democratic candidate for governor, announced a bill yesterday that would
increase jail time and civil fines for fraud, protect whistleblowers at
private companies, and extend the statute of limitations for stock fraud from six years to 10....
Birmingham's Worker and Small Investor Protection Act, an
amendment to another corporate fraud bill, would extend the maximum prison sentence for fraud from three to 10
years, and increase the maximum criminal fines from $5,000 to $100,000....
Talking to reporters before his speech, Birmingham also
chided Acting Governor Jane Swift for vetoing $30 million of long-delayed raises for University of Massachusetts faculty and
administrators. Vetoing the pay raises, which Swift promised to educators last year, may cost
the state more in the long run by doing "invaluable harm to the morale of the university,"
Birmingham said.
"It's not just about money," he said. "It's about a sense of
collegiality and fairness and keeping one's word."
Return to top
The Neponset Valley Daily News
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Green bill to go before Swift
By Brian Falla
NORWOOD - Money earmarked for town athletic fields and open
space in the state Environmental Bond Bill survived a Senate and House compromise and will likely go to the
governor's desk for approval.
"It all survived the conference committee, which is very
good news for Norwood," said Jeff Mahoney, chief of staff for Rep. John Rogers, D-Norwood.
Procedurally, the compromise must be approved by both the
House and Senate before going to Swift's desk.
Earlier this year, the Senate passed a $955.5 million bond
bill over five years, and the House passed a $423 million bill over two years. The two sides then got together in conference
committee last week and agreed on a $707 million bill.
The bond bill is not part of the state's operating budget,
but rather gives the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and its departments the ability to borrow money to fund
projects. The debt service on the bonds is figured into the state's annual budget.
As Chairman of House Ways and Means Committee, Rogers helped
craft the House's version of the bond bill, but because of his budget duties, he was not part of the conference
committee.
As a whole, the bond bill met with applause from environmental groups.
Christopher Hardy, legislative liaison for the Massachusetts
Audubon Society, said he believes the bill is a positive step.
"This is the largest capital authorization for environmental
programs in state history," said Hardy. "Obviously, we wanted more money over a longer period of years, but I think this is
a solid bill we can all be proud of."
Hardy said the $707 million should fund many environmental
accounts through the next three years.
"Some accounts will probably last more than that and some
less - it's hard to say," said Hardy.
But Hardy did give a point of comparison. In 1996, the
Legislature approved a $399 million bond bill that lasted until this year.
The bill authorizes bonds to pay for capital expenditures of
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and its departments.
The money is then distributed to a wide array of departments
and services. The money funds large capital expenses such as land purchases, environmental clean ups and other expenses
that the state could not sustain on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Return to top
