At a time of deep cutbacks in state services, there is at
least one area where spending will increase next year: legislative pay.
Massachusetts' 200 lawmakers will automatically receive a
pay increase - an amount yet to be determined - under a constitutional amendment approved by voters four years ago.
Supporters said the amendment, which ties lawmakers' raises
to increases or decreases in the state's average household income, would prevent legislators from giving themselves
raises.
But it has now left them in the potentially politically
awkward position of receiving a pay hike at a time when state services are being cut and jobs
eliminated.
"I think it adds fuel to the fire at a time when the public
is particularly unhappy with the Legislature," said Michael Widmer of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Association. "It makes it appear that the Legislature is working by different
rules, but that's unfair because the voters approved it."
In January 2001, when the amendment first took effect,
then-Gov. Paul Cellucci gave lawmakers a 7 percent pay increase, based on his staff's estimate
of the increase in median household income between 1999 and 2000.
A spokeswoman for acting Gov. Jane Swift had no comment on
the pay raise Thursday. If Swift doesn't calculate the pay raise by the time she leaves office
next Thursday, the task will fall to incoming Gov. Mitt Romney.
Romney's spokeswoman refused comment.
Lawmakers proposed the constitutional amendment as a way to
"take the politics out of legislative salaries and put it in the hands of the people, where it
belongs."
Opponents argued that a document dedicated to the rights and
responsibilities of Massachusetts citizens should not be muddied up with a clause about
something as pedestrian as wages.
Some also argued that - as admirable as it was to ban
lawmakers from determining their own salaries - the real purpose of the amendment was to
guarantee steady increases for the people's elected representatives.
Lawmakers approved the amendment during two successive
legislative sessions, in 1996 and 1998. In November 1998, when the state and national
economy were still booming, 60 percent of voters approved the amendment.
"I think the principle is still correct, to take it out of
the direct hands of legislators," said Sen. Richard T. Moore, D-Uxbridge, who supported the
amendment. "That concept shouldn't change just because the economy is soft."
The state's tax revenues have dropped by more than $2
billion in the past year and a half, causing major service cutbacks by the Legislature this summer and
Swift this fall.
Romney's budget chief has estimated a budget gap in the next
fiscal year of more than $2 billion. He also warned that the state may have trouble paying its
bills on a day-to-day basis because of a severe cash flow problem.
In response to this crisis, Moore said he would opt to pay a
higher 5.8 percent tax on his income, to hopefully give back the state a portion of the raise he will
receive. The current income tax rate is 5.3 percent, but taxpayers can opt to
pay more.
If that does not cover the whole amount, Moore said, he
would donate the remainder to a nonprofit organization that has been hurt by budget cuts.
Lawmakers are simply waiting to see what the governor's
verdict is, whether it be Swift or Romney, said a spokesman for House Speaker Thomas
Finneran, D-Boston.
"It certainly is the feeling of the speaker that we don't
really have a role in this," spokesman Charles Rasmussen said. "We just have no idea what's going
to happen."
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, December 28, 2002
December tax revenue expected to fall short
By Rick Klein
Globe Staff
The Swift administration is warning that tax revenues this
month will be about 5 percent less than in December a year ago, and as much as $100 million below
expectations. The disappointing revenue collections make it more likely that
Governor-elect Mitt Romney will confront a significant deficit in this year's
budget shortly after he takes office next week.
The main reason for this month's shortfall is a decline in
withholding taxes, which are the income taxes taken directly out of workers' paychecks.
Withholding taxes, which account for roughly half of all state tax revenue, will
probably total between $80 million and $100 million below December's expectations, and as much as $70 million below the total for
the same month last year, high-ranking aides to Acting Governor Jane Swift say.
Swift and her top fiscal advisers aren't sure what's causing
the drop, which is a surprise in large part because unemployment has held steady at about 5
percent - about the level budget-writers were prepared for. The administration
suspects that some residents have lost their jobs and are now working in lower-paying posts, and more significantly, that
year-end employee bonuses are down substantially from last year's levels.
"To the best of our ability to judge, it is a 20 to 30
percent decline in bonus levels from last year," one Swift aide said. "It really is unexpected, and this is
for real."
Revenues could bounce back before the books are closed on
the month on Dec. 31, but Swift aides noted that such a scenario is highly unlikely. With Romney
set to succeed Swift on Jan. 2, the revelation of the shortfall adds to an already
complicated political situation surrounding the budget. The December decline
follows a revenue drop of 4 percent in November, and 3.8 percent in October.
Swift, who has repeatedly vowed that she wants to leave
office with a balanced budget, is mulling her next step over the weekend. But the acting governor
believes that she has a diminished number of options, given that she's about to
leave office, and knows that any governor's ability to unilaterally restrain
spending is limited, said James Borghesani, Swift's press secretary.
"We're not going to discuss December revenues until Dec. 31,
but we're obviously monitoring the budget situation and reviewing our options,"
Borghesani said. "The governor cut $61 million this month. The new budget
reality poses a challenge that may be simply too daunting for her to handle by
herself, under these circumstances."
Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said the governor-elect
holds "no opinion" regarding how Swift should address the new shortfall. Romney is
mindful of the potential shortfall in this fiscal year, and is working on ways to
address the possible $2 billion budget gap next year, he said.
"We're aware that the budget for the current fiscal year
could be hundreds of millions of dollars out of balance due to revenue risks," Fehrnstrom said.
"Whatever she does, there's more work that lies ahead, and that's what we're
focused on."
Romney's budget chief, Eric Kriss, has said in recent weeks
that the budget could fall significantly out of balance this year, remarks that some viewed as an
attempt to prepare the public for the worst. Romney's ability to balance the
budget could be hamstrung by campaign promises he made not to raise taxes
or slash core state services, though he has backed away from the pledge not to
cut services since winning election last month.
If the dropoff in withholding taxes is primarily a result of
lower bonuses, as the administration believes, then December should be the worst-hit month, since
most workers receive bonuses around Christmas. A one-time revenue drop of
about $100 million should be of minimal concern to state leaders, since
the entire state budget is about $23 billion and revenues could rebound in future
months, said Cam Huff, a senior research associate at the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation.
"The question is, to what extent is it a sign of something
going on in the economic base, as opposed to a blip associated with bonuses?" Huff said.
But this month's shortfall is especially worrisome given the
growing concerns of economists that this year's budget could still be far out of balance, even after
multiple rounds of cuts by the Legislature and Swift.
Even before the administration began raising flags about
December revenues, independent budget analysts were warning that this year's budget could be out
of balance by $500 million or more, in large part because of a possible collapse
in revenue from capital gains. The current fiscal year runs through June 30.
In any case, Huff said, state leaders wrestling with fiscal
2003 issues can't lose sight of the far more serious problems awaiting the state in fiscal 2004.
"We've got so much of a larger problem over the next 18
months or so, that this is kind of a drop in the bucket," Huff said. "I would hope that everybody would
switch gears, to start talking about the longer-term problem. The larger
problem is going to come in '04."
Return to top
The Springfield Union-News
Friday, December 27, 2002
It would take great oratorical skill for a state lawmaker to
argue that he and his colleagues on Beacon Hill should get a pay raise next year, in the midst of the
state's worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.
Skill, or stupidity.
No one in the Legislature, however, will have to risk the
ridicule of his colleagues or the wrath of his constituents by suggesting such a thing.
A constitutional amendment designed to depoliticize the pay
raise issue will automatically give the state's 200 senators and representatives a wage
increase next month.
At the time it was approved by voters in 1998, we thought it
was a trivial use of a constitutional amendment.
However, we had no arguments with its intent.
The base salary is adjusted every two years according to the
median earned by Massachusetts housesholds.
State lawmakers receive about $50,000 in annual salary. It's
not a king's ransom, nor should it be.
Still, it must be high enough to attract people who have the
right stuff to make decisions that affect the quality of life for the rest of us.
In most years, we would support a modest raise for lawmakers, but not in a
year when the state is so poor it can't afford to take care of its poor and elderly.
Just a few years ago, when the state's coffers were filled
with surpluses and its citizens were employed in record numbers, no one would have objected to a
modest automatic pay raise for state lawmakers.
However, lawmakers should not be given a pay raise when
University of Massachusetts employees have been told that state does not have enough
money to give them raises that they had already been promised in signed
contracts.
Nor should they be given a raise after thousands of state
workers have lost their jobs, and thousands more have had their salaries frozen or will lose their
jobs in the new year.
Cities and towns that depend heavily on state aid for basic
services have been told to anticipate cuts as high as 20 percent in local aid.
And the state is so poor that acting Gov. Jane M. Swift cut
Medicaid benefits, including eyeglasses, dentures and hearing aid coverage for the state's poor
seniors.
Under the amendment, the salaries are adjusted by the
governor using the state's median income for the previous two-year period based on U.S. Census
Bureau figures.
Swift is leaving office in a few days, and she may hand off
this decision to Gov.-elect W. Mitt Romney, as sort of a Welcome Wagon gift.
Romney has vowed to cut spending, and here's his first
opportunity.
There are no sure figures for the average income in
Massachusetts because Census figures for 2002 won't be available until next year, so Romney will have
to guess.
It shouldn't take any great oratorical skill to persuade
Romney to guess that legislators should not get a raise next year.
Return to top
MANY CLT BLASTS FROM THE PAST
CLT NEWS RELEASE
Oct. 2, 1998
CLT Informs Public About Question One
CLT 60-Second Radio Spot (Question
One)
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Nov. 15, 1998
Lawmakers Head for $100,000
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Nov. 18, 1998
The Bitter Lesson of Question 1
CLT Update
Nov. 9, 1999
Legislators make another money grab for themselves!
CLT Update
Mar. 30, 2000
State pols "move to hike their earnings" ... again
The Boston Herald
Mar. 30, 2000
State lawmakers move to hike their own earnings
The Boston Herald
Mar. 31, 2000
Pols pack budget with pork
[excerpt]
As the Herald reported yesterday, the House budget would double members'
"per diem" travel allowances and office expense accounts....
The move to double office expenses, which will cost
taxpayers $720,000 a year, is particularly controversial because lawmakers collect the allowances
in monthly checks and aren't required to account for how they spend the cash. "It
might as well be handed over to them in a brown bag, Barbara Anderson of
Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government said....
House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Haley (D-Weymouth)
defended the increases, saying the office expense money would allow lawmakers to abide by
the "Clean Elections" campaign finance reform law by absorbing some of the
"constituent service" expenses they currently pay out of their campaign funds.
The voter-approved law offers candidates public funds if they agree to limit
their campaign spending....
The stipend increases come less than two years after
voters approved a Constitutional amendment that automatically increases lawmakers' salaries
every two years. If the economy continues to grow at the current rate, rank
and file members will see their pay jump in January more than $3,000 to
$49,000 a year. House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) and Senate
President Thomas F. Birmingham (D-Chelsea) could see their salaries soar to $85,000 a year.
A Boston Herald editorial
Mar. 31, 2000
Getting grabby on Beacon Hill
[excerpt]
How typical that our lawmakers on Beacon Hill would
take care of themselves handsomely -- and stiff the taxpayers.
The budget proposal from the House Ways and Means Committee announced
yesterday would double both the travel allowance (now $5 to $45 per day,
depending on the distance from home to the State House) and the "constituent
services" expense allowance (now $3,600 ....
The justification for such a raid on the treasury is
absurd. The claim is that the reps and senators otherwise won't be able to afford to choose to run for
re-election with the public funds available under the "Clean Elections" law
passed by the voters at the last election.
CLT Update
Apr. 11, 2000
Money for more pay raises ...
[excerpt]
Last week the proposal for doubling of the Bacon Hill
Cabal's "per diem" and office expenses to $10,000 was announced; today it's a proposal for increased
"leadership" bonuses ... and increased "leadership" positions.
In Finneran's House and Birmingham's Senate, this is
false advertising. These positions -- awarded at the sole discretion of the Speaker of the House or
Senate President for abject fealty -- should be renamed "followership" position.
Expect there to soon be 200 "followership" slots and perpetual "bonus"
increases.
The Boston Herald
Apr. 11, 2000
Pay raise for House leadership proposed
[excerpt]
Two dozen of House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran's closest
allies would see their pay jump by $7,500 under a proposal the House is slated to consider this
week.
The raises, doled out to the chairmen, vice chairmen
and ranking minority members scattered across a dozen committees, come on top of a plan to double
the "per diem" travel expenses and office budgets of every member of the
Legislature.
The amendment also leaves the door open for
Finneran, a Mattapan Democrat, and Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham (D-Chelsea) to create new
chairmanships and offer $7,500 bonuses to whomever they please.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Apr. 12, 2000
Sows at the public trough
Legislators are seeking to line their own pockets at our expense
The Boston Herald
Apr.15, 2000
House pols spend freely in wee hours
House passes 2001 budget in a spending spree
[excerpt]
... The amendment came just two weeks after Haley
defended doubling lawmakers' "per diem" travel expenses and office budgets, saying they needed
the extra money to pay for "constituent services" that are currently paid out of
campaign funds.
"There are legitimate constituent expenses related to
constituent services that are being paid for out of campaign funds."
Without the "per diem" and office expense hike, no House or Senate member
could participate in the "Clean Elections" public finance law, Haley told the
Herald last month.
"It's a matter of fairness, a matter of equity," Haley
said at the time. Haley could not be reached last night for comment.
"They claimed that the $1 million increase in the 'per
diem' and personal office expenses was to alleviate the pressure of 'Clean Elections,' but it turns out the
real purpose was just to jack up those perks," said John Brockelman, executive
director of the Massachusetts Republican Party.
The Boston Globe
Apr. 15, 2000
Mass. House waters down key reforms
[excerpt]
The House abandoned another controversial proposal to
raise salaries for dozens of House leaders by $7,500 after learning the measure was not
permitted under the chamber's internal rules. But it gave the eight members
of the Governor's Council raises of nearly $10,000.
The lawmakers also voted to increase their daily-expense allowances by much
as $10,000 per year for some. But some critics, who charge that the increases
are back-door pay raises, say the action also violates House rules.
CLT NEWS RELEASE
Apr. 15, 2000
House Recklessly Spends Income Tax Revenues
[excerpt]
... Voters also must wake up. In November 1998, they
gave legislators a constitutionally guaranteed pay raise, thinking that this would prevent the
politicians from voting for their own pay hikes; on the same ballot, voters
supported the Clean Election Law.
Legislators will get their automatic pay raises, and
now they are giving themselves more office slush funds and preparing to eventually add more
leadership positions with higher bonuses, while killing the Clean Elections Law
and also removing some existing restrictions on lobbyists.
The Boston Herald
Apr. 17, 2000
Like thieves in the night...
by Joe Sciacca
[excerpt]
... But the bellycrawlers in Finneran's House didn't
stop there. They doubled the "per diem" stipend that lawmakers receive for their State House commute
and "office budgets," explaining that lawmakers would need the extra cash
because campaign spending reform would mean they couldn't use campaign
funds for "constituent service." Except that they didn't pass campaign finance
reform. They sent it off for further study....
CLT Update
Jan. 3, 2001
Enjoying your pay-raise today?
Associated Press
Jan. 3, 2001
Lawmakers receive 8 percent pay raise
