Citizens for Limited Taxation & Government
18 Tremont Street #608 * Boston, MA 02108
Phone: (617) 248-0022 * E-Mail: cltg@cltg.org
Visit our web-page at: http://cltg.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------

*** CLT&G Update ***
Friday, April 11, 1997

It's Nice to Win One Every Now and Then!

The Boston Herald
Friday, April 11, 1997
Lead Editorial

Finneran yells `uncle'

Well, you've got to say this for House speaker Tom Finneran: The man knows when he's made a big mistake.

Now maybe the speaker really did want to eliminate those late-night amendments to the budget that happen during the debate when everyone is tired and not many are paying attention. But then again, maybe Finneran really didn't want to deal with the issue of tax cuts in the debate of the spending package for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

Whatever his true motives the speaker was smart enough to know that proposed restrictions on possible budget amendments -- including tax cuts—had his own membership up in arms.

“From time to time, I think, I am as guilty as anybody else in this chamber of impulsive behavior,” Finneran said.

Sure, there is a case to be made for a full debate on how many—and which—tax cuts the state can afford this year. But that case can and should be made in the context of the state budget. If the state can afford them (and clearly the House Ways and Means Committee plan to sock away a $150 million surplus for capital programs indicates that) then the time to debate them is now.

For example, where ought the state's tax priorities be?

Shouldn't a $1,000 boost in the dependent child deduction (cost to the state $18 million) and a reduction in the tax on interest and dividends (estimated cost $24 million) take precedence over a proposed elimination of the income tax on military pensions (estimated at $20 million)? The military pensions bill is the only tax cut to make it out of the Taxation Committee so far.

Another worthwhile tax-related bill, one with tremendous consequences for rebuilding of Malden Mills, would exempt the proceeds of insurance from taxation if those proceeds were used to rebuild a plant. That bill just had its public hearing Wednesday.

Surely the Taxation Committee would be doing its colleagues a tremendous favor by completing its work far earlier so the House could have the most informed debate possible on tax issues as it considers the budget.

But there is no excuse for not including in the budget debate those broad-based cuts which are both affordable and on which there is widespread agreement. Even the speaker knows when he's beat on that score.

* * *

The Boston Globe
Friday, April 11, 1997
Lead Editorial

The reining in of Finneran

House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran showed good sense in backing off a proposal to restrict debate on the budget when it goes to the floor on Monday. House Republicans also deserve credit for suggesting, strongly, that Finneran reverse himself. Still, the whole episode spotlights the potential dangers of autocratic rules.

Originally, Finneran wanted to confine debate to items contained in the budget proposal offered by his Ways and Means Committee. An amendment to increase or decrease funds for a program in that budget would have been in order, but new items -- whether expenditures or tax cuts—would have been ruled beyond the scope of the legislation and discarded without debate.

Finneran cited the frequent abuse of the budget process in past years, when members attempted to attach all manner of policy proposals as “outside sections” to become law when the budget, inevitably, passed. The most flagrant recent example was the Senate's ploy last year of adding an amendment to reinstitute the death penalty in Massachusetts; the provision was eventually stripped from the budget by the House-Senate conference committee.

But Finneran's short-lived proposal for House debate would have been far too restrictive, summarily excluding a great many issues that are clearly within the scope of the budget.

The House minority leader, David Peters, applauded Finneran's retreat, saying the budget debate “deserves to be an open process.” But it was the full House, with the too-easy acquiescence of the Republicans, that adopted rules in the first place earlier this year allowing Finneran's Rules Committee to propose such restrictions.

Finneran said messy budget debates in the past have given the Legislature “a shoddy reputation.” Under his proposed solution, a little more decorum would have come at the price of a lot less democracy.

* * *