CLT
UPDATE
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Always being right is sometimes a
curse
A move to restrict the system that allows citizens to make laws at the ballot box is drawing wide opposition from conservative and progressive activists.
Two liberal lawmakers want to scale back the initiative petition process by hiking the number of signatures to get a question on the ballot, setting up a commission to review ballot questions and limiting the rights of signature gatherers.
State Rep. Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester, and Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, have filed two bills that would make the changes. The measures will be debated at what is expected to be a hotly contested hearing at the Statehouse tomorrow.
Mr. Spellane argued that with lawmakers increasingly hostile to the initiative process, the legislation will reform a system that many observers see as deeply flawed....
The bills' opponents range from Citizens for Limited Taxation, which spearheaded passage of the property tax-limiting Proposition 2½ in 1980, to Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections, author of the 1998 campaign finance law.
Pamela P. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, which also opposes the measures, said that despite one or two positive proposed changes, the overall result would be negative.
"We're not going to get into quibbling over details. The effect of the bills is to kill the citizen initiative process," Ms. Wilmot said. "It was instituted to be a check on an unresponsive Legislature. That situation is even more true today."
The Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Hearing is tomorrow on initiative petitions
As of Saturday, only 677 of 1.5 million taxpayers had checked "yes" on Line 22 and agreed to be taxed at the higher rate, according to Department of Revenue spokesman Tim Connolly.
The optional tax hike, which costs the average taxpayer more than $100, has generated $77,342 in extra revenue for the state, Connolly said....
The change, which the Legislature approved last year, was drafted by Citizens for Limited Taxation and supported by Republican leaders in the state House of Representatives....
CLT Executive Director Barbara Anderson said she initially was surprised when the Legislature approved the change.
"We were just trying to make a statement," she said. "But I think a lot of legislators are tired of people telling them that they need to take a tough vote on taxes. No matter how much they do, it's never enough."
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Some pay higher taxes by choice
State politicians seem united in saying that income tax increases are off the table. In fact, a tax hike is not only possible, but likely. Already the groundwork is being laid. Later this spring, we'll see a strong push to boost rates....
And those cuts will be visible and painful. Even under Romney's original budget, for example, Boston is saying it has to close five schools, hire fewer cops and cut 1,700 jobs. Deeper cuts will be even more noticeable.
Add to that the inevitable, plaintive advertisements from teachers, nurses and other interest groups, and one will begin to see a drumbeat for new taxes. Members of the Legislature will face a Hobson's choice: voters angry about higher taxes or voters angry about cuts in local services.
Here's betting they choose taxes....
The scenario I describe is really just a variation on the strategy Finneran successfully employed last year, when he almost single-handedly pushed through a delay in planned income tax cuts.
If it worked then, it very well may work now.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
The plot thickens for a tax increase
by Thomas Keane Jr.
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Tax hike strategy becomes clear
"I don't think there's anything far afield here," said Rep. Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford). "We're all accountable to our constituencies and we're all aware of public perceptions. It's very unfortunate that other people are seeing this as some kind of a license to abuse the system or in some way be irresponsible to the public that we serve. It really pertains to the separation of powers between the branches of government."
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Finneran's legislative compensation bill
to get hearing Thursday
Mr. Finneran's maneuvers to tighten his grip on the House no longer come as a shock. The final depletion of the Clean Elections Law fund he presided over in February effectively was the end of a more than five-year battle to eviscerate the law, approved in a voter referendum in 1998. Not one legislator has proposed that lawmakers' office subsidies - doubled in 2000, purportedly to help them adjust to the new Clean Elections Law - be rolled back....
Like the proliferation of "leadership" posts in the Legislature, per diems and office expenses are little more than backdoor raises to lawmakers' $51,000 base salary.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Monday, April 7, 2003
[Excerpt]
Bill to strengthen Finneran's power revived
YOU HEARD IT FIRST HERE
FIRST!
Question 1 deals only with base pay. Nothing will prevent legislative leaders from giving bonus pay to themselves and their favored, loyal legislative friends, on top of the constitutionally-guaranteed base pay and automatic pay-raises.
CLT NEWS RELEASE
October 1, 1998
CLT Informs Public About Question One
"They are now the only human beings in the world, as far as I know, who have constitutionally guaranteed pay raises," said Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation and Government. "They will eventually be the highest paid legislature in the country, and there's nothing we can do about it." ...
For one thing, the question only addresses "base pay."
Many Democratic lawmakers also get $7,500 bonuses for chairing committees, while leaders such as the Senate president and House speaker get bonuses of $34,590.
Chairmen are appointed by legislative leaders, who also set the amount of the bonuses.
"If times get tough, everyone could be called a leader, and everyone could get bonuses," she said.
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, November 15, 1998
Lawmakers Head for $100,000
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Always being right is sometimes a curse ... when
being right means citizens are nonetheless taken for a ride time and
again by the Bacon Hill Cabal.
Always being right is sometimes a curse ... when you
are a lone voice in the wilderness speaking out against the powerful and
deceptive, but not being heard loudly enough.
Always being right is sometimes a curse ... when your
track record for accuracy is only appreciated belatedly, but rarely
recognized in time.
For instance, finally the media has begun recognize
the so-called Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation for what it is, a
special interest lobbying group for Boston Big Business Fat Cats. We've
been aggressively pointing out this fact for years, to a media choir
response of "high-respected" and "nonpartisan." [See
the CLT Update of Nov. 19, 1998, "Aren't you getting a little tired of Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation?"]
In 1998 CLT was virtually the only voice
against the Legislature's constitutional amendment giving them an
automatic, guaranteed pay raise. We warned that if legislative
"base pay" became untouchable, legislators would still find
creative ways to pad their paychecks -- as they've since done. We even
ran a modest radio
ad campaign to educate voters -- as extensive as our all-volunteer
grassroots network of contributors could afford. (We do the best we
can with what we have; without our membership's contributions, we
could not have had even that limited voice.)
Almost two weeks ago the CLT Update again warned
the "Tax hike strategy becomes clear,"
and now others have begun to recognize it. Actually, we predicted this
reoccurring strategy as long back as Feb. 6, "An old act revisited."
Always being right is sometimes a curse.
We predicted that the "I don't want or need a
tax cut" crowd actually wanted a tax cut so, after winning
Question 4 overwhelmingly in 2000, we immediately filed the CLT
Voluntary Tax and it was adopted last year by the Legislature. So
far, only 677 of 1.5 million taxpayers have taken advantage of it,
providing only $77,342 in additional revenue. We were right again, and
we have demonstrated it.
"If we had wanted to file a bill to kill the initiative petition process, we would have done that,"
state Rep. Robert Spellane of Worcester said yesterday, defending the
desperate assault on the citizens' initiative petition process of
which he is a co-sponsor.
I don't believe him for a moment, nor should anyone
else. The only intent of this attack is to kill the last
remaining voice of the people, the process which he and most other
legislators detest as the only real threat to their absolute power.
Citizens of every political stripe are uniting to
kill this obscene proposal outright.
If we somehow fail, inevitably we'll be
proven right ... but again at the cost of the Curse of Beacon Hill.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Hearing is tomorrow on initiative petitions
Spellane co-authors effort to curb process
By Shaun Sutner
A move to restrict the system that allows citizens to make laws at the ballot box is drawing wide opposition from conservative and progressive activists.
Two liberal lawmakers want to scale back the initiative petition process by hiking the number of signatures to get a question on the ballot, setting up a commission to review ballot questions and limiting the rights of signature gatherers.
State Rep. Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester, and Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, have filed two bills that would make the changes. The measures will be debated at what is expected to be a hotly contested hearing at the Statehouse tomorrow.
Mr. Spellane argued that with lawmakers increasingly hostile to the initiative process, the legislation will reform a system that many observers see as deeply flawed.
The recent successes of ballot measures financed by out-of-state donors or spearheaded by small groups surprised many lawmakers. They include passage in the November election of an initiative that banned bilingual education and the near approval of a question to eliminate the state income tax.
"We're trying to improve the current petition process," Mr. Spellane said, noting that one of the measures also provides for fuller disclosure by financial donors, the only part of the proposal backed by initiative supporters.
"If we had wanted to file a bill to kill the initiative petition process, we would have done that," he said.
The bills' opponents range from Citizens for Limited Taxation, which spearheaded passage of the property tax-limiting Proposition 2½ in 1980, to Massachusetts Voters for Clean Elections, author of the 1998 campaign finance law.
Pamela P. Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, which also opposes the measures, said that despite one or two positive proposed changes, the overall result would be negative.
"We're not going to get into quibbling over details. The effect of the bills is to kill the citizen initiative process," Ms. Wilmot said. "It was instituted to be a check on an unresponsive Legislature. That situation is even more true today."
One of the measures would amend the state constitution. To pass, it must first be approved by two successive sessions of the Legislature, then by the public.
Among other changes, it would increase the number of signatures required to place a question on the ballot from 57,100 to 72,000.
It would also set up a commission to draft titles and language for ballot questions - tasks now performed by the secretary of state and attorney general.
The other bill would set up a commission to draft "fiscal impact statements' detailing the financial effect of ballot questions. It would also require signature collectors to wear identification badges and collect signatures for only one campaign at a time.
Return to
top
Committee on Election Law hearing
State House, Room A-1, Thursday, 10:30 am
The MetroWest Daily News
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
Some pay higher taxes by choice
By Michael Kunzelman
As the April 15 tax deadline draws near, some Bay Staters have paid higher taxes by choice.
A change in the state's tax code, sponsored by Republican lawmakers, gives taxpayers the option of paying income tax at the rate of 5.85 percent instead of the standard 5.3 percent.
For the vast majority of residents, it may have been an easy offer to refuse - if they were aware of the alternative on their tax forms.
As of Saturday, only 677 of 1.5 million taxpayers had checked "yes" on Line 22 and agreed to be taxed at the higher rate, according to Department of Revenue spokesman Tim Connolly.
The optional tax hike, which costs the average taxpayer more than $100, has generated $77,342 in extra revenue for the state, Connolly said.
"It's not likely that these people made a mistake because you really have to go out of your way to do it," he added.
The change, which the Legislature approved last year, was drafted by Citizens for Limited Taxation and supported by Republican leaders in the state House of Representatives.
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, said the measure serves as a challenge to anyone - especially liberal Democrats - who support tax increases as an alternative to cutting government programs.
"This allows people to put their money where their mouth is," Jones said. "Republicans have always supported that."
The measure wasn't intended to be a joke, said state Rep. Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston.
"I view it as more of a rhetorical statement," he added.
CLT Executive Director Barbara Anderson said she initially was surprised when the Legislature approved the change.
"We were just trying to make a statement," she said. "But I think a lot of legislators are tired of people telling them that they need to take a tough vote on taxes. No matter how much they do, it's never enough."
Massachusetts residents paid income tax at a rate of 5.85 percent until 2000, when voters approved Question 4. The ballot question called for rolling back the state income tax to 5 percent by 2003.
The tax rate fell to 5.3 percent as planned. Last year, however, the Legislature approved a tax package that delayed the next phase of the rollback.
Jones said he is surprised that fewer than 700 people have volunteered to pay higher taxes so far.
"The numbers are lower than I expected," he said. "I think that says a lot about the people who were complaining about the rollback."
State Rep. Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat who has sponsored a series of tax increases this year, dismisses the optional tax hike as a "silly thing."
"It completely misses the point," she said. "Government is not a charity. It is understood by most people that government serves all people in the commonwealth, and each of us has to chip in in a way that is fair."
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, April 9, 2003
The plot thickens for a tax increase
by Thomas Keane Jr.
State politicians seem united in saying that income tax increases are off the table. In fact, a tax hike is not only possible, but likely. Already the groundwork is being laid. Later this spring, we'll see a strong push to boost rates.
That may seem hard to believe. After all, 45 percent of voters in November favored Question 1 - an initiative to abolish the income tax. That so many supported what amounted to a nuclear-bomb approach to tax-cutting sent shock waves through the political establishment. A proposed tax hike today probably would not garner even a majority in either the House or Senate, much less the super majority needed to withstand a promised gubernatorial veto.
But things are likely to change. Here's how.
In January, Gov. Mitt Romney offered up a mix of three approaches to bridge the state's $2.8 billion deficit.
One was to reduce state and local aid ($525 million) and eliminate the state's Prescription Advantage program ($100 million). The second involved savings from and reforms to major state programs such as Medicaid, the court system and higher education ($750 million). The third was new revenues from boosting fees, gambling ``mitigation" and other items ($1.425 billion). These all add up to $2.8 billion, by the way.
On the surface, it sounded fine, but the numbers have begun to crumble under scrutiny.
For one, while many of Romney's reforms may have merit, the likelihood of them passing and the savings they claim seem dubious. For example, the higher education establishment has united in opposing most reforms of state colleges and universities ($100 million). Meanwhile, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall not only lambasted Romney's cuts to the court system ($43 million), but said the system actually needed $25 million more.
And then there are the governor's new revenues. Over $400 million comes from suspect, one-time measures (such as the sale of closed human service facilities) that the moderate Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation called one-time fiscal gimmicks. Tobacco settlement money ($220 million) also looks doubtful because of Philip Morris' possible bankruptcy. Many of the budget's $639 million in new fees are questionable. For example, a budgeted $41 million in new revenues from the court system now looks to be more like $10 million. And Romney's casino ``blocking" payments - a goofy idea to begin with - was taken off the table in favor of a limited licensing of video slot machine parlors. Don't count on that either.
By the end of this month, the Legislature will, in all likelihood, grant the governor's assumption that the deficit really is $2.8 billion. But it will also conclude that the governor's reforms and new revenues will fall far short.
So where will the difference come from? Not taxes. House Speaker Thomas Finneran and Senate President Robert Traviglini are too clever for that. Rather, they will propose vastly deeper reductions in local aid, human services and other key state programs.
And then the fun will begin.
For while voters may not want tax hikes, they are even more opposed to cuts in programs. (A recent Boston Globe poll made this clear: 55 percent oppose raising the income tax but even higher majorities - 73 percent when it comes to human services - oppose cutting various programs.)
And those cuts will be visible and painful. Even under Romney's original budget, for example, Boston is saying it has to close five schools, hire fewer cops and cut 1,700 jobs. Deeper cuts will be even more noticeable.
Add to that the inevitable, plaintive advertisements from teachers, nurses and other interest groups, and one will begin to see a drumbeat for new taxes. Members of the Legislature will face a Hobson's choice: voters angry about higher taxes or voters angry about cuts in local services.
Here's betting they choose taxes.
Why? They're less politically risky. Program cuts hit individuals hard while tax hikes impose broad, diffuse burdens. A shuttered neighborhood school has much more of an impact on people than does a small rise in income tax rates.
The counter-argument to this, of course, is an event seared in every politician's memory: 1990. That year, a furious electorate turned out pols who had supported Gov. Michael Dukakis' pleas for new taxes.
But today's world is different. This year's proposed cuts are more onerous. And, critically, Romney is no Dukakis. Back then, people thought government full of waste, fraud and abuse. Romney, presumably, tolerates none of that.
There's one other factor as well. The scenario I describe is really just a variation on the strategy Finneran successfully employed last year, when he almost single-handedly pushed through a delay in planned income tax cuts.
If it worked then, it very well may work now.
Return to
top
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, March 29, 2003
Tax hike strategy becomes clear
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Finneran's legislative compensation bill
to get hearing Thursday
10 am in State House Room B-2
A legislative panel on Thursday will hear Speaker Thomas Finneran's new bill that would allow the House and Senate alone to adjust the premium pay of their members. Present laws require the governor to sign off on any premium pay increases.
Finneran aides say Gov. Mitt Romney was able to create new leadership posts and set the pay of his own top aides, and they should be able to do the same.
The House chairman of the Public Service Committee, which will hear Finneran's bill Thursday, supports the bill.
"I don't think there's anything far afield here," said Rep. Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford). "We're all accountable to our constituencies and we're all aware of public perceptions. It's very unfortunate that other people are seeing this as some kind of a license to abuse the system or in some way be irresponsible to the public that we serve. It really pertains to the separation of powers between the branches of government."
The bonus pay changes are part of a committee modernization package that would formally create a House Committee on Medicaid. Finneran has tapped Rep. Daniel Keenan (D-Southwick) to lead that committee and proposes paying Keenan $15,000 on top of his constitutionally-set legislative base salary of $53,380.
Finneran is also proposing the elimination of the Joint Committees on Local Affairs, Counties and Federal Financial Assistance. He would replace them with a Joint Committee on Homeland Security and Federal Affairs and new House Committee on Local Affairs and Regional Government. For changes in the joint committee structure to take effect, senators must agree.
Return to
top
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
CLT NEWS RELEASE
October 1, 1998
CLT Informs Public About Question One
The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
Sunday, November 15, 1998
Lawmakers Head for $100,000
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|