|
Help save yourself -- join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
CLT UPDATE
Monday, January 30, 2012
Division, dysfunction, and desperation deployed
|
Taxes on candy and soda and an expansion of the
Bay State’s bottle bill are two “widely supported” ways to increase
revenue, Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters as he filed a $32.3
billion budget yesterday, just under 3 percent larger than this
year’s.
“We’re listening to outside voices,” Patrick said
at a State House press conference yesterday morning. “I think it’s
important for the Legislature to listen as well.”
Patrick said Bay State residents don’t mind
paying more for chocolate bars and cola or shelling out deposits for
bottles of water and Gatorade — just as they do for carbonated
drinks.
He cited two polls to back up his claims, though
some may question the objectivity of at least one of them....
Besides candy and soda, Patrick also wants to
increase taxes on cigarettes and bring taxes on cigars and smokeless
tobacco up to the same level as cigarettes.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gov. Deval Patrick insists public will support tax on soda, candy
Governor Deval Patrick proposed a $32.3 billion
annual spending plan yesterday that would eliminate 240,000 free and
subsidized lunches for senior citizens, apply the sales tax to candy
and soda, and close a prison in Norfolk while boosting spending on
education to unprecedented levels.
His budget would also cut 300 state jobs and
slash funding for the Registry of Motor Vehicles by $15 million, a
move that elicited assurances from the administration yesterday that
lines would not grow....
Patrick’s budget chief, Jay Gonzalez, would not
quantify the budget gap for the coming year, but offered an even
bleaker assessment. He said the state will never again be able to
pay for the level of services it provided before the recession,
citing long-term debts, including $40 billion in unfunded liability
for current and future state and municipal retiree health
benefits....
To balance the budget, Patrick said, he would
pull $400 million from the state’s rainy day fund. He included $260
million in new revenue proposals, including taxes on candy and soda,
a tax increase on cigarettes, and a new deposit requirement for
bottled water....
Senator Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat who
leads the Senate budget committee, said the state has “gotten
through the very worst of times by not having tax increases.’’
“I would suspect that we would be inclined not to
do those measures,’’ he said of the tax and fee hikes.
House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., who
last week said Patrick had a “sweet tooth for tax increases,’’ said
yesterday that the budget fails to deliver fiscal responsibility.
“These recommendations come at a severe cost to
the taxpayer,’’ Jones, a North Reading Republican, said in a
prepared statement. “In these dire economic times, we must explore
and exhaust all other potential avenues before we consider raising
taxes and fees.’’
But Patrick portrayed the tax measures as modest.
“Altogether, these new revenues amount to less
than 1 percent of this budget,’’ Patrick said. “They are not new.
They are still sensible, still widely supported in the general
public, in most cases, and still necessary.’’ ...
Asked about cuts to the state Registry of Motor
Vehicles, the governor encouraged motorists to take advantage of
online services whenever possible.
“We have to start doing things differently in a
whole host of areas, and that is not just government doing things
differently,’’ Patrick said. “It is asking citizens to interact with
their government differently, not less, but just differently.’’
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 25, 2012
A call to add levies to candy and soda
State transportation officials said yesterday
they did not expect a proposed $15 million budget cut to force
layoffs or branch closings at the, Registry of Motor Vehicles,
expressing confidence they could defray the lost revenue by selling
online advertisements and leasing surplus property....
But in 2009, a $13 million budget cut forced the
Registry to close 11 branch offices, leading to longer waits. In
another cost-cutting measure, the Registry in 2008 stopped mailing
notices of license renewals, saving $800,000, though it later
introduced an automated message system for renewal reminders.
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2012
Revenue alternatives sought for Registry
Subsidized health care programs – most
prominently MassHealth, which provides insurance coverage for more
than 1.3 million low-income Massachusetts residents – are projected
to consume more than $13 billion in the next fiscal year, consuming
40 percent of the governor’s proposed $32.3 billion budget.
In addition, surging costs for debt service,
pensions and collective bargaining deals have left budget writers
aiming their knives at discretionary programs....
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones said the
governor’s proposals to increase taxes and draw down the rainy day
fund “come at a severe cost to the taxpayer.”
“In these dire economic times, we must explore
and exhaust all other potential avenues before we consider raising
taxes and fees as the Governor plans to do,” he said. “While I
commend the Governor for realizing the importance of fostering job
growth in Massachusetts, I fail to see how his various proposals
will meet that expectation.”
The criticism wasn’t strictly partisan; Sen.
Richard Moore (D-Uxbridge) slammed the governor for proposing tax
increases.
“We’ve made a good deal of progress in putting
people back to work and making state government work better, but
there is certainly more we can, we must do,” Moore said in a
statement billed as a reaction to the governor’s State of the
Commonwealth address delivered Monday. “However, I think the
Governor’s agenda, leads Massachusetts in the wrong direction.”
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Investments aside, Patrick budget relies on host of fixes for
balance
Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget team may not have
used smoke and mirrors to balance their spending proposal for the
next fiscal year but they certainly used some clever accounting to
make the numbers add up.
For starters, to balance the $32.3 billion
spending proposal they would dip into the rainy-day fund — the
taxpayers’ rather battered savings account — for a total of $400
million. That’s become a routine budget device, but didn’t they just
make a big show of depositing $350 million of last year’s surplus
into stabilization?
Yep, that was barely two months ago, and it
brought the rainy-day balance back up to $1.4 billion from a low of
under $500 million (but a high of $2.1 billion before the 2008
recession). This budget proposal would also cancel a mandatory $100
million deposit into the rainy-day account next year. Watching that
account rise and fall with the administration’s spending priorities
is enough to make a taxpayer dizzy....
When nearly half the state budget is eaten up by
health care costs for the poor and public employees and other big
chunks are earmarked for pensions, debt service and union raises, it
doesn’t leave budget-writers much wiggle room. But let’s face it,
tax hikes, a rainy-day raid and flimsy savings assumptions are
easier than challenging the most entrenched special interests.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, January 27, 2012
More budget roulette
Gov. Deval Patrick is convinced that
Massachusetts voters are simply clamoring to pay more taxes on their
candy and soda, and they just can’t wait to pay a 5-cent deposit on
every bottle of water or Gatorade they buy.
Really?
Patrick points to a poll funded by the Boston
Foundation — which has lobbied for the candy bar tax — that purports
to show 69 percent of the population wants to see their candy bars
and soft drinks carry a 6.25 percent sales tax. Now we’re always a
little skeptical when any group that advocates a particular position
funds a poll that finds — surprise, surprise — public backing for
their position.
But not so the governor. Of course, if he really
wanted to govern using polls he would have taken seriously the
“poll” of Bay Staters when they voted in favor of bringing the
income tax back down to 5 percent — an aim not yet accomplished.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, January 27, 2012
Oh please tax us more!
Ending the sales-tax exemption on soda and
candy would raise about $61.5 million in annual revenues for
Massachusetts, obviating the need for other tax hikes or service
cuts. And, incidentally, it could help persuade kids to eat less
of the stuff and make them healthier in the process. Already, 35
states apply their sales tax to soda and 30 to candy. It’s such
an obvious win-win that it boggles the mind that the Legislature
hasn’t adopted it yet.
A Boston Globe editorial
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sugary treats: The tax man cometh
The Telegram & Gazette
Editorial cartoon by David Hitch
Friday, January 27, 2012
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The governor's proposed tax-creep is a good example of what would happen if we
hadn't stopped (five times over the decades) a graduated income
tax from becoming the law of the land in Taxachusetts, instead
of keeping the commonwealth's flat rate across all incomes. CLT's
argument against a "Grad Tax" since the late-'70s has always been that it would allow
taxpayers to be divided and conquered. A "progressive" income tax
would empower Beacon Hill to pick off one income bracket at a
time, one after another, without ever reaching a critical mass of
resistance. The income tax could have — and would have many times
by now — been ratcheted up incrementally, one emasculated
bracket group at a time.
With that irresistible power restrained, Beacon Hill
must select its target victims more discriminately. It is limited to
dividing and conquering around the edges. The most effective ploy in
recent times is imposing, then increasing, so-called "sin taxes" —
asserting that a tax is a benefit for the "sinners." It's the only way
they can be restrained from further sinning, and the number of
"sins" keeps expanding.
And amazingly, they still claim with a straight
face to be doing it
"For The Children"!
Even more duplicitous, Governor Patrick is not
only attempting to
shakedown taxpayers again, but he's insulting our intelligence by
asserting that we want to pay even more to the state!
CLT's news release
pointed out on Friday that
if the governor insists on taxation by polling, then start by rolling back
the income
tax rate to 5% as voters mandated on the 2000 ballot.
Part of his proposals to balance his budget is to "slash funding
for the Registry of Motor Vehicles by $15 million." Like laying off
police, firefighters, and teachers, it's a strategic policy decision
to "cut spending" where taxpayers will feel the most pain —
in this case a state agency we all must confront on too regular a basis
at extraordinary personal cost.
Asked about cuts to the state Registry of Motor
Vehicles, the governor encouraged motorists to take advantage of
online services whenever possible.
“We have to start doing things differently in a
whole host of areas, and that is not just government doing things
differently,’’ Patrick said. “It is asking citizens to interact with
their government differently, not less, but just differently.’’
[Emphasis mine]
In 1999 the Eagle-Tribune published an
investigative series on the Registry of Motor Vehicles. In Part One of his
exposé, "No
competition, no regard," Eagle-Tribune reporter John Macone
wrote:
A business with a built-in customer base of 5
million people who will wait in line for an hour or more to buy
its products.
A huge profit margin — better than 1,000 percent. Every dollar
invested in overhead returns about $14.
And there will never be a competitor. Ever.
If you live in Massachusetts, you own a piece of this business.
But you are likely one of its hapless customers, too.
The business is the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles.
With $807 million in revenue last year, it is the second-biggest
generator of money for the state, said Registrar Richard D.
Lyons. The registry is outdone only by the massive state
Department of Revenue, which collects income and sales taxes.
With an entity that brings in that much money and has direct
dealings with five out of six Massachusetts residents, you might
think there would be enough money — and enough will on the part
of state leaders — to take care of the busy signals on its phone
lines and the frustratingly long lines that people often face at
its offices....
The registry's budget is about $57 million, but it brings in
about $800 million in license and registration fees, tickets,
sales taxes and other fees. That income represents about 8
percent of the state's entire budget of $20.5 billion....
[Chip] Ford of Citizens for Limited Taxation
sued the state in
the early 1990s over registry fees, arguing that the drafters of
the Massachusetts state constitution decreed that no fee could
be higher than the cost of the service they pay for.
The state settled out of court, and the lifetime system was part
of the settlement.
"Those old founders, they knew what was coming," Mr. Ford said.
"It seems like every few years someone tries something like
this. Clearly we're falling back into that trap."
Summarizing that 1999 investigative report in an
editorial ("Shutting
down a cash cow"), The Eagle-Tribune concluded:
The Registry generated $807 million in
revenues for the state last year, including $375 million in
license and registration fees.
Yet it cost only $60 million to run the agency.
The Registry is, in financial terms, a "cash cow."
CLT helped defeat the proposed Registry fee
increases that year. In the
CLT Update of July 28, 1999 I wrote:
It's sure nice to win one every now and then
isn't it!
Yesterday, when I received a call from Boston Herald Statehouse
reporter Ellen Silberman, I was asked how it felt to be on
Senate President Tom Birmingham's side of an issue. I responded
that she was asking the wrong question or the wrong person.
"You should be asking the senate president how it feels to be on
CLT's side for a change," I replied, "because this has been our
position since
our 1989 lawsuit challenged fee increases."
So apparently she did.
I faxed her another copy of our
July 12th memo to the Legislature.
Again, representing the taxpayers of Massachusetts, CLT rode to
the rescue and saved Bay State motorists an estimated $70-$100
million of additional revenue each and every year.
Just add that to what CLT saves you and other motorists every
year on your auto excise tax alone (reduced from $65 to $25 for
every $1,000 of assessed value), thanks to Prop 2½!
Can you afford not to support CLT and keep it working for
you?
That was almost thirteen years ago, when the
state budget was $20.5 billion, a third smaller than today's. Little has
changed at the Registry of Motor Vehicles but branch offices around
the state being closed and service reduced. Thanks to the Internet and online
payments, in some instances waiting lines have been reduced as more
citizens avoid confrontations, but
fees have only increased.
In his infinite wisdom, Gov. Patrick wants to
slash the Registry of Motor Vehicles budget more, undoubtedly
leading to fewer, even more distant, branch offices and longer lines
of "customers" feeding the state's "cash cow."
On Jan. 14, I wrote of the ever increasing state
budgets and deeper debt burden ($31B
state budget still not enough without new "revenue"?).
On Jan. 21, I detailed the unconscionable and
ever-increasing tax burden on smokers, and how this massive revenue
stream is unsustainable (Gov.
Patrick proposes more taxes, fee hikes, as usual). The Law of
Diminishing Returns will inevitably kill that golden goose — that
displaced revenue will need to come from somewhere else.
Now it's the state's cash cow that's being
smothered. No doubt this is with the expectation that down the road
new Registry fee increases will again be "necessary" to "alleviate"
the problem now being conscientiously nurtured.
Once again, division, dysfunction, and
desperation deployed.
Mark Twain said "The only two certainties in life
are death and taxes." In Massachusetts we can add a third
certainty: The Boston Globe editorials when it comes to
taxes:
"Ending the sales-tax exemption on soda and
candy would raise about $61.5 million in annual revenues for
Massachusetts, obviating the need for other tax hikes or service
cuts. And, incidentally, it could help persuade kids to eat less
of the stuff and make them healthier in the process. Already, 35
states apply their sales tax to soda and 30 to candy. It’s such
an obvious win-win that it boggles the mind that the Legislature
hasn’t adopted it yet."
Has the Boston Globe ever surprised us
with any new tax or tax hike it doesn't support?
Along with us, and most taxpayers I'll wager, the
Boston Herald gets it:
"Patrick points to a poll funded by the Boston
Foundation — which has lobbied for the candy bar tax — that purports
to show 69 percent of the population wants to see their candy bars
and soft drinks carry a 6.25 percent sales tax. Now we’re always a
little skeptical when any group that advocates a particular position
funds a poll that finds — surprise, surprise — public backing for
their position.
"But not so the governor. Of course, if he really
wanted to govern using polls he would have taken seriously the
“poll” of Bay Staters when they voted in favor of bringing the
income tax back down to 5 percent — an aim not yet accomplished."
Have you heard any clamor from the huddled masses
demanding more, more, more taxes — even to save them from
themselves?
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gov. Deval Patrick insists public will support tax on soda, candy
By Chris Cassidy
Taxes on candy and soda and an expansion of the Bay State’s bottle
bill are two “widely supported” ways to increase revenue, Gov. Deval
Patrick told reporters as he filed a $32.3 billion budget yesterday,
just under 3 percent larger than this year’s.
“We’re listening to outside voices,” Patrick said at a State House
press conference yesterday morning. “I think it’s important for the
Legislature to listen as well.”
Patrick said Bay State residents don’t mind paying more for
chocolate bars and cola or shelling out deposits for bottles of
water and Gatorade — just as they do for carbonated drinks.
He cited two polls to back up his claims, though some may question
the objectivity of at least one of them.
Patrick said 69 percent of the public supports the elimination of
tax exemptions on candy and soda, according to a poll from the
Boston Foundation and New England Healthcare Institute. However, the
Boston Foundation spent thousands on lobbyists to support a bill to
eliminate the soda tax exemption last year, according to disclosure
forms filed with the state.
Patrick also cited a MassINC poll claiming 77 percent of the public
supports an expansion of the bottle bill.
Besides candy and soda, Patrick also wants to increase taxes on
cigarettes and bring taxes on cigars and smokeless tobacco up to the
same level as cigarettes.
The revenue, Patrick said, amounts to less than 1 percent of the
budget. He warned tough choices lie ahead as the Legislature tackles
his budget, saying it will require sacrifice.
“I’m asking the Legislature to make tough choices,” Patrick said.
“The progress we’ve made is happening because we’ve made those
choices and made them together.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, January 25, 2012
Patrick seeks job cuts, new school aid
Budget plan would shut Norfolk prison;
A call to add levies to candy and soda
By Noah Bierman and Stephanie Ebbert
Governor Deval Patrick proposed a $32.3 billion annual spending plan
yesterday that would eliminate 240,000 free and subsidized lunches
for senior citizens, apply the sales tax to candy and soda, and
close a prison in Norfolk while boosting spending on education to
unprecedented levels.
His budget would also cut 300 state jobs and slash funding for the
Registry of Motor Vehicles by $15 million, a move that elicited
assurances from the administration yesterday that lines would not
grow.
Though Massachusetts has emerged from the depths of the recession on
stronger footing than most other states, Patrick and his budget
chief warned that the Bay State is far from flush with cash. Despite
a proposed 3 percent growth in spending for the budget year that
begins July 1, the state will have to reduce many services because
health costs and negotiated union salaries continue to grow at a
faster clip than taxes are coming in.
“More people are getting back to work, which is great news,’’
Patrick said. “But we still have unprecedented needs to meet on
health care, emergency housing, and other essential services because
of the numbers of people whose lives have been turned upside down by
the global economic collapse.’’
Patrick’s budget chief, Jay Gonzalez, would not quantify the budget
gap for the coming year, but offered an even bleaker assessment. He
said the state will never again be able to pay for the level of
services it provided before the recession, citing long-term debts,
including $40 billion in unfunded liability for current and future
state and municipal retiree health benefits.
“The impacts of the recession have been unprecedented and
significant,’’ he said, adding that he has been inundated with
requests in recent weeks from service providers who assumed the
state was on sounder financial footing. Many left disappointed.
Still, this year’s spending plan lacked some of the more draconian
cuts that have marked budgets in recent years, and Patrick said the
state is making concerted effort to invest in targeted areas.
He proposed a $145 million increase in K-12 education aid for local
communities, $10 million more for community colleges, and $11
million more for veterans services.
“We chose to grow our way out of this recession, and you can’t grow
without a growth strategy,’’ the governor said. “That is why we have
invested significantly in education, innovation, and in
infrastructure and why we propose to do so again in the coming
fiscal year.’’
To balance the budget, Patrick said, he would pull $400 million from
the state’s rainy day fund. He included $260 million in new revenue
proposals, including taxes on candy and soda, a tax increase on
cigarettes, and a new deposit requirement for bottled water.
The governor is also hoping to curb the growth of health costs by
$730 million, through changes that include renegotiating contracts
with health care providers for low-income residents.
The House and Senate will each propose their own spending plans over
the next four months. The chambers must agree on a final product
before getting it to Patrick’s desk for a signature in time for the
next budget year, which begins July 1.
Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation, said Patrick’s budget is responsible, but is balanced
based on two ambitious premises.
“The Legislature has to decide, first, are they going to do new
taxes in an election year? And are the savings realistic?’’ Widmer
said.
Lawmakers have already said no in recent years to Patrick’s call for
removing the sales tax exemption on candy and soda, with the $61.5
million in proceeds going to boost public health programs. This
week, the House waylaid a separate proposal to expand the bottle
bill.
Other would-be savings in Patrick’s spending plan - closing a prison
and merging the Parole Board with the Probation Department - were
also rejected last year.
Senator Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat who leads the Senate
budget committee, said the state has “gotten through the very worst
of times by not having tax increases.’’
“I would suspect that we would be inclined not to do those
measures,’’ he said of the tax and fee hikes.
House minority leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., who last week said
Patrick had a “sweet tooth for tax increases,’’ said yesterday that
the budget fails to deliver fiscal responsibility.
“These recommendations come at a severe cost to the taxpayer,’’
Jones, a North Reading Republican, said in a prepared statement. “In
these dire economic times, we must explore and exhaust all other
potential avenues before we consider raising taxes and fees.’’
But Patrick portrayed the tax measures as modest.
“Altogether, these new revenues amount to less than 1 percent of
this budget,’’ Patrick said. “They are not new. They are still
sensible, still widely supported in the general public, in most
cases, and still necessary.’’
Many of the overall cuts, he said, are cost-savers that would also
make government more efficient. Closing the 330-bed Bay State
Correctional Facility in Norfolk, for example, would save the state
$8.9 million. Gonzalez said space for the facility’s inmates would
become available in other prisons if lawmakers embrace Patrick’s
plan to reduce sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
Asked about cuts to the state Registry of Motor Vehicles, the
governor encouraged motorists to take advantage of online services
whenever possible.
“We have to start doing things differently in a whole host of areas,
and that is not just government doing things differently,’’ Patrick
said. “It is asking citizens to interact with their government
differently, not less, but just differently.’’
Social services advocates said the proposed budget does not reflect
a state economy that the governor contends is growing faster than
those in other states. The budget trims funding for low-income
child-care vouchers, a cut that could swell the waiting list by
5,000 families. It eliminates grant funding that pays for school
nurses in 105 private schools and two public schools.
Leo Sarkissian - executive director of The Arc of Massachusetts, a
statewide disability advocacy agency - has been urging Patrick to
restore to 2009 levels the funding for programs that help families
care for disabled children and adults with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. Instead, the governor is proposing
further cuts of $5.5 million. Additional cuts would target a program
for students who turn 22 and age out of special education but do not
qualify for adult services.
“These families are struggling,’’ Sarkissian said. “They have
additional responsibilities compared to the average person.’’
Not everyone felt the sting. Aimee Coolidge, director of community
and government relations for the Pine Street Inn, was thrilled to
see the governor propose an increase of about $1.1 million in
programs that serve homeless individuals, as well as additional
money for long-term housing.
“This is the first time we’re seeing some new resources here in a
decade, so we’re saying, ‘Yippee!’ ’’ said Coolidge.
Martin Finucane of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 27, 2012
Revenue alternatives sought for Registry
By Peter Schworm
State transportation officials said yesterday they did not expect a
proposed $15 million budget cut to force layoffs or branch closings
at the, Registry of Motor Vehicles, expressing confidence they could
defray the lost revenue by selling online advertisements and leasing
surplus property.
Yet the spending cut, announced Wednesday as part of Governor Deval
Patrick’s $32.3 billion proposed budget, could affect service at the
state’s 30 Registry branches if revenue falls short.
“We believe we can manage this reduction by generating new
revenues,’’ Richard Davey, the state’s transportation secretary,
said in a statement. “Only if we are unable to generate the entire
amount of revenue needed to absorb the cut will we look to reduce
services.’’
Patrick’s spending plan calls for a $15 million cut to the
Transportation Department, which could reduce spending elsewhere to
minimize the impact on the Registry, officials said.
Cutting the Registry’s budget can be politically risky, because
longer waits at branches often stir public frustration.
In response to reports on the potential impact of the budget cut,
Davey said that many news outlets had incorrectly reported that the
cut would result in “longer wait times and service reductions.’’
But in 2009, a $13 million budget cut forced the Registry to close
11 branch offices, leading to longer waits. In another cost-cutting
measure, the Registry in 2008 stopped mailing notices of license
renewals, saving $800,000, though it later introduced an automated
message system for renewal reminders.
To reduce delays, the registry has urged drivers to conduct their
business online and has forged a partnership with AAA that allows
members to perform transactions at six club offices. Last year,
average wait times fell sharply, from nearly 30 minutes to 13,
according to the registry.
Registrar Rachel Kaprielian said the Registry would not be able to
absorb millions in cuts without compromising service and would rely
on increased revenue to offset the loss. Otherwise, the Registry
would cut spending as necessary, she said.
“It would be staff; it would be branches; it would be a combination
of decisions,’’ she said. “We’ve taken cuts over the years, and
we’ve managed them.’’
Kaprielian said waiting times in Massachusetts are substantially
lower than in most other states, although the number of branches and
employees has been pared in recent years.
Nearly 3 million transactions were conducted through the Registry’s
website last year, a large audience for potential advertisers. The
Transportation Department also has a substantial inventory of
property that could be sold or leased, officials said, though the
state declined to say how much money the properties are likely
worth.
The Transportation Department has been exploring the possibility of
raising more revenue in anticipation of budget cuts, officials said.
The House and Senate will each propose their own budgets in the
coming months. The budget year begins in July. The chairmen of the
Legislature’s Transportation Committee, Thomas McGee and William
Straus, could not be reached for comment.
As the Registry has expanded the number of transactions that can be
done electronically, drivers have increasingly turned to the
convenience of the Web. Still, approximately one-third of visitors
who go to the Registry could have conducted their business online,
Kaprielian said.
State officials said they will continue to encourage motorists to go
online whenever possible as part of a broader effort to streamline
government through technology.
“We have to start doing things differently in a whole host of areas,
and that is not just government doing things differently,’’ Patrick
said Wednesday. “It is asking citizens to interact with their
government differently, not less, but just differently.’’
Davey reiterated the point yesterday, saying, “It no longer makes
sense for many people to go to an RMV branch to conduct the same
transactions they can do in minutes from their home computers.’’
For those who need or prefer to show up in person, the AAA offices
have proved a popular alternative, said Lloyd Albert of AAA Southern
New England. Transactions last year were up 35 percent from the year
before, he said. “The word is getting out, I think,’’ he said. “The
wait is usually under five minutes.’’
In Rhode Island, more than half of all license renewals last year
were done at an AAA office, Albert said. “The upside in
Massachusetts is substantial.’’
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Investments aside, Patrick budget relies on host of fixes for
balance
By Kyle Cheney
Although Beacon Hill leaders have touted Massachusetts’s economic
recovery, the annual spending plan released by Gov. Deval Patrick on
Wednesday revealed a state still grappling with sluggish growth,
dependent on ambitious savings proposals, some new targeted taxes,
cuts to public health programs and government layoffs to balance a
budget crushed by soaring health care costs.
Subsidized health care programs – most prominently MassHealth, which
provides insurance coverage for more than 1.3 million low-income
Massachusetts residents – are projected to consume more than $13
billion in the next fiscal year, consuming 40 percent of the
governor’s proposed $32.3 billion budget.
In addition, surging costs for debt service, pensions and collective
bargaining deals have left budget writers aiming their knives at
discretionary programs. A $145 million increase in local education
aid proposed by the governor, as well as a Supreme Judicial Court
decision that forces the state to provide health care coverage to
tens of thousands of legal, documented immigrants – piling an
estimated $150 million in additional costs onto the budget – will
increase pressure on other discretionary programs.
Patrick’s budget proposes more than $200 million in cuts, a modest
amount compared to recent years. But his budget is also dependent on
the Legislature’s willingness to support $260 million in new
revenues, fees and taxes – including a 50-cent-per-pack increase in
the cigarette tax and the elimination a sales tax exemption on
sweetened candy and soda – lopping $730 million off the growing cost
of subsidized health care programs, the elimination of 300
government positions, a draw of $400 million from the rainy day
fund, and the cancellation of a statutorily required $100 million
transfer into the rainy day fund.
Without those fixes, the administration would be facing a budget gap
of more than $1.8 billion, although administration officials refused
to quantify the exact challenge they faced when crafting the budget.
“It is still raining,” said Jay Gonzalez, Gov. Deval Patrick’s
budget chief, in a briefing with reporters after the governor
reviewed the highlights of his plan. “Based on what economists tell
us is the sustainable amount of revenue to budget against, the
actual amount that we are projecting to get next year is still short
of that amount. We have not yet hit full recovery.”
The governor’s budget isn’t all cuts, however. He plans to increase
community college funding by $10 million and empower the Board of
Higher Education to coordinate curriculum, funding and leadership
decisions for the 15 campuses. He also increased support for
programs intended to combat youth violence, for full-day
kindergarten grants, for legal aid and for efforts to combat
homelessness.
The governor also increased support services for veterans by $11.25
million, following an influx of returning service members from Iraq.
The governor also included about $4 million to support science,
technology, engineering and math education programs, as well as $10
million to help close educational achievement gaps in so-called
Gateway Cities.
BREAKING DOWN THE BUDGET
The budget was balanced primarily through cost-saving initiatives,
Gonzalez said, ticking off a handful: the closure of a Norfolk
County prison; calling for a new round of contract procurement in
Commonwealth Care, a taxpayer-subsidized health care program for
low-income residents; stepped-up support for programs to root out
Medicaid waste and fraud; a merger of the Probation Department and
Parole Board within the Executive Branch, and a greater reliance on
public lawyers to work as defense counsel for the indigent.
“We are relentlessly focused on doing everything we can to change
the way government does business. Our new fiscal reality absolutely
demands that we do things differently,” Gonzalez said.
Even with the proposed reforms, the governor’s budget guts a slew of
programs, including some that serve the state’s most vulnerable
residents. For example, the budget proposal slashes support for
school nurses and for subsidized lunches for the elderly. Overall,
91 budget line items were cut, 243 were level funded and 297 were
increased, according to administration budget officials.
One reporter wondered why Patrick sliced funds from small-dollar
programs at all, suggesting that the cuts might amount to “short
money.”
“People point to this or that and say, that’s short money. The
problem is, all that short money adds up to big money,” Patrick said
at a press conference announcing his budget.
Patrick also said that uncertainty in federal aid to states were a
factor in the administration’s thinking.
“We aren’t taking a whole lot for granted. We know this is going to
be a challenging budget,” he said. “There are uncertainties on the
level of federal support. There have been uncertainties for years
now.”
Michael Widmer, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation,
described the governor’s budget as “fiscally responsible” but said
it was built on “question marks” about health care savings and
initiatives that lawmakers are unlikely to support.
The governor’s budget proposes to curb $730 million in health care
cost growth, in part by slashing $40 million in reimbursements to
hospitals, cracking down on Medicaid fraud and waste, wringing
savings out of health insurers that cover members of Commonwealth
Care by requiring a new round of contract procurement, cutting costs
for behavioral health services, and beginning to move away from the
fee-for-service system provider reimbursements.
Even with the savings, the costs of the state’s Medicaid program –
known as MassHealth – Commonwealth Care, and state employee health
care offered through the Group Insurance Commission are projected to
climb about $550 million. Last year, the governor proposed squeezing
$1 billion out of those programs, and although Patrick claimed
victory on that effort Wednesday, Widmer said the results had been
mixed. And he said a second straight year of slow health care cost
growth would be “enormously challenging.”
“Another round of provider rate reductions puts enormous pressure on
the hospitals in this state,” he said. “The governor’s putting great
pressure on the private side. They’re underpaying on the public
side. There’s a contradiction there. Can they achieve it? And then
what are the repercussions?”
Widmer noted that lawmakers are unlikely to entertain Patrick’s
proposals to merge probation and parole agencies, and he noted they
have previously rejected several of his tax proposals.
Asked whether the governor hoped the probation and parole merger
would gain support if a patronage scandal within the state Probation
Department remains in the news, Gonzalez rejected suggestion.
“Our proposal is not a function of any scandal or anything that
might be under investigation right now. It’s about how do we do a
better job reintegrating people into our communities,” he said.
The governor’s budget also factors in the elimination of 1,100 state
government positions, offset by hundreds of new hires, to amount to
a net reduction of 300 jobs. Among the 1,100 eliminated positions
are 400 from the Executive Branch that Gonzalez said would save $30
million. He said the staff reductions would leave the state
workforce with 60,000 positions, about 6,000 fewer than it had
before the national recession.
The budget also assumes no revenue from expanded gambling
facilities, although Gonzalez noted that a slots-only facility
contemplated in the newly signed gambling law could be producing
revenue before the end of the next fiscal year.
“We think it’s possible we could have revenues from the licensing of
the slots. But it’s not something we can count on,” he said.
The governor also agreed to a request by Treasurer Steven Grossman,
proposing to increase the advertising budget of the Lottery from $2
million to $5 million. Grossman argued that a more robust
advertising budget would increase lottery sales and generate
additional revenue for local aid.
In his briefing with reporters, Gonzalez said he anticipates
publishing what he called the first-ever long-term policy for the
prudent use of rainy day funds.
POST-BUDGET SPIN
The governor’s budget proposal drew a torrent of reaction from
stakeholders. Developmental disability providers ripped the proposal
for cutting support for family respite services, and small business
advocates said it failed to curb regulations. Tobacco Free Kids and
the American Lung Association hailed the governor for proposing to
increase the cigarette tax and immigrant advocates praised the
governor for providing funds to uphold the SJC decision and include
legal immigrants in Commonwealth Care. Human service providers
praised the governor but called for a salary reserve to support
low-income workers who care for vulnerable residents.
Health Care For All, a consumer advocacy group, saluted the governor
for a “strong commitment to health care coverage, public health and
cost control” and for proposing to increase the cigarette tax and
eliminate the sales tax exemption on candy and soda. However, the
group called on lawmakers to restore MassHealth’s “substantially
reduced” dental benefits for adults.
House Minority Leader Bradley Jones said the governor’s proposals to
increase taxes and draw down the rainy day fund “come at a severe
cost to the taxpayer.”
“In these dire economic times, we must explore and exhaust all other
potential avenues before we consider raising taxes and fees as the
Governor plans to do,” he said. “While I commend the Governor for
realizing the importance of fostering job growth in Massachusetts, I
fail to see how his various proposals will meet that expectation.”
The criticism wasn’t strictly partisan; Sen. Richard Moore
(D-Uxbridge) slammed the governor for proposing tax increases.
“We’ve made a good deal of progress in putting people back to work
and making state government work better, but there is certainly more
we can, we must do,” Moore said in a statement billed as a reaction
to the governor’s State of the Commonwealth address delivered
Monday. “However, I think the Governor’s agenda, leads Massachusetts
in the wrong direction.”
Moore added that he supports the governor’s calls to curb health
care costs and crack down on violent habitual offenders.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Boston Herald editorial
More budget roulette
Gov. Deval Patrick’s budget team may not have used smoke and mirrors
to balance their spending proposal for the next fiscal year but they
certainly used some clever accounting to make the numbers add up.
For starters, to balance the $32.3 billion spending proposal they
would dip into the rainy-day fund — the taxpayers’ rather battered
savings account — for a total of $400 million. That’s become a
routine budget device, but didn’t they just make a big show of
depositing $350 million of last year’s surplus into stabilization?
Yep, that was barely two months ago, and it brought the rainy-day
balance back up to $1.4 billion from a low of under $500 million
(but a high of $2.1 billion before the 2008 recession). This budget
proposal would also cancel a mandatory $100 million deposit into the
rainy-day account next year. Watching that account rise and fall
with the administration’s spending priorities is enough to make a
taxpayer dizzy.
And if we are fortunate enough to have a surplus of tax revenue
*this* year forget an immediate rainy-day deposit because the first
$15 million is already earmarked for Patrick’s pet grant-making fund
for private life-sciences start-ups, which he insists is a big job
generator — or will be, anyway. He has promised another $10 million
of any surplus to community colleges and $65 million in additional
aid for cities and towns. Maybe state meteorologists just don’t see
much rain in the 2013 forecast.
Patrick’s budget counts on another $260 million in new revenue from
tax and fee increases that are far from assured, despite his
insistence that they poll favorably (see below). This is an election
year, so good luck with that.
Another $730 million in savings on health care costs — from
re-bidding contracts for subsidized plans to cutting provider
reimbursement rates — is also assumed. That’s one mighty big
assumption.
When nearly half the state budget is eaten up by health care costs
for the poor and public employees and other big chunks are earmarked
for pensions, debt service and union raises, it doesn’t leave
budget-writers much wiggle room. But let’s face it, tax hikes, a
rainy-day raid and flimsy savings assumptions are easier than
challenging the most entrenched special interests.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 27, 2012
A Boston Herald editorial
Oh please tax us more!
Gov. Deval Patrick is convinced that Massachusetts voters are simply
clamoring to pay more taxes on their candy and soda, and they just
can’t wait to pay a 5-cent deposit on every bottle of water or
Gatorade they buy.
Really?
Patrick points to a poll funded by the Boston Foundation — which has
lobbied for the candy bar tax — that purports to show 69 percent of
the population wants to see their candy bars and soft drinks carry a
6.25 percent sales tax. Now we’re always a little skeptical when any
group that advocates a particular position funds a poll that finds —
surprise, surprise — public backing for their position.
But not so the governor. Of course, if he really wanted to govern
using polls he would have taken seriously the “poll” of Bay Staters
when they voted in favor of bringing the income tax back down to 5
percent — an aim not yet accomplished.
Patrick is also touting another poll, this one by MassINC, that
claims 77 percent of the public supports an expansion of the bottle
bill to include water, juice, sports drinks and coffee or iced tea
in bottles and cans. Because, of course, we all love taking all
those bottles and cans to the redemption center, right?
Oh, but that’s not exactly what Patrick has in mind. In fact, he’s
making a bet — a $22 million bet — that people *won’t* redeem those
bottles and cans — that they’ll be tossed into dumpsters or on the
road or wherever because that’s the only way the state can count on
that new revenue to help balance Patrick’s bloated budget (see
above). That would make it a tax.
All too aware of that, Rep. John Keenan, co-chair of the Committee
on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, rejected the notion of
including the bottle bill expansion as part of budget deliberations.
Maybe later, Keenan said.
Or maybe it should just die in committee.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, January 29, 2012
A Boston Globe editorial
Sugary treats: The tax man cometh
Governor Patrick’s latest proposal to subject soda and candy to the
6.25-percent sales tax was delivered the same week that the
Department of Agriculture announced the highest national standards
yet for school meal nutrition. That coincidence should be taken as a
sign that, once and for all, it is time to treat sweets as optional
snacks, and not real food.
One doesn’t have to be terribly concerned about the childhood
obesity epidemic and its many costs to understand why sugary treats
aren’t among life’s necessities and therefore should be taxed like
any other nonessential product. Ending the sales-tax exemption on
soda and candy would raise about $61.5 million in annual revenues
for Massachusetts, obviating the need for other tax hikes or service
cuts. And, incidentally, it could help persuade kids to eat less of
the stuff and make them healthier in the process. Already, 35 states
apply their sales tax to soda and 30 to candy. It’s such an obvious
win-win that it boggles the mind that the Legislature hasn’t adopted
it yet.
|
| |
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
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ 508-915-3665
|