The Boston Herald
Friday, May 24, 2002
A Boston Herald editorial
Behold a Senate full of spenders
Behold the Massachusetts Senate. Did you ever see a slicker
decision to raise your taxes without any public discussion?
A closed-door caucus of the 34 Democrats accepted without a
public murmur the program of the House to freeze the income tax rate reduction, reduce the personal exemption by 25
percent, double the effective capital gains rate, hit smokers for another 75 cents per pack
and kill the new deduction for charitable gifts.
It could have been worse. The rollover for the House means
there will be no attempt to raise the income tax rate from the 5.3 percent in effect this year back to the 5.6 percent of last
year, as Senate President Tom Birmingham had wanted. Twenty-three senators reportedly
were willing to do it, but that's not enough to get past a veto. We'll never know the
motivation of the other 11 Democrats, but fear of voter reaction surely played a part.
The House acted after being presented with a "no new taxes"
budget from the Ways and Means Committee, a transparent con job the committee spent not a calorie of energy to
defend beyond what it took to print.
The Senate Democrats decided they didn't need such a fig
leaf. No attempt was made to see if an acceptable budget could be developed without new taxes. The Executive Office of
Administration and Finance now estimates that the House actions will raise $1.27 billion
instead of the $1 billion figure on which legislators were basing their decisions, but the
senators apparently have taken a pass on trying to see if a smaller menu
of tax increases would work.
There was no mention even of an attempt to improve the House
package or fix its absurdities, for example, to move toward the 5 percent income tax rate mandated by the
voters on a realistic schedule (the House makes it happen in 2009 at the earliest) or
to restore the gift deduction before 2014.
The whole performance raises the question of why the state
even has a Legislature of two houses, but the senators soon will show that they aren't rubber stamps after all. They'll be
brimming with life when it comes to ways to spend $22.8 billion. It's depressing, but they see
spending as their real job.
Return to top
The Telegram & Gazette
Worcester, Mass.
Friday, May 24, 2002
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Senate 'triumph'
The triumphant announcement by state Senate leaders that
they had nailed down a veto-proof majority for a $1.2 billion tax package for fiscal 2003 is disheartening indeed.
In past years, one might look to the upper chamber for some
common sense and thoughtful debate. But this year there is no talk of cuts or restraint, just more tax and spend.
Nonetheless, gubernatorial candidate Thomas F. Birmingham,
who also serves as Senate president, attempted to spin the tax package as "good news" because the extra money
snatched from taxpayers' pockets allegedly was needed to "protect" education
and health care.
Taking a cue from the House, the Senate concocted the $1.2
billion tax package behind closed doors. Already overwhelmingly approved by the House, the budget includes freezing
the income tax rollback at 5.3 percent; doubling the capital gains tax;
reducing the personal exemption from $4,400 to $3,300 for individuals and $8,800 to $6,600 for couples;
postponing deductions for charitable giving, and raising the cigarette tax
by 75 cents.
Unbelievably, some senators, including Mr. Birmingham,
support raising the state income tax back to 5.6 percent, despite the overwhelming referendum vote in 2000 to roll back
the supposedly temporary tax hike.
Indications are that the Senate budget debate, scheduled to
begin in June, will move quickly, likely leaving little time to give thoughtful consideration to program reductions or
alternative sources of revenue.
For Massachusetts taxpayers, none of this bodes well.
Return to top
The Brockton Enterprise
Saturday, May 25, 2002
An Enterprise editorial
Legislature's budget is an embarrassment
There has been an epidemic of sore arms in the Legislature
this week as politicians tried to pat themselves on the backs over plans to balance the budget with higher taxes. But instead
of congratulating themselves, they should be ashamed and embarrassed and take a good long
look in the mirror.
Senators were chortling over massive tax hikes that will
touch everyone in the commonwealth. They were especially pleased that they have enough votes to override the
certain veto from acting Gov. Jane Swift. The Senate plan is so similar
to the one from the House that legislators should have little problem in a conference committee, meaning they
may actually produce a budget on time this year.
That is not good news. The biggest losers are the taxpayers,
who will see increases in taxes on income, capital gains, and cigarettes; next are the poor and truly needy, because the
deduction for charitable donations is being wiped out and Medicaid is being decimated; then
there are the voters, who were told in no uncertain terms that their votes were
irrelevant as legislators got rid of voter-approved income tax cuts and charitable giving deductions; and of
course, the last loser is Senate President Thomas Birmingham, who can campaign
for governor on a platform of tax-and-spend and impotent leadership.
The winners? The same old suspects public employees with
organizations loud enough to be heard on Beacon Hill. While the Legislature was inflicting pain on every stiff working in the
private sector the people without the free time or means to march on the Statehouse it
refused to raise millions of dollars by asking state employees to pay a little more for
their health insurance. And, most egregiously, it actually increased funding by $4 million for the
odious Quinn Bill which is nothing more than a scam to give police officers much
higher salaries for advanced degrees of questionable worth.
What is missing from this picture?
Any hint of reform of the budget. There still are no
controls on spending. There is a great sense of urgency when it comes to raising taxes, but none whatsoever when it comes to
controlling spending. We have a sick feeling that the Legislature learned nothing from its
free-spending days of the '90s. As long as there is a dime left in a taxpayer's pocket,
some legislator will scheme to take it away.
Most of the legislators think they have done a glorious job
of balancing the state budget. They have, in fact, proved that nothing at all has changed. The spending party continues, no
matter where the money comes from.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 26, 2002
A balanced approach on the budget
By Thomas M. Finneran
Over the past six months I have traveled from one end of our
Commonwealth to the other to discuss our fiscal crisis with local officials, business leaders, editorial boards, and
citizen groups. I have been impressed by their understanding of our $3 billion fiscal problem and
their eagerness to work toward a solution.
The recession that occurred over the past 18 months has not
yet triggered massive job losses for our citizens or a major downturn in the housing market, but it has borne one major
result: a $1.5 billion drop in tax revenues since Fiscal Year 2001 caused by losses in capital gains
revenues, a tax that Massachusetts places on unearned income. This loss in revenue,
along with over 45 tax cuts and major expansions in education and health care services over the
past decade combined to create a fiscal crisis.
Massachusetts is not alone in this dilemma. New Jersey, New
York, California, Connecticut, Virginia, Illinois, and virtually all other states are also facing tremendous drops in
revenue for similar reasons, and most other states have been forced to cut their support for programs and
services.
In order to effectively emerge from our $3 billion fiscal
crisis, the Commonwealth's leaders and citizens must work together. As a Legislature, we have no responsible choice but
to make reductions in almost all state services. We must also increase the revenue stream
coming into the Commonwealth by raising tax burdens, and then we must use reserve funds
to make up for the remaining difference between revenues and expenditures.
We need to look at our basic assumptions and find innovative
ways to save money while maintaining essential programs and services. We must find honest solutions to today's
problems. It is irresponsible to "solve" our crisis by leaving a legacy of
denial and debt for future leaders.
There is no doubt that our state is in a difficult position.
The fiscal and economic crises of recent memory - 1975, 1982, and 1990 - all bred the same response: political paralysis and
chaos. Fortunately, our state leaders have learned from past mistakes and are facing this
crisis head on. Mayors and selectmen across the state have built their budgets on
anticipated cuts in local aid for the first time since 1991. Commissioners and department heads have
proposed innovations to maintain services.
After sitting down with the Commonwealth's 42 mayors last
month, I can confidently say that our local partners recognize the necessity of reductions in almost all services provided by
state and local governments. During the last decade, the Legislature was able to increase
local funding by 82 percent, driving expansions in education and many other local services.
These leaders now agree that we must fairly share the pain of our economic downturn to
ensure that the gains of the past decade are not lost.
Working with business leaders, we built a strong economic
climate marked by a tremendous growth in jobs and business opportunities. Business leaders, chambers of commerce, and
boards of trade - many of whom backed the income tax cut initiative in 2000 - recognize the
necessity of increasing revenues to maintain core services in order to remain
competitive.
The House spent much of the last decade constructing a
fiscal foundation to prepare us for economic fluctuations by building reserves of $2.2 billion. As we developed these
reserves, the House was criticized from both the left and the right. We showed wisdom and foresight in
seeking moderation and putting some of our gains into savings. The cuts that we are
currently facing, although deep, have been greatly mitigated by the Commonwealth's substantial
reserves.
A balanced approach of real and substantial cuts, thoughtful
innovations, judicious use of reserves, and equitable tax increases will carry the Commonwealth through this fiscal
crisis. The House budget proposes ways to maximize our use of federal funding wherever possible,
most notably in nursing home reimbursements, community health centers, and prescription
drugs for seniors.
Our efforts to protect and preserve the programmatic gains
of the 1990s and remain economically competitive will require us all to make sacrifices: real and substantial reductions
in services, innovations in the way we do business, using some of our reserves, and, yes,
equitably and fairly increasing our taxes. It is never easy nor desirable to reduce services,
deplete savings, or raise revenues, but our fiscal circumstances demand it.
Together, as citizens of Massachusetts, we can and will come
through our present crisis without gimmicks or games, without denial or avoidance.
Thomas M. Finneran is speaker of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Pacts said to weigh on city
Finances seen tight as labor talks loom
By Scott S. Greenberger
Globe Staff
When Boston was flush, Mayor Thomas M. Menino signed
generous contracts with its teachers and firefighters - perhaps too generous, according to a recent report by a watchdog
group.
The city says it got substantial seniority and sick-leave
reforms in exchange for the salary increases and added benefits.
But now, those agreements are straining the city's budget,
according to the report by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. And, as Menino prepares to begin negotiations next
month with 7,200 city employees, including police officers, the contracts may come back to
haunt him.
The administration hopes that leaders of the roughly 20
unions whose contracts expire June 30 should recognize that times have changed.
"Our position is pretty dramatically different than it was a
couple of years ago," said Dennis DiMarzio, the city's chief operating officer and negotiator.
But the unions say the city has plenty of money, and they
expect to be treated well, as their peers were.
"We've taken far too many zeros in base-pay wage increases
from this mayor, and we will not accept any more," said Thomas Nee, head of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association.
"The cupboard's not bare. Maybe he should cut back on some of his pet programs."
Samuel R. Tyler, who heads the Municipal Research Bureau,
said the mayor finally reined in spending in his proposed 2003 city budget, under the pressure of state cutbacks. But the city
is still paying too much for personnel, Tyler said in the report released last week. And, he
said, the reforms Menino won from teachers and firefighters weren't worth the cost.
"There were changes in the contracts that were beneficial,
but to our mind they didn't go as far as they should have," Tyler said.
Jeff Conley of the Boston Finance Commission, another city
watchdog agency, said there's always a tendency to spend too much money in good financial times.
"I think it's always true that you're a little less careful
when money isn't as much of an issue," he said yesterday. "It's more difficult to negotiate tough union contracts."
Tyler's report notes that the teachers' contract included an
average salary increase of 15 percent over three years - and that was on top of annual "step" increases of about 4 percent
for teachers who hadn't yet reached the maximum pay grade. That means that some teachers
who earned $45,455 in 1999 will make $60,492 in 2002.
The four-year firefighters' contract, signed last fall,
included raises of between $7,000 and $21,000. And changes in the sick-leave policy mean that the average firefighter will
receive a lump sum of about $20,000 at retirement.
"Even before the slowdown in the economy, after the
negotiations, individuals in the administration acknowledged that these contracts are costly and mostly likely would have to
result in a reduction in the work force to pay for them," Tyler said.
Though the police may point to the teachers' and firefighters' contracts as evidence to
support their own requests for raises, Tyler says the teachers and firefighters
used the police force's Quinn Bill benefits to argue for their own increases. Under the 1972 law, cities can
offer huge salary increases to officers who study criminal justice at area
colleges. Boston didn't apply the law to its department until 2000, but officers who received their degrees
before then were also given the higher salaries.
Of the 2,152 Boston police officers, 1,360 have gotten
salary increases under the Quinn Bill. Those increases have cost Boston $28 million so far, half of which will be
reimbursed by the state.
"The city made some really liberal decisions" during
previous contract negotiations, Conley said. "Certainly the Quinn Bill was a very liberal decision it will live to regret."
Representatives of unions whose contracts are about to
expire say they have little sympathy for the city and its strained budget. Tony Antonelli, who heads the union local that
represents library support staff, suggested the city take more money out of its rainy-day reserve fund.
"We have members paying more than 60 percent of their
incomes on housing costs. The city needs to recognize that and step to the plate and come up with some kind of economic
offer," Antonelli said. "I can see they're setting the table to say there's nothing there."
Return to top
