As austerity once again comes to Massachusetts!
"The state had expected to issue an income tax reduction in January, which would have been triggered automatically by sustained growth. For only the second time in recent years, the state was expected to shave the income tax by .05 percent, but the disappointing tax collections of the fall canceled that plan"
That explains the recent stories over the preceding months talking down the Massachusetts economy after talking it up for years, even though the cut amounted to 1/20th -- that's 1/20th -- of ONE CENT! They even want to keep the chump change crumbs.
"Mass. tax revenues decline; budget trims loom; Looks for ways to curb spending; automatic cut in taxes ruled out" by Stephanie Ebbert |
Globe Staff, November 26, 2012
Facing weaker than expected state tax revenues, Governor Deval
Patrick’s administration has curbed state hiring, halted an automatic
income tax reduction, and begun identifying cuts in spending that may be
necessary to balance the budget.
Recent tax collections have been unexpectedly disappointing, failing
to measure up to last year’s levels. In October, revenues were $162
million short of budgetary estimates and $48 million below the level
reached in October 2011.
Then either you are being lied to so the state can keep its hands on $57 million, or you were lied to the whole time about the recovery that never was, Massachusetts citizens -- or both!
State revenues are running $256 million behind budget and $33 million behind last year’s actual collection, officials said.
Together the numbers add to the picture of a slow economic recovery
and portend a daunting start to the new year for a governor already
struggling with a state drug lab crisis and a fatal meningitis outbreak
traced to a Massachusetts compounding pharmacy.
Yeah, the poor governor and his problems regarding the tyranny emanating from the state drug lab and the meningitis murders.
Related: Mass. loses its edge over US in economic growth
Mass. unemployment rate rises for third consecutive month
No single cause in state’s economic slowdown
Also see: Boston Globe Giving You the Business
Giving you something anyway.
The news is consistent with reports showing that the recovery, which
had been on its way in Massachusetts, is slowing down.
Translation: agenda-pushing at work
In recent months,
the Massachusetts unemployment rate has climbed slightly and the state’s economic growth, which had been outpacing the nation, fell behind.
The dropoff in tax revenues is not dramatic, compared to the recent
recession, but it is a disheartening trend in the wrong direction. After
years of belt-tightening, fiscal observers were hoping to have more
room to breathe in the coming year’s budget and to begin restoring some
of the spending cuts that had been made to programs. Now they see no
relief in sight....
Translation: there was no recovery, and we are in the depths of what history will call the Grand Depression and end of AmeriKan empire.
Ironically, the state had expected to issue an income tax reduction
in January, which would have been triggered automatically by sustained
growth. For only the second time in recent years, the state was expected
to shave the income tax by .05 percent, but the disappointing tax
collections of the fall canceled that plan....
Other uncertainties still remain.
The so-called “fiscal cliff” — the spending cuts and tax increases
that would kick in if the president and Congress fail to reach consensus
on federal debt reduction — threatens to send the nation into another
recession and Massachusetts into a deeper problem....
Now it's the debt limit crisis.
--more--"
"Patrick targets local aid to help cover budget gap; Says $540m shortfall makes cuts necessary" by Noah Bierman |
Globe Staff, December 05, 2012
Governor Deval Patrick announced an array of state budget cuts to
help cover a $540 million shortfall Tuesday, including a further
reduction in the money local communities use to pay teachers and
firefighters.
Patrick said the midyear budget gap is a direct result of the
economic uncertainty caused by failed fiscal cliff negotiations, which
could trigger federal spending cuts and tax increases at the start of
the new year.
That's such a lie.
The cuts in the $32.5 billion budget, some of which need legislative
approval, are expected to have a direct impact on residents. They
include cuts of $9 million in local aid, $11 million in special
education, $5 million in reimbursements for towns to bus homeless
students, and across-the-board reductions in spending on the
overburdened court system....
Less than half of the state’s shortfall would be closed by withdrawing
$200 million from the state’s rainy day fund, which is expected to have
about $1.2 billion left at the end of the budget year on June 30. The
Patrick administration said the state would still have one of the
biggest reserve funds in the country.
They are sitting on a billion bucks and talking about raising taxes and cutting spending?
Municipal leaders vowed to fight the $9 million local aid cut in the
Legislature, noting that it comes on the heels of five tough budget
years that brought $416 million in cuts.
And that was during an alleged recovery!
They said that the overall
impact of Tuesday’s cuts on cities and towns will amount to $37.75
million. In addition, localities face a $20 million cut to the school
building fund that was automatically triggered by weaker-than-expected
sales tax collections.
Meaning there really never was a recovery, dear readers.
Patrick cast the budget situation as serious, but not catastrophic.
He said the state faced a gap that was six times larger during the
height of the fiscal crunch in 2009. And he said the state would not
need to raise taxes to fill the current void. But he continued to warn
of a potential tax increase to cover longer-term problems in
transportation, which lawmakers are expected to take up in the new year.
“We’ve been here,” Patrick said at a news conference in the State
House. “We know how to do this.”
(Blog editor cringes)
“I don’t think this is draconian,” he added. “We are spreading the
pain as broadly as possible.” Though many programs will be taking small
hits, Patrick’s budget chief, Jay Gonzalez, said Tuesday that his office
would release $20 million to pay for an approximately 2 percent salary
increase for 29,000 low-wage human services workers. The workers had
been without a raise for five years and have been protesting outside the
governor’s office. The money for the raise, though previously budgeted,
had been frozen while Patrick devised a plan to fix the budget gap.
I'll give you one guess who else got raises below.
The state still expects to collect more in tax revenues this budget
year than it did in the previous budget year. But a year ago, budget
writers, in consultation with economists, pinned their revenue estimates
on a more robust economy.
They are no better than you picking the football games, readers.
They expected an economic growth rate of 3
percent, resulting in nearly $900 million more in tax collections than
last year, for a total of $22 billion in tax collections. They are
instead seeing a 1.9 percent economic growth rate, and now expect about
$381 million more in tax collections than last year....
I've tuned them out, folks. Sorry.
Patrick conceded
that the state’s November tax collections — tabulated during a time of
heightened anxiety over the fiscal cliff — were actually above
projections. But he said state economists still believe the year will
end with lower collections than originally forecast.....
Tired of the shovels of horse shit, guys.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association said it would ask lawmakers
to take the $9 million out of the rainy day fund instead of risking
losses to school budgets, public safety, and public works projects....
--more--"
Related: Weary officials brace for aid cuts
Mass. cities and towns must share the budget pain
Are you as tired as I am of that broken record?
"Cuts to local governments hit economy" by Callum Borchers |
Globe Staff, December 15, 2012
FALL RIVER — For decades, Billy’s Cafe in Fall River was a favorite
watering hole for the city’s police officers. So when Fall River lost
$2.9 million in aid from the state in 2009 — prompting the layoffs of 53
officers, almost a quarter of the force — the bar and restaurant known
for chourico and chips lost many of its regulars.
Billy’s Cafe never recovered, according to owner Rachel Valente, and after 80 years in business, Billy’s will close on Dec. 31.
The shuttering of this local institution displays the ripple effects
that budget cuts in local governments can have on the economy — effects
that reach beyond the police, teachers, firefighters, and clerks who
lose jobs. As private employment has rebounded over the past three
years, struggling local governments have slashed jobs and boosted taxes
across the country, offsetting private sector gains and slowing the US
recovery, economists said.
Since the recession ended in 2009, local governments have eliminated
nearly 500,000 jobs, including 10,000 in Massachusetts, even as private
employers have steadily increased payrolls. The problem for the economy
is not just more jobless workers on unemployment rolls, but also, as
Billy’s Cafe shows, a reduction in consumer spending that supports many
other jobs and businesses.
The mouthpiece media's mixed messages make me sick.
The effects of local government cuts on the broader economy are part
of a long-running policy debate that has come to the forefront again in
Massachusetts, where Governor Deval Patrick has proposed trimming aid to cities and towns to help close a $540 million budget gap,
and in Washington, where political leaders are grappling with the
so-called fiscal cliff and possibility of deep spending cuts.
At issue is how and when to tackle mounting deficits and whether the
federal government should continue stimulus spending until the economy
strengthens....
Local aid has been slashed by a third since 2009.
All so banks and corporations can cash taxpayer-funded subsidy checks, and the lawmakers can live their lavish political lifestyles.
The relentless cost-cutting of recent years might seem harsh, but
states have few options, said Gregory Daco, senior principal US
economist at IHS Global Insight, a business information and analytics
company based in Lexington. Unlike the federal government, most state
and local governments can’t run deficits and are required by law to
balance budgets.
“What you have to do is basically what states have been doing —
hunker down and not spend more than what you can take in,” Daco said.
In Fall River, that meant eliminating 149 jobs, or about 5 percent,
in 2009 and cutting the workweek to four days for City Hall employees.
The city also increased taxes and fees in each of the past three years,
helping it to restore some of the cuts and jobs. Employees returned to a
five-day schedule, and the police department regained 36 of 53
positions cut.
But Patrick’s proposed local aid cuts could mean another setback, said Mayor William A. Flanagan. “It’s as if we were just starting to get our head above water and then they poured on more,” he said.
With the economy recovering slowly and unemployment
rates still elevated, many economists have argued for additional
stimulus over the past two years.
Proving that never worked as claimed.
They have said that one of the fastest
ways to get the money into the economy is to increase aid to state and
local governments to help avoid budget cuts and tax increases until
things pick up.
How about leaving it with the taxpayer?
“A big part of what federal stimulus can do is help
state and local governments — major employers — to bridge the gap to get
out of this downturn,” said Robert Pollen, codirector of the Political
Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
In Washington, a key component of the debate over the fiscal cliff is
whether to accept bigger short-term deficits until unemployment, 7.7
percent in November, declines significantly. Long-term deficits would be
tackled after the economy strengthens. That is the strategy favored by
President Obama.
Republicans, however, argue that deficits are out of control and the
federal government, with more than $16 trillion in debt and climbing,
must quickly address them soon, or risk the kind of financial and
economic meltdown experienced in some European countries.
In Fall River, the city’s prospects have brightened since 2009. With
finances stabilizing, businesses are increasingly willing to invest in
the city.
Susan Dunse, a former Fall River teacher who was laid off in 2010,
has invested her life’s savings in reopening Al Mac’s Diner, a
once-popular haunt for city workers that also suffered from the budget
cuts and closed earlier this year.
Flanagan pointed to Al Mac’s as an encouraging sign but cautioned that
with a new round of cuts, Fall River’s progress could prove illusory.
“We’re on the road to recovery,” he said, “but any interruption can
dramatically set us back.”
--more--"
"Patrick seeks higher health payments by retirees" by Michael Levenson |
Globe Staff, January 11, 2013
Most future state and municipal retirees would have to pay about
$1,000 a year more for health care under an ambitious proposal that
Governor Deval Patrick plans to unveil Friday in an effort to save up to
$20 billion in health care costs over the next three decades.
Under the plan, most public employees would have to work until age
60, not 55, before they become eligible for health care benefits and
would have to accrue 20 years of state or local service, up from the
current 10.
The proposal marks another attempt by Patrick, a liberal Democrat, to negotiate a reduction in
benefits for public employees in a heavily Democratic and
labor-friendly state that has long protected such benefits amid an
outcry from taxpayer groups.
Yeah, thank the Lord we ain't Republican, right?
Btw, the fraud is in the upper ranks and administration. The average state grunt is being asked to pay more because of them.
Patrick is casting the changes as the next step needed to rein in
unsustainable government costs, following changes in recent years to
municipal health insurance policies and state pensions.
The governor argues that state and local governments cannot support
the $40 billion they face in long-term health care costs for their
retirees and that public employees must work longer for those benefits
and pay more for them if the system is to be put on firmer financial
ground.
Unions and retirees have traditionally resisted any curtailment in
retirement benefits, making past attempts to overhaul the system
politically treacherous.
Not anymore. There are new rules for unions in Massachusetts.
But the governor’s proposal is based on changes that labor and
retiree groups developed on a commission with state and local officials
over the last several months.
Three ranking Democratic and Republican state legislators also sat on
the governor’s commission and support the changes, making it more
likely the bill will win the support of top House and Senate leaders....
And labor is for it, too, so....
--more--"
Related: Nurses Association blasts Patrick’s retiree health plan
Oh, those nasty nurses!
"Mass. employers’ jobless costs may stand; Patrick plan aids business" by Megan Woolhouse |
Globe Staff, January 09, 2013
Governor Deval Patrick proposed legislation Tuesday
that would freeze the rate employers pay to fund unemployment benefits
for the fourth year in a row and reduce the amount they must pay toward
health care benefits for the unemployed.
You workers see a double standard there?
The rate freeze, which stops a scheduled increase from going into
effect, would save employers about $500 million this year,
administration officials said.
But the legislation would also require employers to contribute to a
new fund to help pay for subsidized health care for low-income
residents. The rate would be lower than what employers now pay to
provide health benefits for unemployed workers....
The last recession reduced the balance in the state trust fund that
pays unemployment benefits., and under state law, rates go up
automatically to replenish the fund. But the Legislature has approved
the rate freeze in each of the past three years to help struggling
businesses in a weak economy.
But they are f***ing you on the taxes and service cuts.
Administration officials say the trust fund has sufficient
money to continue the freeze. Employers currently pay an average of
about $745 per employee a year, but that would increase 25 percent to
$929 per employee without the freeze.
“You can let the rates go up and require employers to take an
additional $500 million and bank that or let that money move through the
economy to be invested and use that for hiring,” said John Regan,
senior vice president for government relations at Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, the state’s largest employer group. “In this economy,
you want to have that money running around in the economy.”
As they are taking out of yours, taxpayers!
--more--"
And LOOK who GOT RAISES!
"State House aides get raises; Human services workers protest" by Michael Levenson |
Globe Staff, November 27, 2012
Legislative leaders quietly handed out pay raises to their staff last
week, despite a looming budget crunch that has prompted Governor Deval
Patrick to freeze pay raises for low-wage human services workers and
weigh a new round of spending cuts.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo granted 3 percent raises to all 460
House employees for a total cost of $764,000, and Senate President
Therese Murray gave 3 percent raises to a small handful of her direct
staff. Those salary increases followed a 3 percent bump that Patrick
gave to hundreds of non-union managers in July at a total cost of $10
million.
The latest raises — which the speaker and Senate president can grant
at their own discretion — immediately stirred outrage among human
services workers who were told by the governor just last month that
their 2 percent raises had been frozen because of dwindling tax revenues
and a potential shortfall in the state budget.
And not just amongst them.
The 29,000 workers, who care for the homeless and developmentally
disabled, had already begun to protest at the State House on Monday when
they learned that legislative staff members had been granted the 3
percent hike.
The workers earn $25,000 a year, on average, and have gone without an increase since 2008.
“There’s no sense of a shared sacrifice here,” said Michael D.
Weekes, president and chief executive of the Providers’ Council, which
advocates for the workers. “Why are the lowest-paid people taking it on
the chin?”
That's Massachusetts!
DeLeo, a Winthrop Democrat, defended the pay hikes for House staff
members, saying they had not seen an increase since September 2008.
They really don't get it, do they?
His office said the raises amount to 2 percent of the overall House budget, and no additional money will be needed to fund them.
Related: A Slow Saturday Special: Statehouse Slush Fund
Salaries for House employees range from $33,000 for legislative aides
to $125,000 for the chamber’s chief lawyer, with the bulk of employees
earning between $33,000 and $42,00 a year.
“When you consider that it’s been at least four years, and you’re
talking about a 3 percent raise, something had to be done,” DeLeo said.
“A lot of these folks are having difficulty that I hear from them and
the reps paying their own bills now. So I consider it something we
needed to do so they could continue to exist themselves.”
(Blog editor is stunned at how myopic, narrow-minded, and self-centered are the political pigs on Beacon Hill)
DeLeo said the House has cut expenses and has trimmed its workforce
to 460, down from 546 when he took over in January 2009. “So I don’t
consider a 3 percent raise to be unreasonable,” he said.
The money, he said, will come from the existing $35 million House budget, which has increased in recent years.
We know! It's a SLUSH FUND so that BUDGET CUTS NEVER TOUCH THEM!
Murray’s office said she granted the 3 percent raise to staff members
who work directly under her, although a spokesman refused to provide an
exact number or a total cost. Individual senators can decide on their
own whether to give their aides similar raises, Murray spokesman David
Falcone said, adding that he was not sure which senators, if any, had
done so.
Murray and DeLeo handed out the raises despite a worsening fiscal
picture that has prompted Patrick to curtail state hiring and begin
preparing spending cuts that may be necessary to balance the budget.
Recent tax collections have been unexpectedly weak....
And we know why!
The $20 million salary reserve for human services workers was among
those spending items that the governor froze in anticipation of
potential cuts. Patrick does not have authority over the pay raises for
legislative staff.
On Monday, he said he was waiting to see what this month’s tax
collections look like before deciding whether to release the salary
money for human services workers.
But he doled out raises for his staff!
“We have all kinds of steps we’ve taken in anticipation of potential
budget cuts, because revenue has slowed down, but we haven’t made any
final decisions,” Patrick told reporters.
Motioning toward a group of direct-care workers who were gathered
outside his office, protesting in matching yellow T-shirts, Patrick
said: “We appreciate that you are here, but those decision aren’t made.
This is, I think, a preemptive expression of concern.”
Not out there it isn't, governor a**hole! You don't back off if you might be one of those cut.
Ann Sinawski, 54, who lives in Quincy and works at a Mattapan group
home, was among those protesting the freezing of the salary money.
Sinawski said she earns $11.06 an hour to shower, feed, and care for
four developmentally disabled women – “making sure, basically, that
they’re happy and safe.”
But she said she has had to go to a food pantry for her own meals and
she struggles to pay bills. “I have a very understanding landlord who
lets me slide an extra week on the rent,” she said. “If I didn’t have
that, I would have been evicted.”
Pay raises have not been uncommon on Beacon Hill, even during a time
of budgetary worry. The 3 percent raise that Patrick gave managers in
July came on top of a 3 percent bump in July 2011, when union workers
received their own 3-percent increase.
I guess it is PRETTY EASY to GIVE AWAY MONEY when it is NOT YOURS!
Before that, managers had not gotten a pay increase since 2008, and many were forced to take furloughs in 2009 and 2010.
Auditor Suzanne M. Bump gave out raises of as much as 16 percent to her staff in June 2011.
See: The Audacious Auditor of Massachusetts
Have they no shame?
Bump said at the time that a study she commissioned found that her
employees earn less on average than workers in comparable positions in
government and private offices. Those raises cost $517,186 out of her
office’s existing budget, she said.
Government gravy train, huh!?
--more--"
And now we are told they are taking a pay cut!
"State politicians face 1.8 percent pay reduction" by Stephanie Ebbert |
Globe Staff, January 03, 2013
For the second time in recent years, state politicians face a pay
cut, an automatic reduction triggered by the declining income of
households in Massachusetts.
Then there never was or is a recovery.
Members of the House and Senate will see a 1.8 percent drop in pay
this year, as will the governor and lieutenant governor, treasurer,
attorney general, auditor, and secretary of state. The governor’s salary
is expected to drop to about $137,315.
The cut will reduce legislators’ base pay by about $1,100 to $60,032,
effective Jan. 1, said Treasury spokesman Jon Carlisle. However, many
legislators receive additional pay for serving in leadership positions
or as committee chairmen. Those stipends, which range from $7,500 to
$35,000 for the House speaker, will not be affected, Carlisle said.
The cuts will save more than $234,000, according to Carlisle. But as
legislators’ salaries shrink, their aides’ pay is growing. House Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo recently granted 3 percent raises to all 460 House
employees for a total cost of $764,000, the Globe previously reported. Senate President Therese Murray also gave 3 percent raises to a handful of her direct staff.
It's not the amount so much as the act.
The latest pay cuts are the result of a 1998 constitutional amendment
that tied legislators’ salaries to median household income. A 2007 law
extended the measure to cover statewide office holders, as well,
according to the Executive Office of Administration and Finance.
Their pay is now automatically adjusted every two years, based on a
calculation by the governor’s administration. A letter Governor Deval
Patrick sent to Treasurer Steven Grossman Wednesday said the new
reduction was based on the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
and reports of average weekly wages.
“This bears out the purpose and fairness of the constitutional
amendment that the voters approved, by tying officials’ pay to what’s
happening for other families in Massachusetts,” said Michael J. Widmer,
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “This is a
reflection of what’s happening in the larger economy.”
When the amendment was proposed, some tax-control activists had
opposed it, fearing that regular pay adjustments would only rubber-stamp
raises that legislators might otherwise find it politically unpalatable
to award themselves. One such opponent, Citizens for Limited Taxation
executive director Barbara Anderson, said she was surprised to learn of
the pay reductions.
“They’re going to get a cut?” she said Thursday. “Oh, good, so this time it’s working for us.”
Typically, Anderson said, the amendment has resulted in regular
raises for legislators. It is, she said, “probably the only
constitutionally guaranteed pay raises anywhere in the world. That is
not what constitutions are for.”
Starting in 2010, however, the amendment resulted in a pay decrease
for lawmakers, as the lasting effects of the recession were factored
into the amendment equation. That year, legislative salaries were scaled
back 0.5 percent, to $61,133. This year brought a larger reduction as
the state grapples with continued sluggishness in the economy.
The automatic trigger does not entirely depoliticize raises, of
course. In down times, lawmakers have faced political pressure to
decline pay increases or donate them to charity. The constitutional
amendment gives the governor some leeway on how to calculate household
income.
Governor Mitt Romney’s administration calculated the rate in a way
that some government observers viewed as suppressing legislative raises.
“I think that’s to the credit of the Patrick administration that they
seem to be playing it straight,” said Anderson, adding, “It’s still a
bad idea to have it in the constitution.”
Last month, the governor announced budget cuts to help cover a $540
million shortfall, including further reduction in community funding for
teachers and firefighters.
But at the same time, the Patrick administration released $20 million for an approximately 2 percent raise for 29,000 human services workers who had been without a raise for five years.
In July, he gave nonunion managers a 3 percent bump, at a total cost of $10 million.
--more--"
And look who else is picking up a check and benefits at the expense of taxpayers:
"Governor’s Council still in eye of storm; Many, including critics, seek seats" by Eric Moskowitz |
Globe Staff, September 03, 2012
