Posts with the tag 'Barbara Anderson'
Last week, the Boston Herald reported that Deval Patrick’s transportation secretary, Bernard Cohen, has given his his own staff 195 pay increases, even after he pressured MBTA general manager Dan Grabauskas into rescinding pay raises to his own employees.
The state transportation chief who pressured T general manager Dan Grabauskas into rescinding pay raises this week said he won’t halt 195 pay hikes he granted his own staff.
“I think it’s pretty hypocritical for the secretary to look at other agencies and departments and grandstand when he has different standards in his own shop,” said Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield).
Transportation secretary Bernard Cohen asked Grabauskas to halt the raises the T chief gave 273 employees this week as an effort to “leave no stone unturned in restoring fiscal health to all transportation agencies.”
But at his own transportation agency, Cohen granted pay hikes ranging from 1 percent to 7.5 percent last year. Some of the annual raises far exceed the hike given to Grabauskas staffers, who were supposed to get a 3 percent raise each of the next three years.
[...]
The annual raises, which Cohen has final say over, are based on merit and performance evaluations. Employees must be in the bottom half of the agency’s salary range and produce exceptional work in order to get more than a 6 percent raise.
Grabauskas granted an automatic 9 percent raise to non-union staffers to keep them in line with a recent union pay hike last week, but then rescinded most of the raises when Cohen leaned on him. News of the pay hikes broke shortly after Grabauskas hinted at a potential fare increase unless the state helped with an $8.2 billion debt load.
Adding insult to injury, the Herald reported today that the state payroll has exploded, even with the current economic downturn.
Gov. Deval Patrick has added almost 2,000 new workers to the state payroll in the past year even as he warns of dire budget cuts in the face of a $1 billion deficit, a Herald review shows.
And his administration continues to dole out millions in overtime, with nearly 80 prison guards raking in more than $100,000.
A mid-year Herald payroll analysis reveals that since July 2007, the number of state jobs has jumped by about 1,900, many of them new hires in the Department of Correction and MassHighway.
The soaring payroll comes at a time when the state is stepping in to bail out a debt-ridden Mass Pike and being asked to do the same for the MBTA, and the governor is requesting special powers to cut the budget this fall if the local economy continues tanking.
“It’s very worrisome,” Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, said of the hiring frenzy. “It’s a problem, given that we’re probably heading into a recession, and we’ve been borrowing extensively.”
Barbara Anderson, of Citizens for Limited Taxation, told the Herald it’s time for state officials to get off “the gravy train.” They’re riding the gravy train alright… and Deval Patrick is the engineer.
Tags: Barbara Anderson, Deval Patrick, MBTA
August 25th, 2008
This article was authored by Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
Dear Deval:
My quarterly property tax of $864 is due on November 1. My total annual property tax on my five room house is $3,456.
If you become governor, what will my property tax be next year at this time?
You say you do not support the voter-mandated income tax rollback because you want to “cut the property tax” instead. Please tell us how you are going to do this. We haven’t heard, and cannot find on your website, any specific plan.
As the organization that created Proposition 2½, we are second to none in our concern about property taxes. Though Prop 2½ limits their annual growth to 2½ percent a year, we agree that they are still too high. Do you plan to lower the annual increase to 2 percent? Or to discourage overrides by cutting local aid if property taxes increase?
I’ve been using my share of the voter-mandated income tax cut to pay my property tax increases. If the income tax rate is cut to 5%, as the voters ordered, I will apply my share of that – $111.00 – to my property tax bill.
If the rate is not cut to 5%, despite the voter mandate, if you are elected will your plan cut my property tax by $111.00 next year?
We did find a plan on your website to expand education efforts so that elderly homeowners know about existing property tax relief that is available to them. This is based on an assumption that they haven’t yet figured this out or that their community doesn’t already tell them?
You also mention wanting to expand “the circuit breaker property tax credit.” In fact, the “circuit breaker” is not a property tax credit, it is an income tax credit. And it is, as we said when it passed, very difficult to understand. But if you don’t know even know what tax it cuts, how are you going to “educate” seniors about it?
You suggest a “rational revenue structure, sensible tax policy and fair distribution of state resources to cities and towns — so that property taxes can be lowered and kept low.”
Please tell us exactly how this would work. By how much will our taxes be lowered?
All we can find that is specific is your plan for “New Revenue” (i.e., new taxes). You want “to raise additional revenue from such sources as a reasonable local meals tax.”
So let’s make sure we understand. The seniors, who are going to be “educated” about existing tax abatements, and who await your actual plan to actually cut their property taxes, will have to pay more taxes when they meet their friends for breakfast at the local coffee shop.
All things considered, we think it best if you just respect and honor the voters and rollback the income tax rate to 5 percent. In return, we can promise to apply that tax relief to our property tax bill or rent.
Sincerely,
Barbara Anderson
Cc. Massachusetts media
Tags: Barbara Anderson, Deval Patrick
October 17th, 2006
This article was authored by Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, and appears in today’s edition of the Salem News.
About my prediction that Christy Mihos would run as a Republican, not an independent: So I was wrong.
Actually, I wasn’t so much predicting as whistling past the graveyard, hoping that the scary things — like Democrats again being totally in charge of the commonwealth — wouldn’t materialize.
But here we are. Mihos has decided to make it a three-way governor’s race featuring himself, Republican Kerry Healey, and whoever wins the Democratic primary.
Worst-case scenario: Healey and Mihos split the pro-taxpayer vote, or whatever that vote is called that elected Republican governors since 1990; and the Democrat wins, bringing back the aging Dukakis operatives, the fudged revenue projections, new programs, hostility to Proposition 21/2, and annual tax increases.
After four years, our economy is a wreck. More productive citizens flee, more illegal immigrants arrive for more benefits, the Big Business community continues to compromise for peace at any price, the price gets steeper, and as tax rates increase and tax revenues decline, benefits are cut for the remaining citizens.
Here’s Barbara The Optimist’s prediction:
Massachusetts must hit bottom in order to bounce, so in 2010, Republican Charlie Baker becomes governor and a fresh bunch of pro-taxpayer legislative candidates win, just in time to turn the commonwealth around.
But what if The Optimist is wrong again? With the taxpayer base depleted and the major baby boomer-related health and retirement issues arriving, there is no bounce, just a splat, and no one can save the commonwealth.
Back to 2006. Best-case scenario: The Democratic nominee and one of the other two makes lots more campaign mistakes than one pro-taxpayer candidate, who catches on with voters, and squeaks through.
Considering the bonehead mistakes Tom Reilly has already made, and the campaign inexperience of both Deval Patrick and Mihos, Healey might yet win under this scenario.
Looking back at 2002, Mitt Romney won with 1,091,988 votes. He would have prevailed, barely, even if all the Green candidate votes had gone to Shannon O’Brien. But if the Libertarian, independent and other votes had also gone to her — probably not likely — he would have lost.
However, there wasn’t a serious independent campaign in 2002 to attract many votes from the almost 50 percent of Massachusetts voters who are unenrolled. As an independent voter myself, I can imagine choosing a pro-taxpayer independent if no other candidate took the “no new taxes” pledge.
At the presidential level, I understand why some people voted for Ross Perot, even though voters elected Bill Clinton; and some were attracted to Ralph Nader, even if they elected George W. Bush. Both those third-party candidates were different enough from the major-party candidates that they had something to offer.
If Jesse Ventura had done a better job as governor of Minnesota, and was running for president on a strong national and border defense, national debt reduction, tax reform, personal freedom, pro-evolution and less political correctness platform, I’d be tempted to go third party myself.
But here at the state level, I don’t see enough ideological difference between Mihos and Healey to risk turning over the state to the Democrats again.
It would have been fine and fun to have a Republican primary so we could choose the personality we preferred. I can understand, however, why Mihos might have been concerned about his ability to get the required 15 percent of delegates at the Republican convention that would allow him to get his name on the primary ballot in September. He hadn’t organized early enough to seriously compete in the Republican caucuses that elect delegates, and while the Healey campaign seemed sincere in its pledge to help him get enough support to compete in the primary, the convention chairman is state Sen. Brian Lees after all.
I am still waiting for those Senate roll calls that Lees tricked another senator into not requesting when the Senate minority leader apparently determined they would embarrass either other Republicans or even Democrats. If I were Mihos, I wouldn’t trust him with my political future either.
The question is, how much leeway would Lees have had, and why does Mihos want to run so much that he would jeopardize the commonwealth with a three-way race?
Of course, everyone is entitled to his dream. It’s a wonder anyone wants to run for office, considering what happens to them when they do.
Reed Hillman is the excellent choice by Healey to run with her as the lieutenant governor candidate. He was immediately attacked because when head of the State Police, he thought his officers, male and female, should be in top physical shape, which included not being eight months pregnant. Watch any cop show on TV, and imagine a very pregnant woman chasing the bad guys down the alley and over the chain-link fence. You can then appreciate the common sense that is part of Hillman’s general persona, along with a certain maturity and class.
Ah well. I admit I’m evolving from concern over the worst-case scenario to the political junkie’s fascination with the bizarre world of Massachusetts politics. Disastrous as its consequences might be, the three-way campaign itself will be interesting, dramatic, and often hilarious, at least to those of us who get the jokes.
Tags: Barbara Anderson, Christy Mihos, Deval Patrick, Reed Hillman
March 16th, 2006
This article was authored by Barbara Anderson, a Marblehead resident and executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, and appears in today’s edition of the Salem News.
I’ll tell you up front, I am not in a good mood.
I can match my self-confidence with anyone’s, but it’s been one of those weeks when I keep facing the things I don’t know.
For instance, I didn’t know that the Olympics were a disappointment, as most commentators insist. I thought they were amazing: Athletes flying, leaping, spinning, and performing through injury and personal loss. And Bode Miller self-destructing was simply a lesson for other aspiring champions.
Someone asked me: How can diet soda have no calories, no carbohydrates, no caffeine, no fat, and still exist? I don’t know.
Then someone else asked me what I think of letting the United Arab Emirates run our ports. This seemed more important than the soft-drink thing, so I spent the weekend reading, watching and listening to “experts” on both sides of the controversial issue, and I still don’t know. Nothing anyone is saying makes sense, or gets me past that gut instinct shared by many Americans that this is not a good idea.
I get the global economy thing, but I also recognize when politicians and pundits are dancing the hummahumma all over the stage while singing off-key, “Yes, the UAE is 96-percent Muslim, and we seem to be in a holy war with some Muslims, but these ones are our allies, and besides they are a state-run business, not a religion, and their workers aren’t Muslim, but Americans, and besides they only rent part of the ports, like you rent one apartment in a building, though in some places they actually run the whole thing, hummahumma, but don’t worry, the U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of security.”
That last is reassuring, since I recall the Coast Guard as the most effective entity in New Orleans last year. But I just read about policemen who sometimes don’t impound the cars of unlicensed drivers because they’d have to confront the illegal immigrant problem, which the Bush administration won’t address. So can we be blamed for not trusting the same “What borders?” administration on the port issue? Then throw in the hypocritical Democrats who suddenly want to profile Muslims at seaports — the same ones who can’t be profiled at airports — and an ordinary citizen just wants to duck and seek cover.
What really has shaken my usual confidence, however, is reading Howie Carr’s “The Brothers Bulger.” I knew bits and pieces of what was going on all around me, but until I found it in this cohesive, 332-page format, I didn’t really see the big picture of the giant outrage that was Massachusetts for 25 years.
I am not in the book, but I can see myself there, along with other activists, more naive than we thought, working on issues that were never on the level, with politicians who were rarely what they seemed. The cynicism I thought I had painfully acquired was simply not adequate for the reality of Massachusetts. If you too want to “get it,” read this book.
Never had a major problem with Bill Bulger myself; he was good on education choice, and Proposition 21/2 wasn’t attacked by him as it occasionally was by Dukakis and the House. I defended him publicly on occasion, and though we had some bitter public battles on legislative reform, I never was threatened by his brother as Howie says some opponents were.
Howie writes that “the budgetary constraints imposed by Proposition 21/2 gave Billy an opportunity to run the Senate with an iron hand.” I’m not sure I see his point. Bulger seemed able to turn almost anything to his advantage, and certainly higher property taxes wouldn’t have slowed down the patronage — but it’s a startling thought nevertheless. The scariest part of the book, however, is not the Bulgers but the then-corrupt Boston FBI. Reading it won’t make anyone feel more secure about the federal government’s ability to deal with terrorism.
But the Bulger era is behind us now. This week we are dealing with normal politics as we await Christy Mihos’ decision on whether to run as a Republican or an Independent. I met with him and his charming wife, discussed the subject with Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and several Republican leaders, and thanked Matt and Aaron Margolis for their efforts, on their Web site, hubpolitics.com., to get pledges from delegates to reassure Christy that he will get his chance at the Republican convention.
Mihos will be making his decision after my deadline, but I predict that he will run as a Republican rather than split the taxpayer vote and turn Massachusetts over to all Democrats, all the time. I hope he is reading Howie’s book. Though Republican administrations aren’t its heroes, they didn’t create the problems they didn’t address, and things can always get worse.
I may not know for sure about the port issue, or see corruption without some help from my more cynical friends; I can only wonder what problems the remaining ingredients in diet soda could cause. But I do know we can’t afford another Democratic governor in a state that is already sliding down the hill, in a country that is feeling generally insecure.
Tags: Barbara Anderson, Christy Mihos, corruption, Howie Carr, The Brothers Bulger
March 2nd, 2006
