After MI (Benton Harbor emergency manager), VA (no non-profits), NH (no unions) we now have MA trying to "pull a Wisconsin" on public workers. The state budget for FY2012 was released by the House Finance committee last Thursday; and it stinks.
The proposal goes further than ones offered by Gov. Deval Patrick and a coalition of labor groups, giving city and town managers the power to set co-pays and deductibles without collective bargaining.
“It’s the most significant reform we can make this year,” said Dempsey, a Haverhill Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, who estimated communities could collectively save $100 million if the plan were implemented for a full year.
The House plan was unknown to even stakeholders until shortly before its release
The Ways and Means Committee plan would give limited plan design authority to municipal managers allowing them to unilaterally set co-pays and deductibles at levels equal to the most subscribed plan in the state’s Group Insurance Commission...The House plan also eliminates the 70 percent threshold of union support for cities and towns wishing to join the GIC...
Edward Kelly, president of the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, said ...“The proposal we heard today mirrors the savings of what the public employees offered a month ago. The only thing that this budget does is silence the voice of working families. This significantly weakens collective bargaining, but those voice won’t be silent in November 2012.”
http://massachusetts.onpolitix.com/...
We will discuss this sneaky stab-in-the-front below the fold. Because the media sure isn't saying much about it.
The amazing thing is that this was done by a Democratic legislature. Of course, the state GOP loves it:
"There is nothing shocking here. There is nothing that we didn't expect," said Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth. "Generally, we are happy that he (Dempsey) didn't go with new taxes to fill in this $1.9 billion gap."
http://www.westport-news.com/...
I did a little Googling to discover that Rep. Dempsey has a very solid voting record in favor of labor:
Labor (Scorecard)
2005-2008 In 2005-2008 Massachusetts AFL-CIO gave Representative Dempsey a rating of 86.11 percent.
2002-2006 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Massachusetts AFL-CIO's position, Representative Dempsey received a rating of 94.74 percent.
2001-2005 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 92 percent in 2001-2005.
2001-2002 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 75 percent in 2001-2002.
1999-2002 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 74 percent in 1999-2002.
1999 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 53 percent in 1999.
1997-1998 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 76 percent in 1997-1998.
1995-1998 Representative Dempsey supported the interests of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO 79 percent in 1995-1998.
http://www.votesmart.org/...
Of only nine contributions of $1,000 to his 2008 campaign, three of them were from labor groups:
Contributor Total % of Total Sector
MASSACHUSETTS DEMOCRATIC PARTY $6,847 4.87% Party
RETIRED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES $1,000 0.71% Labor
ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 103 $1,000 0.71% Labor
BOSTON POLICE PATROLMENS ASSOCIATION $1,000 0.71% Labor
http://www.followthemoney.org/...
My first point is that these are mainstream, pro-labor Democrats making the unforced error of buying into taking away working peoples' rights.
-----------------
My second point is the total hypocrisy of exempting the top 1% from taxation while imposing $100 million of "savings" upon the municipal workforce. Let's unpack that bundled up sum.
If you do some digging, you find out that the municipal workforce probably amounts to about 1% of the population. (See the Appendix for how I arrived at that number.)
The population of Massachusetts is 6.5 Million. So the municipal workforce is around 65,000. When you divide $100 Million/year of "savings" by 65,000 employees, you get $1,538.
Now that is a huge amount of money for someone making say $50,000/year.
On the other hand, if you ask how many millionaires the state has, you find out:
Massachusetts ranks 5th for Number of Millionaires
Percentage of households: 5.98%
Millionaire households: 150,884
Total households: 2,521,928
http://www.cnbc.com/...
Let's again guess that a person worth a million is making at least 200,000 per year. Since there are more than twice as many of them as workers, the $100 Million of savings would cost them $666 apiece. (What an ironic number.)
Now, MA has a flat state tax rate of 5.3% with no deductions. So, if you are making 200,000 per year, you are paying $10,600 per year in taxes. $666 more tax raises your rate by a whopping 0.33%.
The GOP is pleased that the coward Democrats would not even conscience depriving the millionaires in this state of the price of a couple of Red Sox tickets; but they will take a week's wages or more from struggling working people.
---------------------
My third point derives from my second point. It would have been perfectly possible to raise the revenue from the top bracket taxpayers; but we chose instead to impose a "taking" upon the working class. (Hey, where are all the Libertarians when its the working class that gets taken from? Just askin'.)
The way this has been done is slimy and sneaky. It reminds me of laws restricting abortions. They haven't taken away ALL collective bargaining rights, just some. It all sounds perfectly "reasonable" until you look at it in the context of the moment.
For example, we have already had a regressive sales tax increase of $1 Billion.
Also, while tax revenues are on the rise, they remain far below pre-recession levels. The fiscal 2009 budget assumed $21.4 billion in tax revenues. The fiscal 2012 plan is budgeting only $20.5 billion, which takes into account an additional $1 billion in revenue from a sales tax hike passed in 2009.
http://money.cnn.com/...
So, this latest regressive taking is on top of a previous regressive tax increase.
Welcome to the free market, where rich stockbrokers get bailed out by the government and working stiffs have their pay garnished to pay for it. To paraphrase Joe Stalin:
"When workers have rights, there's a problem. When workers have no rights, there's no problem."
So, the coordinated, shock doctrine blitzkreig against workers has come to the Blue state of Massachusetts. They are testing the waters with this carefully calibrated, precedent setting assault on demonized municipal workers (Whatever happened to the loyal policemen and firemen that were the icons after 911?) Outside of the unions directly affected, I don't see much awareness of the disgusting precedent being set. Of course, there was one media story at the announcement, and then silence. Meanwhile, the local nasty rightwing broadsheets are publishing smears against unions and agitprop against their "undeserved high benefits".
Is anyone else concerned about what is going on here? Or do people just figure that
"this could never happen" in Massachusetts. Me, I am sick at heart.
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX - Percentage of municipal employees to population
I first went to the AFSCME site, but they had no total workforce numbers. So I just started looking for any stories with concrete numbers. Here are two that I came up with:
West Warwick to vote on 2010 budget -- again
If the budget is defeated once again, the current budget will apply to the 2010 fiscal year. The result will be layoffs for eight employees in the Police Department, eight in the Fire Department and nine in Public Works, for a total of 10 percent of the municipal workforce. It would also result in the closure of the public library and cutbacks in street lighting.
http://newsblog.projo.com/...
The population of West Warwick RI was 30,000 in the year 2000.
The total layoffs 8+8+9 = 25 are 10% of the municipal workforce. So the workforce is 250 for a town of 30,000. That comes out to 0.83%.
Here's my second factoid:
MINNESOTA LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE INFORMATION
The average number of full time law enforcement personnel in 1998 (including sworn and civilian) amounted to 2.4 employees per each 1,000 residents of the state. The average number of sworn personnel (excluding civilian) amounted to 1.6 employees per 1,000 population. The contributing law enforcement agencies averaged one full-time civilian employee to two full-time sworn personnel.
http://www.bca.state.mn.us/...
'
So, for an entire state, we have 2.4/1000 actual sworn policemen, plus half of that or 1.2/1000 of civilian employees. That's 0.36% for the police. If you have similar numbers for fire and teachers, you are at the 1%.
If anyone can supply better numbers, I will be happy to use them.