March 2003 Print Edition Sightings:   

Some Modest Plans For Eliminating the Budget Crisis
By Curt Lovelace

The hottest topic of conversation at the State House these days is the budget. With a new governor who was, according to one legislator, "hired by the people to fix the budget mess," and a legislature willing to allow him to do the hard work of making cuts, some interesting days lie ahead. As the same legislator told us a day or two later, "It ain't pretty and it ain't gonna get any prettier next year."

Governor Romney isn't the only person in the Commonwealth thinking about how to trim the budget. There have already been calls from many constituent groups telling him that their budget is the important one and it should not only be preserved at current levels, but probably should be funded at a higher rate. There are think-tanks, watch-dog groups and citizen-coalitions all working their sharp pencils to tell the state's elected budget axe-wielder how to proceed.

Two particular cuts came to our attention in the past few days. We thought we'd share them with our readers, which, of course, means the Governor will be made aware of them. BHB reader Bruce Hall sent this suggestion after reading that 21 press secretaries had been fired.
"Today he fired 21 press secretaries, saving just over $1 million. Know how he can save another million? Eliminate funding for gay/straight alliances. Not only should the state not promote homosexuality among teenagers - or any kind of teenage sexual behavior - but they have been doing so for so long that there are a number of such alliances and an infrastructure to support them. Therefore they no longer need $1.5 million in state, seed money."

Pro-family citizens have been trying to get that $1.5 million out of the budget for several years. This is certainly an opportune moment to make that cut. The journey to $600 million in budget trimming begins with the first million.

Jim Wallace of Gun Owners Action League handed us the second budget-saving suggestion. His concern is about a cut that has already been included in the budget, but that, in his estimation, will cost the state more than it saves. The budget items include a reduction of $35,000 from Hunter Education, $1.3 million from the Land Stamp Acquisition Fund, and about $17,000 from the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife staff budget. On the face of it, these items save the state almost $1.4 million. The problem is that Gov. Romney's appropriations bill calls for this amount to be transferred to the General Fund.

Under federal law, Wallace explained, "if these funds are invaded by the state, Massachusetts will lose approximately $4.6 million in federal funding." That's a loss of more than $3 million as well as a crippling blow to Fisheries and Wildlife, who do so much to clean up and maintain our natural environment. And, by the way, sportsmen and women pay for the Division themselves. These revenues come, not from the taxpayer, but from hunting and fishing license revenues.

So, here we have two suggestions which could save the state more than $4 million. Only $500 million or so to go. We know that there are conservative groups in the state working on more wide-ranging plans to suggest to the governor. Now's the time to unveil them.

Curt Lovelace writes the Beacon Hill Beat every day on MassNews.com.

Parents Allowed to Sue Schools,
says Ninth Circuit

In an esoteric case that will have lawyers scratching their heads for years, a group of parents were allowed to sue a school district in California in the federal courts where a Sacramento charter school was based upon the teachings of Rudolf Steiner, including his "spiritual science," known as Anthroposophy. The suit has been up and down in the federal court since 1998. The school system challenged the "standing" of the parents to sue because it said there was not a "measurable sum of public funds" being used in the project. Finally, after many hearings in many courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the parents can sue if they can prove what they allege in their Complaint. The court said this charter school is analogous to funding a charter Catholic School, in which case, "there would be no question as to taxpayer standing to challenge such funding."

The organization which brought the suit, Pacific Justice Institute, claims that the decision will "make it easier for citizens to hold school districts accountable on some curriculum issues." Lawyers in Massachusetts say it certainly shows the tenacity that is required to be successful in suits of this type. The case is Plans, Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified School District.

Is Appeals Court Signaling a Change in 209A Violence Cases Against Men?

Did the Appeals Court signal a change in the ease with which 209A violence orders are obtained against men in the courts when it wrote the Feb. 5 case of Szymkowski v. Szymkowski?

There is some heartening language in the opinion which reversed a trial judge. But some is merely repeated language from old cases. This could be just a recognition of the facts in this particular case without indicating any desire to change the system.

In order to ensure that the system does change, Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families, a Boston-based advocacy group of 2,000 men and women in Massachusetts, is introducing legislation for that purpose. Holstein, a medical doctor, says:

"The biggest abuse of civil rights in Massachusetts today is the rubber-stamping of 40,000 restraining orders per year with little or no due process. Yesterday's announcement highlights the need for legislative action to address the problem.

"The ruling yesterday by Judge Rudolph Hass involved Patrick R. Szymkowski, of Charlestown, who has been barred from seeing his 10-year old daughter for over three years, due to the allegations of abuse. Judge Hass stated, 'There are distinct overtones of the use of (this restraining order law) as a weapon.' and that they should only be used when 'serious physical harm is imminent.'

"Szymkowski, while somewhat vindicated by the decision said, 'I'm a shattered man from what I have had to endure. I still must continue an exhaustive and expensive fight for custody and visitation with my own child. We must change the laws in this state, because thousands of children like mine are being torn apart by this injustice.'

"About 40,000 209A restraining orders are issued annually in Massachusetts. Former Massachusetts Bar Association President Elaine M. Epstein wrote, 'The facts have become irrelevant.the truth is it has become impossible to represent a man against whom any allegation of domestic violence has been made.'"

Dr. Holstein said his organization has filed a bill to address this serious situation. "Our bill, An Act to Guarantee Evidentiary and Procedural Protections, would ensure that the rights of the accused and the needs of the victim will be treated in a more balanced manner. This is the only way that children can be protected from sudden, lengthy and wrenching separations from loving, innocent parents."

The language in the opinion which Holstein found encouraging is: "In the instant case, there are distinct overtones of the use of c. 209A as a weapon in circumstances of reciprocal hostility between divorced parents and differences, as well as genuine concern, about how to deal with a child.

"For those reasons, among others, a court 'should not issue a G. L. c.209A order simply because it seems to be a good idea or because [it seems] it will not cause the defendant any real inconvenience.' [Here the court cited the 1995 case from which the quotation was taken.] A c.209A order will infallibly cause inconvenience. In considering whether to issue a c.209A order, the judge must focus on whether serious physical harm is imminent. [citation of a previous case.] Generalized apprehension does not rise to the level of fear of imminent serious physical harm. [citation of a previous case.] In considering an application for a c. 209A order, a judge must be alert against allowing the process to be used, as it sometimes is, "abusively by litigants for purposes of discovery and harassment. [citation of a previous case]."

Lawyers point out that this father has a long way to go because the opinion specifically pointed out that he could be compelled to have supervised visitation with his daughter - and every parent and child who has ever been involved in that knows what a nightmare it is to everyone.

Children of Single Parents Do Poorly

Children in single-parent homes are twice as likely to develop serious psychiatric illnesses as their counterparts, according to an important study of one million children tracked for a decade, as reported by A.P. in the Boston Globe of Jan. 24.

The study was done in Sweden and reported in Lancet magazine. There were 921,257 children living with both parents, about 60,000 living with their mother and about 5,500 living with the father. Those children living with one parent were twice as likely to develop a psychiatric illness such as severe depression or schizophrenia, to kill themselves or attempt suicide, and to develop an alcohol-related disease. Girls were three times more likely to become drug addicts and boys were four times more likely.

James Dobson Sees 'Domestic Partner' Problems in California, but Continues to Back 'Soft' Federal Amendment

James Dobson continues to promote a "soft" amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would not prohibit civil unions, even though he foresees a continuing fight in California, which enthusiastically passed a state constitution amendment in 2000 which defined marriage as between one-man-and-one-woman.

Dobson reported last month on his Focus on the Family website that: "The gay and lesbian caucus of the California Legislature has announced it will introduce a bill this year to give domestic partners all the legal rights and responsibilities of married couples." If passed this would "put California on a par with Vermont," he reported and he quoted a homosexual activist: "If California passes this, it sends a message to the rest of the nation."

Dobson's Focus is the only family organization that backs the federal amendment as it is written. The others, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council and American Family Association all oppose it in its present form unless it is changed to include domestic partners also. They say it will be a huge use of resources to pass such an amendment and should not be undertaken if it is only to protect the name "marriage" and if it puts family activists immediately under fire again.

Lowell Sun Says Repeal Pacheco Bill; Save Millions, Help Union Workers

The Lowell Sun says we must repeal the Pacheco Bill which costs taxpayers millions of dollars and hurts union workers.

MassNews had a story in its Dec. 2002 issue about this law which has virtually outlawed the privatization of public services, according to the Pioneer Institute. The Commonwealth of Virginia has about the same size budget and population as Massachusetts, Pioneer told MassNews. In 1995, they created the Commonwealth Competition Council, which resulted in the privatization of many agencies. They saved $100 million, the study claims,
They said that even if most agencies in Massachusetts were privatized, workers would still be unionized employees. "The fact is that more than 50% of union employees work in the private sector. This is not a rank-and-file issue," they contend. "This is not a union-members' issue, it's a union leaders' issue," they say. "It's about membership and dues." It is used by leaders of public employee unions to scare their membership, who fear that privatization will lead to the loss of their jobs, according to the study.

They found that Massachusetts is the only state that is burdened by a law that is so prohibitive to free enterprise that many private contractors have been scared away from the state.

The law is named for State Senator Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) who pushed it through the Legislature in 1993.

For further information, see the December issue of MassNews online or the Pioneer Institute at www.pioneerinstitute.org.

Was Bush's State of the Union a Huge Win
for Fathers?

President Bush's State of the Union address was a "huge win" for the fatherhood movement, says Dr. Ned Holstein, President of Fathers and Families in Boston.

"It was easy to miss," he says. "But it was there when the President said, 'For so many in our country - the homeless, the FATHERLESS, the addicted - the need is great.'

Holstein says, "Once fatherlessness - not child support enforcement, not welfare for single-parent families, not greater freedom for single mothers to move away - is accepted as a major social problem, as happened last night, our position will prevail. You simply cannot identify fatherlessness as a big problem and then continue forever to award sole custody to mothers, allow out-of-state moveaways, throw fathers in jail for trivial offenses, assess so much child support fathers cannot care for their children in their own homes, etc.

"Remember that aides debate for hours about every single word in a big speech such as this one. The fact that 'fatherless' made the cut is huge. The President of the United States has now publicly identified fatherlessness as a major social problem."

State Policemen at Logan Getting Rich

Five State Policemen at Logan Airport earned more than $200,000 each last year, according to the Boston Globe, with one earning $251,000. There were a dozen earning more than $100,000. The cost of State Police at Logan and other MassPort facilities has nearly doubled since 9/11, with many of the officers having to work very long hours.

Are the Courts 'On-the-Take' Regarding Child Support?

The Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition reports what they call an "amazing exchange" between their member, Mark Cimini, and a state Representative. It's not denied that the Common-wealth, including the courts, get federal money when child support is awarded, but the Representative does not believe this would influence a judge in his decision.

This is the letter written by the father to state Rep. Geoffrey D. Hall, who is Chairman of the Committee on State Administration:

"I ask that you look into the contract between the Department of Revenue and the Probate and Family courts where the Federal child support 'bounty,' ten percent of child support monies collected, is returned directly to judicial coffers. Considering that the judicial branch is supposed to be impartial to the point where even the perception of improprieties is wrong, the fact that a judicial committee determines the child support formula, members of the judiciary enforce the formula, and then the courts benefit from the collections, is a serious concern for both the integrity of the judicial branch and for possible actions against the state. The judiciary should make sure that fit parents are not removed from a child's life, that Constitutional protections (e.g., no debtor's prison) are upheld, and that the state should not be in the business of offering incentives for relationship, marital, and reproductive fraud. Their job is not to invent additional revenue streams disregarding parents rights in the process. Again, thank you for your efforts."

Rep. Hall replied: "Thank you for your e-mail regarding the legislation I filed on your behalf and the so-called federal child support 'bounty' program. My office has contacted the Massachusetts Department of Revenue on this issue. As part of the Welfare Reform Act passed in 1996, an incentive program was implemented requiring the states to meet certain criteria relating to child support issues regarding collection of arrears, collection of child support, amount of money in arrears, number of pending cases, etc. If a state failed to meet the criteria set for each of the topics of this complex formula, then the state would be fined, as Massachusetts was last year ($6.3 million dollars). The federal program was instituted to tighten the child support programs. If a state complies, it is awarded federal monies which must be re-invested in the child support program. This funding is awarded to the Department of Revenue, which in turn shares it with the judiciary as part of a cooperative child support program."

Rep. Hall did not believe the judges are influenced by the money coming to the court. "In regards to your other question, it is unlikely that higher child support amounts would be imposed in order to receive more funding. The judges generally follow the child support guidelines, and in the event they do not, they must justify their decision. Thank you again for your e-mail."

The head of the Berkshire group, Attorney Rinaldo Del Gallo translates this to mean: "More court orders of child support mean more federal money [for Massachusetts - including the courts."]

Coloring Book for Children Features Art
of Raphael
Dale O'Leary has designed a coloring book for children which features the art of Raphael. Why a coloring book on Raphael? "Because we are fighting a Culture War," says O'Leary. "And how can we win a Culture War if our only weapons are arguments. We need to restore the culture. If we want a real cultural renaissance, perhaps going back and studying previous renaissances, will help us understand the part that literature and art play in forming a culture.
And we need to start with the children. So a coloring book seemed a place to start," says O'Leary.

The books are available for $4.95 plus $1.25 shipping and handling from Heart Beat News, PO Box 41294, Providence, RI 02904. The web is heartbeatnews1@cox.net.

Amherst Residents Continue to Wink at Child Molestation in Its Schools

Some Amherst citizens were disturbed when it was discovered that its high school principal, Stephen Myers, is a man who loves to have sex with boys. But most of the residents have apparently learned to live with this "diversity" over the past year.

Myers was finally removed from his post. The young boy he had living with him was taken by DSS, but no charges have been pressed. The word is that Myers is still in the area but is incognito. The school tried to hire a new principal but has not yet been successful.

A course on gay literature is apparently still being taught to discuss things such as a student-written monologue on a woman recollecting her first lesbian "experience," whatever that may be.

CLT Says Mass. Taxpayers Foundation Is a 'Shill for Tax Increases on Average Taxpayers'

CLT has slammed the "so-called Mass. Taxpayers Foundation," which it calls a "nonpartisan, business-backed" special interest group whose members have already been "targeted" by "the left" for tax increases and repeal of their "business tax credits and cuts." It says the MTF is looking to shift those taxes to everyone else at the request of Speaker Finneran. CLT writes:

"President Mickey Widmer has got his work cut out to shift those tax hikes he's advocating again onto the shoulders of 'working men and women' again. If he doesn't effectively do Tommy Taxes' bidding, his members will wind up footing the bill next... and Widmer can't survive that scenario!

"Remember that former Dukakoid Mickey W. was the face-of-opposition to Carla Howell's ballot question to abolish the state income tax. He's never met a tax he didn't like... unless it falls on his Fat Cat buddies.

"Today, a New Bedford Standard-Times editorial, stated:

"'It's going to be ugly,' Michael Widmer, the president of the fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told the editorial board of The Standard-Times yesterday.

"These were his words when asked to predict what the next few months will be like as a smart, accomplished new governor and the Legislature attempt to close a budget gap for this year and next year that has not been this large since the Depression.

"Although reluctant to criticize Gov. Mitt Romney at this early stage, Mr. Widmer does not believe that the new governor can close an estimated $2 billion to $3 billion gap expected in 2003-04 without seeking some tax increases...

"On May 29 of last year, the so-called Mass. Taxpayers Foundation - the big business-backed special interest group - issued another of its incessant and meaningless reports: The Commonwealth's Fiscal Crisis: Opportunity for Important Spending Reforms, which proposed all sorts of spending reductions, such as blowing up the Quinn Bill, ending paid police details, repealing the Pacheco Law, reforming the school construction boondoggle, freeing the patronage-ridden judicial system, Medicaid reform, blah, blah, blah.

"So what did MTF get for its support and advocacy of 'The Biggest Tax Increase in State History'?

"The Biggest Tax Increase in State History, period.

"Later last year, on Aug. 22, Michael Widmer and his Boston Fat Cats issued another useless report: MTF 2003 Budget: Major Accomplishments in Closing Gap. It concluded:
"'The state has also missed a major opportunity presented by the fiscal crisis to attack a long list of "sacred cows" and eliminate spending abuses and inefficiencies. While no one with any clear understanding of the state budget argues that rooting out wasteful spending would solve the Commonwealth's fiscal problems, the state had both the occasion - and the responsibility - to take on longstanding abuses. To name just one egregious example, it is difficult to justify spending more on the scandal-ridden police incentive pay program (the "Quinn bill") ...'

"The Standard-Times editorial philosophy is eerily reminiscent of a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that 'Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.' He 'uttered those words in 1904, before there was an income tax,' Barbara Anderson reminds us in her most recent column, 'when, by some definitions, we had more civilization than we have now.'

"While CLT never has never advocated class warfare, and we don't intend to begin now - if Mickey W. and his MTF continue carrying the water for tax increases on average citizens he will have thrown down the gauntlet and will make it impossibly difficult for us to also defend his members, as we historically have done.

"It's time for Mickey W. to go ... if for no other reason than for the good of the business community."

The CLT article was written by Chip Ford.