Tax foes justified in being skeptical

by Tom Keane
Wednesday, July 2, 2003

Politicians have a credibility problem.

And in this year of massive budget cuts, that's deeply frustrating to many in and outside of government. The Massachusetts Municipal Association warns of ``dramatic service reductions.'' Human services advocates fear a ``bloodbath.'' The solution, they all argue, is to raise taxes.

Yet, voters don't believe it.

The electorate nearly abolished the state income tax last November in an anti-tax and anti-government paroxysm that continues unabated today. Even at the local level, for instance, where government spending is more transparent and easier to understand, overrides of the Proposition 2 property tax limit are difficult to manage.

The latest was in Milton, where voters 10 days ago rejected a proposed override. The arguments were familiar. Supporters of the tax increase warned of layoffs and the destruction of a decent public school system. Opponents in effect called them liars. ``We've been listening to that story for too long,'' Milton Selectman James Mullen told a Herald reporter.

And, unfortunately, politicians continue to provide the skeptics with plenty of ammunition. Here is but a small example, drawn from this year's budget negotiations for the city of Boston.

In April, looking at projected cuts of $100 million in state aid, Mayor Thomas Menino unveiled a budget that made some radical changes in spending. One of those was a proposal to save $2.1 million by contracting out custodial services at approximately 60 local schools.

It was hardly a novel idea. Other city buildings, including City Hall and 1010 Massachusetts Ave., use private custodial services. The Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a budget watchdog, had long argued for the reform. Moreover, in its 1999 contract with the custodians union, the administration had fought for (and made expensive concessions for) the right to contract out services, as long as the jobs of existing custodians were protected.

Saving money without reducing services - you would have thought this would have been an easy one.

To the contrary. The fate of the custodians became the most contentious budget item of the year.

Shortly after Menino released his budget, machinations at the State House caused an important change. The House came up with new numbers: Instead of the $100 million cut Menino had feared, state aid would be cut by only $26 million.

Administration officials were delighted, figuring this would allow them to add back some important items such as a police class and additional funding for teachers. City Council members agreed to those add-backs but, with close union ties, they had a different agenda. With the prospect of more money than anticipated coming out of the state, the council's Ways and Means Committee saw an opportunity to stop the privatization the unions dreaded. It rejected the school department's plan for reforming custodial services.

At one point, in fact, the council toyed with the incredible requirement that it would force the school department to add another 20 custodians. Meanwhile, however, the Senate, in its review of the state budget, had come up with more pessimistic numbers than the House: a cut of $39 million vs. $26 million. (The final number was $36 million, although this week's vetoes by Gov. Romney could make it $46 million or more.)

Given this, even the most ardent union proponents on the City Council knew that adding to the number of custodians wouldn't fly. Together with the union, they devised their own proposal: contracting out would be prohibited altogether, but the school department could hire 125 part-time custodians. The savings theoretically would be $1.2 million (because the school department would have to supervise those custodians, however, the actual savings probably would be less).

The difference? At least $900,000. To school officials, facing the prospect of cutting 419 teaching positions, that missing money could better have been used in the classroom.

So why did the City Council end up siding with the custodians over the school department, in effect choosing the union over the kids?

Reforms like contracting out are an anathema to public employee unions. Throughout the spring, union leaders made it clear to councilors that it was a key litmus test. Those who refused to follow labor's line would be denied its support, something that would prove particularly embarrassing at this year's Labor Day breakfast.

The City Council's decision, as Sam Tyler of the Research Bureau puts it, ``was a good political move, but not a good educational move.''

And it provides two important and depressing lessons.

One is that it is only under the most severe budget pressure that politicians will genuinely consider reform. If that pressure is lessened, as happened when the projected state aid cuts were reduced, they will quickly abandon those efforts.

The second is that even in the tightest of budgets, politicians still too readily trade off the broad public good for their own political interests.

The skeptics, it appears, are right.

Talk back to Tom Keane at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.