 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Thursday, March 5, 2020
House
Transportation Tax Grab Passes, As Expected
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Are
cars the new cigarettes? One might get that impression from
Massachusetts lawmakers’ eagerness to slap more taxes on
gasoline.
Right now, the state excise tax on a pack of cigarettes is
$3.51. Most of the bountiful tax revenue goes to the state’s
general fund, with some apportioned to Commonwealth Care
Trust Fund. Taxing a vice pays well.
And
in these environmentally conscious times, carbon emissions
are the new secular sin. “Flight shaming” takes tourists to
task for wasting fuel for the frivolity of vacation, or
otherwise stamping their big carbon footprints on the
landscape.
In
Massachusetts, autos are seen by lawmakers as the vehicle to
a greener future. Or at least one with improved public
transportation and more money in state coffers....
Legislators could get the tax hike bill, with or without
amendments, passed — but voters will have the last word when
re-elections roll around.
A
Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Lawmakers’ gas tax plans should take a hike
The
Massachusetts House of Representatives approved a major tax
bill Wednesday night that Democratic leaders say will
generate more than half a billion dollars for transportation
infrastructure by increasing taxes or fees on gasoline,
corporations, ride-hailing services and vehicle purchases by
rental car companies.
Lawmakers voted mostly along party lines in favor of the
bill, 113-40, after about eight hours of session that
featured little public debate and lengthy periods of public
inactivity.
Representatives rejected or withdrew dozens of amendments
that would have rewritten key sections of the bill, opting
instead to advance a revenue-heavy bill, with few
prescriptions for how the money should be spent, similar to
the version offered by House Speaker Robert DeLeo and his
top deputies....
Under the bill (H 4508), which Democratic leaders project
will bring in $522 million to $612 million per year, the
state's 24-cents-per-gallon gasoline and diesel taxes would
increase by 5 cents and 9 cents, respectively.
Those hikes would be the first of their kind since 2013,
when Beacon Hill approved a controversial law whose sections
indexing the gas tax were repealed by voters in a referendum
just one year later. That law increased the gas tax by 3
cents.
The
House's proposal also seeks increases to the corporate
minimum excise tax, which has not been changed in 30 years,
from $456 for all companies to a tiered structure at the top
of which companies with more than $1 billion in sales would
pay at least $150,000.
Transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft would
be subject to higher costs as well....
The
fourth prong of the revenue bill would require rental car
companies to pay sales tax when they purchase vehicles for
their fleets, a tax from which they are exempt under
existing law....
Every Republican member of the House voted against the
proposed tax increases, as did independent Rep. Susannah
Whipps and eight Democrats: Reps. Brian Ashe of Longmeadow,
Michelle DuBois of Brockton, Colleen Garry of Dracut,
Patrick Kearney of Scituate, John Rogers of Norwood, John
Velis of Westfield, and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said last week he was
"disappointed" with the legislation and opposes both the gas
and corporate tax increases, foreshadowing a potential veto
that Democrats could override with a two-thirds votes.
Based on Wednesday's results, the supermajority party
appears to have the votes for an override if necessary.
The
House shot down amendments from the GOP that would have
scrapped or blunted several of the tax and fee hikes. One
amendment filed by Minority Leader Brad Jones would have
repealed the gas, corporate and vehicle sales tax sections
of the bill if and when a surtax on household income above
$1 million takes effect.
DeLeo's team has referred to the current bill as a "bridge"
to the 4 percent surtax, sometimes referred to as the "Fair
Share Amendment" or "Millionaires Tax," that is on track to
appear before voters on the 2022 ballot. Supporters say that
hike could generate up to $2 billion per year for education
and transportation needs.
"Are we going to be true to our word if the millionaires tax
increases and really spend it on transpo, or is this all
part of the grand shell game?" Jones said. "If we're going
to take in $2 billion, which is supposed to be for one of
two reasons, education and transportation — if that's really
what the millionaires tax is all about, then we should be
willing to sunset these taxes if that in fact passes." ...
Although the legislation dedicates new $27 million streams
to both the MBTA and the RTAs, it does not come close to
spending all of the $552 million-plus it could generate.
Democratic leaders say they will instead use the new funding
to make larger budgetary allocations later in the spring and
to backstop borrowing, with a $14.5 billion transportation
bond bill (H 4506) on deck for a Thursday session.
Most policy changes representatives sought to the bill were
unsuccessful during Wednesday's session....
The
House's approval for a gas tax hike comes as the Baker
administration works to implement a regional cap-and-trade
program on transportation emissions that officials project
could prompt price increases at the pump between 5 cents per
gallon and 17 cents per gallon.
That program, known as the Transportation and Climate
Initiative, has come under fire as elected officials in
other states have questioned its potential impact or
outright declared their intention not to join. While
Democratic leaders in the Massachusetts Legislature have not
opposed the effort, they have raised doubts about its
viability.
The
transportation bill they unveiled last week includes
language that would effectively require the administration
to walk back the gas tax increase if TCI is implemented and
raises prices. Rep. Michelle Ciccolo filed an amendment to
strip that language, but she withdrew it Wednesday.
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Major Tax Bill To Raise $$$ For Transpo Clears House
Attention Shifts To Senate, Where Plans For Bill Are Unclear
The
Massachusetts House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed
a package of fee and tax hikes late Wednesday night that
would make it more expensive for motorists to get around,
raising as much as $600 million and plowing that money into
the MBTA, rural towns, and improvements to crumbling
transportation infrastructure.
Six
months before most seek reelection in the state primary,
lawmakers approved the legislation, 113-40, which would
raise the state’s gas tax 5 cents, to 29 cents per gallon.
It would also hike fees in most cases by $1 per ride on
ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft, which
lawmakers say would be barred from passing on the cost on to
riders....
The
unusual timing to pursue a tax hike in an election year has
hung over deliberations, and they come at an economic
crossroads. The state has enjoyed back-to-back budget
surpluses, but it’s facing broader uncertainty about the
economy as coronavirus fears have left global markets
reeling....
But
raising the cost of gasoline is also a politically volatile
option, and one voters have pushed back on before.
“It’s the kind of left-of center idea that working people
don’t like,” said Mark Horan, a Democratic strategist who in
2014 worked on the effort to keep the law that hooked the
state’s gas tax to inflation. Voters ultimately repealed it
on that year’s ballot, and Horan said “we always knew we
were behind.”
While lawmakers have pledged that some of the new revenue
would be used to fund transportation in rural communities,
as well as public bus systems outside of Greater Boston, a
gas tax hike impacts most of the state’s travelers, Horan
said.
“If
you’re outside of Boston without public transportation, you
have to drive. If you’re a plumber or an electrician, you
have to drive. If you’re a nurse living 30 miles from a
hospital, you have to drive. For them, it’s reaching into
their pocket,” he said.
There were other political and financial considerations in
play as well. Governor Charlie Baker, who has opposed
raising the gas tax, is nonetheless also pursuing a
multistate pact — known as the Transportation and Climate
Initiative, or TCI — that would establish a cap-and-trade
system for transportation fuels and could increase gas
prices by as much as 17 cents per gallon along the East
Coast.
And
looming in roughly two years is still another potential tax
hike: A 2022 ballot question that, if approved by voters,
would add a surtax on household income over $1 million and
raise as much as $2 billion annually to help fund
transportation and education.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo has described the current tax
bill as a “bridge” to that potential revenue windfall, a
version of which was shot down before reaching the 2018
ballot amid a legal challenge. But his budget chair,
Representative Aaron Michlewitz, warned that both the
multistate initiative and wealth surtax, despite their
“noble goals,” are still hypothetical and that any promised
revenue could be at least three years away.
“It
is undeniable that both of these have many challenges and
hurdles in front of them before they will ever become
reality,” Michlewitz said from the House floor Wednesday in
arguing for the need to raise taxes now. He also gave a
muted assessment of emissions initiative, which has sowed
concern among other New England governors.
“To
be perfectly blunt,” Michlewitz said, "it seems as if we’re
the only ones leading and not many others are following.”
...
On
Thursday, the House is also expected to take up separate but
related legislation: A $14.5 billion transportation bond
bill that seeds various projects over several years through
borrowing.
As
the tax bill moves to the Senate, transit advocates
suggested that chamber should raise the levy on gas even
higher and authorize a tolling pilot with a goal of reducing
traffic. The House bill calls for a study of these
“congestion pricing” mechanisms and a to-be-determined date
to create a plan to implement the study’s recommendations.
The
House bill is “definitely progress, and we need that when
the status quo is so painful for so many people across the
state,” said Chris Dempsey, director of Transportation for
Massachusetts, an advocacy group. “But we’re also looking
forward to working with the Senate because we think there’s
more that can be done.”
Senate leaders have not laid out a specific timeline for
tackling legislation. The chamber’s president, Karen E.
Spilka, has suggested it would look at using new revenue to
offset public transit fares.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Massachusetts House passes hike to gas tax, ride-hailing
fees
The $600 million bill is designed to funnel new money toward
transportation
"When it comes to our transportation system, revenue can’t
wait,” declared Robert DeLeo, the Massachusetts House
speaker, when he unveiled a bill last month to raise taxes
by $600 million. “Revenue can’t wait any longer.”
Since the House, for all intents and purposes, is a
one-party institution whose members vote as they’re told,
there wasn’t any doubt that DeLeo’s bill would be approved.
What passes for deliberation on Beacon Hill began in the
House on Wednesday afternoon and was over by Wednesday
night. A number of amendments to soften the measure’s tax
bite were introduced, only to be withdrawn or handily
defeated. After a legislative session “that featured little
public debate and lengthy periods of public inactivity,” as
the State House News Service put it, the bill was
overwhelmingly approved....
The
overlords of the Massachusetts transportation system aren’t
in dire straits for lack of revenue. Taxes have been gushing
into the state’s coffers at record-busting levels. In fiscal
year 2019, Massachusetts collected nearly $2 billion more in
taxes than it had the year before, a surplus much higher
than officials had anticipated. And the flood of incoming
dollars hasn’t slowed: “Tax receipts over the first seven
months of fiscal 2020 are up 4.9 percent,” reports State
House News — a whopping “$794 million over the same period
in fiscal 2019.” ...
To
be sure, Massachusetts roads need fixing. Anyone who drives
the state’s highways and byways knows what wretched
condition many of them are in. Comparative studies of the
nation’s transportation networks have concluded for years
that Massachusetts has some of the most cracked, crumbled,
and corroded highways and bridges in the country. Last
summer, USA Today published a state-by-state ranking of
decrepit transportation infrastructure, based on data from
the Federal Highway Administration. Massachusetts ranked
sixth from the bottom....
Each year the Reason Foundation, a market-oriented think
tank with a longstanding focus on transportation, issues a
detailed study of each state’s highway system. The
foundation ranks the states in multiple categories,
including traffic fatalities, pavement condition,
congestion, spending per mile, and so on. In one area,
Massachusetts has an outstanding record: Its highway
fatality rate is the lowest in America. But when it comes to
cost-effectiveness — to the amount of money Massachusetts
spends per mile, both on maintenance and administration —
its record is atrocious.
In
the most recent Reason report, Massachusetts ranked 48th out
of 50 in total overall highway spending per mile, and 45th
in capital and bridge spending per mile. (The lower the
ranking, the higher the dollar amount)....
In
every area, Massachusetts’ spending is out of control. Take
maintenance. North Dakota, one of the best-managed highway
systems in the nation, spends $1,657 on maintenance
disbursements per mile. Maine spends $12,109. Massachusetts?
$25,033.
Equally disgraceful is the Commonwealth’s spending on
administration. Four states — Kentucky, Nebraska, Arkansas,
and Missouri — manage to hold their administrative costs to
less than $1,000 per mile of state highway. Within New
England, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont all keep their
administrative costs below $10,000 per mile. But
Massachusetts pours a mind-boggling $23,950 per mile into
highway administration. And what does it achieve for all
that spending? One of the worst-run highway systems in the
nation.
Plainly, the cure for what ails Massachusetts transportation
isn’t more revenue. It has plenty of that. What it needs
more of is competent management....
Another $600 million a year in tax revenue is the very last
thing the Legislature should support. Alas, raising taxes is
Beacon Hill’s default remedy for every ill. If DeLeo’s bill
becomes law, two outcomes are certain: The people of
Massachusetts will get to keep even less of their own money.
And they will continue to drive on some of the most
expensive, yet worst-maintained, roadways in America.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Beacon Hill to riders and drivers: Drop dead
By Jeff Jacoby
Transportation funding legislation may not emerge in the
Senate until May, and will likely take a different approach
than the roughly $600 million tax-and-fee package the House
approved Wednesday night.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues told two
reporters that the upper chamber will take up its version of
the bill "within the next couple of months," aiming for a
release before the Senate begins its annual budget
deliberations in May.
Rodrigues and Revenue Committee Co-chair Sen. Adam Hinds
declined to offer specifics on the Senate legislation,
although both stressed they agree the state needs to make
more investments in transportation.
The
Senate proposal, Rodrigues said, is also "probably going to
be more policy-focused than tax- or revenue-focused."
State House News Service
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Senate Leaders Sizing Up Transpo $$$, Policies
Rodrigues Sees Bill in "Next Couple of Months"
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Last night at
8:28 PM the House voted 133-40 to impose another gas tax
hike on Massachusetts motorists, among other tax
increases included in the bill that is expected to rake
in an additional $600 million annually. [Roll
Call Vote here] That's more than enough to
insure a two-thirds vote if Gov. Baker summons up the
courage to veto it. His veto assured to be
overridden, being but meaningless virtue signaling to
taxpayers, I
suppose we can count on it from him. Now the House
transportation tax bill moves to the Senate.
It's been
driving me crazy how everyone has simply accepted the
premise "When it comes to our transportation system,
revenue can’t wait,” as if it's Moses presenting The Ten
Commandments tablets upon descending from Mount Sinai.
● Why is there so
little if any mention of the multi-billion dollar budget
surpluses (over-taxation) over recent years that gets
squandered?
●
Why is there so little if any mention of the
"Millionaires Tax," the "Fair Share" graduated income
tax constitutional amendment that's expected to be on
the 2022 ballot and expected to pass, which is expected
to rake in an additional $2 Billion year after
year allegedly to
be spent only on education and transportation?
●
And why has there been no mention whatsoever
of the embarrassingly astronomical amount wasted
by Massachusetts on its highway maintenance and
construction, over 300 percent more than the national
average?
Finally, as
Citizens for Limited Taxation has done for years, Boston
Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby had the temerity to
challenge the shibboleth.
His column
summation said it all:
"Alas,
raising taxes is Beacon Hill’s default remedy for every
ill. If DeLeo’s bill becomes law, two outcomes are
certain: The people of Massachusetts will get to
keep even less of their own money. And they will
continue to drive on some of the most expensive, yet
worst-maintained, roadways in America."
What more
needs to be said — but
that, in Massachusetts, the majority of voters get what
they pay for, and apparently what they want.
Certainly they're getting what they deserve.
They pay for, elect, and reelect "The Best Legislature
Money Can Buy," which squanders the riches extracted
from taxpayers, then when legislators want more to
squander, with impunity the arrogant pols come back and
simply take more, again and again.
After all
these decades fighting for taxpayers, I still
can't decide whether that majority is
pathologically masochistic with a death wish, don't know
any better and passively accept their lot like a flock of
sheep being sheared, or are just plain stupid. Perhaps the
answer is as simple as the The Takers have
reached a permanent and growing majority
— a new
consideration.
It's
detestable that far too many Bay State taxpayers have
such little impact or control over their standard of
living, quality of life, or their destiny. They
apparently won't until that majority either becomes
impoverished enough, or wakes up before they become so.
With productive taxpayers fleeing the state, that tipping point is
getting closer.
The Boston
Herald editorial concluded:
"Legislators could get the tax hike bill, with or
without amendments, passed — but voters will have
the last word when re-elections roll around."
We've been
waiting for decades for that promised day to arrive.
We thought the
Legislature's obscene pay grab would be the final
straw, but it caused not a ripple of behavioral change
among the majority of voters. Will this
— this time
— or will the Beacon Hill pols get away with
their insatiable greed without consequence all over
again?
The next
battleground will be in the state Senate. We'll
let you know when it's time to contact your state
senator, but it's never too early to start.
FIND YOUR STATE SENATOR HERE
YOUR STATE SENATOR'S WEBSITE
State House Address | Phone
| E-mail Address
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
A Boston Herald editorial
Lawmakers’ gas tax plans should take a hike
Are cars the new cigarettes? One
might get that impression from Massachusetts
lawmakers’ eagerness to slap more taxes on
gasoline.
Right now, the state excise tax on a pack of
cigarettes is $3.51. Most of the bountiful tax
revenue goes to the state’s general fund, with
some apportioned to Commonwealth Care Trust
Fund. Taxing a vice pays well.
And in these environmentally conscious times,
carbon emissions are the new secular sin.
“Flight shaming” takes tourists to task for
wasting fuel for the frivolity of vacation, or
otherwise stamping their big carbon footprints
on the landscape.
In Massachusetts, autos are seen by lawmakers as
the vehicle to a greener future. Or at least one
with improved public transportation and more
money in state coffers.
Last week, House Speaker Robert DeLeo unveiled a
legislative package that called for a 5 cent gas
tax increase, bringing it up to 29 cents per
gallon, and a 9 cent increase on diesel fuel to
33 cents per gallon. State officials estimate
that the gas tax increase will raise between
$150 million and $175 million while the diesel
tax bump will bring in $32 million.
DeLeo has plans for that tax money. “When it
comes to our transportation system, revenue
can’t wait,” DeLeo said. “Our residents, our
communities and our economy are dependent on an
immediate source of revenue.”
Rank-and-file Democrats upped the ante, called
for even more gasoline and diesel tax increases
in dozens of amendments. One, filed by Brookline
Democratic Rep.Tommy Vitolo, increases both the
gas tax and diesel tax another 5 cents in 2022
and a third 5-cent increase in 2024 until they
reach 39 cents per gallon and 43 cents per
gallon, respectively.
Other amendments would subject Suffolk and
Middlesex counties to a “higher tier” — without
specifying numbers — of gas taxes, or would
allow cities and towns to impose an additional
3-cent excise tax on fuel sales to retail
dealers.
The House takes up the bill Wednesday.
Republican lawmakers are ready to challenge the
hikes.
One of the most stunning takeaways is that these
lawmakers seem unable to read the room. Bay
State residents don’t want a gas tax hike, and
have said so.
“It was just six years ago that the people of
Massachusetts spoke out clearly that they didn’t
feel that Beacon Hill was looking out for their
best interests in raising the gas tax,” former
state representative and U.S. Senate candidate
Geoff Diehl told the Herald. Diehl successfully
fought to repeal a gas tax hike in 2014.
“The people spoke clearly on gas tax hikes,”
said Holly Robichaud, a Republican strategist
who worked with Diehl to defeat the gas tax in
2014.
They haven’t warmed up to the idea since.
And if it’s revenue for the transit system
they’re after, Gov. Charlie Baker’s been working
on it.
“I don’t think we need to raise taxes to fund
the plan that we filed, which is actually a
bigger plan than the one that is going to be
debated by the House next week,” Baker told
reporters Thursday, referencing his $18 billion
transportation borrowing bill filed last year.
Baker’s bill would fund projects including $5.7
billion for the MBTA and about $11 billion on
roads and bridges, as well as reduce greenhouse
gases and mitigate traffic problems.
Legislators could get the tax hike bill, with or
without amendments, passed — but voters will
have the last word when re-elections roll
around.
State House News Service
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Major Tax Bill To Raise $$$ For Transpo Clears
House
Attention Shifts To Senate, Where Plans For Bill
Are Unclear
By Chris Lisinski
The Massachusetts House of
Representatives approved a major tax bill
Wednesday night that Democratic leaders say will
generate more than half a billion dollars for
transportation infrastructure by increasing
taxes or fees on gasoline, corporations,
ride-hailing services and vehicle purchases by
rental car companies.
Lawmakers voted mostly along party lines in
favor of the bill, 113-40, after about eight
hours of session that featured little public
debate and lengthy periods of public inactivity.
Representatives rejected or withdrew dozens of
amendments that would have rewritten key
sections of the bill, opting instead to advance
a revenue-heavy bill, with few prescriptions for
how the money should be spent, similar to the
version offered by House Speaker Robert DeLeo
and his top deputies.
DeLeo and other elected officials had pledged
since last year that they would take action to
raise new revenue for transportation, hoping to
revitalize the aging and unreliable MBTA system,
inject more money into road maintenance, and
offer greater support to regional transit
authorities.
Wednesday's vote came after months of
behind-the-scenes deliberations and with less
than five months of formal lawmaking business
remaining before the Legislature breaks to focus
on elections.
"It has become clearer by the day that the need
for more transportation revenue is real and it
is immediate," said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, chair
of the House Ways and Means Committee, during
debate. "Whether your constituents come from a
district that is considered urban or rural or
anything in between, it is undeniable that our
transportation system is not meeting the needs
that our citizens expect and deserve."
Under the bill (H 4508), which Democratic
leaders project will bring in $522 million to
$612 million per year, the state's
24-cents-per-gallon gasoline and diesel taxes
would increase by 5 cents and 9 cents,
respectively.
Those hikes would be the first of their kind
since 2013, when Beacon Hill approved a
controversial law whose sections indexing the
gas tax were repealed by voters in a referendum
just one year later. That law increased the gas
tax by 3 cents.
The House's proposal also seeks increases to the
corporate minimum excise tax, which has not been
changed in 30 years, from $456 for all companies
to a tiered structure at the top of which
companies with more than $1 billion in sales
would pay at least $150,000.
Transportation network companies such as Uber
and Lyft would be subject to higher costs as
well. The bill would increase the $0.20-per-trip
flat fee to $1.20 for each non-shared ride and
$2.20 for every luxury ride — while keeping the
cost the same when users carpool. The
legislation does contain language aimed at
preventing the companies from passing those
hikes directly onto riders.
A Rep. Josh Cutler amendment the House adopted
on a voice vote also blocks those fees from
applying to riders who use the companies for
paratransit service.
The fourth prong of the revenue bill would
require rental car companies to pay sales tax
when they purchase vehicles for their fleets, a
tax from which they are exempt under existing
law.
Every Republican member of the House voted
against the proposed tax increases, as did
independent Rep. Susannah Whipps and eight
Democrats: Reps. Brian Ashe of Longmeadow,
Michelle DuBois of Brockton, Colleen Garry of
Dracut, Patrick Kearney of Scituate, John Rogers
of Norwood, John Velis of Westfield, and
Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said last week he
was "disappointed" with the legislation and
opposes both the gas and corporate tax
increases, foreshadowing a potential veto that
Democrats could override with a two-thirds
votes.
Based on Wednesday's results, the supermajority
party appears to have the votes for an override
if necessary.
The House shot down amendments from the GOP that
would have scrapped or blunted several of the
tax and fee hikes. One amendment filed by
Minority Leader Brad Jones would have repealed
the gas, corporate and vehicle sales tax
sections of the bill if and when a surtax on
household income above $1 million takes effect.
DeLeo's team has referred to the current bill as
a "bridge" to the 4 percent surtax, sometimes
referred to as the "Fair Share Amendment" or
"Millionaires Tax," that is on track to appear
before voters on the 2022 ballot. Supporters say
that hike could generate up to $2 billion per
year for education and transportation needs.
"Are we going to be true to our word if the
millionaires tax increases and really spend it
on transpo, or is this all part of the grand
shell game?" Jones said. "If we're going to take
in $2 billion, which is supposed to be for one
of two reasons, education and transportation —
if that's really what the millionaires tax is
all about, then we should be willing to sunset
these taxes if that in fact passes."
Republicans also attempted to delay the
implementation of the three tax pieces of the
legislation until the Baker administration's
budget office and the Department of Revenue
conduct a study — without being given a deadline
— on the economic impact of the tax changes.
That amendment failed with just 33
representatives supporting it after
Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. William
Straus said the amendment was "craftily-worded"
to essentially prevent the tax changes from
taking effect.
"I appreciate the chairman of transportation
referring to the amendment as craftily-drafted
because we stole it from your side of the
aisle," Jones said, referring to the way
Democrats often sink GOP-sponsored amendments by
requiring the issue to first be studied. "We've
been subjected to it numerous times."
The legislation does not call for adjustment of
roadway tolls to incentivize off-peak travel, a
practice referred to as congestion pricing, but
it does require a one-year study of the topic.
Rep. Alice Peisch of Wellesley filed an
amendment that would have required the
Department of Transportation to deploy tolls
across the state and use congestion pricing, but
she scaled back her proposal to require only
that MassDOT develop a plan to implement the
study's recommendations. The House adopted her
updated amendment.
"The Commonwealth's worst-in-the-nation traffic
is holding back our economy and hurting our
quality of life," Chris Dempsey, executive
director of the Transportation for Massachusetts
advocacy coalition, said in a statement. "As
this proposal moves to the Senate, it will be
critical to match the ambition of the Commission
with real-world piloting and testing of pricing
concepts so that Massachusetts drivers can see
the benefits of a policy that is working in
Seattle, Washington D.C., and other peer
regions."
Although the legislation dedicates new $27
million streams to both the MBTA and the RTAs,
it does not come close to spending all of the
$552 million-plus it could generate. Democratic
leaders say they will instead use the new
funding to make larger budgetary allocations
later in the spring and to backstop borrowing,
with a $14.5 billion transportation bond bill (H
4506) on deck for a Thursday session.
Most policy changes representatives sought to
the bill were unsuccessful during Wednesday's
session.
On a voice vote with no debate, the House
rejected one amendment from Rep. David LeBoeuf
that would have used one cent of the diesel tax
to make all RTA bus fares free to riders. Two
other proposals to fund free MBTA or RTA buses
were quietly withdrawn as the evening proceeded.
That decision could prompt disagreement between
the House and the Senate, where President Karen
Spilka has already said she believes any new
transportation revenues should be used to
"change behavior," particularly by reducing
public transit fares. The Senate has not laid
out any concrete plans to date to consider the
House bill.
Another high-profile amendment withdrawn was a
Brookline Rep. Tommy Vitolo recommendation to
tack on two more 5-cent increases to the gas and
diesel taxes in 2022 and 2024. Like several of
the fare-free proposals, that amendment was not
explained or debated on the floor.
One amendment that was successful would see the
Fiscal and Management Control Board that
oversees the MBTA grow from five seats to seven,
adding representation for the city of Boston and
another municipality in the T's coverage area.
The original House bill proposed extending the
board from its July 1 expiration to 2023 with a
further extension to 2025 possible, but it left
the structure in place. The House adopted an
amendment from Brighton Rep. Kevin Honan on an
unrecorded voice vote that retains the extension
and adds two seats to the board.
In his annual budget bill filed in January,
Baker called for two new members on a successor
board that would include a rider, a
representative for an MBTA community and the
secretary of transportation. Boston Mayor Marty
Walsh has been calling for a Boston-specific
seat on the T's oversight board since last
summer.
The House's approval for a gas tax hike comes as
the Baker administration works to implement a
regional cap-and-trade program on transportation
emissions that officials project could prompt
price increases at the pump between 5 cents per
gallon and 17 cents per gallon.
That program, known as the Transportation and
Climate Initiative, has come under fire as
elected officials in other states have
questioned its potential impact or outright
declared their intention not to join. While
Democratic leaders in the Massachusetts
Legislature have not opposed the effort, they
have raised doubts about its viability.
The transportation bill they unveiled last week
includes language that would effectively require
the administration to walk back the gas tax
increase if TCI is implemented and raises
prices. Rep. Michelle Ciccolo filed an amendment
to strip that language, but she withdrew it
Wednesday.
— Colin A. Young
contributed reporting.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Massachusetts House passes hike to gas tax,
ride-hailing fees
The $600 million bill is designed to funnel new
money toward transportation
By Matt Stout and Adam Vaccaro
The Massachusetts House of
Representatives overwhelmingly passed a package
of fee and tax hikes late Wednesday night that
would make it more expensive for motorists to
get around, raising as much as $600 million and
plowing that money into the MBTA, rural towns,
and improvements to crumbling transportation
infrastructure.
Six months before most seek reelection in the
state primary, lawmakers approved the
legislation, 113-40, which would raise the
state’s gas tax 5 cents, to 29 cents per gallon.
It would also hike fees in most cases by $1 per
ride on ride-hailing companies such as Uber and
Lyft, which lawmakers say would be barred from
passing on the cost on to riders.
In aiming to raise between $522 million and $612
million annually, the bill also targets
businesses: It would create a new system for
corporate taxes, requiring companies with $1
billion or more in sales to pay at least
$150,000. And it would eliminate a sales tax
exemption on rental car company fleets.
The unusual timing to pursue a tax hike in an
election year has hung over deliberations, and
they come at an economic crossroads. The state
has enjoyed back-to-back budget surpluses, but
it’s facing broader uncertainty about the
economy as coronavirus fears have left global
markets reeling.
In passing the gas tax increase, which would be
the second in seven years, lawmakers are trying
to answer years of calls to seed the state’s
crumbling roads and unreliable public transit
options with new cash.
“The current condition of our transportation
system is unacceptable, and we have to provide
the resources to further address our roads,
bridges and mass transit system,” said
Representative William M. Straus, the House
chairman of the transportation committee.
But raising the cost of gasoline is also a
politically volatile option, and one voters have
pushed back on before.
“It’s the kind of left-of center idea that
working people don’t like,” said Mark Horan, a
Democratic strategist who in 2014 worked on the
effort to keep the law that hooked the state’s
gas tax to inflation. Voters ultimately repealed
it on that year’s ballot, and Horan said “we
always knew we were behind.”
While lawmakers have pledged that some of the
new revenue would be used to fund transportation
in rural communities, as well as public bus
systems outside of Greater Boston, a gas tax
hike impacts most of the state’s travelers,
Horan said.
“If you’re outside of Boston without public
transportation, you have to drive. If you’re a
plumber or an electrician, you have to drive. If
you’re a nurse living 30 miles from a hospital,
you have to drive. For them, it’s reaching into
their pocket,” he said.
There were other political and financial
considerations in play as well. Governor Charlie
Baker, who has opposed raising the gas tax, is
nonetheless also pursuing a multistate pact —
known as the Transportation and Climate
Initiative, or TCI — that would establish a
cap-and-trade system for transportation fuels
and could increase gas prices by as much as 17
cents per gallon along the East Coast.
And looming in roughly two years is still
another potential tax hike: A 2022 ballot
question that, if approved by voters, would add
a surtax on household income over $1 million and
raise as much as $2 billion annually to help
fund transportation and education.
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo has described the
current tax bill as a “bridge” to that potential
revenue windfall, a version of which was shot
down before reaching the 2018 ballot amid a
legal challenge. But his budget chair,
Representative Aaron Michlewitz, warned that
both the multistate initiative and wealth
surtax, despite their “noble goals,” are still
hypothetical and that any promised revenue could
be at least three years away.
“It is undeniable that both of these have many
challenges and hurdles in front of them before
they will ever become reality,” Michlewitz said
from the House floor Wednesday in arguing for
the need to raise taxes now. He also gave a
muted assessment of emissions initiative, which
has sowed concern among other New England
governors.
“To be perfectly blunt,” Michlewitz said, "it
seems as if we’re the only ones leading and not
many others are following.”
The transportation financing proposal spent
months in development in the House, where
lawmakers labored over how to craft a
politically palatable package that could also
inject a substantial amount of new money into
the state’s struggling public transportation
systems.
The corporate tax changes were key to gathering
support from progressive lawmakers and
advocates, who worried about leaning primarily
on middle- and lower-class drivers to underwrite
the bill.
On Thursday, the House is also expected to take
up separate but related legislation: A $14.5
billion transportation bond bill that seeds
various projects over several years through
borrowing.
As the tax bill moves to the Senate, transit
advocates suggested that chamber should raise
the levy on gas even higher and authorize a
tolling pilot with a goal of reducing traffic.
The House bill calls for a study of these
“congestion pricing” mechanisms and a
to-be-determined date to create a plan to
implement the study’s recommendations.
The House bill is “definitely progress, and we
need that when the status quo is so painful for
so many people across the state,” said Chris
Dempsey, director of Transportation for
Massachusetts, an advocacy group. “But we’re
also looking forward to working with the Senate
because we think there’s more that can be done.”
Senate leaders have not laid out a specific
timeline for tackling legislation. The chamber’s
president, Karen E. Spilka, has suggested it
would look at using new revenue to offset public
transit fares.
Some business leaders, meanwhile, have chafed at
the change to the corporate tax structure. The
Massachusetts High Technology Council, a trade
group, has denounced the proposal, calling it
packed with “taxes and fees that we just don’t
need at this point."
Democrats, who hold a super-majority in the
House, spent hours Wednesday dispatching with
dozens of amendments, the vast majority of which
died. Among the few that did pass, one would
exempt fees on Uber and Lyft trips for riders
with disabilities who use the services as part
of a paratransit program such as the MBTA Ride.
Lawmakers also adjusted their proposal for
future MBTA oversight, ultimately settling on an
amendment that would expand the T’s current
five-member governing board by adding a seat
representing the city of Boston and another
representing other communities served by the T.
The House bill calls for an additional 4 cents
per gallon increase on the cost of diesel fuel
and included language requiring the state,
should it join TCI, to offset the five-cent gas
tax increase, in an attempt to avoid hitting
motorists with double pain at the pumps.
The state fees on ride-hailing companies such as
Uber and Lyft would go up from 20 cents per ride
to $1.20, though the 20-cent fee would stay in
place for so-called shared rides.
It would also create a new, nine-tiered system
to tax businesses. Currently, the state’s
minimum corporate tax is $456 a year, a level
lawmakers say was set 30 years ago.
The legislation would keep that for any business
with sales less than $1 million a year, but
increase it depending on the size of the
company.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Beacon Hill to riders and drivers: Drop dead
By Jeff Jacoby
"When it comes to our
transportation system, revenue can’t wait,”
declared Robert DeLeo, the Massachusetts House
speaker, when he unveiled a bill last month to
raise taxes by $600 million. “Revenue can’t wait
any longer.”
Since the House, for all intents and purposes,
is a one-party institution whose members vote as
they’re told, there wasn’t any doubt that
DeLeo’s bill would be approved. What passes for
deliberation on Beacon Hill began in the House
on Wednesday afternoon and was over by Wednesday
night. A number of amendments to soften the
measure’s tax bite were introduced, only to be
withdrawn or handily defeated. After a
legislative session “that featured little public
debate and lengthy periods of public
inactivity,” as the State House News Service put
it, the bill was overwhelmingly approved.
If the Senate concurs, DeLeo’s legislation will
raise the state tax on every gallon of gasoline
to 29 cents and on diesel fuel to 33 cents,
hikes of 20 percent and 38 percent respectively.
It will raise the tax on Uber and Lyft rides by
500 percent, from 20 cents per ride to $1.20. It
will also strip the sales tax exemption from
rental car companies that purchase additional
vehicles, and jack up the annual minimum
corporate excise tax from $456 to as much as
$150,000. The Commonwealth, already inundated
with tax receipts, will collect even more of the
revenue that DeLeo claims “can’t wait any
longer.”
But DeLeo is wrong.
The overlords of the Massachusetts
transportation system aren’t in dire straits for
lack of revenue. Taxes have been gushing into
the state’s coffers at record-busting levels. In
fiscal year 2019, Massachusetts collected nearly
$2 billion more in taxes than it had the year
before, a surplus much higher than officials had
anticipated. And the flood of incoming dollars
hasn’t slowed: “Tax receipts over the first
seven months of fiscal 2020 are up 4.9 percent,”
reports State House News — a whopping “$794
million over the same period in fiscal 2019.”
To be sure, Massachusetts roads need fixing.
Anyone who drives the state’s highways and
byways knows what wretched condition many of
them are in. Comparative studies of the nation’s
transportation networks have concluded for years
that Massachusetts has some of the most cracked,
crumbled, and corroded highways and bridges in
the country. Last summer, USA Today published a
state-by-state ranking of decrepit
transportation infrastructure, based on data
from the Federal Highway Administration.
Massachusetts ranked sixth from the bottom. Yet
when it came to state highway spending per
driver, the same study found that the Bay State
was smack in the middle, at No. 25. Many states
with far better roads — Nevada, Utah, Arizona,
and Georgia, for example — spend far less per
driver.
The problem with Massachusetts highways isn’t a
shortage of funds. It’s how those funds are
spent. Or rather, squandered.
Each year the Reason Foundation, a
market-oriented think tank with a longstanding
focus on transportation, issues a detailed study
of each state’s highway system. The foundation
ranks the states in multiple categories,
including traffic fatalities, pavement
condition, congestion, spending per mile, and so
on. In one area, Massachusetts has an
outstanding record: Its highway fatality rate is
the lowest in America. But when it comes to
cost-effectiveness — to the amount of money
Massachusetts spends per mile, both on
maintenance and administration — its record is
atrocious.
In the most recent Reason report, Massachusetts
ranked 48th out of 50 in total overall highway
spending per mile, and 45th in capital and
bridge spending per mile. (The lower the
ranking, the higher the dollar amount). Whereas
South Carolina spends just $13,255 on each mile
of state roads, Massachusetts disbursements
amount to $216,066 per mile. Granted, the cost
of living in Massachusetts is higher than
average. But it’s also higher than average in
Virginia, where highway spending is nevertheless
just $37,875 per mile, and in Maine, which
manages to hold per-mile outlays to $41,847.
Both states far surpass Massachusetts in their
highway performance rankings. According to
Reason’s analysis, Virginia has the nation’s
second-best highway system; Maine ranks fourth.
In every area, Massachusetts’ spending is out of
control. Take maintenance. North Dakota, one of
the best-managed highway systems in the nation,
spends $1,657 on maintenance disbursements per
mile. Maine spends $12,109. Massachusetts?
$25,033.
Equally disgraceful is the Commonwealth’s
spending on administration. Four states —
Kentucky, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Missouri —
manage to hold their administrative costs to
less than $1,000 per mile of state highway.
Within New England, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Vermont all keep their administrative costs
below $10,000 per mile. But Massachusetts pours
a mind-boggling $23,950 per mile into highway
administration. And what does it achieve for all
that spending? One of the worst-run highway
systems in the nation.
Plainly, the cure for what ails Massachusetts
transportation isn’t more revenue. It has plenty
of that. What it needs more of is competent
management.
In an interview, Baruch Feigenbaum, the lead
author of the Reason Foundation’s annual report,
suggests that at the root of Massachusetts’
consistently poor showing is a “very politically
oriented” decision-making process. Construction
and maintenance projects are selected not on the
basis of neutral cost-benefit data, but on the
basis of political clout. “Members of the
transportation and other relevant committees,”
he says, “seem to have quite a bit of say into
which projects are actually selected.”
Compounding the problem, in Feigenbaum’s
judgment, is the “unusually large number of
full-time staffers” on the payroll of the
Massachusetts transportation bureaucracy.
Neither of those will surprise anyone familiar
with Massachusetts politics.
Another $600 million a year in tax revenue is
the very last thing the Legislature should
support. Alas, raising taxes is Beacon Hill’s
default remedy for every ill. If DeLeo’s bill
becomes law, two outcomes are certain: The
people of Massachusetts will get to keep even
less of their own money. And they will continue
to drive on some of the most expensive, yet
worst-maintained, roadways in America.
State House News Service
Thursday, March 5, 2020
Senate Leaders Sizing Up Transpo $$$, Policies
Rodrigues Sees Bill in "Next Couple of Months"
By Chris Lisinski
Transportation funding
legislation may not emerge in the Senate until
May, and will likely take a different approach
than the roughly $600 million tax-and-fee
package the House approved Wednesday night.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues
told two reporters that the upper chamber will
take up its version of the bill "within the next
couple of months," aiming for a release before
the Senate begins its annual budget
deliberations in May.
Rodrigues and Revenue Committee Co-chair Sen.
Adam Hinds declined to offer specifics on the
Senate legislation, although both stressed they
agree the state needs to make more investments
in transportation.
The Senate proposal, Rodrigues said, is also
"probably going to be more policy-focused than
tax- or revenue-focused."
"In the long run, I think more revenues are
needed for transportation," Rodrigues said. "The
debate is how much more revenue and how to get
those revenues. We in the Senate are more
focusing on the policy rather than just the
dollars, and we will let the policies dictate
the revenues rather than let the revenues
dictate the policy."
House Transportation Committee Chairman William
Straus said he was encouraged by the timeline
laid out by Rodridgues, whose district overlaps
with Straus's on the South Coast
"I'm delighted that the Senate is going to treat
the topic with the same priority the House has,
and, knowning the normal budget cycle, the fact
that he's put it on that schedule is good news,"
Straus said, before adding, "I don't know how to
interpret the more policy."
"As a civic statement, I can't dispute it.
Revenue and policy both interact constantly and
at the end of the day it's the result that
counts, whichever one drives the other," Straus
said.
Opponents of the House bill have complained that
its tax and fee increases are on top of a
planned $2 billion increase in taxes on
high-income households, a measure that Democrats
are advancing toward the 2022 ballot and which
is designed to generate new revenue for
education and transportation.
Senate President Karen Spilka has also called
for a policy-centered approach to transportation
legislation, naming lower public transit fares
as a specific goal. The House on Wednesday
rejected an amendment that would have funded
free regional transit authority buses.
In January, Spilka said the Legislature needs to
raise "short-term revenue to meet the urgent,
urgent, immediate needs of the T, the commuter
rail (and) to decrease congestion across the
state."
Other policies that transportation activists
have promoted include expansion of commuter rail
to western Massachusetts, pricing tolls to help
ease congestion, and deploying tolls up on
toll-less roads.
Spilka, an Ashland Democrat, and other
legislators from communities west of Boston have
long complained it is unfair that the
Massachusetts Turnpike they rely on is the only
major highway in the state with tolls.
The House's legislation (H 4508) would raise
large sums of money through gas tax increases, a
tiered increase to the corporate minimum excise
tax, higher ride-hailing service fees and
application of the sales tax to rental car
companies that purchase vehicles, but it does
not outline many immediate spending
requirements.
Representatives approved the bill 113-40 on
Wednesday, with every Republican and eight
Democrats voting against it. If that margin
holds on a potential House-Senate compromise
bill, it would be enough to clear the two-thirds
threshold needed to override a gubernatorial
veto.
Baker on Thursday reiterated his opposition to
the bill's 5-cent gas tax increase and 9-cent
diesel tax hike because of the effects on
businesses on the state's borders and said he
would strike down the language if it landed on
his desk.
"We have a long way to go in this process,"
Baker said after an event in Quincy, according
to an audio recording provided by his office. "I
don't really like to speculate about that stuff,
but I've said before that we don't support a gas
tax (increase), and if one were to come through,
we would veto it."
Rodrigues described the $522 million to $612
million projected revenue from the House bill as
"a lot of money," but he did not say divulge a
range for a Senate revenue proposal.
"I can't even tell you," Rodrigues said. "We are
literally putting it together now, so I don't
want to get ahead of myself."
Hinds — who is leading a separate Senate effort
to examine broader changes to the state's tax
code — said it was "a little too early" for him
to offer a transportation revenue range the
Senate is targeting.
"We've seen that there's a consensus that has
emerged that we absolutely need to continue
strong investments in transportation. I think
that's certainly the starting point," Hinds
said. "Several chairs will be meeting on the
Senate side. We've got to bring together what
the Senate proposal might look like, so I may
not go there yet."
House leaders are not planning to outline
spending immediately for all of the new revenue
their bill would raise. Instead, the funding
would support borrowing and could be used to
bulk up fiscal 2021 budget items.
Divergences between the House's approach and a
potential policy-heavy Senate bill could prompt
a protracted negotiation process between the two
branches, although House and Senate Democrats
have generally described a crisis in
transportation and are under pressure to find
common ground quickly.
Asked if the different priorities would
complement one another or stifle progress,
Rodrigues said he is confident that success will
come by the July 31 deadline to complete formal
lawmaking business.
"Every conference, I've learned, is challenging,
but we can do it," he said. "We can put it
together. Investments in transportation, the way
we provide public transportation, is very
important to everyone on both sides of the
building and both sides of the aisle, so it's
something that will get done this session."
The House's vote Wednesday drew praise from
transportation funding activists and from the
Raise Up Coalition, which said the bill " puts
Massachusetts on the road to both a better
statewide transportation system, and a more
equitable approach to transportation funding."
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul
Craney criticized the gas tax increases in the
bill as a threat to working class commuters.
"Speaker DeLeo's gas tax hike will come out of
the earnings of the hard-working taxpayers who
rely on their vehicle to get to work, run
errands, and operate a business," Craney said in
a statement. "Instead of looking at how to spend
taxpayer's money more wisely, Speaker DeLeo
added an additional cost onto the backs of the
state’s already very generous taxpayers."
— Matt Murphy
contributed reporting
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
