CLT UPDATE
Friday, May 122 2009
Senate hikes taxes: Time to replace tax hike
senators
The Tax Stealers - aka, our
legislators - just did again what they do best: Tell us taxpayers to
drop dead.
And we taxpayers just did what we do best: play dead.
Reform before revenue! That’s been Senate President Terry Murray’s
mantra.
Guess that’s gone by the boards....
Anti-tax Czarina Barbara Anderson corrected me yesterday when I
said voters should throw all The Stealers out. “Support good guys.
Otherwise why would anyone bother to be good?”
Point taken. Support the good guys. It’s easy, really. It’s just such a
short list.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Are taxpayers content to let sleeping dogs lie?
By Margery Eagan
Taxpayers could be forced to fork over an additional $1
billion a year to pay a series of new taxes adopted by the Senate Tuesday night.
Senators agreed to new levies on commerce, meals, hotels and alcohol and warned
that without substantial revenue, services for the most vulnerable in
Massachusetts could be eviscerated....
Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said the new taxes didn't betray
her "reform before revenue mantra" because the local option taxes were
accompanied by proposals to tamp down health care costs and encourage
regionalization of services. She said a proposal to restrain pension costs by
stemming abuses of the existing laws was nearing release from a conference
committee.
Backers of the sales tax, including Murray, pointed out that Massachusetts, by
several measures ranks toward the bottom of states in terms of tax burden on
residents....
"Maybe we should call it the New Hampshire stimulus bill," said Sen. Robert
Hedlund (R-Weymouth).
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Senate approves tax hikes that could reach $1 Billion
The Senate plan, which cleared the House in April, would push
the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, while generating an estimated $633
million to offset deep cuts in services for the poor, elderly, and disabled.
Lifting the sales tax exemption on alcohol sold at package stores would raise
another $80 million for those services, senators said. Allowing cities and towns
to impose a 2 percentage point increase in taxes on hotels and restaurant meals
will help offset cuts in state aid to municipalities, senators said.
At 6.25 percent, Massachusetts would have the second highest sales tax rate of
the six New England states plus New York. Only eight states nationwide have a
higher rate.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Senate approves sales tax hike
6.25% levy would include alcohol;
margin veto-proof in both chambers
Ten years from now, the economic gods willing, Massachusetts
will have recovered from this recession/depression. But even if the economy is
going gangbusters in 2019 you can bet we will still be paying that extra 1.25
percentage point on most every consumer good we buy....
But the sales tax won’t come back to 5 percent, not once lawmakers become
addicted to the new revenue. Voters who OK’d the income tax rollback know this
to be true....
Taxpayers understand that desperate times sometimes call for desperate measures.
But they also know that, once on board, Beacon Hill will never willingly step
off the gravy train.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Truth about taxes
Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he would veto a sales tax if
the Legislature does not present him with adequate reforms, turned up the heat
on lawmakers this afternoon, accusing those voting for higher taxes of
disrespecting voters.
State House News Service
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Patrick: Higher taxes and no reform
‘is thumbing our nose’ at taxpayers
In this recession, workers in the private sector are being
squeezed harder than ever.
Many are seeing their pay reduced through furlough programs or wage freezes.
Pension benefits are reduced, their share of health costs keeps going up.
It gets no better for these workers when they arrive home. There they face
increases in their utility bills, rising credit-card rates, declining home
values and higher property taxes.
But for workers in the public sector, especially those who are members of public
employee unions, the picture is much different....
Remember those numbers as your state legislators hammer through tax increases
and local officials negotiate contracts that continue to isolate public-sector
workers from economic reality.
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Monday, May 18, 2009
Public-private gap still growing
Despite scathing criticism from the GOP, top Beacon Hill
leaders yesterday continued to stonewall requests for lists of their
taxpayer-funded staff.
The Herald initially requested the information in March but more than 75 percent
of the state’s 200 lawmakers have refused to release staff rosters - including
Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo
(D-Winthrop).
Murray and DeLeo, who determine the personnel budgets of individual lawmakers,
refused again yesterday to release their own staff rosters.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
State House pols stay mum on staff rosters
When it comes to taxes, especially in Massachusetts, what
goes up usually continues to go up. So don’t be fooled into believing that the
dreaded cheeseburger tax approved by the Senate this week would be held to the
maximum 7 percent.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Taxing burgers...
Raising so-called “sin taxes” is such an easy way out, no? So
why not make booze subject to the sales tax - especially a new, higher sales
tax. Of course, alcohol is already subject to an excise tax. (You didn’t think
earlier lawmakers “exempted” it from the sales tax out of the goodness of their
hearts, did you?) But since that tax is factored into the retail price of every
bottle of beer, wine and hard liquor, we don’t notice it.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, May 21, 2009
...And those six-packs
It never made any sense that drinkers at Massachusetts
restaurants pay a 5 percent tax on their beer and wine while someone buying a
six-pack or a fine Pinot Noir at a package store does not. The state Senate is
to be commended for subjecting retail alcohol purchases to the new 6.25 percent
sales tax it adopted Tuesday. Better yet is the decision to target the roughly
$80 million the tax is expected to raise to desperately needed substance abuse
and court interdiction programs that have been sorely neglected.
A Boston Globe editorial
Thursday, May 21. 2009
Toward a saner state tax policy
Gov. Deval Patrick should keep his promise and veto that huge
sales tax hike if it’s not accompanied by the reforms he’s urged - even if the
wise guys on Beacon Hill are declaring the tax “veto proof.” ...
The governor’s staff still hopes his reform agenda - close to being wiped out in
Senate and House floor votes - can be restored in conference committee. But
getting pension reform through a Legislature intent on protecting its own
pensions could be very tough. Same for the MBTA and MassPike shakeups that
Patrick proposed, but which the Legislature seems ready to dispose. And if the
House conferees should yield to the Senate - which just gutted the Ethics
Commission - bye-bye to cleanup there.
So wielding that veto pen and switching those five senators (he’d need too many
switches in the House) may be the gov’s last best move.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gov mustn’t sell out his tax opposition
By Wayne Woodlief
A report by The Beacon Hill Institute this month estimates
that the sales tax hike to 6.25 percent will reduce net employment by more than
6,500 jobs, and lead to a decrease of $51.35 million in investment.
No one on Beacon Hill is asserting that the new revenue — whatever it proves to
be — can bridge a multibillion-dollar shortfall. But supporters do claim the new
revenues will help blunt the impact of cuts on social service programs and local
aid.
Even that claim is suspect. While the Senate did set aside a portion of the new
revenue for transportation, it did not follow the House in designating any
portion for local aid. Cities and towns will remain at the mercy of the
Legislature.
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Senate gamble
Revenues may not materialize
Tax increases come out of your wallet immediately. But will
the reforms we were promised before new revenues come at all?
The House took less than three hours to debate and pass a 25 percent increase in
the sales tax. Contrast that with the extended agony that accompanied
incremental pension and transportation reforms, most of which were swept away in
seconds of closed-door lobbying.
Yes, we will see some reforms this legislative session, but they threaten to be
more sizzle than steak....
The House passed a 25 percent increase in the sales tax during the worst
recession in a generation. They did it quickly, with minimal debate, and by a
veto-proof margin. Keep an eye on the reform promises and ask yourself if they
save real money, or fit into one of the categories listed above. Then ask your
representative and senator the same question.
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, May 21, 2009
How to tell the 'reform' sizzle from the steak
By Steve Poftak
The Senate made a major misstep by voting Tuesday for hefty
tax increases a day before even beginning debate on reform measures. We find it
particularly egregious that, despite the dire fiscal forecast, there have been
no real reductions to state government itself, including positions and
benefits....
Shouldn't legislators have approved pension reform, privatization measures, wage
freezes and health-insurance reductions before placing a heavier burden on the
backs of struggling taxpayers, small-business owners and local government?
Nothing has been done to repair the structural flaws in state government.
Formulas regarding education aid and charter schools have not been revised, the
Quinn Bill remains in place and state workers are still slated to receive salary
increases.
Instead, Senate lawmakers joined their House colleagues in approving an increase
in the sales tax to 6.25 percent, garnering a veto-proof majority that renders
meaningless Gov. Deval Patrick's repeated threats to reject it.
A Lowell Sun editorial
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Senate disservice
Governor Deval Patrick this afternoon stood by his threat to
veto the sales tax passed by House and Senate lawmakers unless they first
approve a series of reforms that he finds acceptable.
“I will support the sales tax, and have said so all along -- provided we deliver
on the reforms,” Patrick told reporters after swearing in a judge at the John
Adams Courthouse. “Doing the right thing isn’t that difficult. Everybody knows
what the right thing is to do; now let’s get that done before the budget comes
to me next month.”’ ...
“The legislature, to their credit, has done what they believe is the hard work
now by taking the votes on the budget and on the sales tax,” Patrick said. “Now
let’s do what I think is the easy stuff and deliver some real and lasting
reforms.”
“It’s not complicated,” he added. “They know what the right thing is to get
done.”
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Patrick stands firm on pledge to veto tax hike
A veteran lawmaker who said his region near the New
Hampshire border would be decimated by the 25 percent sales tax hike
believes Gov. Deval Patrick - who vowed to veto the increase - still has
time to erode a thin veto-proof majority.
“This governor is a great politician. He could change it if he wants
to,” said Rep. James R. Miceli (D-Wilmington) of the vote by which the
tax hike passed in the House. “That vote isn’t as solid as it appears to
be.” ...
Outraged small businesses and tax watchdogs promised yesterday they’ll
be heard on the hikes, be it at a rally planned for the State House
steps today or at the voting booth in November.
“It’s completely out of control,” said Barbara Anderson,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “The only
thing they care about is not getting re-elected. We have to throw them
out.”
Corie Whalen, who organized the conservative anti-tax Tea Party in
Boston last month, invited anti-tax citizens to gather at the State
House starting at 11 a.m. today.
“They’re misleading people when they act like necessary cuts have to be
made when they haven’t worked to clear up real waste,” Whalen said.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Veto urged as resistance to tax hike grows
Six months after a ballot question to repeal the state’s
income tax was crushed by voters, Libertarians are considering a vote to repeal
the sales tax.
“The only difference between Bernie Madoff and the government is that what
Madoff did was illegal and what the government is doing is legal,” said Carla
Howell, president of the Center for Small Government....
“No decisions have been made, but the possibility of a ballot question to
eliminate the sales tax is definitely on the table,” she said.
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation, said
while she supports the elimination of the sales tax, her members will not gather
signatures.
“We cannot ask our members to put all this effort and money into something that
can only work if the Legislature respects the voters’ decision - and they
don’t,” she said. “Instead, we are focused on defeating legislators who vote for
these tax increases. That’s the only thing that matters.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 22, 2009
Libertarian eyes sales-tax ballot battle
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
I know. It's so
discouraging. Nothing we say or do has any effect on Bacon Hill
any more. Discouraging -- but not defeat. Not yet.
Is surrender even an option
if we are to survive here?
We've been getting calls
from the media since the Senate's late evening vote to rip us off even
more. They want to know if we're going to do another petition
drive to repeal the sales tax hike.
Of course we're not!
Why bother? This is Taxachusetts!
Not after all we went
through, twice, to get the signatures to put 1989 "temporary"
income tax hike rollback of the "temporary" income tax on the ballot;
all that time, labor, and money we expended to convince voters to
approve it finally in 2000. Only to have the Legislature give them
and us all the big Beacon Hill Middle-Finger Salute. Really
-- the definition of insanity is, doing the same thing over and over
again expecting a different result!
|
 |
|
Senate vote
on increasing the income tax:
Yea - 11 / Nay - 28 |
|
Click above
rollcall vote for a larger image
CLICK HERE for a printable PDF version |
Nope, not this time.
It's time to focus on the real problem, the root problem.
Nothing the people do,
nothing the media says and writes, has any effect on the
Legislature. "Entrenched" is too mild a description. They
fear nothing any more. They own us -- lock, stock and barrel.
We work for Them and that's just the way it is today.
This time we must
overthrow the Legislature; overthrow the tax-hikers in 2010. We
must start this commonwealth anew, with fresh blood and new
perspectives.
Short of that, reserve a
moving van -- resign to bailing out of this misbegotten state while
exodus is still an option.
From now until November
2010, the battle cry must be: "No Reelection for Tax Hikers"!
One of the early amendments
to the Senate's budget was to hike the income tax to 5.95 percent, to
raise an additional $1.3 Billion. When asked about a possible hike in
the income tax on Jon Keller's WBZ-TV4 Sunday morning "Keller@Large,"
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Steve Panagiotakos (D-Lowell)
replied:
“I don't, I think, talking
personally from my point of view, the income tax, the voters have
preempted us on the income tax. We have to get down to 5-point-oh at
some point. Until we do that, I can't see us even touching the income
tax.”
Apparently he was not
alone. That appears to have been a line most senators for whatever
reason dared not cross. The amendment sponsored by Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz
(D-Boston) was shot down by a vote of 11 yeas, 28 nays. Don't be
surprised if it comes up again in the fall. It was reported that
backers of an income tax hike were "encouraged" by the eleven votes.
After voting to extend the
legislative day, on Tuesday night (if course, night as usual),
the Senate voted 29-10 to follow the House and hike the sales tax by 25
percent to 6.25%.
This is on top of last
year's tax increases of
$392 million; and don't forget the 2002 "Largest
Tax Increase in State History" of $1.14 Billion.
With the votes for more tax
hikes, an additional billion dollars will be taken out of our pockets
this and every year forever more. According to some, its time is
somehow due. We just don't pay enough to sustain our state
government and its expenses.
One Democrat senator during
the debate tried to make some kind of point which he somehow thought was
relevant; that the state sales tax hasn't been increased for years,
decades -- as if the rate should be revisited from time to time.
He failed to mention that the sales tax is a static percentage -- it
rides on the back of inflation. As prices for taxable purchases
increase, so does the state's revenue take. This hike in the sales
tax percentage leaps ahead of inflation -- which is surely coming
thanks to Washington's unprecedented borrowing and money printing
policies.
|
 |
Senate vote on increasing the
sales tax:
Yea - 29 / Nay - 10 |
Click above rollcall vote for a
larger image
CLICK HERE for a printable PDF version |
Another interesting
argument for increasing the state sales tax was that the Massachusetts
percentage is among the lowest in the nation among states which impose a
sales tax. Nobody asked how many states with a sales tax also have
an income, auto excise, and the myriad of other taxes piled one atop
another, as we do. If someone has thought of a tax, Taxachusetts
has it: Now we're jacking them up one by one.
But depend on "The Best
Legislature Money Can Buy" to come up with an even more creative new way
to dig even deeper into our pockets. By removing the sales tax
exemption on beer, wine, and liquors, Bacon Hill is now going to impose
a tax on a tax! Beer, wine, and liquors already bear a
hefty excise tax built into the cost of each product. Under this
"exemption" repeal, the new sales tax likely to become law will be
charged on top of the alcoholic beverages excise tax. A tax
on a tax -- an "Only in Taxachusetts" first.
There were numerous other
Senate tax hike amendments. They and the votes can be found
HERE.
As the Boston Herald
editorial pointed out, "Ten years from now, the economic gods willing,
Massachusetts will have recovered from this recession/depression. But
even if the economy is going gangbusters in 2019 you can bet we will
still be paying that extra 1.25 percentage point on most every consumer
good we buy."
Just reflect on the two
decade fight we've had trying to return the "temporary" income tax hike
of 1989 -- despite even a voter referendum in 2000 -- to its historical
5 percent. Once the pols grab a tax hike they never let it go.
When this economic downturn
recedes, when revenues again pour in almost faster than Bacon Hill can
spend the surplus, almost, the spending frenzy on Bacon Hill will
resume. The pols will again dig the state deeper into
unsustainable costs. Come the inevitable next cyclical economic
downturn they will be back demanding more from us to continue the new
spending programs, all over again.
Already legislators are
backfilling programs cut by the House and Senate budget committees, now
that they expect another billion of our dollars to flow from our pockets
into their treasury.
"Reform before Revenue"?
Don't hold your breath. Once they have our cash the pressure to
cut waste and abuse will evaporate like fog on a desert. Even the
"reform" that's been proposed and touted is meaningless, little more
than nibbling around the edges of our outrage -- just enough to stick a
"reform" label onto it and call it done. Nothing that threatens
the insider overlords' standard of living at taxpayers' expense is going
to happen. And now, with another billion bucks of our money
pouring in, why should they worry? They expect to run for
reelection unopposed as usual, or to crush any petty citizen insolent
enough to challenge their sinecure.
That's why the only
solution that remains for us serfs short of torches, pitchforks, and
tar-and-feathers is -- "No Reelection for Tax Hikers"!
That's why we're putting
everything we have into a desperate last-ditch effort to throw out of
office at least some of those who feel their position is an entitlement
for life, who feel they can thumb their noses at those they were elected
to represent.
The problem is the
Legislature. The only remaining solution is to throw the bums out.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Are taxpayers content to let sleeping dogs lie?
By Margery Eagan
The Tax Stealers - aka, our legislators - just did again what they do
best: Tell us taxpayers to drop dead.
And we taxpayers just did what we do best: play dead.
Reform before revenue! That’s been Senate President Terry Murray’s
mantra.
Guess that’s gone by the boards.
Several dutiful taxpayers told me yesterday they’re doing all they can
to fight back: e-mailing and calling to harass The Stealers.
Either The Stealers ask for lots of personal information before
responding, or they don’t respond. Or they send a form letter answering
nothing. Or they do call back, and lie.
Ron Belling of West Brookfield e-mailed Rep. Anne Gobi and Sen. Stephen
Brewer. Both voted for the sales tax after telling Belling “that reform
was coming before new revenue,” he said. “Apparently they both lied.”
Asked how he felt about this, Belling said, “I’m (expletive)!”
But neither Brewer nor Gobi see it this way, of course. Both say reform
is moving apace with revenue, which is The Stealers’ line, see. Just
yesterday they debated reform. But are their proposed reforms really
serious?
To mention a few:
Did they outlaw double dipping (collecting a state salary and pension
simultaneously)?
Cap pensions - even at, say $150,000 a year?
Outlaw early retirements and pension collecting?
End special legislative boondoggles?
Make town and city workers join the state health insurer, thus saving
billions?
No, no, no, no, and no.
I asked Brewer what he thinks about the latest double dipper, state Sen.
Ken Donnelly. As Howie Carr reported, Donnelly collects his Arlington
firefighter’s $51,187 pension plus his $61,440 State House salary. When
we’re raising taxes and slashing services to the halt, the lame, the
blind, isn’t this a problem?
“I’m not going to make a value judgment on it,” Brewer said.
OK, if you can’t see what’s wrong with Donnelly’s deal, you’ve been
working too long on Beacon Hill. But as promised, Sen. Brewer, I will
write in this story what I said to you on the phone: You’re extremely
charming in your wrongheaded, entitled ways.
Are you happy now?
Anti-tax Czarina Barbara Anderson corrected me yesterday when I
said voters should throw all The Stealers out. “Support good guys.
Otherwise why would anyone bother to be good?”
Point taken. Support the good guys. It’s easy, really. It’s just such a
short list.
State House News Service
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Senate approves tax hikes that could reach $1 Billion
By Kyle Cheney
Taxpayers could be forced to fork over an additional $1 billion a year
to pay a series of new taxes adopted by the Senate Tuesday night.
Senators agreed to new levies on commerce, meals, hotels and alcohol and
warned that without substantial revenue, services for the most
vulnerable in Massachusetts could be eviscerated.
After rejecting higher income and gas taxes, senators took the
inevitably unpopular tax votes with an acknowledgement that many popular
programs would still likely face cuts as tax revenue projections had
eroded in recent weeks, creating a larger gap between projected spending
and revenues. The potential tax increases came in the form of amendments
to the Senate's budget for fiscal 2010, which begins July 1.
Members voted 29-10 to adopt a 25 percent hike in the state's 5 percent
sales tax, which Senate leaders say will add $633 million to the bottom
line. Senators voted on a voice vote, rather than a recorded roll call,
to approve the elimination of a sales tax exemption for alcoholic
beverages, estimated to bring $98 million. They similarly approved on a
voice vote a proposal to allow city and town governments to tack on up
to two percentage points the state's 5 percent sales tax on meals and
hotel or motel stays, which proponents said would bring in $190 million
to $250 million in the first year of implementation.
Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said the new taxes didn't
betray her "reform before revenue mantra" because the local option taxes
were accompanied by proposals to tamp down health care costs and
encourage regionalization of services. She said a proposal to restrain
pension costs by stemming abuses of the existing laws was nearing
release from a conference committee.
Backers of the sales tax, including Murray, pointed out that
Massachusetts, by several measures ranks toward the bottom of states in
terms of tax burden on residents. They said that while Massachusetts 5
percent sales tax is relatively substantial, numerous exemptions on
food, services and clothing up to $175 made the increase to 6.25 percent
more palatable than, say, an income tax hike, which senators rejected
earlier in the day. Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Steven
Panagiotakos ticked off a list of programs that the sales tax would be
directed to fund: $6.5 million for a popular anti-gang program, $50.7
million for day services for developmentally disabled adults, $3.5
million for emergency food assistance.
In addition, $275 million of the expected new taxes would be earmarked
for transportation spending. Unlike the House, the Senate's sales tax
proposal does not boost local aid for cities and towns and is instead
accompanied by a plan to allow local government leaders to unleash their
own tax hikes.
"I think we all know that voting for taxes in times like these is
difficult. It's also true that sometimes in the deck you're dealt,
there's absolutely no good card," said Sen. Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham).
"This sales tax increase will fund a lot of very important programs for
some of the most vulnerable people in our commonwealth. The sick, the
needy and the handicapped ... our first duty as a government is to
protect those people who cannot speak for themselves."
Opponents, who included the five-member GOP and five Democrats,
contended that the sales tax is regressive - those who can least afford
goods affected by the sales tax will have to devote a higher share of
their income to pay for them, they said - and that it would drive more
Massachusetts residents over the border to New Hampshire, which lacks a
sales tax, or onto the internet to go shopping.
"Maybe we should call it the New Hampshire stimulus bill," said Sen.
Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth).
Sen. Mark Montigny, one of the five Democrats to vote against the sales
tax increase, said the state had not taken a look at more fundamental
reforms first. He said he "agonized right up to the vote" but decided to
vote against the proposal because it comes at a time that the state is
also doling out tax credits to "flavor of the month" industries like
biotech and film production.
Supporters of supplying cities and towns with the ability to raise meal
and hotel taxes said the state kept too tight a stranglehold on revenue
raising options for municipalities. Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, the
amendment's sponsor, said that with local aid reductions, cities and
towns need additional tools to balance their budgets.
"We must give communities some assistance," he said.
Republicans, however, painted the measure as an undemocratic attempt to
squeeze more tax dollars from state residents. Under the proposal, city
and town governing bodies - town councils, selectmen, aldermen or city
councilors - would be empowered to vote on whether to increase the meal
and hotel taxes. Republicans proposed a trio of amendments to the
proposal - all rejected - that would have required voters to approve
such local option taxes or eliminated the taxes altogether.
"In a branch where we have said we will concentrate on reform before
revenue, this amendment is inconsistent with that message because we are
considering revenue and leaving reform items for another day," said Sen.
Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester). "Madame President, we applaud the effort but
we are concerned that this amendment leaves the cost saving items behind
and focuses on ways to increase local tax burdens."
Backers of eliminating the exemption of alcohol from the sales tax said
the funds generated would be targeted at substance abuse and jail
diversion programs, helping to save money in the long run.
Hedlund, the Weymouth Republican, argued that the tax "sends the wrong
message" to working class people who want to buy a six-pack on their way
home.
Supporters of the new tax on alcohol, long fought by package store
owners, said it would generate $98 million. But a coalition of 60 groups
pushing the plan estimated that in conjunction with the 6.25 percent
sales tax, revenues from the alcohol tax would total $115 million.
"Senators made a courageous choice in eliminating the alcohol tax
exemption, and it was the right choice," said Vic DiGravio, Co-Chair of
the Campaign for Addiction Prevention, Treatment and Recovery and
President and CEO of the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Corporations
of Massachusetts. "Now we need to work with the Legislature to ensure
funds are dedicated to the prevention and treatment of alcohol and drug
abuse as the Senate intended."
Earlier Tuesday, four members of Murray's leadership team, Majority
Leader Frederick Berry, Senate President Pro Tem Stanley Rosenberg,
Majority Whip Joan Menard and Assistant Majority Whip Steven Tolman,
joined seven other Senate Democrats in supporting a $1.3 billion
increase in the income tax, a plan that fell short on an 11-28 vote but
which left income tax hike backers encouraged.
Last month, the House swept aside most tax amendments during its budget
debate and approved the 25 percent hike in the sales tax by a veto-proof
margin. The House did not address the alcohol tax or the local options
taxes in its budget.
Gov. Deval Patrick has threatened to veto the sales tax hike if he's not
satisfied with pension, transportation and ethics reform bills that
remain under development but which lawmakers promise will be
substantial.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Senate approves sales tax hike
6.25% levy would include alcohol;
margin veto-proof in both chambers
By Michael Levenson
The state Senate voted last night to increase the sales tax, lift the
sales tax exemption on alcohol, and allow cities and towns to raise
meals and hotel taxes, brushing aside criticism that higher taxes would
hurt Massachusetts businesses by driving consumers over the border,
particularly to tax-free New Hampshire.
The Senate plan, which cleared the House in April, would push the sales
tax from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, while generating an estimated $633
million to offset deep cuts in services for the poor, elderly, and
disabled.
Lifting the sales tax exemption on alcohol sold at package stores would
raise another $80 million for those services, senators said. Allowing
cities and towns to impose a 2 percentage point increase in taxes on
hotels and restaurant meals will help offset cuts in state aid to
municipalities, senators said.
At 6.25 percent, Massachusetts would have the second highest sales tax
rate of the six New England states plus New York. Only eight states
nationwide have a higher rate.
Governor Deval Patrick has threatened to veto any broad-based tax
increases, unless the Legislature also overhauls the state
transportation agencies, pension system, and ethics laws.
His aides were not available for comment last night, but his threat
carries little weight because of the vote tallies.
The Senate voted 29-10 in favor of the sales tax increase, joining the
House in mustering a veto-proof majority. Senate President Therese
Murray described the sales tax increase as the least punitive of tax
options needed to restore services for the most vulnerable.
"I think this is probably the more fair way to go if we have to raise
revenue and, unfortunately, we have to raise revenue," she told
reporters after the vote. She said that although the budget's proposed
cuts will not be completely reversed, there will at least be "some money
put back into those programs."
Money from the sales tax increase, senators said, would be spent on a
multitude of services. Among them: $4 million for summer jobs for
at-risk youth, $5 million for workforce training, $6 million for
regional tourist councils, $36 million for special education, and $10
million for rental housing assistance to enable 1,700 families to stay
in their homes.
Senator Gale D. Candaras, a Wilbraham Democrat, seemed to speak for the
Democratic majority when she declared on the floor that there was
"absolutely no good card in the hand," when it came to raising taxes.
Still, she said, "this sales tax will fund a lot of very important
programs, at least in part for some of the most vulnerable citizens."
Opponents warned that a higher sales tax would hurt the state's ability
to recover from the recession.
"Maybe we should call this the New Hampshire economic stimulus bill,"
Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said with sarcasm.
Of the five sates bordering Massachusetts, only Rhode Island, at 7
percent, has a sales tax rate above 6.25 percent. Massachusetts,
however, does not impose sales taxes on groceries, clothing under $175,
and prescription drugs.
The Retailers Association of Massachusetts cited a study by the Beacon
Hill Institute in warning that a 6.25 percent rate would cost the state
12,600 jobs.
"What you get right now are actually a lot of consumers from Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and New York coming into Massachusetts and
purchasing here," said Jon B. Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association. "Not only is that incentive going to be gone, but we're
going to create an incentive for our own consumers to head to New
Hampshire and, just with a couple clicks of the mouse, go on the
Internet, all tax-free."
Mayor Thomas M. Menino applauded the Senate for voting to allow cities
and towns to raise taxes on hotel rooms and restaurant meals.
He said the measure, which has not cleared the House, could raise $47
million to help Boston reduce its reliance on property taxes and state
aid.
"We need different, more innovative tools to manage costs and diversify
revenues at the local level," Menino said in a statement after the
Senate vote. "I hope that members of the House will also support this
crucial reform."
Earlier in the day, a proposal to raise the state income tax from 5.3
percent to 5.95 percent was defeated. Supporters argued it was fairer
than the sales tax and would raise $1.3 billion annually.
Opponents said the measure would drain household budgets and hurt small
businesses.
The Senate also voted 33 to 6 against the governor's proposal to raise
the gas tax by 19 cents and later defeated an 11-cent increase in the
same tax.
The alcohol tax was approved with support from lawmakers who said it
would raise $15 million to ameliorate what they described as a heroin
epidemic in Massachusetts.
"When we have an addict, we'll have a bed for them," said Senator Steven
A. Tolman, a Boston Democrat. "This money will help us put these beds on
line."
The Senate approved the tax increases on a day of furious lobbying and
wrangling behind closed doors.
Hundreds of demonstrators, including many in motorized wheelchairs, with
developmental delays, and using guide dogs and canes, jammed Beacon
Street early in the day, calling on legislators to raise taxes and "save
our services."
"Families will be devastated if this budget passes!" declared Gary
Blumenthal, executive director of the Association of Developmental
Disability Providers, eliciting cheers and applause from the crowd.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Truth about taxes
Ten years from now, the economic gods willing, Massachusetts will have
recovered from this recession/depression. But even if the economy is
going gangbusters in 2019 you can bet we will still be paying that extra
1.25 percentage point on most every consumer good we buy.
Yes, with the Senate beginning budget debate today and likely to match
what the House did last month - a sales tax hike to 6.25 percent -
Beacon Hill is poised to adopt a permanent solution to a temporary
problem.
The truth is that Bay State taxpayers might have been talked into
supporting a modest, temporary tax increase - if it were welded to deep
spending cuts and government reforms. But that is not what will happen.
No, lawmakers will instead OK a sales tax hike and justify it with fear,
of the “hospitals will close and gangs will rule the streets” variety.
(They will leave out the part about cops having to take only half their
extra education pay or state workers possibly delaying a wage hike).
But the sales tax won’t come back to 5 percent, not once lawmakers
become addicted to the new revenue. Voters who OK’d the income tax
rollback know this to be true.
Meanwhile the Democratic majority in Massachusetts - including those
select few senators who will today beg for an income tax hike -
continues to ignore evidence that our tax burden is directly linked to
our economic productivity and is a credible factor in out-migration.
A study published for the American Legislative Exchange Council and
described in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal draws the comparison
between high taxes and the loss of wealthier residents (also known as
the job creators). And yes, low-tax New Hampshire is one of the
“destination states” where folks from high-tax states are taking refuge.
Taxpayers understand that desperate times sometimes call for desperate
measures. But they also know that, once on board, Beacon Hill will never
willingly step off the gravy train.
State House News Service
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Patrick: Higher taxes and no reform ‘is thumbing our nose’ at taxpayers
Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he would veto a sales tax if the
Legislature does not present him with adequate reforms, turned up the
heat on lawmakers this afternoon, accusing those voting for higher taxes
of disrespecting voters.
“This really isn’t about State House dynamics between the Governor and
the Legislature – the public could care less about that,” Patrick said
in an emailed statement. “What they do care about – particularly those
families struggling to find a job or keep one, or pay for their home or
their kids’ education – is being asked to pay more for the status quo.
To ask them to dig deeper into their pockets for higher taxes without
first adopting meaningful reforms is thumbing our nose at them.”
Patrick two years ago asked for higher corporate and local options taxes
and in January proposed a 19-cent per gallon gas tax, calling the
revenue urgently needed, along with a passel of reforms.
The Eagle-Tribune
Monday, May 18, 2009
An Eagle-Tribune editorial
Public-private gap still growing
In this recession, workers in the private sector are being squeezed
harder than ever.
Many are seeing their pay reduced through furlough programs or wage
freezes. Pension benefits are reduced, their share of health costs keeps
going up.
It gets no better for these workers when they arrive home. There they
face increases in their utility bills, rising credit-card rates,
declining home values and higher property taxes.
But for workers in the public sector, especially those who are members
of public employee unions, the picture is much different.
To be sure, some of these unions — the latest being four representing
MBTA workers — have accepted increases in their benefit costs and limits
on their annual raises. Good for them.
But too often when government leaders ask employees to share in the
sacrifices taxpayers are making, the answer is simply "No," even when
the concessions sought are but a shadow of those already accepted by
those who pay their wages.
Switch to a state-managed health care plan? No.
Accept a few days off without pay — even if that pay will be returned at
retirement? No.
Writing recently in The Wall Street Journal, Steve Malanga of the
Manhattan Institute highlights how the public-private gap has grown. The
numbers he cites are staggering.
According a 2005 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the
average public-sector worker earned 46 percent more in salary and
benefits than comparable private-sector workers.
Last year, pay and benefits for state and local workers rose 3.1
percent, compared to 1.9 percent in the private sector, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
And five million private-sector workers lost their jobs last year,
according to the BLS, while public-sector employment has increased in
nearly every month of the recession.
Remember those numbers as your state legislators hammer through tax
increases and local officials negotiate contracts that continue to
isolate public-sector workers from economic reality.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
State House pols stay mum on staff rosters
By Dave Wedge
Despite scathing criticism from the GOP, top Beacon Hill leaders
yesterday continued to stonewall requests for lists of their
taxpayer-funded staff.
The Herald initially requested the information in March but more than 75
percent of the state’s 200 lawmakers have refused to release staff
rosters - including Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) and
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (D-Winthrop).
Murray and DeLeo, who determine the personnel budgets of individual
lawmakers, refused again yesterday to release their own staff rosters.
Spokesmen for both claimed the information is available on the state
payroll. However, the payroll lists all State House employees and
salaries, yet there is no way to determine who works for which lawmaker.
Staffing and budgets are much-coveted perks on Beacon Hill, as
leadership allies are often rewarded with more money to pay employees.
Yesterday, House Minority Leader Rep. Bradley H. Jones (R-N. Reading)
called on his colleagues across the aisle to release the information, as
all GOP House lawmakers have done.
“It is infuriating, to say the least,” Jones said. “The lack of
transparency on Beacon Hill has ultimately led to the lack of public
trust, all at a time when there is a mad dash to raise taxes. This was a
simple request for information that is expected to be available to the
public. Why wouldn’t an elected official want to be open and forthcoming
about his or her staff?”
Just two Democratic senators - Sens. Jamie Eldridge (D-Belmont) and
Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Roxbury) - complied with the Herald’s request. A
complete list of who released the data is at
www.bostonherald.com.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
Taxing burgers...
When it comes to taxes, especially in Massachusetts, what goes up
usually continues to go up. So don’t be fooled into believing that the
dreaded cheeseburger tax approved by the Senate this week would be held
to the maximum 7 percent.
Yes, the Senate on Tuesday night approved a measure long sought by the
tax-and-spend crowd that will give cities and towns the option of
tacking a 2 percent local tax on restaurant meals onto the 5 percent
that is already charged by the state.
Senators hailed their own benevolence in holding the state sales tax on
meals to 5 percent, while jacking up the tax on goods to 6.25 percent.
Otherwise diners could have been looking at an 8.25 percent tax on meals
in some communities.
Um . . . thanks?
Face it, in tough times dining out is one of the first things to go, so
restaurants are already in trouble. But now waiters, cooks and
dishwashers lucky enough to still have jobs will have to help shoulder
the burden of local government spending.
“To subject (the restaurant industry) to the fiscal woes of 351 cities
and towns is a real mistake,” said Peter Christie, president of the
Massachusetts Restaurant Association. “Because they’ll just keep
coming.”
Indeed, if the Senate version of the budget prevails cities and towns
will be back next year, probably pounding the table to demand that meals
be subject to the 6.25 percent sales tax, or that the local option be
increased to 3 or 4 percent.
And if the House version - which excluded the local option tax - goes
through, well, same crowd, different script.
Makes you want to run out and make reservations, no?
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Boston Herald editorial
...And those six-packs
Nothing happens in a vacuum, although you’d never know that from the
actions of the Massachusetts Senate.
Raising so-called “sin taxes” is such an easy way out, no? So why not
make booze subject to the sales tax - especially a new, higher sales
tax. Of course, alcohol is already subject to an excise tax. (You didn’t
think earlier lawmakers “exempted” it from the sales tax out of the
goodness of their hearts, did you?) But since that tax is factored into
the retail price of every bottle of beer, wine and hard liquor, we don’t
notice it.
This new six-pack tax, well, that one will sting. Senate leaders insist
the anticipated $80 million it will bring in will be used for addiction
treatment - a worthy use indeed - but we also know that’s not how the
state budget works. There’s no little donation box every time you pick
up a six-pack into which those coins will go. And make no mistake,
package stores in border communities will really feel the brunt of this.
But wait, it gets worse. This sin tax thing is so very trendy that the
U.S. Senate is looking at a 48 cent per six-pack tax hike on beer (49
cents on a bottle of wine and 40 cents on a fifth of hard liquor) to
help pay the cost of insuring those who don’t have health insurance.
It’s enough to drive a person to drink - that is, if we can still afford
it.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 21. 2009
A Boston Globe editorial
Toward a saner state tax policy
It never made any sense that drinkers at Massachusetts restaurants pay a
5 percent tax on their beer and wine while someone buying a six-pack or
a fine Pinot Noir at a package store does not. The state Senate is to be
commended for subjecting retail alcohol purchases to the new 6.25
percent sales tax it adopted Tuesday. Better yet is the decision to
target the roughly $80 million the tax is expected to raise to
desperately needed substance abuse and court interdiction programs that
have been sorely neglected.
The Senate still has a ways to go to complete work on a $26.6 billion
budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1. But the new revenue will
help close a yawning budget gap and save services that are essential to
needy families. The Senate budget restores $50.7 million for day
services for developmentally disabled adults, for example, and $3.5
million for emergency food assistance.
Also laudable is the Senate's adoption of local option taxes for
hard-pressed cities and towns. This would allow localities to raise the
5 percent meals tax to 7 percent, with half the added revenue going back
to the Legislature to redistribute to communities without commercial
restaurants or hotels. Communities have been under the thumb of Beacon
Hill for too long, and need the tools to master their own fates.
Governor Patrick's threat to veto the sales tax hike if it doesn't come
with significant reforms in state pension, ethics, and transportation
policy may be moot, since both branches passed the tax hike by a
veto-proof margin. But unless the Legislature beefs up its anemic reform
proposals, Patrick ought to make the gesture anyway. We support
additional revenues to help vulnerable citizens. But Beacon Hill can
still do more to save money and restore the public trust.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Gov mustn’t sell out his tax opposition
By Wayne Woodlief
Gov. Deval Patrick should keep his promise and veto that huge sales tax
hike if it’s not accompanied by the reforms he’s urged - even if the
wise guys on Beacon Hill are declaring the tax “veto proof.”
The gov could show he has some steel by defying the legislative leaders
of his own party (Lord knows they’ve been defying him big time) and at
least make an effort to switch the five Senate votes necessary to
sustain a veto.
It also would be a dramatic chance - especially important for a gov in a
popularity slump - to prove he’s a man of his word.
Patrick made the strongest possible pledge in a letter to legislators
April 27. “Without final and satisfactory action on the several reform
proposals before you, I cannot support a sales tax increase and will
veto it.” Not “I might.” Not that wishy-washy phrase he used recently,
that he’s “not adamantly against it” if reforms are included. But “I
will.”
If he doesn’t, he’ll look like a guy who doesn’t keep his promises or
threats. Dems would keep rolling him.
The governor’s staff still hopes his reform agenda - close to being
wiped out in Senate and House floor votes - can be restored in
conference committee. But getting pension reform through a Legislature
intent on protecting its own pensions could be very tough. Same for the
MBTA and MassPike shakeups that Patrick proposed, but which the
Legislature seems ready to dispose. And if the House conferees should
yield to the Senate - which just gutted the Ethics Commission - bye-bye
to cleanup there.
So wielding that veto pen and switching those five senators (he’d need
too many switches in the House) may be the gov’s last best move.
It might not be so hard after all to reach that one-third margin. He
might even, behind the scenes, throw a bit of re-election fear into
senators who live near bordering states.
Not just because they’d have to shell out more of their own money, but
over the prospect of some of their favorite package stores or
restaurants or shops going belly-up if Massachusetts motorists head en
masse to New Hampshire to duck a 25 percent sales tax hike.
Republicans have scored upsets before in Worcester County, the Cape and
South Shore, the Merrimack Valley (yep, abutting New Hampshire) among
other places. Election 2010 more and more resembles election 1990, the
last time the state faced this big a mess. That swept William Weld into
office, with enough GOP senators to sustain his vetoes.
Sure, we need more revenue, and Patrick proposed a gas tax increase
(quickly and thoroughly shot down) and some targeted sale tax hikes
(booze among them). But the Retailers Association of Massachusetts
argues persuasively that raising the sales tax to 6.25 percent could
cost 12,600 jobs.
And a guy who knows his way around Massachusetts said in April, “I have
deep reservations about imposing a higher sales tax during these
difficult economic times, especially at the risk of costing the
commonwealth jobs at a time we can least afford that tradeoff.”
That fellow’s name is Deval Patrick. He was right then and he’s right
now.
The Telegram & Gazette
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Telegram & Gazette editorial
Senate gamble
Revenues may not materialize
Tuesday’s Senate vote to raise the state’s sales tax to 6.25 percent —
by a veto-proof margin of 29-10 — makes it all-but-certain that
consumers and businesses will be digging deeper this summer. What is far
from certain is how much additional revenue they will be able to
provide, and whether local communities will see any of it.
Senate backers of the increase asserted this week that it will garner an
additional $633 million in fiscal 2010. But less than a month ago, House
legislators touted $900 million in new revenue.
No one lost $267 million in the last month. It’s just that lawmakers
have no firm idea what effect the tax hike will have, because changes in
consumer and business behavior as a result of any tax hike are never
fully calculable in advance. Some will take their business to New
Hampshire; others will turn to online commerce; still others will reduce
their consumption, forcing businesses to reduce employment and output.
A report by The Beacon Hill Institute this month estimates that the
sales tax hike to 6.25 percent will reduce net employment by more than
6,500 jobs, and lead to a decrease of $51.35 million in investment.
No one on Beacon Hill is asserting that the new revenue — whatever it
proves to be — can bridge a multibillion-dollar shortfall. But
supporters do claim the new revenues will help blunt the impact of cuts
on social service programs and local aid.
Even that claim is suspect. While the Senate did set aside a portion of
the new revenue for transportation, it did not follow the House in
designating any portion for local aid. Cities and towns will remain at
the mercy of the Legislature.
More generally, the entire “restoration” of services depends upon funds
that have not yet been collected and may never be, depending upon the
course of the economy and the unpredictable nature of consumer spending
and business activity in response to tax hikes. The Senate’s action
represents a multi-part gamble, of the kind that makes economists
blanch: that the national economy will improve, that the governor will
be unable to make good on his veto threat (if he issues a veto at all),
and that Massachusetts residents won’t take even more of their dollars
to cyberspace and the Granite State.
With stakes like those in play, who needs a casino?
The MetroWest Daily News
Thursday, May 21, 2009
How to tell the 'reform' sizzle from the steak
By Steve Poftak/ Guest columnist
Tax increases come out of your wallet immediately. But will the reforms
we were promised before new revenues come at all?
The House took less than three hours to debate and pass a 25 percent
increase in the sales tax. Contrast that with the extended agony that
accompanied incremental pension and transportation reforms, most of
which were swept away in seconds of closed-door lobbying.
Yes, we will see some reforms this legislative session, but they
threaten to be more sizzle than steak. As a public service, here's how
to identify various categories of sizzle:
= Plugging
small leaks as the dam collapses: The several variations of pension
reform floating around the Legislature take an incremental approach to a
few of the most obvious abuses. Unfortunately, they fail to get at the
root of the problem - a system governed by those who benefit from it is
an invitation to create new loopholes.
= Rube
Goldberg contraptions: It has been generally acknowledged that the
state's health insurance plan, also known as the Group Insurance
Commission, has controlled health care costs better than the smaller
plans operated by independent state authorities, such as the MBTA. Yet,
rather than requiring MBTA employees to join the GIC, the Senate's
transportation reform plan calls for a state agency to pass regulations
that set up the framework for a study, including a savings threshold,
then conduct the study to see if savings meet the threshold. Only then
would it be decided if workers and retirees at the MBTA would be forced
to join the state health insurance plan. Got that?
= Take
credit now, pay much, much later: Proposed MBTA pension reforms would
only affect new employees. This means that savings won't be achieved
until the new employees pass the old retirement age threshold, sometime
in the 2030s. The sales tax hike will kick in this year.
= Be For It,
Until You Are Against It: The House Ways & Means Committee released its
budget proposal with the very high profile elimination of funding for
the Quinn Bill. A majority of the committee then signed onto amendments
restoring the funding.
= Not Enough
Time in this Session: This is the last resort. Despite the House's
voting to raise the sales tax in three hours, it seems reform measures
require multiple hard-to-schedule hearings, committee votes, special
caucuses, and an eternity in the purgatory of first, second and third
readings. Why don't we consider revenue increases last on the calendar?
If we run out of time to consider reforms, then new taxes should be off
the table.
The House passed a 25 percent increase in the sales tax during the worst
recession in a generation. They did it quickly, with minimal debate, and
by a veto-proof margin. Keep an eye on the reform promises and ask
yourself if they save real money, or fit into one of the categories
listed above. Then ask your representative and senator the same
question.
Steve Poftak is research director at
Pioneer
Institute, a non-partisan, Massachusetts public policy think tank.
The Lowell Sun
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A Lowell Sun editorial
Senate disservice
The Senate made a major misstep by voting Tuesday for hefty tax
increases a day before even beginning debate on reform measures. We find
it particularly egregious that, despite the dire fiscal forecast, there
have been no real reductions to state government itself, including
positions and benefits.
Shouldn't legislators have approved pension reform, privatization
measures, wage freezes and health-insurance reductions before placing a
heavier burden on the backs of struggling taxpayers, small-business
owners and local government?
Nothing has been done to repair the structural flaws in state
government. Formulas regarding education aid and charter schools have
not been revised, the Quinn Bill remains in place and state workers are
still slated to receive salary increases.
Currently, Massachusetts' monthly payroll is approximately $268 million.
If the state cut 10 percent of its workforce, it would save nearly $27
million a month. That's about $324 million a year. A 5 percent reduction
in the state payroll would net about $162 million a year. Shouldn't at
least some employee cuts occur at the state level?
Instead, Senate lawmakers joined their House colleagues in approving an
increase in the sales tax to 6.25 percent, garnering a veto-proof
majority that renders meaningless Gov. Deval Patrick's repeated threats
to reject it.
Instead of making the truly tough decisions, the ones that could anger
union leaders, lawmakers have placed the burden solidly on the backs of
taxpayers and local government. Residents will not only have to pay the
increased taxes approved by lawmakers, they will also have to suffer
reduced municipal services necessitated by local-aid cuts and, quite
possibly, pay higher property, meals and hotel taxes that may be raised
to offset the state's cuts to local aid.
Small businesses will also suffer. The higher sales and alcohol taxes
will divert millions of dollars in sales from Bay Staters to tax-free
New Hampshire, resulting in more job losses. The Retailers Association
of Massachusetts estimates the sales-tax increase will result in the
loss of 12,000 jobs.
State lawmakers did their constituents a grave disservice by not making
substantial reforms before raising taxes. It's an injustice that may
well be remembered on Election Day.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Patrick stands firm on pledge to veto tax hike
By Matt Viser
Governor Deval Patrick this afternoon stood by his threat to veto the
sales tax passed by House and Senate lawmakers unless they first approve
a series of reforms that he finds acceptable.
“I will support the sales tax, and have said so all along -- provided we
deliver on the reforms,” Patrick told reporters after swearing in a
judge at the John Adams Courthouse. “Doing the right thing isn’t that
difficult. Everybody knows what the right thing is to do; now let’s get
that done before the budget comes to me next month.”’
When asked if he would veto the entire budget, or just the sales tax
increase, he said: “I’m going to take that part when we come to it. But
there are no good reasons why we can’t get these reforms done.”
The Senate voted this week to raise the sales tax from 5 percent to 6.25
percent, following a similar move by the House last month. Patrick has
threatened to veto the proposal unless several reforms are approved
first, although the House and Senate both achieved veto-proof majorities
in the initial votes.
Today, the governor highlighted several changes he wants lawmakers to
make in the current legislation. On pension reform, he wants the changes
to apply to both current and future employees, while the Legislature has
maintained that they should only apply to future employees.
On ethics reform, he wants the overhaul to the state ethics laws to
strengthen the state Ethics Commission; the Senate version of the bill
would weaken that agency.
Patrick also said he would also keep pushing for a 19-cent-per-gallon
increase in the state’s gas tax, which lawmakers have dismissed. “I
still think it’s the best way,” Patrick said.
Patrick’s public stance on the sales tax has aggravated lawmakers and
caused a rift among top Democrats on Beacon Hill.
“This ought not be so hard,” Patrick said. “And it’s not about anything
personal. All I’m asking is that we change a few things, and that we
change them in ways that I care about and I think the public cares
about.”
“The legislature, to their credit, has done what they believe is the
hard work now by taking the votes on the budget and on the sales tax,”
Patrick said. “Now let’s do what I think is the easy stuff and deliver
some real and lasting reforms.”
“It’s not complicated,” he added. “They know what the right thing is to
get done.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Veto urged as resistance to tax hike grows
By Hillary Chabot
A veteran lawmaker who said his region near the New Hampshire border
would be decimated by the 25 percent sales tax hike believes Gov. Deval
Patrick - who vowed to veto the increase - still has time to erode a
thin veto-proof majority.
“This governor is a great politician. He could change it if he wants
to,” said Rep. James R. Miceli (D-Wilmington) of the vote by which the
tax hike passed in the House. “That vote isn’t as solid as it appears to
be.”
Patrick went on the offensive again yesterday, calling Tuesday’s vote in
the state Senate to hike the sales and booze taxes a slap in the face to
working-class families.
“To ask them to dig deeper into their pockets for higher taxes without
first adopting meaningful reforms is thumbing our nose at them,” Patrick
said in a statement.
Patrick met with a group of House lawmakers shortly after they passed
the 25 percent sales tax hike in April by a veto-proof margin of two
votes, and indicated to reporters the votes were soft. Patrick would
need only three votes to uphold his veto in the Senate.
The Senate approved a total of nearly $1 billion in tax hikes Tuesday
night, increasing sales tax to 6.25 percent on the dollar, removing the
sales tax exemption on alcohol, and allowing cities and towns to
increase meals and hotels taxes by 2 percent.
Outraged small businesses and tax watchdogs promised yesterday they’ll
be heard on the hikes, be it at a rally planned for the State House
steps today or at the voting booth in November.
“It’s completely out of control,” said Barbara Anderson,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. “The only
thing they care about is not getting re-elected. We have to throw them
out.”
Corie Whalen, who organized the conservative anti-tax Tea Party in
Boston last month, invited anti-tax citizens to gather at the State
House starting at 11 a.m. today.
“They’re misleading people when they act like necessary cuts have to be
made when they haven’t worked to clear up real waste,” Whalen said.
Jeff Golden, a buyer at Downtown Wine & Spirits in Somerville, said the
vote to remove the sales tax exemption from liquor at package stores
means many smaller shops would close their doors.
“It’s frustrating for a smaller place. We’re operating on the margins
already,” said Golden. “We’re going to have a hard time convincing
people to come here when they can get it for less in New Hampshire.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 22, 2009
Libertarian eyes sales-tax ballot battle
By Thomas Grillo
Six months after a ballot question to repeal the state’s income tax was
crushed by voters, Libertarians are considering a vote to repeal the
sales tax.
“The only difference between Bernie Madoff and the government is that
what Madoff did was illegal and what the government is doing is legal,”
said Carla Howell, president of the Center for Small Government.
The group will hold a summit at the Marriott in Newton on Sat., June 6,
to discuss ways to shrink government.
“No decisions have been made, but the possibility of a ballot question
to eliminate the sales tax is definitely on the table,” she said.
Earlier this week, the Senate voted to raise the state’s 5 percent sales
tax to 6.25 percent, generating an extra $633 million for the next
fiscal year. The House approved a similar measure last month. Both votes
passed by veto-proof margin. Still, Gov. Deval Patrick has threatened to
veto the increase unless the Legislature approves reforms.
If Howell’s group decides to try to gather the thousands of signatures
to get the question on the ballot, it will have to do it alone.
Barbara Anderson, president of Citizens for Limited Taxation,
said while she supports the elimination of the sales tax, her members
will not gather signatures.
“We cannot ask our members to put all this effort and money into
something that can only work if the Legislature respects the voters’
decision - and they don’t,” she said. “Instead, we are focused on
defeating legislators who vote for these tax increases. That’s the only
thing that matters.”
Harris Gruman - chairman of Stop the Cuts Coalition that helped defeat
the proposed elimination of the income tax last year - said he opposes
repealing the sales tax.
“It’s a risky idea,” he said. “The sales tax increase is part of a
necessary response to a crisis. If we only cut our way out we will leave
the state in a shambles.”
Last November, Howell pushed Question 1 which would have repealed the
state income tax. But the measure failed by a 70 percent to 30 percent
margin leaving nearly $13 billion in revenues for the state
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
|
