CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Voters' 2000 tax rollback mandate again stiffed
New income tax hike coming?
|
With the House budget debate underway, Democrats
on Monday quickly beat back Republican-sponsored amendments to
reduce the sales and income tax rates....
“So we begin a conversation about the role of
taxes in a civilized society. And unlike some in this chamber, I
don’t think that the word tax is a four-letter word,” [Rep. Jay
Kaufman, D-Lexington, co-chair of the Committee on Revenue] said....
An amendment offered by House Minority Leader
Brad Jones and Rep. George Peterson (R-Grafton) to roll the state
income tax rate back to 5 percent from 5.3 percent starting in
January 2013 incited the first extended debate of the planned
week-long deliberations over the House’s $30.5 billion budget
proposal.
The measured failed on a vote of 34-120. Three
Democrats crossed party lines to support the proposal, including
Rep. James Arciero of Westford, Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut, and
Rep. Harriett Stanley of West Newbury.
The House kicked off its debate over the fiscal
2012 state budget by taking up amendments dealing with state
revenues and tax collections, also defeating a GOP proposal to
reduce the 6.25 percent sales tax to 5.625 percent....
Not long after agreeing to a resolution
establishing a baseline revenue estimate of $20.5 billion on which
to build the budget, Republican supporters of the income tax
rollback said it would fulfill the will of the voters who passed an
initiative petition in 2000 calling for a 5 percent income tax rate.
[Rep. George] Peterson, a Grafton Republican and
the assistant minority leader, argued that the 5.3 percent tax rate
had been intended to get the state through a difficult financial
time, not to become a permanent revenue stream to support a state
budget that continues to grow year after year. He said that now was
a good time to take the first step toward lowering the tax rate
because the economy was showing positive signs of a rebound.
Opponents, however, said they've been hit with
calls from constituents hoping to preserve services from spending
cuts and argued it's the wrong time to reduce the income tax rate.
Rep. Marty Walz (D-Boston), the assistant vice-chairwoman of the
House Ways and Means Committee, said that the state could not afford
to forego income tax revenue despite the appeal of giving taxpayers
a break.
“It’s a very seductive message to say we want to
follow the will of the voters. Of course we want to follow the will
of the voters. But we also have a duty to have a balanced budget,
and we also have a duty to provide the services that government is
here to provide to the citizens of this great state,” Walz said....
In a statement after the vote, Jones said he was
disappointed.
“Instead of putting the money into the pockets of
the taxpayer, the Democratic led House has chosen to keep this money
and spend it,” Jones said. “Once again, we don’t have a revenue
problem, we have a spending problem.”
David Guarino, the former communications director
to House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and director of public affairs at
MSL Boston, tweeted after the roll call that the vote would “tick
off some Ds. They don’t like being ‘spotted.’”
Guarino, a veteran presence on Beacon Hill as
both a journalist and communications specialist, told the News
Service that justifying a vote against the rollback to constituents
can be tricky, making it more palatable to avoid direct up-or-down
votes.
“It’s probably no surprise, but people who are
against rolling back the income tax are reticent to be on the record
about it,” Guarino said. “It’s a tough issue. It’s a tough issue to
explain to voters even in a very down economy when cities and towns
are struggling. That why Republicans are always pushing for a vote.”
Rep. Daniel Winslow, a Norfolk Republican, filed
an amendment mimicking legislation he sponsored this session that
would allow taxpayers to claim a deduction of up to $300 annually on
sales taxes paid to the Commonwealth.
Like the income tax rollback, that proposal also
failed along party lines by a vote of 31-120.
State House News Service
Monday, April 25, 2011
House rejects income, sales tax cuts
Rep. Jones offered amendment 13 proposing to roll back the state
sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5.625 percent. It is defeated on a
voice vote.
Rep. Winslow offered amendment 362 authorizing residents to take
a tax credit of up to $300 per tax year for sales taxes paid to the
Commonwealth. Winslow asks for a call of the yeas and neas. By a
roll call vote of 31-120, amendment rejected....
Rep. Jones offered amendment 480 reducing the
income tax to 5 percent over three years....
Rep. Peterson said this is a straightforward amendment, going
back to the will of the voters in 2000 to take the income tax rate
back to 5 percent. We do that in three steps, a tenth of a percent
over three years. For January 2013 5.2, 2014 5.1, 2015 5.0. It will
have no effect on this year’s revenue picture. It all starts after
this fiscal year. The initiative petition back in 2000 was
overwhelmingly passed by the electorate, 56.4 percent to 38.6
percent against. Since then we have offered amendments going in two
stages. This year we offer a three-year period....
Rep. Kaufman of Lexington said taxes are the price we pay for
services that we agree we want to provide for one another. If you
look at the over one billion in cuts before us today you see a long
list of services not delivered, services denied to the elderly, the
disabled, to protect the environment, to build the communications
and education infrastructure. We are at serious risk of
shortchanging our citizenry today and beyond. We are talking about
investments for the next generation that we are not making and the
price will be paid by our children and grandchildren. Unlike some in
this chamber I don’t think the word taxes is a four-letter word....
Rep. Atkins said the Minority Leader raises an important point.
I campaigned in 2000 against that referendum that brought tax rate
back to 5 percent. That was promised to people without any cuts. The
economy was the best we have ever seen. This was promised to people
under false circumstances. This Legislature has done its best to get
back to that promise. We can’t do it under these circumstances....
Rep. Poirier said I am happy to ask you to vote on behalf of
further amendment. We have had feedback on this issue. We had it 11
years ago, when the people, who are the government, we are not the
government, the people voted 57 percent in favor of voted the income
tax back to 5 percent. We have waited better than a decade. ... So I
think we need to check our figures. I think we can live within that
means. I think if we don’t take seriously to help the citizens of
this commonwealth. They spoke 11 years ago and we have refused to
answer. It is time we pay attention to the people who are the
government, the 6 million people of this commonwealth....
Rep. Peterson of Grafton said earlier today we
adopted a revenue consensus number, $20.25 billion. My first budget
was about 15.5 billion, that included the unfunded pension
liability, that included the MBTA. That is money that comes off the
top automatically. If we compare apples to apples, the budget we
debating this week will be $30.5 billion – more than double my first
budget. I do know people of this commonwealth in the year 2000 said
roll the income tax back. The tax rate was suppose to be temporary
to help us get through some tough fiscal times. Each year the budget
continues to grow, and grow, and grow....
Rep. Frost of Auburn said throughout the budget process and past
budgets we have done in this House, we constantly hear from various
groups about investing in line items. Any money we spend is an
investment. I am not going to argue that. What this amendment
attempts to do is invest in our taxpayers. ... Let us set a
precedent that we are going to honor a promise. I think equally
important is that we honor the taxpayer and we respect the economic
situation we are in....
Rep. Webster said he supported the further amendment. I came
here in 2003, if my memory serves me right the budget was around $22
billion. Here we are nine cycles later, and we are contemplating
passing a budget that is close to $31 billion. We are growing our
budget each year in excess of $1 billion. Ladies and gentlemen that
is simply unsustainable growth in spending. We don’t have a tax
problem. We have a spending problem....
Rep. Walz of Boston said as appealing as it is to cut the income
tax this year or future years this is not something we can afford.
The gentlemen from Auburn said he wants us to invest in every day
citizens. It is what I intend to do through high levels of funding
for education, adult day healthcare. We have extraordinary needs
that are not being met. Now is not the time to be taking out
hundreds of millions of dollars. ... Of course we want to follow the
will of the voters. Not all the voters supported the tax rollback.
What I heard from the people of my district was a desire for more
services and more funding. It is not a uniform will of the
voters....
Rep. Jones said I asked the gentlelady of Boston
to yield because of her fundamental misunderstanding of what the law
is relative to the income tax. To paraphrase the lady you really
don’t care what the majority thinks....
Rep. Kulik said, I rise in opposition to this further amendment.
We are here to safeguard the taxpayers’ interest. I think it’s a
little unusual that in the two weeks since the House Ways and Means
Committee released the budget, the taxpayers I’ve been hearing from
have not been calling or emailing me to say lower our income tax
rate. They haven’t been calling to say cut revenue. They’ve been
calling to say please increase spending on services that matter to
me....
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF
34-120 FURTHER AMENDMENT NOT ADOPTED.
State House News Service
Monday, April 25, 2011
Lawmakers debate income tax rollback
State House News Service
LAWMAKERS DEBATE INCOME TAX ROLLBACK - 04/25/2011
The [Easthampton] City Council narrowly
passed a resolution Wednesday that would support a bill in the
state legislature designed to increase income taxes in certain
brackets.
The bill, “An Act to Invest in Our
Communities,” would raise the state income tax rate from 5.3
percent to 5.95 percent, the rate before it was decreased in
1999. It includes a higher personal exemption for middle- and
lower-class families in an effort to ensure their taxes do not
increase, said the office of the bill’s author, Rep. James J.
O’Day, D-West Boylston....
There will be a hearing of the Revenue
Committee at the Statehouse’s Gardner Auditorium on May 5 at 10
a.m. to discuss the bill.
The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Easthampton City Council passes resolution
supporting Massachusetts income tax hike
Bullying’s a hot topic these days but the
“thugs vs. wimps” dynamic is hardly exclusive to the school
playground.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Ways and Means
Chairman Brian Dempsey have filed important legislation that
would give cities and towns more control over health insurance
for municipal workers, leaving those workers with
still-excellent coverage but saving some money for property
taxpayers — not to mention saving municipal jobs. Debate on the
measure begins this week.
But labor leaders are issuing the usual,
thundering threats, and have convinced 50 House Democrats to
sign on to a competing proposal that would gut DeLeo’s effort.
The compromise they’re offering parrots what union leaders want,
which is something that resembles negotiation over health care —
followed by the prospect of binding arbitration. It doesn’t
mandate a dime of savings....
And if anyone should be ganging up on lawmakers, it should be the
taxpayers.
A Boston Globe editorial
Monday, April 25, 2011
Robert DeLeo has right cure
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Once again the voters got the typical Bacon Hill
Middle-Finger Salute from the Democrats, with the exception of three
reps.
The traditional income tax rate of 5 percent
— increased "temporarily" in 1989 to 5.95,
then again in 1990 to 6.25 percent — was ordered rolled back
incrementally over three years to 5 percent by the voters on the
2000 ballot (overwhelmingly by a 60-40% vote). Despite the voters'
mandate, In 2002 the Legislature "froze" it at 5.3 percent, again
"temporarily" — where it remains.
Each year CLT files a bill
to keep the now twenty-two year old broken legislative
promise. Every time, year after year, the Legislature defies the
voters.
It did so again yesterday.
Remember this come November
2012 — when Revolution 2012 arrives.
As if this isn't bad
enough, the tax-borrow-and-spend cabal continues its push to jack
the income tax rate back up to 5.95 percent, where it was before
voters demanded it be rolled back to 5 percent. The Gimme Lobby and
its troops have begun the velvet assault that's worked for them in
the past: Lobby and convince local government officials to
endorse higher state taxes so their municipal gravy train can
continue running without interruption.
As we noted in the CLT
Update of April 12 ("The greedy Gimme Lobby is back for
more"), Judy Meredith and her One Massachusetts, is at the lead of
this newest assault on us taxpayers. According to a news report, "A
Groundswell of Support for Raising Taxes":
An Act To Invest in Our Communities looks to
restore tax cuts administered over the last decade which some
groups say has been the cause of deteriorating social services.
Judy Meredith is the head of outreach at One Massachusetts, a
public policy advocacy group, she says Governor Patrick's plan
to cut his way out of a nearly 2 billion dollar gap is
unsustainable at best.
So, according to Meredith, and dozens of groups across the
state, raising the tax rate is a much better option than
watching service organizations and state agencies get torn apart
by yearly spending reductions.
While House Speaker DeLeo has promised no new
taxes or fees in this budget now under debate, it's worth noting
that already his plan to reform municipal government employee
healthcare benefits is under attack from within his own party and
among some of his appointed committee leaders. What the government
employee union bosses want they usually get in the end, so this
bears careful watching over the next few days.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Monday, April 25, 2011
House rejects income, sales tax cuts
By Matt Murphy
With the House budget debate underway, Democrats on Monday quickly
beat back Republican-sponsored amendments to reduce the sales and
income tax rates.
“We are at serious risk of shortchanging not only our citizenry
today, but our citizenry for tomorrow and beyond. We are talking
about investments for the next generation that we are not making,
and the price for the non-investment will be paid by our children
and grandchildren,” said Rep. Jay Kaufman, a Lexington Democrat and
co-chair of the Committee on Revenue.
Kaufman, who promised lawmakers that a proposal to comprehensively
reform the state's tax code would be ready for next year's budget
deliberations, called taxes “the price we pay” for services.
“So we begin a conversation about the role of taxes in a civilized
society. And unlike some in this chamber, I don’t think that the
word tax is a four-letter word,” Kaufman said.
An amendment offered by House Minority Leader Brad Jones and Rep.
George Peterson (R-Grafton) to roll the state income tax rate back
to 5 percent from 5.3 percent starting in January 2013 incited the
first extended debate of the planned week-long deliberations over
the House’s $30.5 billion budget proposal.
The measured failed on a vote of 34-120. Three Democrats crossed
party lines to support the proposal, including Rep. James Arciero of
Westford, Rep. Colleen Garry of Dracut, and Rep. Harriett Stanley of
West Newbury.
The House kicked off its debate over the fiscal 2012 state budget by
taking up amendments dealing with state revenues and tax
collections, also defeating a GOP proposal to reduce the 6.25
percent sales tax to 5.625 percent.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has vowed not to raise any taxes or fees
in order to balance next year’s state budget two years after helping
lead the 2009 push to increase the sales tax 25 percent to 6.25
percent.
Thirteen of 25 revenue amendments were withdrawn before receiving
consideration, including an amendment from Jones seeking to
establish a sales-tax holiday weekend.
Not long after agreeing to a resolution establishing a baseline
revenue estimate of $20.5 billion on which to build the budget,
Republican supporters of the income tax rollback said it would
fulfill the will of the voters who passed an initiative petition in
2000 calling for a 5 percent income tax rate.
Peterson, a Grafton Republican and the assistant minority leader,
argued that the 5.3 percent tax rate had been intended to get the
state through a difficult financial time, not to become a permanent
revenue stream to support a state budget that continues to grow year
after year. He said that now was a good time to take the first step
toward lowering the tax rate because the economy was showing
positive signs of a rebound.
Opponents, however, said they've been hit with calls from
constituents hoping to preserve services from spending cuts and
argued it's the wrong time to reduce the income tax rate. Rep. Marty
Walz (D-Boston), the assistant vice-chairwoman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, said that the state could not afford to forego
income tax revenue despite the appeal of giving taxpayers a break.
“It’s a very seductive message to say we want to follow the will of
the voters. Of course we want to follow the will of the voters. But
we also have a duty to have a balanced budget, and we also have a
duty to provide the services that government is here to provide to
the citizens of this great state,” Walz said.
Kaufman estimated that rolling the income tax back to 5 percent
would initially eliminate $370 million in tax revenue and eventually
remove closed to $1 billion from state coffers.
Kaufman told members he plans to have a comprehensive reform of the
state's tax code ready for next year's budget deliberations,
highlighting May 5 and May 12 hearings before the Joint Committee on
Revenue on tax reforms.
Rep. Stephen Kulik, vice-chairman of House Way and Means, said his
constituents had been delivering him the opposite message from the
one being pushed by House Republicans.
“The taxpayers I’ve been hearing from have not been calling or
emailing me to say lower our income tax rate. They haven’t been
calling to say cut revenue. They’ve been calling to say please
increase spending on services that matter to me,” Kulik said.
In a statement after the vote, Jones said he was disappointed.
“Instead of putting the money into the pockets of the taxpayer, the
Democratic led House has chosen to keep this money and spend it,”
Jones said. “Once again, we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a
spending problem.”
David Guarino, the former communications director to House Speaker
Salvatore DiMasi and director of public affairs at MSL Boston,
tweeted after the roll call that the vote would “tick off some Ds.
They don’t like being ‘spotted.’”
Guarino, a veteran presence on Beacon Hill as both a journalist and
communications specialist, told the News Service that justifying a
vote against the rollback to constituents can be tricky, making it
more palatable to avoid direct up-or-down votes.
“It’s probably no surprise, but people who are against rolling back
the income tax are reticent to be on the record about it,” Guarino
said. “It’s a tough issue. It’s a tough issue to explain to voters
even in a very down economy when cities and towns are struggling.
That why Republicans are always pushing for a vote.”
Rep. Daniel Winslow, a Norfolk Republican, filed an amendment
mimicking legislation he sponsored this session that would allow
taxpayers to claim a deduction of up to $300 annually on sales taxes
paid to the Commonwealth.
Like the income tax rollback, that proposal also failed along party
lines by a vote of 31-120.
Without debate or discussion, the House adopted a proposal by Rep.
Byron Rushing (D-Boston) to establish a commission that would review
$24 billion in assorted tax breaks that Massachusetts provides each
year and whether they are still serving their intended public policy
objectives.
The commission would include the secretary of administration and
finance, the state auditor, the state treasurer, the House and
Senate minority leaders, the House and Senate Ways and Means
Committee chairs, the co-chairs of the Revenue Committee, and four
gubernatorial appointees – one from Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, one from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, one
from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center and one from the
University of Massachusetts.
The commission would be due to report on April 30, 2012 and would be
tasked with determining whether additional “clawback” provisions
should be included in tax break policies to penalize recipients who
fail to live up to their job creation promises. Rushing’s amendment
would also require each state agency to file a report by December 31
on any development subsidies they have provided.
Other amendments approved by the House included adjustments to the
way dairy tax credits are calculated and the way cigarette packages
are stamped for tax purposes.
State House News Service
HOUSE SESSION – MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2011
CONVENES: The House convened at 12:02 p.m. with
Rep. Donato presiding. Reps. Kaufman, Wong, Poirier, Andrews, Miceli,
Peterson others were in the chamber.
PRAYER / PLEDGE: Members recited the Pledge of Allegiance. . . .
[snip]
JONES SALES TAX AMENDMENT: Rep. Jones offered
amendment 13 proposing to roll back the state sales tax from 6.25
percent to 5.625 percent. It is defeated on a voice vote.
WINSLOW SALES TAX AMENDMENT: Rep. Winslow offered amendment 362
authorizing residents to take a tax credit of up to $300 per tax
year for sales taxes paid to the Commonwealth. Winslow asks for a
call of the yeas and neas.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 31-120, AMENDMENT 362 REJECTED . . .
[snip]
INCOME TAX REDUCTION: Rep. Jones offered
amendment 480 reducing the income tax to 5 percent over three years.
Rep. Peterson offered a further amendment substituting new language
for the Jones amendment.
Rep. Peterson said this is a straightforward amendment, going back
to the will of the voters in 2000 to take the income tax rate back
to 5 percent. We do that in three steps, a tenth of a percent over
three years. For January 2013 5.2, 2014 5.1, 2015 5.0. It will have
no effect on this year’s revenue picture. It all starts after this
fiscal year. The initiative petition back in 2000 was overwhelmingly
passed by the electorate, 56.4 percent to 38.6 percent against.
Since then we have offered amendments going in two stages. This year
we offer a three-year period. What happened back in the 90s as we
began to roll taxes back, there were some 22 votes of rolling back
taxes. As we did each successive rollback our revenue continued to
rise. Will that happen this time, I can’t say that. Our economy
seems to have turned the edge to some degree and revenues could be a
billion dollars higher than anticipated. We should take steps now to
honor the will of the voters from the year 2000. We only got to one
change last time and had to freeze the rate.
Rep. Peterson requested a roll call and there was support.
Rep. Kaufman of Lexington said taxes are the price we pay for
services that we agree we want to provide for one another. If you
look at the over one billion in cuts before us today you see a long
list of services not delivered, services denied to the elderly, the
disabled, to protect the environment, to build the communications
and education infrastructure. We are at serious risk of
shortchanging our citizenry today and beyond. We are talking about
investments for the next generation that we are not making and the
price will be paid by our children and grandchildren. Unlike some in
this chamber I don’t think the word taxes is a four-letter word. It
is simply not the case that we can keep cutting taxes and deliver
services that we know we need. The minority party is aggressive
about pursuing tax cuts and certain public expenditures. For much of
the past two years the Revenue Committee has been attempting to step
back from the range of tax policies we have that determine what kind
of revenue we have and what posture we as a Commonwealth will
strike. If you looked at our tax system comprehensively, you might
agree our tax system needs some fixing. It does not need it by each
being dealt with in isolation but in a comprehensive and strategic
way.
Rep. Jones said I do appreciate the gentlemen yielding. The first
question I have is what is the time-line for the completion of the
comprehensive review? My second thought, why wasn’t the concern the
operative concern in 2009 when we were raising the sales tax. We
needed to look at all the things we do in our tax policy to make
sure we get it right. I don’t recall his position was we should be
changing corporate tax policy. If you adopt this amendment, you put
in place an alternative paradigm for getting the income tax back to
5 percent. So by January 1, 2015, more than a dozen years later we
would be back to 5 percent. After all, our economy is on the move
and on the mend.
Rep. Atkins said the Minority Leader raises an important point. I
campaigned in 2000 against that referendum that brought tax rate
back to 5 percent. That was promised to people without any cuts. The
economy was the best we have ever seen. This was promised to people
under false circumstances. This Legislature has done its best to get
back to that promise. We can’t do it under these circumstances.
Rep. Kaufman said I owe answers to Minority Leader. On May 5 we will
hold hearing on a long list of reforms to tax system. It is my
intention, our intention, we will look at these in a comprehensive
way. Hope to have a proposal to you within the year we expect to
have a serious comprehensive proposal to you. Second, we have not as
a in the commonwealth have not had a comprehensive look at our tax
system in generations. Perhaps I can be forgiven to falling into bad
habits of doing incremental decision making. We don’t have a model
for the kind of systematic review we have undertaken. We will
undertake this in a very public way. We will invite public feedback
on this. All that will happen hopefully in a calm, adult kind of
way, not the rantings and ravings we might expect in a tax debate.
We will debate our priorities. We will debate in anticipation of
next year’s budget. Not only do I think a rollback in the income tax
needs to be understood broadly, needs to be understood on future
budgets. Here are some estimates of what the rollback would cost.
For FY13 somewhere $370 million. FY 14, $700 million. I can’t
anticipate the economy in 2015, 2017. We do not dare make this kind
of huge hole in the future revenue system. We will be starting off
next year with an even larger hole than we started this year.
Rep. Poirier said I am happy to ask you to vote on behalf of further
amendment. We have had feedback on this issue. We had it 11 years
ago, when the people, who are the government, we are not the
government, the people voted 57 percent in favor of voted the income
tax back to 5 percent. We have waited better than a decade. I can
appreciate the chairman asking us to wait another year, perhaps two.
Why don’t we reduce incremental over the next four years so we can
adjust to this over time? I show in the year FY 13, 58.3 million,
which is a far cry from the 370 to 390. So I think we need to check
our figures. I think we can live within that means. I think if we
don’t take seriously to help the citizens of this commonwealth. They
spoke 11 years ago and we have refused to answer. It is time we pay
attention to the people who are the government, the 6 million people
of this commonwealth.
Rep. Peterson of Grafton said earlier today we adopted a revenue
consensus number, $20.25 billion. My first budget was about 15.5
billion, that included the unfunded pension liability, that included
the MBTA. That is money that comes off the top automatically. If we
compare apples to apples, the budget we debating this week will be
$30.5 billion – more than double my first budget. I do know people
of this commonwealth in the year 2000 said roll the income tax back.
The tax rate was suppose to be temporary to help us get through some
tough fiscal times. Each year the budget continues to grow, and
grow, and grow. Each year we talk about reform, reduce growth so we
could send back those tax revenues to the people who voted to have
that done. This proposal before you does not have any effect on this
budget. In fiscal year 2013, you have a change in the revenue
number. On a static basis, that is about $60 million right now. I
dare say some tax revenue policy we have created here, the increase
of the sales tax, which we are not talking about, had a detrimental
effect. This is a chance to follow-up on the will of the voters of
the commonwealth. I would urge the members to consider and support
this amendment.
Rep. Frost of Auburn said throughout the budget process and past
budgets we have done in this House, we constantly hear from various
groups about investing in line items. Any money we spend is an
investment. I am not going to argue that. What this amendment
attempts to do is invest in our taxpayers. In the past we’ve had
many tax cuts, and still saw revenues increase. As we invest in tax
cuts, it allows people to spend more of their own money. It allows
them to keep more of their own money. They can spend that on
vacation, going out to eat, to stay at hotel. All of which we have a
tax on. The state is going to get revenue off of that. The more jobs
you create, the more tax revenue you collect. Let us set a precedent
that we are going to honor a promise. I think equally important is
that we honor the taxpayer and we respect the economic situation we
are in. Let’s invest in the taxpayer so we can turn the economy
around. Let’s support our small businesses. Let’s create jobs. Thank
you Madame Speaker.
Rep. Webster said he supported the further amendment. I came here in
2003, if my memory serves me right the budget was around $22
billion. Here we are nine cycles later, and we are contemplating
passing a budget that is close to $31 billion. We are growing our
budget each year in excess of $1 billion. Ladies and gentlemen that
is simply unsustainable growth in spending. We don’t have a tax
problem. We have a spending problem. We can’t continue to spend at
that rate. Between 1995 and 2011 we have had ups and downs in our
economy. In the years between 1995 and 2001, 2002, we saw
unprecedented growth in our economy. But the minority party stood
here when we debated the 2008 budget, when the writing was on the
wall. When we all knew that in October 2008 we would see significant
losses in the capital gains taxes. My point is our economies are
always cyclical. We didn’t plan well enough in good times. The
further amendment doesn’t suggest we roll the tax back to 5 percent.
It is a responsible amendment. Also recognizes that future planning
is critical. The planning is let’s reduce state spending. Let’s not
implement the will of the voters until 2013. I supported that
referendum. I told the people I represent this is the only way to
send a message to the Legislature to get our fiscal house in order
and stop spending at the rate that we do. A further amendment that
gives us two years to plan for the changes in revenue. I advocate
for this because I have not seen any real effort to really grapple
with the reform issues we need to grapple with. We have nibbled with
pension reform. We haven’t had the courage to take on real reform. I
fully recognize some of the spending we have in our budget is
non-discretionary spending. Let’s roll up our sleeves this budget
session. Begin to plan for our future. I ask you and urge you to
support the further amendment.
Rep. Walz of Boston said as appealing as it is to cut the income tax
this year or future years this is not something we can afford. The
gentlemen from Auburn said he wants us to invest in every day
citizens. It is what I intend to do through high levels of funding
for education, adult day healthcare. We have extraordinary needs
that are not being met. Now is not the time to be taking out
hundreds of millions of dollars. The hundreds of millions of dollars
the gentlemen from Lexington mentioned are probably hundreds of
millions of dollars lower. Yes, the economy is improving. But
nowhere near the rate any of us would like to see. The members of
the minority party can’t have it both ways. I want to point out a
couple of amendments. Amendment 238 seeks to increase expenditures
2.5 million. The minority party seeking to increase expenditures
this year.
Rep. Jones asked Rep. Walz to yield the floor. She did not.
Rep. Walz said many of these important expenditures, it is very
difficult to support this year, knowing we are going to have a very
difficult budget next year. These are simply things we cannot
support at this time. Of course we want to follow the will of the
voters. Not all the voters supported the tax rollback. What I heard
from the people of my district was a desire for more services and
more funding. It is not a uniform will of the voters.
Rep. Sullivan said I have been here for a little while, I am
listening to this discussion about since 2001 we rollback the income
tax. A couple of things sticking in my mind. What I have been
hearing is we didn’t do anything to meet the voters’ request. That
is just not true. Up to 30 tax cuts. A number of targeted tax cuts.
Since 2001 we have done $13 billion worth of corporate and excise
tax cuts. I heard the words unsustainable. We have unsustainable
growth in the revenue. Programs disappearing. The reason is we don’t
have the revenue. We have a crisis of giving revenue away. To move
forth on this further amendment I don’t think would do service to
the people.
Rep. Jones said I asked the gentlelady of Boston to yield because of
her fundamental misunderstanding of what the law is relative to the
income tax. To paraphrase the lady you really don’t care what the
majority thinks. She mentioned the DOR analysis, if there is a
growth in tax revenue. I want to correct that misstatement. The
proposal before us seeks to put in place an alternative means of
fulfilling the will of the voters. If the gentlemen from Lexington
his goal is over the course is to go through a public process, bring
to the full a more comprehensive alternative, a better tax code. Why
did you vote for an order that we couldn’t talk about gaming today?
This only seeks to put in place a more predictable paradigm. It
would put in place alternative paradigm that says we need to do
things differently. To put something in place that is different than
the corporate sales tax he voted for. I think by adopting this
further amendment it puts in place the emphasis, this money isn’t
the government’s money in the first place. We need to justify how
much we take from the tax player, and how we choose to spend it. I
hope the further amendment is adopted.
Rep. Kulik said, I rise in opposition to this further amendment. We
are here to safeguard the taxpayers’ interest. I think it’s a little
unusual that in the two weeks since the House Ways and Means
Committee released the budget, the taxpayers I’ve been hearing from
have not been calling or emailing me to say lower our income tax
rate. They haven’t been calling to say cut revenue. They’ve been
calling to say please increase spending on services that matter to
me. Whether that’s on clothing allowance to poor children, local
aid. More than 50 percent of our spending is off-limits to us in the
short-term. I think that in the subsequent years to 2000 – the
automatic rollback had to be suspended at 5.3 percent. I think
people realized that when they were voting on that, they were being
told that we could afford an income tax rollback with no impact on
services. You can’t have it both ways. We will be lucky by 2015 or
2016 to get back to the level of revenue we had prior to the
recession. I think this amendment is wrongly thought out. It’s not
the appropriate time.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 34-120 FURTHER AMENDMENT NOT ADOPTED.
The underlying amendment was not adopted. Time was 2:45 p.m. Rep.
Mariano took the chair. . . .
[snip]
RECESSES: The House recessed at 3:00 p.m. to
return at 4 p.m.
RETURNS: The House returned at 4:30 p.m. with Rep. Donato presiding.
. . .
[snip]
DISCLAIMER: Bill texts and histories are
available at www.state.ma.us/legis/legis.htm. All votes are voice
votes, unless otherwise noted. Bills ordered to third reading have
been given initial approval. To engross a bill is to pass it and
send it to the other branch. The last of three votes taken on bills
that reach the governor's desk is the vote on enactment. So, it's
third reading (initial approval), engrossment (passage) and
enactment. The News Service coverage of legislative debate is an
accurate summary of remarks, not a verbatim transcript.
Serving the working press since 1910 -
http://www.statehousenews.com - 4/25/2011
The Springfield Republican
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Easthampton City Council passes resolution
supporting Massachusetts income tax hike
By Brian Steele
EASTHAMPTON – The City Council narrowly passed a resolution
Wednesday that would support a bill in the state legislature
designed to increase income taxes in certain brackets.
The bill, “An Act to Invest in Our Communities,” would raise the
state income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 5.95 percent, the rate
before it was decreased in 1999. It includes a higher personal
exemption for middle- and lower-class families in an effort to
ensure their taxes do not increase, said the office of the bill’s
author, Rep. James J. O’Day, D-West Boylston.
The rate increase would affect only those earning $62,600 or more
annually, and would have the greatest impact on those earning
$580,000 or more annually, O’Day’s office said. The bill also raises
capital gains taxes in some situations.
Four councilors voted in favor of the resolution and three voted
against it. Councilor Daniel C. Hagan abstained and Councilor Salem
Derby was absent.
“If we don’t have enough revenue, then we’re going to have to cut or
we’re going to have to raise property taxes or cut positions or go
down to three days a week instead of four days a week (of the
Municipal Building being open for business),” Burns said before the
vote. The Municipal Building is closed Fridays as a cost-cutting
measure.
“I think with the wealthy doing better than they ever have before,
it’s sort of unconscionable to not ask for them to sacrifice
anything while the middle class is bearing the majority of the
burden,” said Burns.
Councilor Justin P. Cobb said he “whole-heartedly” supported the
resolution and the bill, but that his constituents “overwhelmingly”
asked him to vote no, which he did.
Before voting, Cobb apologized to Burns.
“This was a hard vote,” he said after the meeting. “I have to
remember that I was elected to office to represent my district.”
“I would oppose it,” said Hagan, who announced beforehand he would
abstain. “I think that what we need in this state is to increase
revenue with jobs. I don’t think we need to raise taxes.”
Councilor Joy Winnie voted in favor, saying it’s “very obvious that
the wealthiest of the wealthy” benefit most from the current tax
laws and the middle class is “carrying our society today.”
After the vote, Councilor Donald L. Cykowski expressed skepticism
that the resolution would hold sway in Boston.
“What do you think will happen when that resolution hits the
Statehouse? Right in the wastebasket,” he said. “They care less
about us in this community. They’re going to do what they want at
the given time.”
There will be a hearing of the Revenue Committee at the Statehouse’s
Gardner Auditorium on May 5 at 10 a.m. to discuss the bill.
The Boston Herald
Monday, April 25, 2011
A Boston Globe editorial
Robert DeLeo has right cure
Bullying’s a hot topic these days but the “thugs vs. wimps” dynamic
is hardly exclusive to the school playground.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Ways and Means Chairman Brian Dempsey
have filed important legislation that would give cities and towns
more control over health insurance for municipal workers, leaving
those workers with still-excellent coverage but saving some money
for property taxpayers — not to mention saving municipal jobs.
Debate on the measure begins this week.
But labor leaders are issuing the usual, thundering threats, and
have convinced 50 House Democrats to sign on to a competing proposal
that would gut DeLeo’s effort. The compromise they’re offering
parrots what union leaders want, which is something that resembles
negotiation over health care — followed by the prospect of binding
arbitration. It doesn’t mandate a dime of savings.
Using oh-so-scary boldface type in his letter, labor’s chief bully
reminded any fence-sitting lawmakers that these are “labor votes,”
which of course means the reps who pick the wrong side can forget
union endorsements or support in the next election.
“You are either on the side of collective bargaining for the workers
who have been willing to compromise on this issue,” AFL-CIO
president Robert Haynes wrote in a letter to lawmakers, “or you
. . . want to reward intractable, uncompromising management
advocates like [the Massachusetts Municipal Association].”
The 50 Democrats who’ve signed onto the union proposal include 13
members of the House Ways and Means Committee, who issued not a word
of public protest when the committee approved DeLeo’s proposal on a
voice vote earlier this month. Gee, serving two masters can get
complicated, can’t it?
Now, the truth is that Haynes could write one of those letters in
his sleep. But we are now facing the critical moment in the struggle
to contain municipal health care costs, which are sucking the life
out of local budgets and costing many union workers their jobs.
Taxpayers simply can’t afford for House leaders to go wobbly. Gov.
Deval Patrick, who offered a weaker version of the Ways and Means
bill, needs to pick the right team.
And if anyone should be ganging up on lawmakers, it should be the
taxpayers.
|
| |
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
▪ 508-915-3665
|
