State House News Service
SENATE SESSION - TUESDAY, SEPT. 27, 2011
CONVENES: The Senate convened at 1:23 p.m., Sen.
Murray presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
[ . . . ]
TARR AMENDMENT 34 – BUDGET REVENUES: Sen. Tarr
offered an amendment.
Sen. Tarr said, We have the regular budget, which
is appropriate by the Legislature. It appears we are
creating a shadow budget for gaming. We’re creating so
many silos it appears we’re making ourselves into more
of an agricultural state that we already are. By
treating that revenue as something other than what it
is, there are also budgetary consequences. This says
that all of the money from gaming be treated as budgeted
revenue. The most direct impact is whether the citizens
get tax relief. We shouldn’t claim that this is going to
be a panacea. Madam President, I think the gentleman has
suggested the reduction would be a modest reduction. We
are suggesting that one form of revenue for the
commonwealth should be off the table for those
calculations.
Sen. Tarr asked that a vote on the amendment be
taken by a call of the yeas and nays. There was support.
Sen. Brewer said, The gentleman would like to
make it so all the gross lottery revenues be counted as
tax revenue so it could trigger an income tax reduction.
We are tracking toward a commitment that we will be able
to further the reduction. Barring any unforeseen global
turmoil – in Greece they’re going to increase property
taxes and they’re going to assess it through their
electric bill. They’re looking at a $600 billion
bailout. The global economic uncertainty requires us to
be prudent. We are on track for a reduction. We are also
on track for an increase in local aid money to the tune
of $65 million. This bill has carve-outs, but it doesn’t
have a dollar figure. The carve-outs are on a percentage
basis. We are heading in the direction that the minority
leader wants. I don’t believe that this is a shadow
budget. I believe that those carve-outs have been
well-thought-out. I do hope the amendment is not
adopted. I hope the members vote no.
Sen. Candaras said, This amendment would require
gaming revenue to be counted as state tax revenue as
revenue under Chapter 62 in the General Laws, which
governs the individual income tax. The majority of
revenues are taxes, they are not individual taxes for
the purpose of Chapter 62. Section 57 of the proposed
Chapter 23K says unequivocally that the gaming
commission should operate independently. This amendment
would confuse one very important question, and that is,
should these revenues be counted toward a reduction in
the income tax rate. We are confident that our
colleagues in the minority party. What counts under
Chapter 62 to change the income tax rate is baseline tax
revenue. Casino revenues are – any casinos revenues that
evolve from this action could be beyond the purview of
that chapter.
Sen. Hedlund said, I think that what’s important
is, we talked about transparency earlier. My colleague
is right. This is a shadow budget. Folks at home aren’t
interested in hearing the nuances we just heard. I hope
that this amendment is adopted. I think that by
continuing to send out diversions or preventing us from
getting the triggers adds to that cynicism.
Sen. Knapik said, It’s a pleasure to speak with
you all today. I think this amendment ought to pass for
the simple reason – we’re creating a systemic change in
the revenues collected by the commonwealth of
Massachusetts on the order of several hundred million
dollars. The gentleman’s amendment simply seeks to
capture those resources. I know much has been said and a
little bit of crowing going on. My lord, Madam
President, it only took us a decade, a decade – hello –
I think it’s going to take us a half a century to get it
down to the voter-passed 5 percent. This systemic source
of new revenues ought to be in the category of revenues
collected by the commonwealth. What it does is, it shows
you how we slice and dice – a slice-o-matic – of where
the money goes. For the purposes of this amendment, I
have to wonder and posit for the membership, do our
constituents want most of the money spent no matter how
worthy and worthwhile it is? I know we are putting some
of it in the silo of the stabilization fund. The reality
is, it’s taken us 10 years to get to the first down
payment of the rollback. We’re going to be generating
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re
going to have a devil of a time trying to see if the
triggers can come into play. Why wouldn’t we pass this
and treat these gaming revenues – we do need the decoder
ring to figure out where the gaming revenue comes from.
It kind of looks like the family tree of the gentleman
from Barre. That’s how complicated we’ve sort of made
this gyration. It treats the revenue much as we treat
other categories of revenues. It took 10 years to get to
that first down payment. Will it really take another
half century to get it down to that 5 percent historic
level?
Sen. Tarr said, I just want to make a couple
quick points. This is such a radical idea that the House
adopted it. This answers the question about how the
revenue is treated on a going-forward basis. I want to
congratulate the lady from Springfield, who almost
qualifies as an illusionist. We’ve spent the last couple
of years trying to rein some agencies in. Now a very
simple concept has been elevated. It’s in more limbo
than when the explanation started. The House did this.
It merely says that for the purposes of what this is,
the revenue will be treated like revenue under Chapter
62. I know the lady understands this. She is one of the
preeminent scholars in this chamber. If she wasn’t, she
wouldn’t have been able to create this shroud of
mystery. The House agrees with us. This is something we
should do to say out of the gate that this is revenue of
the commonwealth and it won’t become part of a shadow
budget. Here, we’re using a source of revenue and using
it to fund things in an alternative way. We want to say
that it’s budgeted revenue of the commonwealth.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF
6-32, AMENDMENT
REJECTED
[ . . . ]
ADJOURNS: The Senate adjourned at 4:53 p.m. to return
Thursday at 11 a.m. in an informal session.
DISCLAIMER: The News Service coverage of
legislative debate is an accurate summary of remarks,
not a verbatim transcript.
Voting Yea
in support of taxpayers:
Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)
Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield)
Sen. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham)
Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth)
Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen)
Sen. James Timilty (D-Walpole)
