|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Bad or simply stupid proposals
piling up
|
Massachusetts has hit the first of five triggers
that need to be hit to force a slight income tax rate reduction on
Jan. 1, 2016, according to the state revenue commissioner....
A final determination on whether the income tax
rate will fall from 5.15 percent to 5.1 percent will be made on Dec.
15, 2015. The Legislature and Gov. Charlie Baker factored the tax
cut into the fiscal 2016 budget they assembled this spring and
summer.
In 2000, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot law
directing the state to lower the income tax rate to 5 percent. Rate
cuts were implemented until 2002 when the Legislature, faced with
plummeting revenues and an economic downturn, passed a package of
tax increases and the current tax cut trigger law....
State House News Service
Friday, September 4, 2015
Mass. on track for income tax cut on Jan. 1, 2016
Facing the prospect of millions of dollars in
repairs and maintenance to its bridges and roadways, town officials
are asking the state for permission to establish a municipal
gasoline tax — a request that could lead to statewide legislation on
the matter.
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox,
has filed a home-rule petition on Beacon Hill that would allow Lee
to charge up to an additional 3 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in
town.
Unlike the rooms and meal tax, state law doesn't
permit a municipality to enact a gasoline tax on its own.
Pignatelli also plans to file a bill that would
allow all 351 municipalities across the state the option of enacting
their own gas tax, forgoing the need for special legislation.
The Berkshire Eagle
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Lee seeks state OK to enact local gas tax to fund road repairs
A bill
[H.2985]
to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver’s licenses in
Massachusetts sits in the Legislature’s transportation committee,
the second iteration of the proposal on Beacon Hill....
By definition, illegal immigrants do not hold
other identification issued by the US government that could be used
to obtain a driver’s license. But the Pew report describes lessons
learned by other states and offers best practices, for instance by
turning to consulates from immigrants’ home countries.
A Boston Globe editorial
Monday, September 7, 2015
Immigration status has nothing to do with driving skills
Beacon Hill lawmakers are quietly pushing
legislation that could offer sanctuary protections to illegal
immigrants across the state, the Herald has learned.
The new legislation, filed by state Rep. Byron
Rushing (D-Boston), would ban public agencies from giving or sharing
information on illegals with federal Immigration and Customs
Enforcement unless forced to do so by a court or a federal order.
The bill also would ensure illegal immigrants
have access to state benefits — such as welfare and driver’s
licenses — and it would prohibit Bay State employees from denying
“assistance, benefit, payment, service or participation in any
program or activity” on the basis of immigration status, except as
required by federal law.
State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton)
immediately decried the bill, saying, “This will make Massachusetts
a sanctuary state that harbors illegal aliens and makes available to
them every benefit under the sun.”
“I think this would be devastating to
Massachusetts in many ways,” O’Connell said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Beacon Hill push for statewide sanctuary protections for illegal
immigrants
Some people seem surprised that health care
spending in Massachusetts last year exceeded the cap imposed by a
2011 law designed to rein in costs, though why anyone thought an
arbitrary limit imposed by politicians would guarantee a particular
outcome is the true head-scratcher.
And when the state has to cough up hundreds of
millions of dollars to insure people who otherwise wouldn’t quality
for subsidized insurance, well, combined with higher prescription
drug costs, is it really any wonder that spending last year exceeded
the benchmark? ...
Spending on MassHealth exploded last year, in
part because of expanded eligibility under Obamacare, but largely
because of the failure of the redesigned Health Connector and the
decision to extend subsidized coverage to thousands of new enrollees
without regard for whether they were eligible. Enrollment in
MassHealth grew by 23 percent in 2014, and overall spending on the
program by 19 percent.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Editorial: State’s health costs grow
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
CLT's successful 2000 ballot question to roll
back the income tax will likely kick the rate down a notch again
next year — sixteen years after
the voters' mandated it return to 5 percent within three years,
twenty-seven years after it was hiked "temporarily" we were
promised. Many of us still might live long enough to
see that promise made a generation ago kept —
if only because voters took matters into their own hands in 2000,
and despite the Legislature kicking those voters in the teeth by
"freezing" it "temporarily" in 2002 —
fourteen years ago.
That's about all the good news to report.
Bad or simply stupid proposals continue to pile up on Beacon Hill.
Let's see if we can connect a few dots for some
of the stupid or simply clueless legislators on Beacon Hill, help
make their jobs a little easier, provide them with a few reminders
and some much-needed perspective.
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli (D-Lenox)
must have missed the last election, when voters repealed the
Legislature's recent automatic gas tax increase by 53%-47%.
He's already proposing another gas tax hike! This time,
he wants to make it a local option tax available statewide
— leaving the Legislature with clean
hands if his approach is ever adopted. ("Hey, WE didn't hike
it, blame THEM!") What a killer that would be for local gas
stations, when all frugal drivers would need to do is drive to the
next town.
Next, we have some official baffledom over the
'unexpected' rise in the state's cost of funding health care
"largely because of the failure of the redesigned Health Connector
and the decision to extend subsidized coverage to thousands of new
enrollees without regard for whether they were eligible." Of
course that must have had an impact, but what about the waves of
illegal immigration that have been flooding Massachusetts? Remember
Holly Robichaud's column in the Boston Herald almost two years ago
(Feb. 3, 2014; "Bill drives home high cost of illegals")? An
excerpt follows:
... Our
state doesn’t need any more initiatives to make it a
magnet for illegal immigrants. According to the Center
for Immigration Studies, there are 220,000 illegals
living in Massachusetts. Twenty-five percent are on
welfare. That means 55,000 who don’t belong here are
collecting benefits from the state. If each one gets
$1,000 in taxpayer-funded payments, that equals to $55
million per month or $660 million per year. If they get
$2,000 in benefits, we are talking about $1.2 billion.
Two years
ago State Rep. Jim Lyons had to shut down the House to
force Gov. Deval Patrick to disclose how much the state
is spending on health care for illegal immigrants.
It is a
whopping $93 million for Mass Health and $175 million
for the Health Safety Net.
By
executive order, Gov. Patrick overrode the law
prohibiting in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, and
thus, making it better to be illegal than to be from
Rhode Island.
Jessica M.
Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for
Immigration Studies, estimates that taxpayers are
spending anywhere from $3,000 to $15,000 per illegal
immigrant student, depending on the school.
Using her
estimates, if just 100 illegals get the break, it will
costs us $300,000 to $1.5 million for one year....
I can't imagine this revelation hasn't
contributed to the state's exploding costs. Providing "free"
health care to thousands of illegal aliens alone accounts for $268
million in combined health care costs, and I very much doubt the
number of illegal aliens has decreased, not increased since
then. Why should skyrocketing costs come as a surprise?
I'm no economist but expecting anything but a big increase in cost
is naïve or worse. It'll get
worse yet if we begin importing waves of Syrian and Middle-East
"refugees" next.
Nonetheless, state Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston)
and others want to make Massachusetts a "Sanctuary State," an
electro-magnet for invaders, home for ceaseless skyrocketing costs.
Rep. Rushing, try to connect those dots.
Further energizing that electro-magnet, state
Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier (D-Pittsfield) and Sen. Patricia D.
Jehlen (D-Somerville) have resurrected the so-called "Safe Roads
Act" aka, driver's licenses for illegal aliens. This is
a redux of the failed 2014 effort in the Legislature (See: CLT
Update, Mar. 6, 2014 — "'Safe
Driving Bill' for illegal aliens anything but").
Rep. Farley-Bouvier and Sen. Patricia Jehlen,
what part of no don't you understand? I won't go into the
obvious arguments all over again against this craziness; we all
recognize them. Even our Legislature rejected this foolishness last
year. But here we go again.
Stay tuned and alert. We've got a
challenging road ahead.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Friday, September 4, 2015
Mass. on track for income tax cut on Jan. 1, 2016
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts has hit the first of five triggers that need to be hit
to force a slight income tax rate reduction on Jan. 1, 2016,
according to the state revenue commissioner.
In a letter Thursday to Administration and Finance Secretary Kristen
Lepore and high-ranking state legislators, commissioner Mark
Nunnelly reported that fiscal year 2015 inflation-adjusted baseline
tax revenues grew 5.37 percent over fiscal 2014. That's more than
the 2.5 percent growth rate required under the tax cut trigger law.
A final determination on whether the income tax rate will fall from
5.15 percent to 5.1 percent will be made on Dec. 15, 2015. The
Legislature and Gov. Charlie Baker factored the tax cut into the
fiscal 2016 budget they assembled this spring and summer.
In 2000, Massachusetts voters passed a ballot law directing the
state to lower the income tax rate to 5 percent. Rate cuts were
implemented until 2002 when the Legislature, faced with plummeting
revenues and an economic downturn, passed a package of tax increases
and the current tax cut trigger law.
Baker made broad-based tax cuts a key aspect of his unsuccessful
2010 run for governor before winning the Corner Office in 2014 when
he dialed back his pitch for major tax relief while pledging not to
raise taxes as governor.
If the income tax falls in January, it would mark the second tax cut
in six months. The state budget signed by Baker in July increased
the value of the state earned income tax credit from 15 percent of
the federal credit to 23 percent, a change that is expected to
bolster income for more than 400,000 lower-wage workers and their
families.
The Department of Revenue on Thursday also reported that August tax
collections of $1.73 billion were up $100 million or 6.1 percent
over August 2014. Over the first two months of fiscal 2016,
collections of $3.4 billion are up 5.4 percent above the same period
in fiscal 2015 and $39 million above benchmarks used for budgeting
purposes.
The Berkshire Eagle
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Lee seeks state OK to enact local gas tax to fund road repairs
By Dick Lindsay
LEE — Facing the prospect of millions of dollars in repairs and
maintenance to its bridges and roadways, town officials are asking
the state for permission to establish a municipal gasoline tax — a
request that could lead to statewide legislation on the matter.
State Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli, D-Lenox, has filed a
home-rule petition on Beacon Hill that would allow Lee to charge up
to an additional 3 cents per gallon of gasoline sold in town.
Unlike the rooms and meal tax, state law doesn't permit a
municipality to enact a gasoline tax on its own.
Pignatelli also plans to file a bill that would allow all 351
municipalities across the state the option of enacting their own gas
tax, forgoing the need for special legislation.
"If we do Lee, several other communities may line up and want to do
it too," he said. "Cities and towns should have a dedicated stream
of revenue they can stockpile for future projects."
If approved by House and Senate, Lee voters would have the final say
at the ballot box, likely the 2016 town election. Annual Town
Meeting voters in May authorized the Board of Selectmen to seek
legislative backing for the gas tax.
Enacting a statewide municipal gas tax would supplement the $1.5
billion in Chapter 90 funds and other highway state aid
Massachusetts plans to dole out to cities and towns through fiscal
2018. In January 2014, then-Gov. Deval Patrick unveiled the
comprehensive funding package as part of a $12.4 billion long-term
investment plan for all of the state's transportation needs.
In Lee, local gas tax revenue generated by the eight gas stations in
town — including two on the Massachusetts Turnpike — would be
dedicated toward the nearly $40 million it could take within a
15-year period to overhaul the town's entire road and bridge
infrastructure, according to local officials.
With Chapter 90 funds to Massachusetts cities and towns for
infrastructure work practically level-funded in recent years, Lee
officials feel those using town roads should help pay for their
upkeep through the gas tax.
"It's important for taxpayers to know the money would go directly to
roads and bridges," said Lee Selectman Thomas Wickham.
According to local officials, Lee would have to spend $1.8 million
for each of the next 15 years to complete all necessary road repairs
and repaving — a $27 million price tag. In addition, Lee has four
bridges in need of a serious upgrade or replacement at an estimated
cost of $11.8 million.
The Boston Globe
Monday, September 7, 2015
A Boston Globe editorial
Immigration status has nothing to do with driving skills
A bill [H.2985]
to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver’s licenses in
Massachusetts sits in the Legislature’s transportation committee,
the second iteration of the proposal on Beacon Hill. As the bill
awaits a hearing, a new national
study by the Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to inform the
discussion, exploring the experience of jurisdictions that have been
issuing licenses to undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers ought to pay
attention to the findings as they consider the legislation, known as
the Safe Driving Bill. The report shows that implementing the policy
is neither as insidious nor as costly as opponents think.
Support for licensing undocumented immigrants has grown
dramatically: In 2011, only three states granted such permits. Ten
states, plus the District of Columbia, now issue driver’s licenses
to undocumented immigrants. Delaware and Hawaii passed their own
laws this year but haven’t started issuing the cards. According to
the report, nearly 37 percent of the nation’s 11.3 million illegal
immigrants live where they can obtain a driver’s license, including,
in New England, Vermont and Connecticut.
More policy makers have come to the realization that granting
driver’s permits to the undocumented is in the best interest of
public safety and perfectly compatible with federal law. The
Massachusetts proposal would grant a distinct type of permit to
undocumented drivers, one that cannot be used for federal
identification purposes. The bill also states in no uncertain terms
that the driver’s permit does not make the holder eligible for any
public benefits.
By definition, illegal immigrants do not hold other identification
issued by the US government that could be used to obtain a driver’s
license. But the Pew report describes lessons learned by other
states and offers best practices, for instance by turning to
consulates from immigrants’ home countries.
In
states that issue permits to illegal immigrants, the policy has
largely been self-funded; i.e., fees collected from applicants pay
for the costs of issuing the permit, such as startup and staffing
costs and any technological upgrades. The report found that the fees
vary widely among jurisdictions — anywhere from $18 (Nevada, for a
four-year license) to $72 (Connecticut, for a six-year license).
Advocates for the Safe Driving Bill in Massachusetts are open to
having an extra fee associated with the permit for drivers who are
here illegally. (Last year, the Registry of Motor Vehicles estimated
the revenue from granting licenses to illegal immigrants at $15
million in fees and other charges, plus $7.5 million in renewal fees
every five years.)
Licenses are a privilege that all drivers, citizens and noncitizens
alike, must earn. Making licensing available to every motorist who
can prove driving competence reduces the number of uninsured
drivers, creating more equitable insurance costs.
In 1903, Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to
recognize the value of driver’s license laws and adopt them. It’s
time for the Commonwealth to follow that tradition and pass the Safe
Driving Bill. It’s in the public interest to acknowledge realities
and put the safety of all motorists ahead of the politics of
immigration.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Beacon Hill push for statewide sanctuary protections for illegal
immigrants
By Hillary Chabot
Beacon Hill lawmakers are quietly pushing legislation that could
offer sanctuary protections to illegal immigrants across the state,
the Herald has learned.
The new legislation, filed by state Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston),
would ban public agencies from giving or sharing information on
illegals with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless
forced to do so by a court or a federal order.
The bill also would ensure illegal immigrants have access to state
benefits — such as welfare and driver’s licenses — and it would
prohibit Bay State employees from denying “assistance, benefit,
payment, service or participation in any program or activity” on the
basis of immigration status, except as required by federal law.
State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) immediately decried the
bill, saying, “This will make Massachusetts a sanctuary state that
harbors illegal aliens and makes available to them every benefit
under the sun.”
“I think this would be devastating to Massachusetts in many ways,”
O’Connell said.
The sanctuary aspects of the bill mirror rules in San Francisco,
where the July 4 random shooting death of Kathryn Steinle —
allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant deported five times —
brought the city’s lax practices into question.
Several Republican presidential candidates now back “Kate’s Law,”
named after the slain 32-year-old San Francisco woman, which would
hand out five-year prison sentences to any deportee who returns.
The legislation is before the Committee on Children and Families,
where O’Connell is a member. The panel was scheduled to hear the
legislation last week, but the controversial bill was pushed back to
September as sanctuary city policies sparked national headlines.
“This is a bill that just popped up,” O’Connell said. “Nobody knew
about it.”
But Rushing responded to the outcry over his bill, saying it doesn’t
ask anyone to break federal laws and that he simply wants to
encourage immigrants to move to the Bay State.
“It prohibits barring people on the basis of immigration status,”
said Rushing, adding that hot-under-the-collar politicians should
“calm down.”
“We want to make sure all people of Massachusetts are here legally,
and we do that by helping them become legal citizens,”
he said.
Rushing admitted that there is nothing in his legislation to ensure
that illegal immigrants are on a path to citizenship before they
receive state services, but said he’d be open to adding that
language.
The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, a
pro-immigrant group, has highlighted Rushing’s bill on their website
as “priority legislation.”
They write that it “would provide clear guidance that inquiries into
immigration status by state agencies and recipients of state funds
are not permissible unless
required by law.”
Word of the bill came on the day Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal appeared on Boston Herald Radio saying top officials in
sanctuary cities should be held “criminally liable as accessories”
for any crimes committed
by illegals.
Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone quickly challenged the GOP
presidential candidate to “come and get me.” Curtatone, the mayor of
a sanctuary city, said Jindal’s plan is an attempt to push him
“beyond the 1 percent right now” in presidential polls.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
A Boston Herald editorial
Editorial: State’s health costs grow
Some people seem surprised that health care spending in
Massachusetts last year exceeded the cap imposed by a 2011 law
designed to rein in costs, though why anyone thought an arbitrary
limit imposed by politicians would guarantee a particular outcome is
the true head-scratcher.
And when the state has to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars
to insure people who otherwise wouldn’t quality for subsidized
insurance, well, combined with higher prescription drug costs, is it
really any wonder that spending last year exceeded the benchmark?
A total of $54 billion was spent on health care in Massachusetts in
2014, representing a 4.8 percent increase. Because the cost growth
benchmark was set at 3.6 percent for 2014, state health regulators
will have the authority to demand improvement plans from insurers,
doctors and hospitals.
But what requires the most improvement is the management of public
health insurance programs. Spending on MassHealth exploded last
year, in part because of expanded eligibility under Obamacare, but
largely because of the failure of the redesigned Health Connector
and the decision to extend subsidized coverage to thousands of new
enrollees without regard for whether they were eligible. Enrollment
in MassHealth grew by 23 percent in 2014, and overall spending on
the program by 19 percent.
That makes it all the more critical that the Baker administration
repair the damage wrought by the faulty Health Connector redesign
and — as we noted in an Aug. 31 editorial — that it continue to keep
close tabs to ensure that those who receive MassHealth benefits are
eligible for it.
|
| |
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
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|