|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
CLT UPDATE
Friday, July 8, 2016
The cost of "compassion" with
other people's money
|
Gov. Charlie Baker plans to file language he says will keep
illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses under an amendment
tucked into the state’s
$39.1 billion budget....
The vague wording — written to conform to federal standards —
prompted some Republicans to raise concerns about opening a legal
window for illegal immigrants to get licenses.
The new language Baker will file is a clarification, according to
his office, to ensure “illegal immigrants do not obtain either type
of license under the new system.” Lawmakers passed the budget on
June 30, giving Baker 10 days to decide whether to sign it, veto it
or amend parts of it. His amendment adds one line: “No license of
any type may be issued to any person who does not have lawful
presence in the United States.”
“As the commonwealth works to comply with new standards set by
the federal government for credential-holders, it is imperative that
we provide greater security and ensure that new licenses are only
obtained by individuals with proper documentation, including proof
of lawful presence,” Baker said.
“This amendment eliminates any question that all applicants must
show proof of lawful presence, an immigration status recognized by
the Department of Homeland Security, to the Registrar to legally
obtain a REAL ID-compliant license or a Massachusetts license.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Charlie Baker wants stronger language
to keep illegal immigrants
from getting licenses
If there is even a sliver of doubt over whether a new state law
might one day enable illegal immigrants to qualify for driver’s
licenses in Massachusetts, it can be put to rest with an amendment
now on offer from Gov. Charlie Baker. The House and Senate should
agree to the change....
Baker’s amendment cuts through the confusion, making clear that
no license of any type may be issued to a person who doesn’t have
“lawful presence” in the United States, an immigration status
recognized by the feds.
Some argue “inclusiveness” should be the goal, and a driver’s
license should be about nothing more than driving. That ignores the
fact that a driver’s license unlocks the key to many doors. The
amendment should be adopted.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, July 8, 2016
No license loophole
Among some Democratic legislators and constituency groups,
there’s a growing feeling that the state should be more ambitious
about spending on education (from early education to K-12 to the
University of Massachusetts and other public colleges),
infrastructure, transportation, housing, and preventing
homelessness.
We know where Baker comes down, certainly. He made his chops in
the firmly no-new-taxes Weld administration, and ran for office
himself as a budget-within-your-means man. That’s worked in his
first two years, though not without some bumps. But weak revenue
growth may be the reality for the foreseeable future. Slow growth is
what prompted the recent late-stage budgetary revision. Budgeteers
were initially expecting an additional $1.1 billion in new revenue
from growth. They have now reduced their revenue assumptions by some
$750 million — and adjusted the budget accordingly....
As the fiscal debate unfolds over the next two years, expect
members of the more liberal Senate to stress the need for more
revenue, Baker to resist that notion, and the tax-cautious House to
look for an escape hatch.
And there is one: Leave the matter up to the voters. Citizens may
well have a chance to decide in November of 2018, when a proposed
constitutional amendment to tack an extra 4 percent tax on income
above $1 million a year will likely be on the ballot. Under the
terms of that proposal, the money would be intended for education
and transportation.
Baker, of course, will be against it — but he wouldn’t be the
first Republican governor to benefit from a tax hike he opposed.
Indeed, he could even benefit from the political dynamic if voters
decide that they (1) do indeed want to see the state spend more on
select programs but (2) also want a fiscally prudent governor to
oversee that spending....
Progressives are already salivating at the prospect of those new
dollars. But even such a taxpayer-bestowed windfall wouldn’t be a
cure-all. If all those new dollars get baked into the budget —
rather than having significant shares used for one-time capital
projects or put in reserve — it won’t prevent budget problems when
the next economic slowdown comes.
It will just mean those problems occur in a budget with a bigger
bottom line.
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 8, 2016
The Mass. fiscal clash that lies ahead
By Scot Lehigh
Facing tight financial times, state legislators are contemplating
canceling one of the few perks we hard-working taxpayers enjoy: the
annual sales tax holiday.
According to reports, Senate President Stan Rosenberg said the
Senate “has increasingly been skeptical about whether this is a good
use of $20 [million], now $25 million a year,” and Governor Charlie
Baker said dropping the holiday this year “ought to be part of the
conversation.”
Fine. As good citizens of the Commonwealth, we can all come
together and forgo a two-day break this summer from the 6.25 percent
sales tax for the good of the state’s financial health.
But if we’re going to sacrifice, then so too should our
legislators, and there are a few legislative perks that “ought to be
part of the conversation,” because I’m “skeptical about whether it’s
a good use” of our hard-earned tax dollars.
Let’s start with per diems. This perk rewards our state
representatives and senators with a payment of between $10 and $100
for each day they grace Beacon Hill with their presence....
And then there’s the $7,200 slush fund each legislator receives
every year to cover their office expenses....
Now, back to that $60,000 base salary. Nearly one-third of
legislators get sizeable bonuses on top of that amount because they
serve in leadership or as committee chairmen, according to a 2014
report by the Special Advisory Commission Regarding the Compensation
of Public Officials.
The stipends range from $7,500 for certain committee leaders, all
the way up to $35,000 in extra pay for the House speaker and Senate
president.
Since we’re all making sacrifices here, lawmakers should agree to
collect only their base salary until the state’s financial gap is
breached.
The Legislature recently voted to endorse a constitutional
amendment that would force Massachusetts millionaires to pay a
super-sized surtax to help fill state coffers and pay for
transportation and education. They call it the “fair share”
amendment.
Cutting back on their pricey perks would be a great way for
lawmakers to set the example.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Mass. budget woes mean lawmaker perks need to go
By Meredith Warren
The Massachusetts House on Thursday night approved more than $915
million in borrowing over the next five years as part of an economic
development bill aimed at boosting jobs and workforce development
across the state....
The House stayed into the night Thursday to move the bill on to
the Senate, but there was little discussion or debate of the bill
throughout the day.
Of the 183 amendments House lawmakers filed to the bills, 19 were
adopted, another seven were rejected and 120 were withdrawn by their
sponsor before they could be considered. The remaining amendments
were assembled into a consolidated amendment that was adopted with
one vote....
Among the amendments withdrawn was one filed by Dedham Rep. Paul
McMurtry to suspend the 6.25 percent sales tax for two days in
August, an effort to spur consumer spending that has become an
annual event.
While tax collections have fallen short of fiscal 2016
projections and lawmakers in June lowered their expectations for
fiscal year 2017 by $750 million, forcing them to retreat many
planned investments, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg have suggested that the state could conserve money
in fiscal 2017 by foregoing the sales tax holiday.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Sales tax holiday bypassed as House approves $915M jobs bill
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The Boston Herald editorial concludes:
"Some argue 'inclusiveness' should be the goal, and a
driver’s license should be about nothing more than driving.
That ignores the fact that a driver’s license unlocks the
key to many doors."
Those "many doors" were enunciated by one of the
advocates for the Driver's-Licenses-For-All scheme.
According to a State House News Service report, State
Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) asserted: "Many of us believe that this is a state that
welcomes everyone. I defy anyone to say there are people who don't have
a right to live with us in this great state of Massachusetts."
A "right to live with us" —
and it goes without saying, a right to access the multitude of generous
benefits afforded to those living among us. It is estimated that
taxpayers are now paying over two billion dollars annually to
support Balser's brigade of beneficiaries who do not have "lawful
presence" in Massachusetts or even in the country. And some wonder
why the state budget increases so much every year?
There will be no tax relief, reward, or respite for
beleaguered taxpayers this summer — even
Bacon Hill's gimmicky little "sales tax holiday weekend" has been
cancelled. This will be the second time over the past fourteen years
this miniscule tax "holiday" has been scrapped. The State
can't live without our $20-$25 million —
The State needs it far more than we do and can use it better than we
can. What happened to "compassion," "fairness," and our
"fair share" as taxpayers?
More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never will be.
Instead, the Legislature —
especially the liberal-dominated Senate —
as always lusts for more taxes, more tax hikes, more of our hard-earned
money however they can wrest it from us to spend as they wish.
Next offered up to the chopping block no doubt will
be the miniscule reduction (from 5.1 to 5.05 percent) in the 28-year old
"temporary" state income tax rate.
Meredith Warren made a very good point in her Boston
Globe op-ed. If, according to the Bacon Hill pols, all of us must
sacrifice, then all of us should sacrifice
— starting with trough-fattened legislators. If taxpayers
must give back or settle for less during an unanticipated revenue
slowdown, then let those deciding to take from us lead the sacrifice by
example. Let them exhibit good faith by relinquishing at least
some of the largesse they've granted unto themselves.
Now that would actualize the compassion,
fairness, and paying of their fair share they publicly advocate with
other people's money.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Charlie Baker wants stronger language to keep illegal
immigrants from getting licenses
By Matt Stout
Gov. Charlie Baker plans to file language he says will keep
illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses under an
amendment tucked into the state’s
$39.1 billion budget.
A dispute — raised last week by the budget agreement passed
by state lawmakers — centers on the state’s mandate to meet
standards under a federal law passed in 2005, which ramps up
the qualifications for residents to get a state driver’s
license and is intended to prevent terrorists from using the
IDs to enter federal buildings or board planes.
The state has been working under a waiver from issuing
so-called REAL ID licenses, but that expires in October. The
debate sprang up in language introduced by state Sen. Thomas
McGee and passed by lawmakers that allows people who have
proven to have a “lawful presence” in the U.S. to get a
federally compliant REAL ID license or a Massachusetts
license.
The vague wording — written to conform to federal standards
— prompted some Republicans to raise concerns about opening
a legal window for illegal immigrants to get licenses.
The new language Baker will file is a clarification,
according to his office, to ensure “illegal immigrants do
not obtain either type of license under the new system.”
Lawmakers passed the budget on June 30, giving Baker 10 days
to decide whether to sign it, veto it or amend parts of it.
His amendment adds one line: “No license of any type may be
issued to any person who does not have lawful presence in
the United States.”
“As the commonwealth works to comply with new standards set
by the federal government for credential-holders, it is
imperative that we provide greater security and ensure that
new licenses are only obtained by individuals with proper
documentation, including proof of lawful presence,” Baker
said.
“This amendment eliminates any question that all applicants
must show proof of lawful presence, an immigration status
recognized by the Department of Homeland Security, to the
Registrar to legally obtain a REAL ID-compliant license or a
Massachusetts license.”
Seth Gitell, a spokesman for Speaker of the House Robert A.
DeLeo, said the Winthrop Democrat “supports this language,
which will enable Massachusetts to comply with federal law.”
A spokesman for Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg
couldn’t be reached last night.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 8, 2016
A Boston Herald editorial
No license loophole
If there is even a sliver of doubt over whether a new state law might
one day enable illegal immigrants to qualify for driver’s licenses in
Massachusetts, it can be put to rest with an amendment now on offer from
Gov. Charlie Baker. The House and Senate should agree to the change.
Massachusetts is under growing pressure to issue driver’s licenses with
enhanced security measures that comply with the federal Real ID Act.
Come next year Bay Staters won’t be allowed to board an airplane or
enter a federal building with a noncompliant license. But a change in
law is required for the Registry to get started.
Baker filed a bill last fall. But lawmakers stalled, then last week
included in the final budget language that some worry is intentionally
vague.
The measure would allow the Registry to issue Real ID for eligible
individuals. But it would also allow the Registry to continue issuing
regular licenses for those who don’t meet the requirements for the Real
ID-compliant version.
Supporters insist this approach will accommodate those individuals who
may reside in Massachusetts legally but may not be able to meet the
minimum documentation requirements for Real ID. Transgender individuals,
for one. The elderly. Some legal immigrants.
But to accommodate that relative handful of people we would have a
two-tiered system, one with a loophole that opponents say could be
exploited by a new administration down the road to issue driver’s
licenses to illegal immigrants.
Baker’s amendment cuts through the confusion, making clear that no
license of any type may be issued to a person who doesn’t have “lawful
presence” in the United States, an immigration status recognized by the
feds.
Some argue “inclusiveness” should be the goal, and a driver’s license
should be about nothing more than driving. That ignores the fact that a
driver’s license unlocks the key to many doors. The amendment should be
adopted.
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 8, 2016
The Mass. fiscal clash that lies ahead
By Scot Lehigh
Here's the tension that will help define the rest of Governor Charlie
Baker’s first term — and the question that will likely frame the 2018
gubernatorial election. Should Massachusetts limit expenditures to live
within available tax dollars, or raise taxes to allow for more spending
on programs important to the state’s future?
The budget lawmakers recently sent to Baker foreshadows that choice.
With revenues soft even as the state economy remains healthy,
legislators cut Baker’s proposed bottom line of $39.6 billion by
hundreds of millions.
Mind you, the sky hasn’t fallen. Spending should still be up by at least
2 percent in the next fiscal year. It’s a matter of
tighter-than-expected times, not fiscal calamity.
Still, it highlights a coming fiscal tug-of-war that has thus far been
mostly dormant under Baker.
Among some Democratic legislators and constituency groups, there’s a
growing feeling that the state should be more ambitious about spending
on education (from early education to K-12 to the University of
Massachusetts and other public colleges), infrastructure,
transportation, housing, and preventing homelessness.
We know where Baker comes down, certainly. He made his chops in the
firmly no-new-taxes Weld administration, and ran for office himself as a
budget-within-your-means man. That’s worked in his first two years,
though not without some bumps. But weak revenue growth may be the
reality for the foreseeable future. Slow growth is what prompted the
recent late-stage budgetary revision. Budgeteers were initially
expecting an additional $1.1 billion in new revenue from growth. They
have now reduced their revenue assumptions by some $750 million — and
adjusted the budget accordingly.
Further, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation notes that revenue
growth since the Great Recession hasn’t matched the bounce-back after
the much milder recession of 2001. A back-of-envelope comparison: From
fiscal year 2004 to 2008, state revenue grew by an average of 6.9
percent a year; by contrast, from FY 2012 to 2016, the average annual
rate of increase was 4.3 percent. The difference equals about $650
million a year.
State spending, meanwhile, has gone up by about 4.6 percent annually.
Given that much of the spending is driven by eligibility — think, for
example, MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program — such programs often
absorb a disproportionate share of the new revenue growth, leaving less
for new initiatives.
As the fiscal debate unfolds over the next two years, expect members of
the more liberal Senate to stress the need for more revenue, Baker to
resist that notion, and the tax-cautious House to look for an escape
hatch.
And there is one: Leave the matter up to the voters. Citizens may well
have a chance to decide in November of 2018, when a proposed
constitutional amendment to tack an extra 4 percent tax on income above
$1 million a year will likely be on the ballot. Under the terms of that
proposal, the money would be intended for education and transportation.
Baker, of course, will be against it — but he wouldn’t be the first
Republican governor to benefit from a tax hike he opposed. Indeed, he
could even benefit from the political dynamic if voters decide that they
(1) do indeed want to see the state spend more on select programs but
(2) also want a fiscally prudent governor to oversee that spending.
Unless it motivates millionaires to call the moving vans, that plan
would raise an estimated $2 billion a year. Progressives are already
salivating at the prospect of those new dollars. But even such a
taxpayer-bestowed windfall wouldn’t be a cure-all. If all those new
dollars get baked into the budget — rather than having significant
shares used for one-time capital projects or put in reserve — it won’t
prevent budget problems when the next economic slowdown comes.
It will just mean those problems occur in a budget with a bigger bottom
line.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Mass. budget woes mean lawmaker perks need to go
By Meredith Warren
Facing tight financial times, state legislators are
contemplating canceling one of the few perks we hard-working
taxpayers enjoy: the annual sales tax holiday.
According to reports, Senate President Stan Rosenberg said
the Senate “has increasingly been skeptical about whether
this is a good use of $20 [million], now $25 million a
year,” and Governor Charlie Baker said dropping the holiday
this year “ought to be part of the conversation.”
Fine. As good citizens of the Commonwealth, we can all come
together and forgo a two-day break this summer from the 6.25
percent sales tax for the good of the state’s financial
health.
But if we’re going to sacrifice, then so too should our
legislators, and there are a few legislative perks that
“ought to be part of the conversation,” because I’m
“skeptical about whether it’s a good use” of our hard-earned
tax dollars.
Let’s start with per diems. This perk rewards our state
representatives and senators with a payment of between $10
and $100 for each day they grace Beacon Hill with their
presence. It’s intended to cover their travel, meals, and
lodging. The further away a member lives from the State
House, the more they can get. Must be nice.
While this policy may have made sense back in the era of
horse and buggy travel, when it could take days for a
Western Massachusetts lawmaker to reach the State House, it
certainly doesn’t make sense now. Why should taxpayers pick
up the cost of gas and an Egg McMuffin breakfast for their
legislator?
Since we entrust these public servants to figure out our $40
billion state budget, I’m thinking we can trust them to
budget “daily commute costs” within their $60,000 base
legislative salary. It also might make them think twice
about raising the gas tax, since they’d actually have to pay
it along with the rest of us.
And then there’s the $7,200 slush fund each legislator
receives every year to cover their office expenses. It’s
split up into nice little $600 payments received each month
the Legislature is in session. Lawmakers can use this money
to pay for things like cell phones, furniture, and office
equipment — basically, anything they want. (Although, we
can’t know for sure how it’s spent, because there’s no
accountability or audit.) That adds up to a decent amount of
cash — almost $1.4 million a year collectively.
This perk definitely has got to go, especially when we allow
the Commonwealth’s teachers to be on the hook for some of
their own classroom supplies.
Now, back to that $60,000 base salary. Nearly one-third of
legislators get sizeable bonuses on top of that amount
because they serve in leadership or as committee chairmen,
according to a 2014 report by the Special Advisory
Commission Regarding the Compensation of Public Officials.
The stipends range from $7,500 for certain committee
leaders, all the way up to $35,000 in extra pay for the
House speaker and Senate president.
Since we’re all making sacrifices here, lawmakers should
agree to collect only their base salary until the state’s
financial gap is breached.
The Legislature recently voted to endorse a constitutional
amendment that would force Massachusetts millionaires to pay
a super-sized surtax to help fill state coffers and pay for
transportation and education. They call it the “fair share”
amendment.
Cutting back on their pricey perks would be a great way for
lawmakers to set the example.
Meredith Warren is a Republican political analyst and
consultant.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Sales tax holiday bypassed as House approves $915M jobs bill
By Colin A. Young
The Massachusetts House on Thursday night approved more than $915
million in borrowing over the next five years as part of an economic
development bill aimed at boosting jobs and workforce development across
the state.
The bill (H 4461) includes Gov. Charlie Baker's request for $500 million
to recapitalize the MassWorks infrastructure program, a "one stop shop"
for cities and towns seeking state grants to build or repair local
infrastructure, and authorizes roughly the same amount of borrowing
overall that Baker proposed in January.
In introducing the bill to his colleagues, Economic Development
Committee Co-Chair Rep. Joseph Wagner said the legislation implements
"strategic policies that capitalize on the commonwealth's assets, but
also strives to improve areas of weakness."
"Through targeted investments and policy initiatives, the legislation
... provides the tools necessary to foster continued growth in the
innovation economy, strengthen the manufacturing sector, support housing
and infrastructure upgrades and provide the training and equipment for
workforce development throughout our state," Wagner, a Chicopee
Democrat, said. "We maintained the commitment to expanding economic
opportunity across the commonwealth and this bill contains a number
provisions that will spur development and growth."
The bill was approved by a 152-1 roll call vote, with Rep. Denise
Provost of Somerville dissenting. Provost had previously expressed
concerns about the extent of the tax credit-granting authority afforded
to the executive branch and the lack of legislative oversight of that
process.
Approved by the House was $45 million in funding for the Brownfields
Redevelopment Fund, which Wagner called "a critical component to this
state's economic vitality and success." The House also approved $45
million in funding for the Transformative Development Fund, administered
by MassDevelopment to stimulate development in the state's Gateway
Cities.
The bill would also add fantasy sports to the list of gaming activities
allowed under state law and would establish a commission to study all
aspects of fantasy contests, including taxation and implications for
existing gaming options.
The House stayed into the night Thursday to move the bill on to the
Senate, but there was little discussion or debate of the bill throughout
the day.
Of the 183 amendments House lawmakers filed to the bills, 19 were
adopted, another seven were rejected and 120 were withdrawn by their
sponsor before they could be considered. The remaining amendments were
assembled into a consolidated amendment that was adopted with one vote.
In the six hours between the bill being introduced on the floor and its
passage, only three members -- Reps. Nick Collins of Boston, Provost of
Somerville and Walter Timilty of Milton -- had taken the floor to
explain, discuss or debate amendments. Two members -- Reps. Gerry
Cassidy of Brockton and Brendan Crighton of Lynn -- gave their maiden
speeches to the chamber on the bill.
Among the amendments withdrawn was one filed by Dedham Rep. Paul
McMurtry to suspend the 6.25 percent sales tax for two days in August,
an effort to spur consumer spending that has become an annual event.
While tax collections have fallen short of fiscal 2016 projections and
lawmakers in June lowered their expectations for fiscal year 2017 by
$750 million, forcing them to retreat many planned investments, House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg have
suggested that the state could conserve money in fiscal 2017 by
foregoing the sales tax holiday.
The House adopted a Rep. Collins amendment to create a tax credit
program for live theater productions that make it to Broadway or
off-Broadway within a year of a stop in Massachusetts. A similar tax
credit was included in a job creation bill last session but Gov. Deval
Patrick vetoed the measure.
The bill now moves to the Senate for its consideration where it is
expected to be debated next week.
|
| |
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
|