|
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
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Gov pushes legislators to
backtrack on licenses for illegals
|
The governor's efforts to ensure that illegal immigrants remain
barred from obtaining Massachusetts drivers' licenses appears to
have the support of both Democratic leaders in the House and Senate
as the state takes steps to become compliant with the federal Real
ID Act.
Baker on Friday filed an amendment to the state budget, which
included a section related to Real ID, to “add clarification” that
applicants for a Massachusetts license must show proof of lawful
presence.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has said several times since the
governor went on record with his proposal that he has no problem
with the amendment, but Senate President Stanley Rosenberg for the
first time Monday said he too was “there in spirit” with the
governor's proposal....
Republicans like Baker, however, have sought clarity on the
topic, which prompted Democratic Sen. Jamie Eldridge to accuse Baker
of throwing “red meat to conservatives.”
“Disappointed in @CharlieBakerMA for his xenophobic amendment to
bar undocumented immigrants from driver's licenses,” Eldridge wrote
on Twitter last week.
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2016
Legislative leaders warm to Baker's Real ID amendment
A disappointed Senate President Stanley Rosenberg said Monday
that Gov. Charlie Baker delivered "too many" spending vetoes,
although it will be up to the House to decide which budget spending
to attempt to restore through override efforts.
The Senate will be "very busy" figuring out which of Baker's
fiscal 2017 budget vetoes the Legislature can override, Rosenberg
told two reporters outside the State House Monday after attending a
rally celebrating the state's new transgender rights law.
Baker signed the annual budget (H 4450) on Friday after reducing
it by $256 million through spending vetoes, leaving a $38.92 billion
bottom line. The governor vetoed $60 million in earmarked spending
and cut spending from 303 line items, leaving a budget that raises
state spending by 1.3 percent.
"Wow, too many," Rosenberg said Monday when asked for a reaction
to Baker's vetoes....
Baker's vetoes cut spending from the Legislature's final $39.15
billion budget, which had already been reduced from the $39.5
billion spending bills both branches passed....
Budget overrides require support from two thirds of those voting
in the House and Senate, and overrides require recorded roll call
votes, which cannot be taken after formal sessions end for the year
on July 31. All overrides must originate in the House, and Speaker
Robert DeLeo said Monday he planned to speak with House budget
writers about the governor's cuts and amendments.
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2016
Baker delivered "too many" spending vetoes, Senate President says
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Governor Baker seems to have received the
message: No driver's licenses for illegal aliens
sneaked into the state budget. For those of you who
called his office with your opinion, good job and
congratulations! It appears that, once exposed, the
Democrats' Trojan Horse Hill will go down quietly.
Uber-liberal Senate President Stanley Rosenberg
(D-Amherst) is aghast. "Wow, too many," he responded to Gov. Baker's
veto of $60 million in earmarked spending and 303 line items, leaving a
state budget the increases spending by 1.3 percent.
The State House News Service reported: "The
Senate will be 'very busy' figuring out which of Baker's fiscal 2017
budget vetoes the Legislature can override," according to Rosenberg.
If yesterday's Senate session is any indication,
taxpayers have little to worry about.
Part of my job seven days a week is monitoring state
and national news reports for information that potentially can affect
taxpayers, now or down the road. I
save a multitude of them over the course of a week, but only a few get
included in these membership Updates if they are or become relevant; if interesting
isolated dots of information, vague at the time, become connected.
But sometimes I come across legislative antics that
are just too precious to not pass along. Today is one of those
occasions, when we all need a good laugh at absurdity.
Right after reading Senate President Rosenberg's
comment on how "very busy" the Senate is attempting to override vetoes
before the session ends in a couple weeks, I came across the following
exchange during yesterday's "very busy" Senate formal session.
Talk about legislators with too much time on their hands; the Senate
yesterday debated and passed a bill to legalize —
clotheslines!
I didn't know clotheslines had ever been outlawed,
but if the Senate has its way we'll soon be again permitted to hang our
clothes outside to dry, with a "formal definition of the word
clothesline" thrown in at long last — in
the name of energy efficiency! — but we
must now refer to this activity as "solar drying."
State House News
Service
SENATE SESSION - TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2016
CLOTHESLINES: Question came on ordering to third
reading S 1056 relative to solar drying of laundry, coming
first on a Sen. Barrett amendment.
Sen. Tarr said: I know we have a tremendous number of
important matters before us, but what better time on a sunny
warm day than to think about solar drying. I hope we
can get an explanation of this somewhat complicated issue.
Apparently, technology has changed and we now need
legislation.
My interpretation is more traditional, where you stretch a
line between two points and suspend a piece of clothing
which is wet. Is there any kind of a net metering cap
we need to lift on how many articles of clothing can be
dried? Is there a limit on the number of transmission
lines? I'm curious if that purple necktie could be
dried by solar means if it could unfortunately became wet
somehow.
Sen. Barrett said: I want to thank my good friend for
his exquisite explanation of the key function of this bill.
For the first time in Massachusetts statutes, I dare say, we
will supply a formal definition of the word clothesline.
Very important that we nail that one. Because what
we're talking about here in all seriousness is energy
efficiency, a catch-all term.
The hope is we'll be a conservation oriented state, be
parsimonious with respect to our resources. Energy
efficiency comes down to a set of mundane steps to make our
houses and businesses much more frugal with respect to
energy use. As it turns out, the clothes dryer is a
huge user of electric power. More than the fridge,
more than the clothes washer, more than the dish washer.
The electric clothes drier sucks up more kilowatt hours than
those three combined. This is a glutton for energy
waste.
What we propose, is when a homeowner or condo owner wishes
to do so, they can use a clothes line - and that's a special
term, a defined term. It's a very simple bill, it's
hedged in with all kinds of local protections.
We do give you the right if you own a condo to use a clothes
line, but with restrictions so you don't infringe on the
aesthetic your neighbors might have in terms of the
development. You might have to choose the place, time,
or you might have to tweak the manner, but you have the
right to go to the condo association and say, Can I help the
state save some kilowatt hours?
There's one more safeguard here. If you're an
individual condo owner, you don't even get to go to the
condo association until town meeting discusses this.
It's local acceptance first, then it's consideration by the
condo association. When both those steps are taken to
ensure we aren't coming down too hard, when those two
restrictions are honored, the individual condo owner can
string a line, exercise some choice and some option.
I hope with these hedges in place, we can order this bill to
its next reading.
The amendment was
ADOPTED.
The Senate ORDERED TO THIRD READING and ENGROSSED S 1056
relative to solar drying of laundry.
You can’t make this stuff up.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2016
Legislative leaders warm to Baker's Real ID amendment
By Matt Murphy
The governor's efforts to ensure that illegal immigrants
remain barred from obtaining Massachusetts drivers' licenses
appears to have the support of both Democratic leaders in
the House and Senate as the state takes steps to become
compliant with the federal Real ID Act.
Baker on Friday filed an amendment to the state budget,
which included a section related to Real ID, to “add
clarification” that applicants for a Massachusetts license
must show proof of lawful presence.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has said several times since the
governor went on record with his proposal that he has no
problem with the amendment, but Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg for the first time Monday said he too was “there
in spirit” with the governor's proposal.
“We're still looking at the language, but we know we’ve got
to get this resolved, and it was nobody’s intention that
undocumented aliens would get access to driver’s licenses as
a result of the bill,” Rosenberg said on Monday after
meeting with DeLeo and Baker. “So we just need to make sure
that the language is perfected, but we’re there in spirit
and we need to get this resolved so we don’t run into
problems with the federal government.”
The Real ID Act is a federal law requiring states to issue
updated forms of identification with tightened security
features that can be used to fly domestically or enter
government buildings. Under the act, states are allowed to
continue issuing non-compliant state licenses for anyone
whose legal status in the country might not meet the higher
threshold for a Real ID.
When he offered the budget amendment on REAL ID compliance,
Sen. Thomas McGee assured his colleagues that the language
setting up a two-tiered system for licenses would not relax
any of the current requirements for obtaining a
Massachusetts identification card.
The budget language passed by the Legislature directs the
registrar to issue either licenses compliant with the REAL
ID Act or a non-REAL ID license for anyone who "provides
documentation and demonstrates qualifications acceptable to
the registrar."
Republicans like Baker, however, have sought clarity on the
topic, which prompted Democratic Sen. Jamie Eldridge to
accuse Baker of throwing “red meat to conservatives.”
“Disappointed in @CharlieBakerMA for his xenophobic
amendment to bar undocumented immigrants from driver's
licenses,” Eldridge wrote on Twitter last week.
State House News Service
Monday, July 11, 2016
Baker delivered "too many" spending vetoes, Senate President says
By Katie Lannan
A disappointed Senate President Stanley Rosenberg said Monday that Gov.
Charlie Baker delivered "too many" spending vetoes, although it will be
up to the House to decide which budget spending to attempt to restore
through override efforts.
The Senate will be "very busy" figuring out which of Baker's fiscal 2017
budget vetoes the Legislature can override, Rosenberg told two reporters
outside the State House Monday after attending a rally celebrating the
state's new transgender rights law.
Baker signed the annual budget (H 4450) on Friday after reducing it by
$256 million through spending vetoes, leaving a $38.92 billion bottom
line. The governor vetoed $60 million in earmarked spending and cut
spending from 303 line items, leaving a budget that raises state
spending by 1.3 percent.
"Wow, too many," Rosenberg said Monday when asked for a reaction to
Baker's vetoes.
"We thought we sent a good budget to the governor's desk and anything
that got removed is a disappointment," Rosenberg told reporters.
Baker's vetoes cut spending from the Legislature's final $39.15 billion
budget, which had already been reduced from the $39.5 billion spending
bills both branches passed.
Reduced revenue estimates left an $838 million revenue shortfall,
according to the Baker administration, a gap greater than the one
assumed when the legislative budget conference committee worked out its
compromise budget in late June.
"We're going to be very busy trying to figure out which ones we have the
bandwidth to override," Rosenberg said. "I think the most important
thing is it's a clear demonstration we have a revenue problem. We have a
revenue problem."
Speaking for the Green Budget Coalition, Erica Mattison, legislative
director of the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said vetoes
delivered "substantial budget cuts for environmental protection and
state parks."
"The Department of Environmental Protection and Department of
Conservation and Recreation have been subject to disproportionate budget
cuts in recent years, resulting in major staff reductions," Mattison
said in a statement. "These cuts put the public at risk and make it
nearly impossible for the remaining staff to adequately fulfill the
broad responsibilities of these agencies. Fighting climate change,
ensuring clean water, and providing safe, high-quality outdoor
experiences for residents and visitors are all important duties which
require resources."
Budget overrides require support from two thirds of those voting in the
House and Senate, and overrides require recorded roll call votes, which
cannot be taken after formal sessions end for the year on July 31. All
overrides must originate in the House, and Speaker Robert DeLeo said
Monday he planned to speak with House budget writers about the
governor's cuts and amendments.
|
| |
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
|