|
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 |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Autopsy of the
obscene Legislators' pay grabitle
|
At the State House, they call it the “vote
no, take the dough” caucus.
The members are 12 of the 13 House
Republican leaders who are taking the huge salary increases
that they voted against — three times.
That happened last month when House Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Stanley C. Rosenberg
rammed through an $18 million legislative pay raise bill
that also included big raises for judges, the governor,
other constitutional officers, and various court officers
across the state....
Those legislators whose salaries would be
fattened because they hold leadership positions or committee
chairmanships had until the end of Friday to inform the
state Treasurer’s office not to include the increases in
their bimonthly paychecks if they intended to refuse the
raise.
Now, with that deadline past, the “vote no,
take the dough” crowd can clearly be identified....
The state GOP railed against the Democratic
leadership for using the cacophony surrounding Donald
Trump’s ascendancy to the White House and the Patriots’
stunning Super Bowl victory to pass the bill without public
debate or input. The Senate GOP caucus has refused to accept
the raises....
Only one House Republican — Angelo D’Emilia
of Bridgewater — turned down the stipend increase he could
have claimed, according to the treasurer’s office
records....
Legislators are barred by a 1998
constitutional amendment from raising their own base
salaries. Those are set every two years by the governor to
reflect the fluctuation of average wages in the state. Baker
set the base salary at $62,547 in January.
Lawmakers, however, are free to set the
levels for extra pay for legislators with leadership posts,
committee chairmen, vice chairmen, and “ranking minority
members.” They are also free to create additional leadership
positions....
Meanwhile, the treasurer’s records show some
of the Democrats in the Senate, particularly veterans whose
pensions will be fattened by the raises, are taking
advantage of a newly adopted Senate rule that allows each
member to take stipends from as many as three positions.
None are fully using that rule, but a
handful are claiming two stipends. The previous rules
restricted senators to one stipend apiece.
The Boston Globe
Monday, March 6, 2017
‘Vote no, take the dough’: Lawmakers opposed raise, but now
accept it
When did Gov. Charlie Baker first learn
about the $18 million pay raise bill that was passed into
law over his veto?
The governor has added a measure of
confusion to that question, saying at one point he knew
about it in 2016, and there is no word on when he was first
told about it from the top Democrats in the House and Senate
who introduced the legislation Jan. 23 and passed it into
law on Feb. 2.
"Let's just say that I don't give timetables
on private conversations, and I'll just leave it at that,"
Senate President Stan Rosenberg told the News Service last
month. Speaker Robert DeLeo on Thursday declined to answer a
question about when the governor was told about the
controversial bill.
In a February radio appearance, the governor
said he made his opposition to the proposal clear last year,
at least weeks before the idea was ever aired publicly. But
if that were true, there was a limited audience for that
veto threat.
"I said in 2016 once I saw the proposal that
if that made it to my desk, I would veto it for a whole
bunch of reasons," Baker said during his Feb. 16 appearance
on WGBH's Ask the Governor....
At an annual cost that will reach $18
million, legislation raising the pay of top lawmakers,
statewide elected officials and judges cleared the House and
Senate with lightning speed this year. The bill was
introduced Jan. 23 and became the first law of the new
session on Feb. 2. DeLeo and Rosenberg filed the bill a week
after announcing they would hold a public hearing on a
two-year-old report examining the compensation levels of
public officials.
Ahead of the hearing, members of legislative
leadership said they did not know whether a bill would
emerge from the informational hearing.
But an advisory letter from the Ethics
Commission dated Jan. 19, the same day as the hearing, made
clear that legislation had been in the works for a while.
The four-page letter from Ethics Commission General Counsel
Deirdre Roney to House Counsel James Kennedy and Senate
Counsel Jennifer Miller says that the legislative officials
had shared draft legislation. The Ethics Commission lawyer
concluded that legislators were free to vote on that type of
bill as "general legislation" because the new compensation
would be "applicable to anyone holding a variety of public
positions."
The letter also suggests that officials from
the Legislature had begun consulting with the Ethics
Commission about the idea in 2016 or earlier....
After the bill was sent to him Baker knocked
it as "fiscally irresponsible," and quickly returned it with
a veto, enabling legislative leaders to quickly override
it.... No votes were flipped as the House and Senate
overrode the governor's veto, setting the pay raise bill
into law. In the House, 116 of the 160 members voted for the
override, and the override passed the Senate 31-9.
State House News Service
Monday, March 6, 2017
Baker says he saw pay raise proposal in 2016
If you’re a Republican in the Massachusetts
House, early on you have to make a career choice.
You can be a watchdog, or a lapdog.
Can you guess which pays better?
You recall the recent stampede to the trough
by the state Legislature. It was aggravated assault —
against the taxpayers. Of course, the Legislature’s GOP
minority had our backs, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
En masse, they voted against the greatest
heist since the Brinks Job. Then Gov. Tall Deval vetoed it
(first making sure his Democrat pals had the votes to
override) after which the GOP futilely voted to sustain his
veto.
But now, after doing the right thing, the
GOP’s “leadership” hacks in the House are taking the pay
raises they voted against. At least I think they are.
They refused to answer when I asked them.
Only 13 of the 34 Republicans got the obscene pay hikes. The
lawmakers who actually stood up and represented their
constituents — state Reps. Shaunna O’Connell, Geoff Diehl,
Jim Lyons and Marc Lombardo, among others — got stiffed,
once again proving that no good deed goes unpunished....
Check out the
table here. Are these titles jokes? Are you kidding me —
state Rep. Keiko Orrall of Lakeville, “ranking minority
member, Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging
Technology?”
How about the three hacks who went from zero
to $15,000 overnight, on top of their $62,500 salary and the
$7,800 for travel and whatever, mostly whatever. Think
they’ll ever get out of line?
These hacks could have done the right thing.
They’re supposed to be citizen legislators, not
card-carrying members of the International Brotherhood of
Payroll Patriots, Local 122500.
If any of the Dirty Dozen had called or
emailed me back, I would have told them, it’s one thing to
feed at the trough, it’s another thing to lick the plate.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 3, 2017
Both sides can reach the trough
Some in GOP stand to gain big
By Howie Carr
"I don't think there's the slightest chance
it won't pass," said Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington,
predicting the proposal will easily get enough support in
the Legislature's next constitutional convention to advance
to the ballot.
To make it to the ballot, the proposal needs
at least 50 of the 200 state lawmakers to vote for it at
constitutional conventions in consecutive sessions. Last
May, it got 135 votes from legislators, clearing the first
step by a wide margin....
The proposal directs that revenue generated
from the new tax be spent on education and transportation.
The Department of Revenue estimates it would generate an
additional $1.9 billion in 2019.
"It's striking that every single commission
or committee that's looked at either the underfunding of
education or transportation has come up with an estimate
that it would take about $1 billion in each of those areas
to get us where we need to be," said Kaufman, the longtime
chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue. "If we can raise
$2 billion, we can make a significant dent in our
underinvesting in those areas."
Chip Faulkner, director of
communications for Citizens for Limited Taxation,
opposes the proposed amendment and any effort to enact a
graduated state income tax rate.
"We know this is only the first step," he
predicted. "If this gets in, the next income group will be
people making half a million, then $100,000, and on down the
line."
Faulkner also said the surtax would unfairly
punish the wealthy.
Why should people be penalized for being
successful?" he said. "We're already a heavily taxed state.
We certainly don't want to go back the old label of
Taxachusetts." ...
Faulkner also argued that the state
constitution prohibits amendments that allocate funds,
meaning there would be no guarantee that revenue raised by
the surtax would actually be spent on education and
transportation.
"It's unfair to tax people making higher
wages, and the big thing is this money will not go where
they say it will," Faulkner said. "It's going to go into the
black hole known as the general fund."
The Winchester Star
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Winchester sees growth in local millionaires
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"At the State House, they
call it the 'vote no, take the dough' caucus."
This is always a tough call, when it comes to vastly
outnumbered Republican legislators who vote one way, but
then reap the rewards of their anticipated defeat.
It's not hard to say that they shouldn't have it both ways:
harvesting the platitudes of principle, then stuffing a
bundle of extra cash in their pockets
— the fruits of defeat.
Every Republican in the state Senate literally put their
money where their mouths were, which includes Sens. Vinny
deMacedo (R-Plymouth), Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), Donald
Humason (R-Westfield), Patrick O'Connor (R-Weymouth),
Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), and Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).
They all rejected the obscene pay grab to which they were
"entitled."
Only one Republican in the House turned it down:
Rep.
Angelo D’Emilia of Bridgewater.
As Howie Carr noted in his column, the truly outspoken
opponents aren't in so-called "leadership positions" so
weren't "entitled" to the extra taxpayer-provided bonanza:
"The lawmakers who actually stood up and represented their
constituents — state Reps. Shaunna O’Connell, Geoff Diehl,
Jim Lyons and Marc Lombardo, among others — got stiffed,
once again proving that no good deed goes unpunished..."
Thanks to Andy Metzger at the State House News Service,
it's now been revealed for certain that this disgusting
scheme had long been in the works, for a least a year prior
to it being suddenly sprung in January as the Legislature's
first priority. "The
letter also suggests that officials from the Legislature had
begun consulting with the Ethics Commission about the idea
in 2016 or earlier...." he wrote. This leads Metzger
to another intriguing question:
When
did Gov. Charlie Baker first learn about the $18
million pay raise bill that was passed into law over
his veto?
The governor has added a measure of confusion to
that question, saying at one point he knew about it
in 2016, and there is no word on when he was first
told about it from the top Democrats in the House
and Senate who introduced the legislation Jan. 23
and passed it into law on Feb. 2.
"Let's just say that I don't give timetables on
private conversations, and I'll just leave it at
that," Senate President Stan Rosenberg told the News
Service last month. Speaker Robert DeLeo on Thursday
declined to answer a question about when the
governor was told about the controversial bill.
What are the primary schemers Rosenberg and DeLeo hiding,
covering for?
Meanwhile, Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Arlington) continues to
crusade for this latest proposed graduated income tax
constitutional amendment (aka, "The Millionaire's Tax," aka,
"The Fair Tax Amendment"). Overwhelming support in the
Democrat-controlled Legislature to put it on the 2018 ballot
is accepted as another done deal. One more vote by the
House and Senate in constitutional convention will
accomplish the next step in this long lusted for
divide-and-conquer amendment to our state constitution to
end the Commonwealth's historic flat tax.
We've been here before, with a Grad Tax on the ballot to
amend the constitution. It was the Grad Tax proposal
of 1976 that brought CLT onto the scene and launched our
organization. It's been proposed and defeated five
times in the past
(1962, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1994),
most recently in 1994 with CLT again leading the opposition
— by a better than 2-1 margin.
We
announced our opposition to this latest incarnation and
hope that CLT will be around to lead the charge across the
state to defeat it for a sixth time next year.
Barbara
Anderson holding CLT's 1994 ballot campaign sign.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Monday, March 6, 2017
‘Vote no, take the dough’: Lawmakers opposed
raise, but now accept it
By Frank Phillips
At the State House, they call it the “vote no,
take the dough” caucus.
The members are 12 of the 13 House Republican
leaders who are taking the huge salary increases
that they voted against — three times.
That happened last month when House Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Stanley C.
Rosenberg rammed through an $18 million
legislative pay raise bill that also included
big raises for judges, the governor, other
constitutional officers, and various court
officers across the state.
When Republican Governor Charlie Baker vetoed
the measure, lawmakers quickly overrode him.
Those legislators whose salaries would be
fattened because they hold leadership positions
or committee chairmanships had until the end of
Friday to inform the state Treasurer’s office
not to include the increases in their bimonthly
paychecks if they intended to refuse the raise.
Now, with that deadline past, the “vote no, take
the dough” crowd can clearly be identified.
House minority leader Bradley Jones is its
leader. He mounted the only major opposition in
the House debate to the salary increases,
reading from the same page as Baker, who called
the increases “fiscally irresponsible” and said
they would place an “unplanned, additional
burden” on the current fiscal year’s state
budget.
The state GOP railed against the Democratic
leadership for using the cacophony surrounding
Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the White House and
the Patriots’ stunning Super Bowl victory to
pass the bill without public debate or input.
The Senate GOP caucus has refused to accept the
raises.
Now Jones will receive a $60,000 leadership
stipend on top of his $62,547 base salary. His
previous stipend was $22,000. And with a $15,000
expense allowance, his total annual paycheck
will be $137,547. That compares with the $92,042
he received last year.
Legislators are barred by a 1998 constitutional
amendment from raising their own base salaries.
Those are set every two years by the governor to
reflect the fluctuation of average wages in the
state. Baker set the base salary at $62,547 in
January.
Lawmakers, however, are free to set the levels
for extra pay for legislators with leadership
posts, committee chairmen, vice chairmen, and
“ranking minority members.” They are also free
to create additional leadership positions.
Jones’s assistant minority leader, Brad Hill of
Ipswich, who made $84,542 last year, will see
his stipend go from $15,000 to $35,000. Add on
the new $15,000 for expenses, he will make
$112,547. (Legislators living at least 50 miles
away from the State House get $20,000 for
expenses, under the new pay law. The old system
allowed for per diem travel expenses and a
$7,200 office allowance.)
And then there is the position of “third
assistant minority leader” — which now is
occupied by not one but two GOP lawmakers,
thanks to a little-noticed rule change. The
stipend has gone from $15,000 to $35,000. That
will increase the paychecks of GOP
representatives Paul K. Frost of Auburn and
Susan Williams Gifford of Wareham.
Only one House Republican — Angelo D’Emilia of
Bridgewater — turned down the stipend increase
he could have claimed, according to the
treasurer’s office records.
Neither Jones nor his spokesman responded to
several requests for a comment from the minority
leader.
But last month, Jones seemed to justify taking
the increase by arguing that it was a matter of
fairness.
“Why not?” he told the State House News Service.
“It seems to me that you’re sending a variety of
messages. One is, somehow now this is going to
be the law, so I’m going to go devalue what I do
vis-a-vis my counterparts in the rest of the
body?” he said.
“Next of all, if you don’t like the thing that
you passed, now I’m going to leave the money
under the care, control, custody, and discretion
of the same people who passed this bill in the
first place?’’ Jones said. “I don’t think it’s
fair for me to now go to my family and say, ‘I’m
not worth that,’ even though I’m going to work
just as hard or harder.”
Senate minority leader Bruce Tarr and his five
GOP colleagues see it differently. As in the
House, all the Republicans voted against the
raises. But, for the most part, they have
refused to accept them.
Tarr will continue to get the same stipend that
was set for his position in 1994 — $22,500 —
forgoing a $37,500 increase. (One GOP senator,
Donald Humason of Westfield, has said he will
take the extra funds and distribute them to
charities.)
Some of the extra-paying positions for
Republicans carry little workload.
Representative Kimberly Ferguson of Holden, who
made just over $69,000 last year without any
stipends, is now the ranking minority member of
the House Rules Committee, which holds no
regular hearings and rarely meets. She will get
an extra $15,000, boosting her total salary and
expenses to $92,547.
The only response to requests for comments sent
to the GOP lawmakers who are taking the raises
came from Keiko Orrall of Lakeville. She is
getting an extra $15,000 as the House ranking
minority member of the committee on Economic
Development and Emerging Technologies.
Orrall, whose legislative compensation last year
was $77,042, argues that by not taking the
raise, the money is left to the Democratic
leadership to use as they want. She also claimed
the media’s focus on the GOP lawmaker is letting
the Democrats off the hook for proposing the
raises
“Questioning why Republicans would be accepting
the stipends is an attempt to change the
narrative away from the Democrats who put the
pay raise forward,’’ said Orrall. “This is a
false narrative to discredit Republicans. Look
at the vote count and see who voted for this pay
increase. I voted against it. I voted No three
times.”
Meanwhile, the treasurer’s records show some of
the Democrats in the Senate, particularly
veterans whose pensions will be fattened by the
raises, are taking advantage of a newly adopted
Senate rule that allows each member to take
stipends from as many as three positions.
None are fully using that rule, but a handful
are claiming two stipends. The previous rules
restricted senators to one stipend apiece.
Most notable is Senate majority leader Harriette
Chandler of Worcester, who is getting an extra
$75,000 added to her salary. She now gets
$60,000 (up from $22,500) as majority leader.
But she is also now chairing the Senate
redistricting committee, which has no
significant work until the 2020 census is
completed. That pays $15,000. Add another
$15,000 for “expenses,” and her salary runs to
$152,547. Last year she made $92,042.
Senator Mark C. Montigny of New Bedford will
collect $35,000 as assistant majority leader and
another $30,000 as chairman of the Senate Rules
Committee, another committee that does not hold
hearings and rarely meets. His new annual
compensation is $142,547. In 2016, his salary
was $84,542,
Senator Cynthia Creem of Newton is now making
$142,547. She gets $35,000 extra pay for her
position as assistant majority leader. And she
gets another $30,000 as chairwoman of the Senate
Committee on Bills in Third Reading, which holds
no hearings and deals with no major policy
issues.
State House News Service
Monday, March 6, 2017
Baker says he saw pay raise proposal in 2016
By Andy Metzger
When did Gov. Charlie Baker first learn about
the $18 million pay raise bill that was passed
into law over his veto?
The governor has added a measure of confusion to
that question, saying at one point he knew about
it in 2016, and there is no word on when he was
first told about it from the top Democrats in
the House and Senate who introduced the
legislation Jan. 23 and passed it into law on
Feb. 2.
"Let's just say that I don't give timetables on
private conversations, and I'll just leave it at
that," Senate President Stan Rosenberg told the
News Service last month. Speaker Robert DeLeo on
Thursday declined to answer a question about
when the governor was told about the
controversial bill.
In a February radio appearance, the governor
said he made his opposition to the proposal
clear last year, at least weeks before the idea
was ever aired publicly. But if that were true,
there was a limited audience for that veto
threat.
"I said in 2016 once I saw the proposal that if
that made it to my desk, I would veto it for a
whole bunch of reasons," Baker said during his
Feb. 16 appearance on WGBH's Ask the Governor.
A spokesman for the governor later told the News
Service that Baker was actually referring to his
publicly announced intention to veto the bill,
which was made in late January after it was sent
to his desk. Press Secretary William Pitman did
not address why the governor's account during
his monthly appearance on WGBH Radio was so at
odds with how the episode played out in public,
and did not respond to a question about whether
the governor misspoke.
"I have absolutely no idea what you're talking
about," Baker said Thursday when asked about the
claim he made on WGBH. He said, "Get us the
audio and I'll be happy to respond to it."
A spokesman subsequently sent links to stories
about the governor's past public statements on
the issue.
At an annual cost that will reach $18 million,
legislation raising the pay of top lawmakers,
statewide elected officials and judges cleared
the House and Senate with lightning speed this
year. The bill was introduced Jan. 23 and became
the first law of the new session on Feb. 2.
DeLeo and Rosenberg filed the bill a week after
announcing they would hold a public hearing on a
two-year-old report examining the compensation
levels of public officials.
Ahead of the hearing, members of legislative
leadership said they did not know whether a bill
would emerge from the informational hearing.
But an advisory letter from the Ethics
Commission dated Jan. 19, the same day as the
hearing, made clear that legislation had been in
the works for a while. The four-page letter from
Ethics Commission General Counsel Deirdre Roney
to House Counsel James Kennedy and Senate
Counsel Jennifer Miller says that the
legislative officials had shared draft
legislation. The Ethics Commission lawyer
concluded that legislators were free to vote on
that type of bill as "general legislation"
because the new compensation would be
"applicable to anyone holding a variety of
public positions."
The letter also suggests that officials from the
Legislature had begun consulting with the Ethics
Commission about the idea in 2016 or earlier.
The letter states, "You have advised us that
pursuant to the constitutional mechanism, the
base salary available to the members of the
General Court has been increased a number of
times, and is currently $60,032" - which was the
base salary for the 2015-2016 session.
On Dec. 29, 2016, Baker raised the base salary
for lawmakers to $62,547 in accordance with the
constitution, following recent increases in
household income.
The Republican governor, who has strived to
maintain a collaborative relationship with
Democratic legislative leaders and often meets
with them privately, was mostly a bystander in
the lead-up to the bill's enactment. After the
bill was sent to him Baker knocked it as
"fiscally irresponsible," and quickly returned
it with a veto, enabling legislative leaders to
quickly override it.
Some Republican lawmakers were outspoken in
their opposition to the pay raises before a bill
even emerged publicly.
"For us to even be looking at this, or
considering this, at this time I would say is
inappropriate," said Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich
Republican and member of Republican leadership,
ahead of the hearing.
On Monday, Jan. 23, the day the pay raise bill
was filed, Baker met behind closed doors with
its sponsors, DeLeo and Rosenberg, and
afterwards indicated he would wait to take
action until lawmakers sent him a bill.
"I'm unaware at this point in time that there's
any proposal before the Legislature with respect
to their rate of pay. We obviously will treat
any proposal from the Legislature the same way
we'll treat all the other proposals up until
now, which is we wait until they send us
something and then we respond," Baker said that
day.
As the bill was flying through the branches the
governor suggested that he opposed it by
referencing a stance he had taken as
governor-elect, without saying he would veto the
bill. In 2014, after winning election, Baker had
said he would "probably veto" a hypothetical
bill.
"We said in 2014 we didn't think the pay raise
made sense at that point in time and I don't see
a lot that's changed with respect to that,"
Baker said Jan. 25, the day the House passed the
pay raise bill.
Joined by 12 Democrats, Republicans in the House
and Senate voted unanimously in opposition to
the pay raise bill. After the House vote,
Taunton Republican Rep. Shaunna O'Connell said
she did not know whether Baker would veto it.
"I do not know what the governor will do,"
O'Connell told reporters outside the House
chamber.
Appearing in late January on WGBH's Ask The
Governor before the Legislature took up veto
override votes, Baker encouraged constituents to
call lawmakers about the issue and said his
office had received more calls on the pay raise
bill than even the breakdowns of the MBTA during
the relentless 2015 winter.
"People should encourage those who share our
views to reach out to and speak to their
legislators about it, because that is in fact
the best way to bring attention to this and to
get it on people's radars," Baker said. He said,
"I think it's important for people to make their
voices heard."
No votes were flipped as the House and Senate
overrode the governor's veto, setting the pay
raise bill into law. In the House, 116 of the
160 members voted for the override, and the
override passed the Senate 31-9.
The pay raise issue came up again during the
governor's February appearance on WGBH when
co-host Jim Braude expressed criticisms of the
hefty pay hikes available to members of
legislative leadership and questioned, "Is this
just a done deal?"
The governor noted his opposition to the idea in
2014, claimed he threatened to veto such a
proposal in 2016, and advised the public to keep
the matter in mind in 2018 - when he is likely
to appear for re-election along with other state
officials.
"In the end I didn't have the numbers to sustain
a veto and I guess what I would say is that this
is something that people should just keep in
mind as they consider their decisions in 2018,"
Baker said.
One potential Democratic candidate for governor
has been an outspoken opponent of the pay
raises. Hours before the governor said he would
veto the bill, Newton Mayor Setti Warren said in
a statement, "I urge Gov. Baker to veto the
poorly rushed-through pay raise plan passed
today by the Massachusetts Senate."
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 3, 2017
Both sides can reach the trough
Some in GOP stand to gain big
By Howie Carr
If you’re a Republican in the Massachusetts
House, early on you have to make a career
choice.
You can be a watchdog, or a lapdog.
Can you guess which pays better?
You recall the recent stampede to the trough by
the state Legislature. It was aggravated assault
— against the taxpayers. Of course, the
Legislature’s GOP minority had our backs,
wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
En masse, they voted against the greatest heist
since the Brinks Job. Then Gov. Tall Deval
vetoed it (first making sure his Democrat pals
had the votes to override) after which the GOP
futilely voted to sustain his veto.
But now, after doing the right thing, the GOP’s
“leadership” hacks in the House are taking the
pay raises they voted against. At least I think
they are.
They refused to answer when I asked them. Only
13 of the 34 Republicans got the obscene pay
hikes. The lawmakers who actually stood up and
represented their constituents — state Reps.
Shaunna O’Connell, Geoff Diehl, Jim Lyons and
Marc Lombardo, among others — got stiffed, once
again proving that no good deed goes unpunished.
I know state Rep. Brad Jones of Reading is
grabbing an extra $37,500, which pushes him to
$122,500.
Amazing. The guy is afraid of his own shadow.
When the unindicted-co-conspirator speaker says,
“Jump!” Brad says, “How high!”
At least Jones understands what he is, a
shameless hack. That’s why he owned up to his
unspeakable greed. But when I inquired whether
the Dirty Dozen under him in “leadership” are
grabbing it, I was told no one had inquired.
Hmmmmmm …
So I sent out a mass email to the Dirty Dozen
yesterday, asking if they’re grabbing the gelt.
I pointed out that it would seem rather odd to
cash in on something they’d voted against — at
least twice.
I waited three hours after sending out the first
question. When the phone didn’t ring, I knew it
was the lapdog caucus. So I sent out a second
email, putting it in terms every reprobate rep
understands — last call!
Still nothing. I guess they were too busy
shopping for their new Jaguars.
Check out the
table here. Are these titles jokes? Are you
kidding me — state Rep. Keiko Orrall of
Lakeville, “ranking minority member, Joint
Committee on Economic Development & Emerging
Technology?”
How about the three hacks who went from zero to
$15,000 overnight, on top of their $62,500
salary and the $7,800 for travel and whatever,
mostly whatever. Think they’ll ever get out of
line?
These hacks could have done the right thing.
They’re supposed to be citizen legislators, not
card-carrying members of the International
Brotherhood of Payroll Patriots, Local 122500.
If any of the Dirty Dozen had called or emailed
me back, I would have told them, it’s one thing
to feed at the trough, it’s another thing to
lick the plate.
The Winchester Star
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Winchester sees growth in local millionaires
By Gerry Tuoti
Later this year, a proposed surtax on
million-dollar incomes is expected to pass the
final hurdle standing between it and a spot on
the 2018 state ballot, potentially raising taxes
on more than 15,000 people and generating nearly
$2 billion in revenue.
"I don't think there's the slightest chance it
won't pass," said Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington,
predicting the proposal will easily get enough
support in the Legislature's next constitutional
convention to advance to the ballot.
To make it to the ballot, the proposal needs at
least 50 of the 200 state lawmakers to vote for
it at constitutional conventions in consecutive
sessions. Last May, it got 135 votes from
legislators, clearing the first step by a wide
margin.
The proposed constitutional amendment would add
4 percent to the state income tax for people who
earn more than $1 million. Currently,
Massachusetts has a 5.1 percent flat income tax,
which is scheduled to gradually decrease to 5
percent when certain economic benchmarks are
hit.
Under the proposed amendment, a person's first
$1 million in taxable income would be taxed at
the current 5.1 percent rate. Any income in
excess of $1 million would be subject to both
the existing tax rate and the new 4 percent
surtax. That means a person earning $1.5 million
in taxable income would pay 5.1 percent in taxes
on the first $1 million, and 9.1 percent on the
remaining $500,000.
In 2014, there were 15,422 Massachusetts
residents who filed tax returns reporting more
than $1 million in income. There were 1,808
million-dollar earners from other states who
worked in Massachusetts. Winchester had 315
residents filing income taxes reporting $1
million or more in income, about 1.41 percent of
the population. That rose from 2004, when 161
residents filed income taxes reporting more than
$1 million in income, or .77 percent of the toal
population.
The amendment would adjust the $1 million surtax
threshold according to inflation.
The proposal directs that revenue generated from
the new tax be spent on education and
transportation. The Department of Revenue
estimates it would generate an additional $1.9
billion in 2019.
"It's striking that every single commission or
committee that's looked at either the
underfunding of education or transportation has
come up with an estimate that it would take
about $1 billion in each of those areas to get
us where we need to be," said Kaufman, the
longtime chairman of the Joint Committee on
Revenue. "If we can raise $2 billion, we can
make a significant dent in our underinvesting in
those areas."
Chip Faulkner, director of communications
for Citizens for Limited Taxation,
opposes the proposed amendment and any effort to
enact a graduated state income tax rate.
"We know this is only the first step," he
predicted. "If this gets in, the next income
group will be people making half a million, then
$100,000, and on down the line."
Faulkner also said the surtax would unfairly
punish the wealthy.
"Why should people be penalized for being
successful?" he said. "We're already a heavily
taxed state. We certainly don't want to go back
the old label of Taxachusetts."
Noah Berger, executive director of the nonprofit
Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, however,
said the current flat tax system favors the
wealthy.
"The way our tax system works now, the highest 1
percent pays a smaller share of income on state
and local taxes than everyone else," he said. "I
think this proposal helps to address that so our
highest income earners begin to start paying
closer to the same share of taxes as people with
lower incomes pay."
While Massachusetts has a flat income tax rate,
property taxes, gas taxes and sales taxes
combine to take up a higher percentage of low-
and middle-income residents' wages, Berger said.
Faulkner also argued that the state constitution
prohibits amendments that allocate funds,
meaning there would be no guarantee that revenue
raised by the surtax would actually be spent on
education and transportation.
"It's unfair to tax people making higher wages,
and the big thing is this money will not go
where they say it will," Faulkner said. "It's
going to go into the black hole known as the
general fund."
Supporters of the proposal, however, say it is
legal for a constitutional amendment to impose
conditions on revenue. They argue the amendment
would not actually allocate funds. It would be
up to lawmakers to decide which specific
programs and areas of public education and
transportation would get the new funding.
"Much of the skepticism is coming from corners
convinced the Legislature is dedicated to the
'Department of Waste, Fraud and Abuse,'" Kaufman
said. "Were some future Legislature to do some
end runs around this provision, every citizen of
the commonwealth would have standing to sue and
take us to court. Since there's not a single
legislator who doesn't feel education and
transportation are top priorities, why would
anyone doubt our commitment to those issues?" |
| |
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
|
