|
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
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
From spending hike to diaper
subsidies
|
The House passed its fiscal 2018 budget on a
159-1 vote Tuesday night, green-lighting the more than $40
billion spending plan after just two days of debate.
Representatives dispatched 1,210 amendments
between Monday and Tuesday, grouping many of the measures
together into "consolidated" packages of amendments that
were approved with little public debate after closed-door
meetings. The final vote came shortly after 10 p.m.
The budget clocked in at $40.3 billion when
it was introduced by the House Ways and Means Committee, and
lawmakers added tens of millions of dollars in spending on
state programs and local earmarks throughout the course of
debate....
Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican,
cast the sole vote against the budget. Lyons frequently
criticized the budget process during the debate, calling out
Democrats for proposing further study on Republican-backed
amendments instead of voting directly on the issue....
Though sessions had been tentatively
scheduled throughout the week for the budget debate, the
House won't meet on Wednesday after wrapping its budget
deliberations faster than any year in recent memory. The
House will meet next on Thursday at 11 a.m.
From 2012 to 2016, representatives spent
three days debating the following fiscal year's budget. The
debate spanned four days in 2011 and five days in 2010.
After the Senate releases and debates its
budget proposal next month, members of each branch will try
to reconcile the two pieces of legislation into a final
spending plan before the start of the new fiscal year on
July 1.
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
House wraps debate on state's first $40B budget
After rejecting proposals to boost taxes,
the Massachusetts House added $77.7 million in spending to
the annual budget bill this week, the bulk of it in funds
that may be spent only on particular projects, according to
an analysis by a business-backed policy group.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
reported that the House budget weighed out at $40.8 billion,
about $80 million less than Gov. Charlie Baker's $40.9
billion bottom line. The foundation includes in its bottom
line calculations of a $450 million transfer to a medical
assistance trust fund.
The report said the House budget spends less
than the governor's proposal because "the House underfunds
several major programs that will likely require supplemental
spending later in the fiscal year." ...
There were some charged debates, but the
majority of the amendments arrived on the floor pre-packaged
for passage as consolidated amendments that were assembled
in a backroom by House leaders.
Asked why the House does not allow the
decision-making process to play out in public, House Speaker
Robert DeLeo on Tuesday said there are opportunities for
feedback and said the public's interests are addressed in
the resulting budget document.
"The most important thing that I think we
can do is to show that we represent the constituents that
we're here to represent, and I think that if you take a look
at the bottom line in terms of what the priorities of what
the House are and what the priorities of our constituencies
are, I think that you'll find that we hear what the people
of the Commonwealth want and we're responding to what they
want," DeLeo told reporters.
Several House lawmakers who pressed for
higher taxes said the state budget isn't supporting programs
and services that the public desires....
The Senate plans in May to pass its version
of the budget and then a conference committee will be
charged with recommending a consensus budget in time for the
July 1 start of fiscal 2018.
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
House added $77 Mil to budget that underfunds major
accounts, report says
Leaders of the state’s House of
Representatives this week are set to conduct an annual
ritual of meeting behind closed doors to sort out local
budget requests, deciding winners and losers while leaving
taxpayers to guess why some got money but others didn’t.
It’s past time for this negotiation to move
into the open....
The problem lies in the sorting. Speaker
Robert DeLeo, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian
Dempsey and other House leaders and staff typically meet
with individual lawmakers to hear these requests and gather
information. They weigh which ones are important enough to
fold into the budget. And, if past practice holds, they do
all of this in a room adjacent to the House chamber — out of
the view of the press or public.
The results will be hard to decipher. Money
for local projects gets bundled into spending packages, the
language of which may allude to amendments filed by
lawmakers but is unclear on where the money is going. Maybe
our reps will be following along closely enough to know if
their requests have been granted. But until votes are taken
and a final budget written, it will be difficult for anyone
else to know what’s happening.
So much mystery shrouds this process, it’s
as if our lawmakers are children bringing their lists to
Santa, only to pad down the stairs on Christmas morning and
unwrap boxes to find out if their wishes have been granted.
This process isn’t the making of DeLeo or
Dempsey. It dates, at least, to former Speaker Thomas
Finneran. But there’s simply no good reason for this
negotiation to continue this way. The only possible
explanations for it are unacceptable — whether it’s because
lawmakers want cover when projects don’t make the cut, or
because horse-trading House leaders use this to leverage
promises from individual lawmakers, or because friends of
House Democrats get rewarded while others are punished....
So, the House this week should step into the
light and at least invite the public and press to attend
these meetings on budget amendments filed by individual
lawmakers. Then people will see the focus of their
representatives’ advocacy and be able to judge for
themselves the merits of projects in various parts of the
state.
To do this any other way violates the spirit
of open government that is fundamental to our state.
A Salem News editorial
Monday, April 24, 2017
House should hold budget discussions in public
It represents activity covering only two weeks, but tax
collections over the first half of April marked a break from
the long-running pattern of slow growth.
Compared to the first half of April 2016, total tax
collections through April 14 shot up 31 percent, or $218
million....
Accounting for the early April bump, tax collections over
the first nine-plus months of fiscal 2017 are up by 2.8
percent over the same period in fiscal 2016. The fiscal 2018
budget, which the House plans to debate during sessions next
week, is predicated on tax collections increasing by 3.9
percent.
Collections over the first half of April were up across
the board, with income taxes rising 24 percent, sales and
use taxes 17 percent, and all other taxes up by $11 million
or 26 percent. Taxes that revenue officials lump into the
"other" category have been worth $1.69 billion to the state
this fiscal year....
Corporate and businesses tax collections of $58 million
over the first half of April were up by 964 percent over the
$5 million collected by mid-month 2016. Fiscal year-to-date,
corporate and business tax collections are up 3.9 percent
over the same period in fiscal 2016.
Withholding collections, which are closely monitored
because they reflect current labor conditions, totaled $561
million over the first half of April, up $106 million or 23
percent from mid-month April 2016. Fiscal year-to-date
withholding collections are up 5.1 percent.
The appetite for spending among House members is
certainly there, although House leaders are expected to turn
back major spending measures next week.
According to the Taxpayers Foundation, 951 of the 1,210
amendments filed for consideration next week have a fiscal
impact. And if all of those amendments were adopted, it
would add $2.07 billion in spending to the state budget.
During last April's budget deliberations, the House agreed
to add $58.6 million in state spending through the adoption
of budget amendments.
State House News Service
Friday, April 21, 2017
Payments surge over first half of state's biggest tax
collection month
Lawmakers are pitching controversial plans
to help the state’s poorest families with an expensive,
albeit messy necessity — diapers.
A proposal filed by Sen. Joan Lovely and
Rep. Paul Tucker, both Salem Democrats, asks health
officials to study creating a diaper subsidy for low-income
families with children under 2 years old.
“There’s no question that diapers are an
absolute health necessity for babies, and some parents can’t
afford it,” Lovely said. “This is a huge issue that needs to
be addressed.”
Diapers aren’t covered by federal food
stamps, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Nor are they provided by the Women, Infants and
Children nutrition program, which classifies them with
cigarettes and alcohol as invalid items.
“You would think diapers would be included
in these programs,” Lovely said.
Welfare assistance can be applied to
anything a family needs....
If the plan takes shape and is approved,
Massachusetts would be the first state to provide diaper
subsidies.
Last year, California lawmakers
overwhelmingly passed a bill giving a $50 monthly diaper
voucher to families on welfare with children under age 2.
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the plan, citing the
impact on the budget.
Efforts to create federal diaper subsidies
have been unsuccessful....
In Massachusetts, parents already get some
help with diaper costs. The Bay State is one of seven —
Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
and Vermont are the others — that exempt diapers and diaper
liners from sales taxes.
Plans for a wider subsidy are drawing
criticism from those who believe the state’s welfare system
is already too large.
“My God, where does it end?” said Chip
Faulkner, a spokesman for Citizens for Limited
Taxation. “I can understand providing for basics such as
food and shelter, but to get involved at this level goes far
beyond the state’s role.”
The Salem News
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
No rash decision: Lawmakers seek cash for diapers
NORTON — For the second time in two years
residents have rejected a tax hike to supplement the town
budget, and this time it was by a much larger margin.
A $2.2 million tax hike through an override
of state tax levy limiting law Proposition 2˝ was defeated
by a vote of 2,801 to 2,037, or 57 to 43 percent at
Tuesday’s annual town election. The measure lost heavily in
all but Precinct 2 where it failed by a mere 17 votes.
Turnout was strong with 4,843 or 37.5
percent of the town’s 12,898 registered voters turning out
to the high school on a very wet day....
Selectmen had also advocated for the
override. “I was surprised how much it lost by,” selectmen
Chairman Robert Kimball said. “People have spoken. We have
to regroup and figure out how to make it work. We’ll
continue to explore different ways to create finances.”
Kimball added “conversation of an override
has to be moot for awhile.” ...
Local officials estimated the projected tax
impact would have been 98 cents on the tax rate, and the
owner of a typical $324,000 home would have paid $318 more
in taxes.
Unlike a Proposition 2˝ debt exclusion that
pays for building projects over the life of a bond, a budget
override is a permanent tax hike.
Supporters cited the need for more revenue
to provide important school and town government services.
Opponents contended residents are struggling
as is to pay their bills, and there was a worry seniors
would have been forced out of their homes.
Voters by slightly less than 200 votes
rejected a $3.7 million override last May.
The Sun Chronicle
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Norton voters oppose budget override
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Last night the House passed its $40.8 billion budget, adding
an estimated $77 million to the House Ways & Means
Committee's recommendation.The good news is that there
are no new taxes in it.
The bad news is that it's another billion dollar increase
next year over this year's budget, again.
More bad news is that the tax-and-spend Senate comes
next, with its own budget proposal and budget debate next
month. Hold onto your wallets and purses!
The Salem News tried to open up the budget process
in its editorial on Monday but the effort was unfortunately
in vain. Once again, all the secretive
wheeling-and-dealing went on behind the leadership's closed
doors, in the inner sanctums where favors are bestowed or
denied, legislators rewarded or punished in private.
How humiliating it must be for rank-and-file legislators to
enter hat-in-hand on bended knee, kissing the ring and
pleading for consideration.
You can't make this stuff up. Hey, how about
Massachusetts striving to achieve another "First in the
Nation" — becoming the first
state to provide "diaper subsidies." Even Governor
Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown of California vetoed that idea, but
according to Sen. Joan Lovely (D-Salem), “This is a huge
issue that needs to be addressed.”
When diaper subsidies become a "huge issue" you
know for certain that all the other issues and "needs" have
finally been fully satisfied and there's no reason to
further raise taxes — unless
the good senator needs another pay raise.
Congratulations to CLT member Ralph Stefanelli and
his team of Norton citizen-taxpayers who defeated a
Proposition 2˝ general (forever)
override on Tuesday — the second in two years and "by a much
larger margin." Ralph is such a dedicated
taxpayer-activist that when I was exchanging some emails
with him he was organizing his neighbors from a hospital
bed. Now that's commitment — you can't keep a
good man down!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
House wraps debate on state's first $40B budget
By Katie Lannan
The House passed its fiscal 2018 budget on a
159-1 vote Tuesday night, green-lighting the
more than $40 billion spending plan after just
two days of debate.
Representatives dispatched 1,210 amendments
between Monday and Tuesday, grouping many of the
measures together into "consolidated" packages
of amendments that were approved with little
public debate after closed-door meetings. The
final vote came shortly after 10 p.m.
The budget clocked in at $40.3 billion when it
was introduced by the House Ways and Means
Committee, and lawmakers added tens of millions
of dollars in spending on state programs and
local earmarks throughout the course of debate.
More than $52 million in spending was added to
the budget Tuesday in seven consolidated
amendments dealing with energy and environmental
affairs; housing, mental health, and disability
services; social services and veterans; health
and human services and elder affairs; public
health; public safety and the judiciary; and
labor and economic development.
That spending came on top of the nearly $20
million the House added to its budget on Monday
in two bulk amendments covering the topics of
education and local aid, and constitutional
officers, state administration and
transportation.
Before the final vote, Speaker Robert DeLeo said
the budget strikes a "very healthy balance" by
making "key investments," protecting "the
hard-working men and women of the commonwealth"
and caring for the needy. Much of the more than
$1 billion in anticipated new revenue for fiscal
2018 was eaten up by required spending on
MassHealth, pensions, and local aid.
The House also gave Gov. Charlie Baker the
go-ahead to pursue a new assessment on many
employers to cover $180 million in MassHealth
expenses, though they left it to the
administration to work out the details of how
the new levy will be applied to companies that
don't provide health coverage to a substantial
portion of their workers.
Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican, cast
the sole vote against the budget. Lyons
frequently criticized the budget process during
the debate, calling out Democrats for proposing
further study on Republican-backed amendments
instead of voting directly on the issue.
While speaking in support of his unsuccessful
amendment that would have increased the funding
for the Committee on Public Counsel Services,
Lyons said the House needs to be more
transparent in crafting its budget.
"We really need to understand what we're voting
on, and we don't," he said.
The account for the Committee on Public Counsel
Services typically needs to be replenished with
supplemental budgets during the course of the
fiscal year. The House budget includes a lower
appropriation than the one recommended by Gov.
Baker, Lyons said.
Though sessions had been tentatively scheduled
throughout the week for the budget debate, the
House won't meet on Wednesday after wrapping its
budget deliberations faster than any year in
recent memory. The House will meet next on
Thursday at 11 a.m.
From 2012 to 2016, representatives spent three
days debating the following fiscal year's
budget. The debate spanned four days in 2011 and
five days in 2010.
After the Senate releases and debates its budget
proposal next month, members of each branch will
try to reconcile the two pieces of legislation
into a final spending plan before the start of
the new fiscal year on July 1.
—Sam Doran
contributed reporting
State House News Service
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
House added $77 Mil to budget that underfunds
major accounts, report says
By Andy Metzger
After rejecting proposals to boost taxes, the
Massachusetts House added $77.7 million in
spending to the annual budget bill this week,
the bulk of it in funds that may be spent only
on particular projects, according to an analysis
by a business-backed policy group.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation reported
that the House budget weighed out at $40.8
billion, about $80 million less than Gov.
Charlie Baker's $40.9 billion bottom line. The
foundation includes in its bottom line
calculations of a $450 million transfer to a
medical assistance trust fund.
The report said the House budget spends less
than the governor's proposal because "the House
underfunds several major programs that will
likely require supplemental spending later in
the fiscal year."
The House Ways and Means budget had $80 million
more in revenues than spending, according to the
taxpayers foundation, which said that indicates
"spending added through debate was anticipated
and accounted for" by the budget-writing
committee.
Baker aimed to address rising costs and
enrollment at MassHealth by assessing businesses
whose employees do not enroll in
employer-sponsored health insurance in
sufficient numbers, which the House Committee on
Ways and Means largely endorsed in its budget.
The taxpayers foundation said a number of
changes were adopted in the House to the
employer assessment and commended lawmakers for
adding a sunset "meaning it will expire in
2020."
The foundation also said the House budget "does
not deviate from the general plan" endorsed by
House Ways and Means "in any meaningful way."
The 388 earmarks adopted by the House through
amendments added over two marathon sessions
added up to $42 million, or just over half the
spending added during deliberations, according
to the foundation.
There were some charged debates, but the
majority of the amendments arrived on the floor
pre-packaged for passage as consolidated
amendments that were assembled in a backroom by
House leaders.
Asked why the House does not allow the
decision-making process to play out in public,
House Speaker Robert DeLeo on Tuesday said there
are opportunities for feedback and said the
public's interests are addressed in the
resulting budget document.
"The most important thing that I think we can do
is to show that we represent the constituents
that we're here to represent, and I think that
if you take a look at the bottom line in terms
of what the priorities of what the House are and
what the priorities of our constituencies are, I
think that you'll find that we hear what the
people of the Commonwealth want and we're
responding to what they want," DeLeo told
reporters.
Several House lawmakers who pressed for higher
taxes said the state budget isn't supporting
programs and services that the public desires.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation reported
notable new policies included in the House
budget are a $500 or $1,000 "bonus" for veterans
who served in recent operations and a provision
for divvying up budget surpluses between the
Massachusetts Life Sciences Center and Community
Preservation Act funding.
The Senate plans in May to pass its version of
the budget and then a conference committee will
be charged with recommending a consensus budget
in time for the July 1 start of fiscal 2018.
The Salem News
Monday, April 24, 2017
A Salem News editorial
House should hold budget discussions in public
Leaders of the state’s House of Representatives
this week are set to conduct an annual ritual of
meeting behind closed doors to sort out local
budget requests, deciding winners and losers
while leaving taxpayers to guess why some got
money but others didn’t.
It’s past time for this negotiation to move into
the open.
The first budget proposal floated by House
Democrats came in under Gov. Charlie Baker’s own
spending plan by $180 million. But that $40.3
billion House budget was only a starting point.
Individual lawmakers have since come along
looking to hang more than 1,200 amendments onto
the plan.
Each represents a carve-out for a group, project
or program — usually back home in a lawmaker’s
district. Tom Walsh, D-Peabody, and Ted
Speliotis, D-Danvers, for example, want $50,000
to study the feasibility of operating a trolley
service on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority’s tracks running from Peabody Square
to the Salem Depot. Lori Erlich, D-Marblehead,
wants $50,000 to clean up algae on King’s Beach
and Long Beach in Lynn, and another $55,000 to
maintain Red Rock Park along the beaches. And
Jerry Parisella, D-Beverly, is looking for
$100,000 to repair the carriage house at Lynch
Park, along with $100,000 to study and improve
traffic intersections in and around the North
Beverly train station.
The value of such set-asides are certainly in
the eye of the beholder. An important grant
sought by one lawmaker is just pork to another.
And, goodness knows, the budget is finite. Only
a portion of these requests can survive.
The problem lies in the sorting. Speaker Robert
DeLeo, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Brian
Dempsey and other House leaders and staff
typically meet with individual lawmakers to hear
these requests and gather information. They
weigh which ones are important enough to fold
into the budget. And, if past practice holds,
they do all of this in a room adjacent to the
House chamber — out of the view of the press or
public.
The results will be hard to decipher. Money for
local projects gets bundled into spending
packages, the language of which may allude to
amendments filed by lawmakers but is unclear on
where the money is going. Maybe our reps will be
following along closely enough to know if their
requests have been granted. But until votes are
taken and a final budget written, it will be
difficult for anyone else to know what’s
happening.
So much mystery shrouds this process, it’s as if
our lawmakers are children bringing their lists
to Santa, only to pad down the stairs on
Christmas morning and unwrap boxes to find out
if their wishes have been granted.
This process isn’t the making of DeLeo or
Dempsey. It dates, at least, to former Speaker
Thomas Finneran. But there’s simply no good
reason for this negotiation to continue this
way. The only possible explanations for it are
unacceptable — whether it’s because lawmakers
want cover when projects don’t make the cut, or
because horse-trading House leaders use this to
leverage promises from individual lawmakers, or
because friends of House Democrats get rewarded
while others are punished.
The entire exchange is just another reminder
that our Legislature — like the judiciary and
governor’s office — is somehow exempt from the
open government laws that we expect every other
state agency and local official to follow.
It’s clearly possible for the Legislature to
hold important deliberations in the open. That
much was proven a year ago when Sen. Joan
Lovely, D-Salem, insisted that meetings of a
conference committee, usually held behind closed
doors, be conducted in public session for the
purpose of discussing changes to the public
records law.
So, the House this week should step into the
light and at least invite the public and press
to attend these meetings on budget amendments
filed by individual lawmakers. Then people will
see the focus of their representatives’ advocacy
and be able to judge for themselves the merits
of projects in various parts of the state.
To do this any other way violates the spirit of
open government that is fundamental to our
state.
State House News Service
Friday, April 21, 2017
Payments surge over first half of state's
biggest tax collection month
By Michael P. Norton
It represents activity covering only two weeks,
but tax collections over the first half of April
marked a break from the long-running pattern of
slow growth.
Compared to the first half of April 2016, total
tax collections through April 14 shot up 31
percent, or $218 million.
Department of Revenue Commissioner Michael
Heffernan notified senior state legislators
about the numbers in a
letter on Thursday, cautioning that it
"would not be advisable to use this data to
predict trends" in part because tax filing
season activity peaks after the mid-month
period.
Doug Howgate, director of policy and research at
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, also
cautioned against drawing conclusions based on
mid-month data. "Certaintly you'd rather be
doing well than not doing well," he said.
April is the single biggest month of the year
for tax collections so it's being watched
closely by the Baker administration and state
lawmakers who are in the midst of planning for
fiscal 2018 when budgeted state spending is
expected to surpass the $40 billion mark for the
first time in state history.
In each of the last five years, the state has
collected more in taxes during April than any
other month. Payments made with returns are
concentrated in April, which features the annual
tax-filing deadline, and the year's first round
of estimated payments from individuals are due
in April, Heffernan said.
Tax collections for fiscal 2017 were running
$220 million behind spending benchmarks through
March. Midyear spending reports are not
available and Gov. Charlie Baker's team has not
publicly outlined details of steps they are
taking to bring spending in line with revenues
as the fiscal year winds to a close.
Accounting for the early April bump, tax
collections over the first nine-plus months of
fiscal 2017 are up by 2.8 percent over the same
period in fiscal 2016. The fiscal 2018 budget,
which the House plans to debate during sessions
next week, is predicated on tax collections
increasing by 3.9 percent.
Collections over the first half of April were up
across the board, with income taxes rising 24
percent, sales and use taxes 17 percent, and all
other taxes up by $11 million or 26 percent.
Taxes that revenue officials lump into the
"other" category have been worth $1.69 billion
to the state this fiscal year.
Corporate and businesses tax collections of $58
million over the first half of April were up by
964 percent over the $5 million collected by
mid-month 2016. Fiscal year-to-date, corporate
and business tax collections are up 3.9 percent
over the same period in fiscal 2016.
Withholding collections, which are closely
monitored because they reflect current labor
conditions, totaled $561 million over the first
half of April, up $106 million or 23 percent
from mid-month April 2016. Fiscal year-to-date
withholding collections are up 5.1 percent.
The appetite for spending among House members is
certainly there, although House leaders are
expected to turn back major spending measures
next week.
According to the Taxpayers Foundation, 951 of
the 1,210 amendments filed for consideration
next week have a fiscal impact. And if all of
those amendments were adopted, it would add
$2.07 billion in spending to the state budget.
During last April's budget deliberations, the
House agreed to add $58.6 million in state
spending through the adoption of budget
amendments.
DOR News Release
The Salem News
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
No rash decision: Lawmakers seek cash for
diapers
By Christian M. Wade Statehouse Reporter
Lawmakers are pitching controversial plans to
help the state’s poorest families with an
expensive, albeit messy necessity — diapers.
A proposal filed by Sen. Joan Lovely and Rep.
Paul Tucker, both Salem Democrats, asks health
officials to study creating a diaper subsidy for
low-income families with children under 2 years
old.
“There’s no question that diapers are an
absolute health necessity for babies, and some
parents can’t afford it,” Lovely said. “This is
a huge issue that needs to be addressed.”
Diapers aren’t covered by federal food stamps,
known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Nor are they provided by the Women,
Infants and Children nutrition program, which
classifies them with cigarettes and alcohol as
invalid items.
“You would think diapers would be included in
these programs,” Lovely said.
Welfare assistance can be applied to anything a
family needs.
But advocates say only 23 percent of poor
families with children nationally receive
benefits. In Massachusetts, the maximum amount
of state assistance for a qualifying
three-person family that lives in subsidized
housing is $633 a month, advocates say.
“Those benefits are extremely low,” said Deborah
Harris, a staff attorney at the Massachusetts
Law Reform Institute who specializes in public
benefit issues. “Diapers are very expensive, and
that’s a financial burden on many low-income
families.”
Harris said low-income parents often stretch out
diapers, washing and reusing them, when supplies
run low. That risks urinary tract infections and
rashes.
“There are severe negative public health
consequences to not having a sufficient supply
of diapers,” she said.
Daycare centers require parents to furnish
diapers for their children. Harris said parents
who cannot afford them may decide to stay home
with their children and not work.
If the plan takes shape and is approved,
Massachusetts would be the first state to
provide diaper subsidies.
Last year, California lawmakers overwhelmingly
passed a bill giving a $50 monthly diaper
voucher to families on welfare with children
under age 2.
Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the plan, citing the
impact on the budget.
Efforts to create federal diaper subsidies have
been unsuccessful.
In the meantime, families with an infant can pay
nearly $1,000 per year on diapers, according to
the National Diaper Bank Network, which
estimates that an infant uses 240 diapers per
month.
One in three mothers have had trouble affording
diapers, according to the group, which works
with hundreds of nonprofit groups to collect and
distribute diapers to low-income mothers.
In Massachusetts, parents already get some help
with diaper costs. The Bay State is one of seven
— Rhode Island, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania and Vermont are the others — that
exempt diapers and diaper liners from sales
taxes.
Plans for a wider subsidy are drawing criticism
from those who believe the state’s welfare
system is already too large.
“My God, where does it end?” said Chip
Faulkner, a spokesman for Citizens for
Limited Taxation. “I can understand
providing for basics such as food and shelter,
but to get involved at this level goes far
beyond the state’s role.”
Tucker said he understands the criticism but
sees this as a pressing social issue.
“We need to care of basic needs of those who are
unable to provide them, and I think the state
has a role to play here,” he said. “This would
be money well spent.”
The Sun Chronicle
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Norton voters oppose budget override
By Stephen Peterson
NORTON — For the second time in two years
residents have rejected a tax hike to supplement
the town budget, and this time it was by a much
larger margin.
A $2.2 million tax hike through an override of
state tax levy limiting law Proposition 2˝ was
defeated by a vote of 2,801 to 2,037, or 57 to
43 percent at Tuesday’s annual town election.
The measure lost heavily in all but Precinct 2
where it failed by a mere 17 votes.
Turnout was strong with 4,843 or 37.5 percent of
the town’s 12,898 registered voters turning out
to the high school on a very wet day.
“We definitely have to live within our budget,”
said Dorothy Freeman, a former selectwoman and
planning board member who with her husband John
opposed the override.
Another visible opponent was Michael “Spider”
Smith. “I’m very happy with the results,” Smith
said. “We definitely have to find a way to pay
for things without a property tax increase.”
He said there is no animosity toward those who
supported the tax hike request.
“I love to support the schools. I love the
community,” Smith said, noting his father
Michael Smith was a local police officer and a
close friend, Andy Burgess, is a town
firefighter.
Backers of the ballot question were clearly
disheartened.
“I can’t believe how the vote went,” school
committee member Kathleen Stern said. “I’m very
upset with the cuts we have to make not only for
the schools but town. I hope when residents need
a police officer, they get one, when they need a
fireman they get one. That there will be library
functions.
“This was not a school vote, it was a town vote,
and my heart is broken,” Stern added.
Selectmen had also advocated for the override.
“I was surprised how much it lost by,” selectmen
Chairman Robert Kimball said. “People have
spoken. We have to regroup and figure out how to
make it work. We’ll continue to explore
different ways to create finances.”
Kimball added “conversation of an override has
to be moot for awhile.”
“I’m just disappointed,” remarked Selectwoman
Mary Steele, who was elected unopposed to a
fourth three-year term.
The $2.2 million was earmarked to be split
evenly between the schools and local government
for the budget for the fiscal year starting July
1.
The $1.1 million for schools would have provided
full-day kindergarten without tuition, done away
with school bus fees, reduced sports fees and
funded several positions.
About half the town’s $1.1 million would have
been used to reopen the Chartley fire station,
with additional money slated for police and the
library and other departments.
Local officials estimated the projected tax
impact would have been 98 cents on the tax rate,
and the owner of a typical $324,000 home would
have paid $318 more in taxes.
Unlike a Proposition 2˝ debt exclusion that pays
for building projects over the life of a bond, a
budget override is a permanent tax hike.
Supporters cited the need for more revenue to
provide important school and town government
services.
Opponents contended residents are struggling as
is to pay their bills, and there was a worry
seniors would have been forced out of their
homes.
Voters by slightly less than 200 votes rejected
a $3.7 million override last May.
“I’m really kind of embarrassed my town keeps
saying no and doesn’t have a plan,” Town
Moderator Bill Gouveia said. “If they don’t have
a plan, what they did tonight is irresponsible.”
But Gouveia admitted it was a “pretty resounding
vote.”
Brian Greco, a candidate for selectman in the
June special election, was one of many
disillusioned with how the override split the
town. Greco speculated the request went down in
defeat because the money was going to both
school and town needs and and “coming back this
fast, it was not going to happen. The Town of
Norton spoke.”
Town Clerk Lucia Longhurst said she expected
5,000 to 6,000 voters, adding she didn’t think
the rain held up the turnout. “It never
stopped,” she said of voters. “It went really
smoothly.”
Senior citizens weren’t stymied by the weather.
“Elderly people were coming in in wheelchairs,”
Longhurst said.
“I live on that side of town and think opening
up another station would be good,” voter Dominic
Switzer said of reopening the Chartley station.
Conner Reynolds, a junior at the high school,
said he was optimistic the referendum question
would pass. “They definitely tried a lot harder
this time getting the word out,” he said. “I
think it’s very important to have a good school
system.”
Otto Pierre said he also supported the request
“to have better schools.”
A balanced budget will now be proposed at the
May 8 town meeting. |
| |
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
|