|
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
Sunday, June 4, 2017
"Fiscal crises" fuel tax hikes
|
The Baker administration has been tight-lipped about the
scope of the state's immediate budget problems, but the
potential depth of the revenue struggle that's unfolded over
the first 10 months of the fiscal year is laid bare in new
financial disclosure statements. After marking down
expected state tax collections last October by $175 million,
the governor's budget staff now expects tax collections for
fiscal 2017, which ends June 30, to fall between $375
million and $575 million below their revised projection,
according to the statements signed by Administration and
Finance Secretary Kristen Lepore and state Treasurer Deborah
Goldberg....
The disclosure documents also affirm the suggestion by
legislative leaders and Baker that the fiscal 2018 budget,
the subject of most of the focus on Beacon Hill so far this
year, will need to be substantially reworked. Bills passed
by the House in late April and Senate last week will need to
be overhauled by a six-member conference committee to
reflect a reduction in estimated available revenues. The
conference members could be named this week.
"Any adjustments to the projected fiscal 2018 tax revenue
estimate on which the fiscal 2018 budget is based are
expected to be resolved by the Legislature and the Governor
during this process. The Executive Office for Administration
and Finance and the Department of Revenue will be evaluating
fiscal 2018 tax revenue estimates in light of the
below-benchmark revenue performance in fiscal 2017, and
anticipate that tax revenue projections for fiscal 2018 will
be reduced by an amount yet to be determined," according to
the May 19 disclosure, which arrived days before the Senate
passed a fiscal 2018 budget bill based on revenue numbers
that few on Beacon Hill believe will hold up....
Budget difficulties have persisted throughout Baker's
term. While the governor has made progress reducing the use
of one-time revenues to support spending, tax collections
have consistently fallen short of the estimates state
officials wrote into their spending plans after hearing from
local economists....
To boost state revenues, the Legislature voted 135-57 in
May 2016 to advance a constitutional amendment adding a 4
percent surtax on household income above $1 million.
Lawmakers this session are expected to advance the amendment
to the 2018 ballot. Opponents of the measure say it could
discourage high earners from living in Massachusetts and
lead to a graduated income tax structure in which over time
more people will be grouped in different tax brackets and
taxed at different rates. Supporters say the surtax could
generate $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion annually to invest in
education and transportation.
State House News Service
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Tax revenue shortfall could hit $575 Million, state says in
disclosure
A proposal that would impose more taxes on
the rich to pay for education and transportation is expected
to be an easy sell to voters.
That’s why the state’s most powerful
business groups want to stop the initiative before it gets
that far. They’re working on a legal challenge to scuttle
the so-called millionaires tax.
The Massachusetts High Technology Council
just sent out a letter to its roughly 150 members, seeking
contributions of $10,000 to $25,000. The surcharge, council
president Christopher Anderson wrote, could cause
irreparable harm to the state’s innovation economy.
Other influential business groups — such as
the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Associated
Industries of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts
Competitive Partnership — also oppose the labor-backed
surcharge. Among their strategies: filing a lawsuit later
this year that challenges its constitutionality....
But the union-funded “Fair Share Amendment”
still needs to clear an important hurdle: a vote by the
state lawmakers to put the tax question before voters next
year.
The surcharge would be created through a
constitutional amendment, which requires two roll call votes
from the Legislature. Lawmakers have overwhelmingly approved
it once, in 2016. They could take their second vote as soon
as June 14.
The business groups’ legal strategy is just
starting to take shape. One likely plan of attack:
challenging language that would set aside funds for
education and transportation. They argue that constitutional
amendments can’t appropriate funds for specific uses. They
also may also claim that the referendum question is too
broad....
A successful court challenge would be far
less expensive than a campaign to defeat a ballot question,
which could cost millions....
In comparison, the Raise Up Massachusetts
ballot committee spent nearly $600,000 in the past two years
to get the millionaires tax this far. Most of that money
came from union sources, including Services Employees
International Union affiliates, and the Massachusetts
Teachers Association.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Business advocates gear up for legal fight against
‘millionaires tax’ proposal
Somehow, a progressive state like
Massachusetts ended up with a regressive tax system, and it
is not serving us well.
The state budget looks a lot like it did one
year ago: revenue coming in below projections, spending cuts
looming, and a budget deficit growing. But this dismal math
presents an opportunity to revamp the way we generate
revenue for the Commonwealth.
The top two sources of state revenue for
fiscal 2016 came from two “flat” taxes — income and sales.
When most people think of flat taxes, they think of
Republican presidential contenders like Steve Forbes, Ted
Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry. Yet, here in our blue
state, we have a flat 6.25 percent sales and a flat 5.1
percent income tax. The uniform nature of the income tax was
enshrined in our state Constitution in 1915.
It’s time to fix that.
A[nother] constitutional amendment to
eliminate the sales tax and replace the flat state income
tax with a progressive scale based on income would be a bold
solution. It would both alleviate the tax burden for low-
and moderate-income families and generate enough revenue to
right our budget ship before the next recession hits....
The recurrent budget problems can be traced
back two decades to a tax cut that materialized, while
proposed spending cuts did not. In 2000, a state referendum
cut the income tax from 5.85 percent to the current 5.1
percent. That cut state revenue, but spending was never cut
to balance the books....
A 4 percent “millionaires’ tax” is also
being considered as a 2018 referendum to bring in more
revenue. Moving to a progressive state income tax
complements this referendum because the top bracket would
likely start much lower than $1,000,000.
I don’t expect Governor Charlie Baker to
support this proposal. But for 2018 gubernatorial candidates
and Beacon Hill Democrats, a less regressive tax system
could be a winning issue. Massachusetts has a choice: Either
stick with a tax structure that soaks the poor and
underperforms in most years, or summon the courage to make a
big change.
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 28, 2018
Ax the sales tax (also the income tax)
By Tom Emswiler
If it’s a $40,000 snowplow for clearing
sidewalks that the town of Hingham wants, then a $40,000
snowplow for clearing sidewalks the town of Hingham — median
income $103,000, median home value $766,000 — shall have.
But why on earth should the taxpayers of
the entire commonwealth pay for it?
Sadly that is how spending on Beacon Hill so
often works. Local spending needs become the responsibility
of state taxpayers, simply because a lawmaker asks his
colleagues to make it happen and because leadership — for
reasons the public will never know — gives it the green
light.
That’s how amendment No. 82, which provides
$40,000 to the tony town of Hingham for that piece of
specialty public works equipment, became part of the Senate
budget last week....
Most of these amendments are relatively
small potatoes, at least in the context of a $40 billion
state budget.
And none of this is unique to the Senate.
The House filled its own tourism line item with pork, too.
Naturally there is a gazebo. (Isn’t there always a
gazebo?) The House OK’d $25,000 for the town of Dracut to
build a gazebo in memory of a late, local pol.
But at what point does someone stand astride
the state budget and yell, “Stop!”
Last year Gov. Charlie Baker used his veto
pen to X out 497 earmarks to help bring the budget back into
balance; now many of them are rising like zombies to appear
in next year’s budget.
In authorizing the most hyperlocal earmarks,
lawmakers have all but forfeited their right to complain
about the state’s “revenue problem.” Baker should make sure
his veto pen still has plenty of ink.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Earmarks are eternal
Gov. Charlie Baker and Mayor Martin J. Walsh
have announced a tuition-free college program.
The Republican governor and the Democratic
mayor on Monday launched the new college affordability
program for Boston high school graduates, enabling
low-income students to complete four-year degrees without
paying tuition or mandatory fees.
The program, called The Boston Bridge, will
be open to all 2017 high school graduates who live in the
city.
The commonwealth and the city said they'll
cover students' tuition and fees....
Baker said college affordability "too often
serves as a barrier" for students seeking degrees. He said
the new program is intended to provide "more opportunities
for a quality education."
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Baker, Walsh announce tuition-free college pilot program
Jessica Frazier's second child was a "family
cap" baby, meaning that under Massachusetts rules, the
single mother from Boston could not receive an increase in
welfare benefits to help care for her now 7 month-old son.
The rule, established as part of a 1995
welfare reform law, was meant to discourage parents on
welfare from conceiving additional children. It states that
children who are born after a family begins receiving
benefits are not eligible for the additional $100 per child
stipend and clothing allowance from the state program called
Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Activists seeking to overturn the policy say
it only serves to punish children while falling far short of
its objective to keep more kids from being born into
poverty....
The Legislature's Committee on Children,
Families and Persons with Disabilities are considering a
bill that would abolish the cap, a move that supporters say
could help as many as 9,000 children.
Naomi Meyer, an attorney with Greater Boston
Legal Services, told the panel at a hearing Tuesday that the
state treats those children as if they don't exist. The
result is parents forced to make difficult choices that
affect the entire family....
"There is no family that chooses to take
care of one child and not the other child," said Rep.
Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge Democrat who is one of the
sponsors of the bill....
Fiscal constraints could play into any
decisions the Legislature makes on the issue. Decker
estimated that eliminating the cap would result in up to $13
million in added welfare costs for the state each year.
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Advocates Seek Repeal of 'Family Cap' on Welfare Benefits
Two words seldom found together in the same
sentence are Attleboro and override.
Since 1982, when it became possible for
residents of a municipality to override the then-newly
created tax-limiting law Proposition 2˝, the city has asked
voters only once to do it.
That was in 1991 when four measures were put
on the ballot in a general override election after the city,
along with many other communities statewide, had suffered
from a bad economy and state aid cuts.
Officials asked residents to approve tax
increases of $500,000 for schools, $63,000 for the fire
department, $56,000 for the police department and $94,000
for the public works department, for a total of $713,000.
In general overrides, tax increases are
permanent. In today’s dollars that increase would equal
about $1.275 million.
Voters said “no” with emphasis.
The “no” vote percentages were 73, 78, 78
and 90 respectively for the four departments.
The subject hasn’t been broached seriously
since — until now....
But what is known is that, statewide, voters
have approved debt exclusion tax hikes at far greater rate
than general or permanent overrides.
School projects have especially gotten the
blessings of taxpayers.
Information on the state’s Department of
Revenue website show that 89 percent or almost 9 out of 10
debt exclusions tax increases are approved.
The DOR website lists 4,226 debt exclusion
votes since 1982.
Out of that number, 3,771 tax hikes were
approved and 455 were rejected.
Total vote count was 4.2 million in favor
and 2.8 million opposed, or 60 percent in favor and 40
percent against.
By comparison, there were 4,279 general
override votes.
Out of that number 1,685 were approved, or
39 percent, and 2,594 or 61 percent were rejected.
School projects funded by debt exclusions
were approved at a slightly higher percentage than all debt
exclusion funded projects.
Out of the 4,226 debt exclusion override
votes, 1,409 were for school projects.
Out of that number, 1,306 projects, or 93
percent, won at the ballot box and 103 lost.
Of the 103 that lost, nine overrides sought
money for school operating budgets rather than capital
projects. There were 20 such votes with only 11, or 55
percent, being approved while 9, or 45 percent, were
rejected.
The debt exclusion numbers for schools
include elections in which a project may lose the first time
it’s on the ballot, but won in a later election.
The Attleboro Sun-Chronicle
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Attleboro voters soon to weigh an override
Cities and towns that have adopted the
Community Preservation Act want the state to cough up more
money to offset the cost of their local projects. And state
lawmakers, of course, want to keep their cities and towns
happy.
So now comes a renewed push on Beacon Hill
to boost funding for the Community Preservation Trust Fund,
which provides state grants to local communities for
preservation of open space and historic properties and for
affordable housing.
And with it comes a pitch for higher fees
for the entire commonwealth....
So the Senate recently voted to jack up the
registry recording fees by 125 percent — to $45. Yes, that
means individuals in communities that haven’t adopted
the CPA would be paying more than twice the current fee to
fund ballfields, bike paths and playgrounds in communities,
many of them quite wealthy, that have.
A separate bill pending before the
Legislature would adjust registry fees to, well, whatever
amount is sufficient to guarantee a 50 percent match from
the state....
CPA supporters believe the number of
participating communities and local projects should
determine how much money goes into the state trust fund.
But it’s the balance in the trust fund that
ought to determine how much is available for those
elective municipal projects each year.
A Boston Herald editorial
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Community chest
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The latest and current "fiscal crisis" deepens, with revenue
now estimated to come in up to $575 million below even their
revised "projection" — up from
the
$462 shortfall of just two weeks ago. The
Legislature is putting all its eggs in the graduated income
tax basket as it whistles past the graveyard as usual.
The State House News Service reports:
To boost
state revenues, the Legislature voted 135-57 in May 2016
to advance a constitutional amendment adding a 4 percent
surtax on household income above $1 million.
Lawmakers this session are expected to advance the
amendment to the 2018 ballot. Opponents of the
measure say it could discourage high earners from living
in Massachusetts and lead to a graduated income tax
structure in which over time more people will be grouped
in different tax brackets and taxed at different rates.
Supporters say the surtax could generate $1.6 billion to
$2.2 billion annually to invest in education and
transportation.
In his column for The Boston Globe advocating for a
graduated income tax, a more "progressive" tax
policy, Tom Emswiler wrote:
"The
recurrent budget problems can be traced back two decades
to a tax cut that materialized, while proposed spending
cuts did not. In 2000, a state referendum cut the income
tax from 5.85 percent to the current 5.1 percent. That
cut state revenue, but spending was never cut to balance
the books."
This claptrap revisionist history is clearly intended to
obfuscate and misdirect the uninformed. Emswiler
— a public health advocate and
former congressional aide — either is
simply ignorant or he hopes nobody remembers what
really happened. The problem was and remains
relentless, unbridled overspending by the state.
The income tax rate that CLT cut in 2000 from 5.85
percent to its current 5.1 percent was imposed
"temporarily," for just "18 months" we were promised over a
decade before taxpayers and voters took its rollback into
our own hands. The "temporary" tax hike was necessary
because the state had spent itself into the fiscal crisis of
1989.
That the Legislature didn't deign to adjust its spending
to the reality of the voters' income tax rollback mandate
demonstrates the origins of fiscal crises, and nothing
was learned, nothing has changed.
Some of the other news reports contained here prove my
assertion. More spending is never enough. There
will always be "unmet needs" that require more taxpayer
funding if legislators look hard enough. These days,
with so many "unmet needs" having been met at the cost of
multiple billions of our dollars, the Legislature stretches,
contorts, and uncovers a need to even provide
taxpayer-funded baby diapers to indigent mothers, as
previously reported.
The Legislature is depending on the proposed "Tax
Fairness Amendment," aka "The Millionaires' Tax," to rake in
more revenue and refill the state coffers so their reckless
spending can continue unabated. They can and will
claim clean hands and no fingerprints if it reaches the
ballot and the voters — not
them — agree to tax those
"evil millionaires" without harming themselves.
The proposed constitutional amendment needs one more vote
in the Legislature to be put on the 2018 ballot, and that's
expected to occur in two weeks on June 14. This
backdoor graduated income tax is only the beginning.
If it somehow is adopted by low-information voters it will
change our state's flat tax forever. Either we have a
constitutionally-required flat income tax where everyone
pays the same rate — or we
don't. If we ever don't —
if the Takers can finally break that protective barrier
they've battered away at for decades —
the insatiable Takers will be back for another bite at
another income bracket, then another, then another.
For decades, Divide and Conquer has always been their
strategy, pitting one income bracket against the others.
Starting with those "evil millionaires"
— perceived as the weakest target with
the smallest numbers — is just the beginning, to get
their noses into the taxpayers' tent. If they do,
eventually we'll all be their next target.
We've turned back the barbarians at the barricades five
times over the decades: in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1994.
It looks like we'll need to gear up and march out again.
At least it appears we may finally have some reinforcements
joining us.
The business community, especially our old allies the
Massachusetts High Tech Council, have begun to take this
threat seriously. It will be interesting to see what
happens if the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation takes the
ballot question before the courts on its constitutionality.
That could and should be the end of it
— it should never have gotten this far. But in
Massachusetts we must recognize that the final arbiter is
the state Supreme Judicial Court, and I didn't long ago call
it the
Supreme Judicial Kangaroo Court lightly.
On Tuesday (1 p.m., State House Hearing Room B-1) the
Joint Committee on Revenue will be hearing a number of tax
bills. One of them,
H1618,
"An Act relative to income tax rates," intends to halt
the income tax rollback where it is, at 5.1 percent.
It is sponsored by Reps. Denise Provost (D-Somerville),
Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown), Mary Keefe (D-Worcester), and
Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge).
How many times can you freeze a freeze before getting
freezer-burn? CLT of course will be opposing their
shameless betrayal of their promise, taxpayers, voters, and
their constituents.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Tax revenue shortfall could hit $575 Million,
state says in disclosure
By Michael P. Norton
The Baker administration has been tight-lipped
about the scope of the state's immediate budget
problems, but the potential depth of the revenue
struggle that's unfolded over the first 10
months of the fiscal year is laid bare in new
financial disclosure statements.
After marking down expected state tax
collections last October by $175 million, the
governor's budget staff now expects tax
collections for fiscal 2017, which ends June 30,
to fall between $375 million and $575 million
below their revised projection, according to the
statements signed by Administration and Finance
Secretary Kristen Lepore and state Treasurer
Deborah Goldberg.
The statements do not specify how Gov. Charlie
Baker's team is dealing with the revenue
problem, saying only that it "expects to
implement measures, including reducing
allotments, maintaining payroll caps and other
hiring limitations and otherwise imposing
spending controls" to balance the budget.
Baker has ruled out taking money out of the
state savings account to plug the budget hole
and the impact of new spending cuts is limited
since there's only about a month remaining in a
fiscal year that has already featured efforts to
trim the state workforce and nearly $100 million
in emergency spending cuts.
Tax collections through April were up just 1.1
percent. Receipts 10 months into the fiscal year
are running $462 million below estimates, about
midway between the latest estimates of
diminished revenue levels. State officials are
also seeing less revenue from large tax
settlements. Revenue officials in early June
will release data detailing tax collections in
May.
The disclosure documents also affirm the
suggestion by legislative leaders and Baker that
the fiscal 2018 budget, the subject of most of
the focus on Beacon Hill so far this year, will
need to be substantially reworked. Bills passed
by the House in late April and Senate last week
will need to be overhauled by a six-member
conference committee to reflect a reduction in
estimated available revenues. The conference
members could be named this week.
"Any adjustments to the projected fiscal 2018
tax revenue estimate on which the fiscal 2018
budget is based are expected to be resolved by
the Legislature and the Governor during this
process. The Executive Office for Administration
and Finance and the Department of Revenue will
be evaluating fiscal 2018 tax revenue estimates
in light of the below-benchmark revenue
performance in fiscal 2017, and anticipate that
tax revenue projections for fiscal 2018 will be
reduced by an amount yet to be determined,"
according to the May 19 disclosure, which
arrived days before the Senate passed a fiscal
2018 budget bill based on revenue numbers that
few on Beacon Hill believe will hold up.
The state's revenue woes have caught the
attention of credit analysts. In March, Moody's
and Fitch assigned stable outlooks to
Massachusetts bonds. And S&P Global Ratings
assigned a AA+ rating to the bonds but also
attached a negative outlook. The outlook,
analysts wrote, "reflects our view that despite
a period of economic expansion and generally
positive revenue trends, Massachusetts continues
to face midyear downward revenue revisions and
spending pressures that have resulted in small
budgetary gaps and reduced fund balances, even
if the budget stabilization reserves have
remained fairly stable."
Baker and his team have not offered specifics of
how they are managing the budget, with Baker
saying he's "nipping and tucking" and "working
the edges." A Baker budget spokeswoman this week
declined to provide any information about budget
management decisions made in response to anemic
revenue growth this year. Baker said his meeting
on Monday with Democratic legislative leaders
focused on the fiscal 2017 and 2018 budgets, but
offered no further insights.
The disclosure documents also detail other
aspects of the state's fiscal picture.
Significantly, $333 million in supplemental
payments to hospitals, out of $736 million, "are
now expected to be delayed until fiscal 2018 due
to anticipated lags in approval by the federal
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
of the associated federal revenue."
Earlier this fiscal year, Baker administration
officials announced a $294 million budget
shortfall and attempted to close it by sweeping
"unneeded" trust fund balance, forecasting
increases in non-tax revenue, and decreasing
fund transfers to the MBTA and state school
building authority.
A significant source of aid to cities and towns
-- the Massachusetts Lottery -- is projected to
again end the fiscal year with a record high
annual profit despite a dip in sales this year,
the documents show.
Through 10 months of fiscal 2017, Lottery sales
are down $112.5 million or 2.6 percent compared
to the same fiscal 2016 period, but the
disclosure projects that the Lottery will end
the year with $989.7 million in profit -- just a
hair above last year's record-setting $989.4
million reported in fiscal 2016.
The Legislature relies on the Lottery to
generate annual profits, which are returned to
municipalities as unrestricted local aid, and
though the last two years have set records for
Lottery profits, Goldberg has cautioned
lawmakers that the string of records will not
continue unless the Lottery adapts to compete
with the state's developing casino gaming
industry and online daily fantasy sports
contests.
The state's nascent gaming industry, which for
now consists of a single slots parlor, is
projected to post no real growth in its second
full fiscal year. After taking in $160.9 million
in gross gaming revenue in fiscal 2016,
Plainridge Park Casino is projected in fiscal
2017 to tally $160 million in revenue, meaning
the state will collect just less than the $64.4
million it counted last year in gaming-related
revenue.
Once the two resort casinos under development
are open to gamblers, diners and shoppers,
Massachusetts can expect to pull in about $300
million in annual gaming revenue, the chairman
of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has said.
On the spending side, Baker has been trying to
manage deficiencies in revenue available to
cover rising MassHealth enrollment and related
costs, unfunded costs at county sheriffs'
offices, the impacts of collective bargaining
agreements, and correction and mental health
costs.
Budget difficulties have persisted throughout
Baker's term. While the governor has made
progress reducing the use of one-time revenues
to support spending, tax collections have
consistently fallen short of the estimates state
officials wrote into their spending plans after
hearing from local economists.
While revenue performance problems date back to
the Obama administration, House Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Rep. Brian Dempsey said this
week that he believes sagging receipts also stem
from a more recent trend -- people waiting to
make business decisions based on the assumption
that Congress will pass a major tax reform bill,
which is a legislative priority for President
Donald Trump.
Income taxes 10 months into fiscal 2017 are $335
million below benchmark, mostly in connection
with returns, bills and quarterly payments, a
problem that Dempsey said is evident in more
than 27 states. April collections in those
states are 6.5 percent below April 2016, he
said, because certain taxpayers are deferring
income, accelerating pension contributions, and
taking first quarter losses because it's
advantageous for them to do so for tax purposes.
"That indicates that the hope that there is
going to be a significant tax package coming out
of Washington has resulted in a bit of a holding
pattern with respect to high income earners,
corporations, businesses and the like," he said.
While Trump and Congress are considering a major
overhaul of federal tax laws, reform legislation
has yet to gain traction.
"When you look at what is happening, and it's
very concerning, it is happening nationally and
it is happening, we believe, because there is a
wait-and-see approach with respect to what may
happen with regards to a tax package out of
Washington," Dempsey said.
Sales taxes are running $39 million below
projections this fiscal year, primarily in
connection with motor vehicle sales. Dempsey
said there has been an escalation in delinquent
auto loans and that has made it much more
difficult to obtain an auto loan today than it
was last year. He said there was "much more
caution" by financial institutions, which he
said may be countering some of the positive
impacts associated with low unemployment.
And the state's relatively low jobless numbers,
Dempsey said, are also colored by the fact that
many people are working part-time and therefore
are not spinning off the same amount of taxes
that full-time workers do.
The state's revenue problems could worsen
substantially if Republicans in Washington are
successful in passing legislation repealing the
Affordable Care Act and replacing it with a new
federal health care law. A reform bill approved
by the U.S. House, Baker wrote in a recent
letter, would cause thousands of people to lose
their health insurance and state government
would lose $1 billion in federal revenue
supports beginning in 2020.
To boost state revenues, the Legislature voted
135-57 in May 2016 to advance a constitutional
amendment adding a 4 percent surtax on household
income above $1 million. Lawmakers this session
are expected to advance the amendment to the
2018 ballot. Opponents of the measure say it
could discourage high earners from living in
Massachusetts and lead to a graduated income tax
structure in which over time more people will be
grouped in different tax brackets and taxed at
different rates. Supporters say the surtax could
generate $1.6 billion to $2.2 billion annually
to invest in education and transportation.
In its disclosure documents, state officials
said it's not possible to predict with certainty
what will happen with federal health care
reform, but caution that "significant changes"
could occur this year and beyond including
changes affecting a Medicaid deal that Baker
negotiated with the Obama administration.
The disclosure documents also show the total
state workforce, including the judiciary, higher
education and other agencies, grew to 86,258 in
June 2016, a 2.1 percent increase from 84,513 in
June 2012. However, the workforce considered
under the governor's authority has decreased by
1.1 percent over that period, from 34,151 in
June 2012 to 33,765 in June 2016, with a
reduction of 1,408 jobs between June 2015 and
June 2016.
—Colin A. Young
contributed reporting.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Business advocates gear up for legal fight
against ‘millionaires tax’ proposal
By Jon Chesto
A proposal that would impose more taxes on the
rich to pay for education and transportation is
expected to be an easy sell to voters.
That’s why the state’s most powerful business
groups want to stop the initiative before it
gets that far. They’re working on a legal
challenge to scuttle the so-called millionaires
tax.
The Massachusetts High Technology Council just
sent out a letter to its roughly 150 members,
seeking contributions of $10,000 to $25,000. The
surcharge, council president Christopher
Anderson wrote, could cause irreparable harm to
the state’s innovation economy.
Other influential business groups — such as the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Associated
Industries of Massachusetts, and the
Massachusetts Competitive Partnership — also
oppose the labor-backed surcharge. Among their
strategies: filing a lawsuit later this year
that challenges its constitutionality.
If the measure appears on the ballot in November
2018 and voters approve it, the taxation rate
for personal income above $1 million would
increase by 4 percentage points. Assuming the
current income tax rate of 5.1 percent remains
in place, an individual would pay the standard
rate on all income up to $1 million, and then
pay a 9.1 percent rate for earnings above that
threshold.
But the union-funded “Fair Share Amendment”
still needs to clear an important hurdle: a vote
by the state lawmakers to put the tax question
before voters next year.
The surcharge would be created through a
constitutional amendment, which requires two
roll call votes from the Legislature. Lawmakers
have overwhelmingly approved it once, in 2016.
They could take their second vote as soon as
June 14.
The business groups’ legal strategy is just
starting to take shape. One likely plan of
attack: challenging language that would set
aside funds for education and transportation.
They argue that constitutional amendments can’t
appropriate funds for specific uses. They also
may also claim that the referendum question is
too broad.
The millionaires tax is projected to raise
nearly $2 billion a year. But critics say
there’s no guarantee the new revenue will result
in an equivalent increase in education and
transportation funding. Lawmakers could use the
new money to pay for preexisting line items in
the state budget, which would then free up that
money for other causes, such as health care.
Then there’s the risk of building a budget
around a potentially volatile revenue stream —
income taxes collected from the wealthy often
vary from year to year.
James Rooney, chief executive of the Greater
Boston Chamber of Commerce whose group only
recently took an official stance against the
surcharge, said he expects the chamber will
research the volatility issue and whether the
surcharge would unfairly hurt businesses owned
by a single individual.
Supporters of the additional tax cite studies
that show a relatively small number of wealthy
people move out of state because of tax
policies. Rooney, however, still worries about
the economic impact.
“We need to be mindful of the mobility of people
and businesses in this economy,” he said,
pointing to General Electric’s decision to
relocate from Connecticut to Boston last year.
Business opposition to a tax on the rich,
however, is not unanimous. The left-leaning
Alliance for Business Leadership, for example,
is trying to build support for the surcharge.
“You would be hard pressed to find any business
group in Greater Boston that hasn’t said
investment in education and transportation is a
priority,” said Jesse Mermell, the alliance’s
president. “It’s perfectly reasonable for the
most fortunate among us to pay slightly more to
make sure that economic growth happens.”
Surcharge supporters say they’re on solid legal
ground. They point to the state’s gas tax, whose
proceeds are set aside for transportation
purposes.
A successful court challenge would be far less
expensive than a campaign to defeat a ballot
question, which could cost millions.
While the Massachusetts High Technology Council
won’t say how much it hopes to raise, the Globe
reported last fall that the group’s goal was in
the $400,000 range.
In comparison, the Raise Up Massachusetts ballot
committee spent nearly $600,000 in the past two
years to get the millionaires tax this far. Most
of that money came from union sources, including
Services Employees International Union
affiliates, and the Massachusetts Teachers
Association.
The opponents have not yet created a ballot
committee, so their expenses are not public.
Mark Gallagher, executive vice president at the
high-tech group, said his side has to disclose
its spending only when it begins to try to
directly influence voters. Legal work doesn’t
count, he said.
“It’s easy to see how this would be appealing to
voters,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. “The vast
majority of them are not subject to the new tax.
. . . You just don’t want to hurt the
underpinnings of our economy with a tax that
will hit investors, innovators and
entrepreneurs.”
The Boston Globe
Sunday, May 28, 2018
Ax the sales tax (also the income tax)
By Tom Emswiler
Somehow, a progressive state like Massachusetts
ended up with a regressive tax system, and it is
not serving us well.
The state budget looks a lot like it did one
year ago: revenue coming in below projections,
spending cuts looming, and a budget deficit
growing. But this dismal math presents an
opportunity to revamp the way we generate
revenue for the Commonwealth.
The top two sources of state revenue for fiscal
2016 came from two “flat” taxes — income and
sales. When most people think of flat taxes,
they think of Republican presidential contenders
like Steve Forbes, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Rick
Perry. Yet, here in our blue state, we have a
flat 6.25 percent sales and a flat 5.1 percent
income tax. The uniform nature of the income tax
was enshrined in our state Constitution in 1915.
It’s time to fix that.
A constitutional amendment to eliminate the
sales tax and replace the flat state income tax
with a progressive scale based on income would
be a bold solution. It would both alleviate the
tax burden for low- and moderate-income families
and generate enough revenue to right our budget
ship before the next recession hits.
A couple of years ago, the Institute on Taxation
and Economic Policy found that, while
Massachusetts households making less than
$70,000 paid 1.7 percent of their income in
sales taxes, those making over $252,000 paid
just 0.54 percent. So wealthy households paid
one-third of the tax rate of lower income
households. That’s pretty regressive.
Income inequality began to widen in the late
1970s, and it has gotten worse over the years,
making our flat taxes more unjust over time.
Although a progressive income tax amendment
failed in 1994, a 2010 poll showed 57 percent of
Massachusetts respondents supported a
progressive income tax; pairing that proposal
with eliminating the sales tax could improve its
popularity even more.
The recurrent budget problems can be traced back
two decades to a tax cut that materialized,
while proposed spending cuts did not. In 2000, a
state referendum cut the income tax from 5.85
percent to the current 5.1 percent. That cut
state revenue, but spending was never cut to
balance the books. In 17 years we’ve gone from
“Taxachusetts” to “Regressichusetts.” Not to
mention our reliance on lottery and casino
gambling taxes, which generate revenue from
lower-income people.
Scrapping these regressive levies isn’t a new
idea. The 2014 Tax Fairness Commission also
suggested a progressive income tax. Pair that
with the elimination of the sales tax, and the
state wouldn’t be thinking small-ball; it would
be making a tectonic shift in the way the state
does business. This is a big idea whose effects
would be felt for generations.
It’s imperative to move quickly, while economic
times are still good. It has been eight years
since the last recession, and we’re due for a
downturn. That would cause the budget deficit to
balloon with little notice, and state spending
would have to be cut quickly when residents
could least afford it.
Despite them having to pay more, a progressive
income tax is still a good deal for the wealthy.
They benefit from various public programs and
tax breaks aimed at the gleaming innovation hubs
and the high-paying jobs they spin off. People
who own or run large businesses and
organizations benefit from the competitive state
colleges and universities that graduate their
next generation of talent.
Eliminating the state sales tax on most goods
could also be a boon to some retailers — the
same ones struggling in part because of the
advantageous tax status afforded online vendors.
And given how geographically cozy the New
England states are, how much revenue are we
losing when residents along our northern border
go into New Hampshire to buy items, ranging from
TVs to laundry detergent, that are taxable in
Massachusetts?
At least for now, we should preserve the current
sales tax on at least one item: cars. The
motor-vehicle sales tax is also 6.25 percent,
but usually listed separate from the rest of our
sales and use taxes. The revenue stream — over
$800 million per year — comes in handy.
Massachusetts buyers can’t avoid it by shopping
in Nashua; out-of-state purchases are traceable
because residents must register their cars. Car
purchases are often financed, so consumers can
spread out the costs.
Will this make the state tax code more complex?
Residents who have to pay more are already
likely to use computers or paid help to do their
taxes, thus the added burden of brackets will be
relatively low. Tax complexity arguments usually
stem from the myriad of deductions and credits,
which this proposal does not address. A 4
percent “millionaires’ tax” is also being
considered as a 2018 referendum to bring in more
revenue. Moving to a progressive state income
tax complements this referendum because the top
bracket would likely start much lower than
$1,000,000.
I don’t expect Governor Charlie Baker to support
this proposal. But for 2018 gubernatorial
candidates and Beacon Hill Democrats, a less
regressive tax system could be a winning issue.
Massachusetts has a choice: Either stick with a
tax structure that soaks the poor and
underperforms in most years, or summon the
courage to make a big change.
Tom Emswiler is a public health advocate and
former congressional aide who lives in Quincy.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Earmarks are eternal
If it’s a $40,000 snowplow for clearing
sidewalks that the town of Hingham wants, then a
$40,000 snowplow for clearing sidewalks the town
of Hingham — median income $103,000, median home
value $766,000 — shall have.
But why on earth should the taxpayers of the
entire commonwealth pay for it?
Sadly that is how spending on Beacon Hill so
often works. Local spending needs become the
responsibility of state taxpayers, simply
because a lawmaker asks his colleagues to make
it happen and because leadership — for reasons
the public will never know — gives it the green
light.
That’s how amendment No. 82, which provides
$40,000 to the tony town of Hingham for that
piece of specialty public works equipment,
became part of the Senate budget last week.
Perhaps the only unusual thing is that the
amendment was sponsored by a Republican (Patrick
O’Connor of Weymouth).
Democrats got their fair share of pork, too.
Sen. Anne Gobi scored $15,000 for a private
group working to restore a windmill in
Brimfield.
Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton) managed to put
state taxpayers on the hook for $15,000 so the
town of Carver can design an addition to its
town library for the local Council on Aging.
And then there are the dozens of earmarks in the
tourism line item, which is the first-and-last
refuge of any decent pork-seeking lawmaker.
Most of these amendments are relatively small
potatoes, at least in the context of a $40
billion state budget.
And none of this is unique to the Senate. The
House filled its own tourism line item with
pork, too. Naturally there is a gazebo. (Isn’t
there always a gazebo?) The House OK’d
$25,000 for the town of Dracut to build a gazebo
in memory of a late, local pol.
But at what point does someone stand astride the
state budget and yell, “Stop!”
Last year Gov. Charlie Baker used his veto pen
to X out 497 earmarks to help bring the budget
back into balance; now many of them are rising
like zombies to appear in next year’s budget.
In authorizing the most hyperlocal earmarks,
lawmakers have all but forfeited their right to
complain about the state’s “revenue problem.”
Baker should make sure his veto pen still has
plenty of ink.
Associated Press
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Baker, Walsh announce tuition-free college pilot
program
BOSTON — Gov. Charlie Baker and Mayor Martin J.
Walsh have announced a tuition-free college
program.
The Republican governor and the Democratic mayor
on Monday launched the new college affordability
program for Boston high school graduates,
enabling low-income students to complete
four-year degrees without paying tuition or
mandatory fees.
The program, called The Boston Bridge, will be
open to all 2017 high school graduates who live
in the city.
The commonwealth and the city said they'll cover
students' tuition and fees. They'll take federal
Pell grants into account.
Baker said college affordability "too often
serves as a barrier" for students seeking
degrees. He said the new program is intended to
provide "more opportunities for a quality
education."
Walsh said the partnership means "a free
bachelor's degree is within reach" for
low-income students.
To qualify for the tuition-free program,
eligible students must meet federal Pell grant
income standards and enroll full time at Bunker
Hill Community College, Roxbury Community
College or Mass Bay Community College. The
students will be required to complete their
associates' degrees within two and a half years
before transferring to state public colleges or
state universities.
The new tuition-free college program builds on
Boston's Tuition Free Community College
initiative and the state's Commonwealth
Commitment, which were launched last year.
Walsh said in a statement that since launching
the city's program last year "we have helped
fifty Boston Public Schools graduates attend
community college."
State Higher Education Commissioner Carlos
Santiago said The Boston Bridge program was
built "to take students all the way from high
school to college commencement."
"Our message to students is clear — if you
commit the time and do the work, we'll be beside
you every step of the way to help you complete
your college journey while avoiding burdensome
debt," he said in a statement.
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Advocates Seek Repeal of 'Family Cap' on Welfare
Benefits
By Bob Salsberg
BOSTON (AP) — Jessica Frazier's second child was
a "family cap" baby, meaning that under
Massachusetts rules, the single mother from
Boston could not receive an increase in welfare
benefits to help care for her now 7 month-old
son.
The rule, established as part of a 1995 welfare
reform law, was meant to discourage parents on
welfare from conceiving additional children. It
states that children who are born after a family
begins receiving benefits are not eligible for
the additional $100 per child stipend and
clothing allowance from the state program called
Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent
Children.
Activists seeking to overturn the policy say it
only serves to punish children while falling far
short of its objective to keep more kids from
being born into poverty.
Frazier, who also has a 2-year-old daughter,
said she must get by on less than $500 in
monthly benefits. Even with child support from
the children's father, she struggles to afford
diapers and other basic necessities, or fill her
car with gasoline to get to job interviews.
"Normal things that people don't think (are)
what I have to think of on a daily basis," said
Frazier.
The Legislature's Committee on Children,
Families and Persons with Disabilities are
considering a bill that would abolish the cap, a
move that supporters say could help as many as
9,000 children.
Naomi Meyer, an attorney with Greater Boston
Legal Services, told the panel at a hearing
Tuesday that the state treats those children as
if they don't exist. The result is parents
forced to make difficult choices that affect the
entire family.
"There is no family that chooses to take care of
one child and not the other child," said Rep.
Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge Democrat who is one
of the sponsors of the bill.
Massachusetts is among 17 states with a family
cap still in place, according to an advocacy
coalition called the Campaign to Lift the Cap on
Kids.
Fiscal constraints could play into any decisions
the Legislature makes on the issue. Decker
estimated that eliminating the cap would result
in up to $13 million in added welfare costs for
the state each year.
The ranking Republicans on the committee, Rep.
Shaunna O'Connell, of Taunton, and Sen. Donald
Humason, of Westfield, did not return calls
seeking comment on the legislation.
With state tax collections coming in below
forecast in recent months, there appears little
room in the state budget for new discretionary
spending. But advocates framing the issue as one
of conscience are imploring the state to find
the necessary resources.
Under the rule, even children born to parents
not on welfare can be denied benefits if the
mother had recently received benefits.
Rachel Mulroy said she was on and off welfare
and in an abusive relationship during a period
from 2006 to 2012. Her second daughter was born
while she was not receiving benefits, but was
still subject to the cap.
"The rule was created under the assumption that
women were getting pregnant to have more
children to get welfare," said the New Bedford
woman, who has since earned a college degree and
works as a community activist. "I didn't have
her because I wanted to get some extra money."
The Attleboro Sun-Chronicle
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Attleboro voters soon to weigh an override
By George W. Rhodes
ATTLEBORO — Two words seldom found together in
the same sentence are Attleboro and override.
Since 1982, when it became possible for
residents of a municipality to override the
then-newly created tax-limiting law Proposition
2˝, the city has asked voters only once to do
it.
That was in 1991 when four measures were put on
the ballot in a general override election after
the city, along with many other communities
statewide, had suffered from a bad economy and
state aid cuts.
Officials asked residents to approve tax
increases of $500,000 for schools, $63,000 for
the fire department, $56,000 for the police
department and $94,000 for the public works
department, for a total of $713,000.
In general overrides, tax increases are
permanent. In today’s dollars that increase
would equal about $1.275 million.
Voters said “no” with emphasis.
The “no” vote percentages were 73, 78, 78 and 90
respectively for the four departments.
The subject hasn’t been broached seriously since
— until now.
City officials are planning to ask voters next
spring to increase their taxes to pay for a new
or renovated high school with a “debt exclusion”
override, which is different from a general
override because the tax increase is temporary.
While it’s technically “temporary” it will still
last a long time and will outlive some
taxpayers.
The increase could last 20 years or longer.
A new high school could cost about $263 million.
A renovation with additions could cost around
$283 million, according to preliminary
estimates.
City taxpayers would be responsible for about
half of those amounts, or $131.5 million if the
choice is to build a new school and $141.5
million if the decision is to renovate.
The state’s School Building Authority would pick
up the rest of the tab.
A third option to repair the high school is
considered an unlikely choice because it would
cost $197 million and do little to improve the
longevity of the building or to accomplish the
city’s aim to create a school suitable for 21st
century education.
Officials are hoping to get at least 50 years
and maybe as many as 75 out of a new school
that’s equipped to teach skills kids need as
they head into the brave new high-tech world,
which is changing almost day by day.
A final estimate on the costs won’t be made
until the end of the year.
Officials said the price could go up or down,
but the goal is to get it down once city
officials choose exactly what they hope to build
and present that choice to the School Building
Authority, for approval.
Fine tuning the design could result in
efficiencies that would reduce the cost.
But those reductions could be offset by the
bidding process, which is unpredictable and
dependent on the state of the economy and could
put estimates on or off target.
Another set of unknowns at this point is how
much of a hit the individual taxpayer would take
on his yearly bill.
Mayor Kevin Dumas said those figures are being
worked out.
The entire increase will be added over a number
of years because the city will borrow money as
it’s needed during the course of the project.
At this point there are many unknowns about the
project.
But what is known is that, statewide, voters
have approved debt exclusion tax hikes at far
greater rate than general or permanent
overrides.
School projects have especially gotten the
blessings of taxpayers.
Information on the state’s Department of Revenue
website show that 89 percent or almost 9 out of
10 debt exclusions tax increases are approved.
The DOR website lists 4,226 debt exclusion votes
since 1982.
Out of that number, 3,771 tax hikes were
approved and 455 were rejected.
Total vote count was 4.2 million in favor and
2.8 million opposed, or 60 percent in favor and
40 percent against.
By comparison, there were 4,279 general override
votes.
Out of that number 1,685 were approved, or 39
percent, and 2,594 or 61 percent were rejected.
School projects funded by debt exclusions were
approved at a slightly higher percentage than
all debt exclusion funded projects.
Out of the 4,226 debt exclusion override votes,
1,409 were for school projects.
Out of that number, 1,306 projects, or 93
percent, won at the ballot box and 103 lost.
Of the 103 that lost, nine overrides sought
money for school operating budgets rather than
capital projects. There were 20 such votes with
only 11, or 55 percent, being approved while 9,
or 45 percent, were rejected.
The debt exclusion numbers for schools include
elections in which a project may lose the first
time it’s on the ballot, but won in a later
election.
They also include some duplicates which were not
weeded out of the listings, however, the overall
percentages are accurate, if not exact.
It should also be noted that some elections are
missing, such as the Attleboro override vote
that took place in 1991.
When high school projects alone are considered,
the percent varies only a little.
Of the 1,409 school projects, 203 involved
requests to pay for new or renovated high
schools.
Out of that number, 91 percent or 184, got “yes”
votes and 19 got “no” votes.
Of all the high school projects, 65 were for new
schools. Out of that number 62 of the projects,
or 95 percent, were approved.
There were 116 renovation/addition projects. Of
that number, 103, or 89 percent, were approved.
The remaining 22 debt exclusion elections were
to fund high school feasibility studies,
architects or the purchase of land which were
approved at percentages of 91, 89 and 75 percent
respectively.
While the trend over 35 years shows that
residents across the state strongly approve of
building schools, only time will tell whether
that holds true in Attleboro, especially in the
face of modern-day costs.
Constructing a new high school at a cost of $263
million would be the city’s biggest project ever
and one of the state’s most expensive high
schools ever.
While the price tag is big, officials argue that
the city will get two schools for the money.
AHS is a comprehensive high school which means
it has career and technical education as well as
academic programs.
Plans for the new school call for an expansion
of the CTE program by adding four areas of
study.
CTE programs require more space than academic
programs and that adds to the cost, they said.
Meanwhile, the city’s alternative high school,
the Network Program, would be brought into the
building as well, which could be considered a
third high school, although a much smaller one.
A new school would encompass about 485,670
square feet, which is 57,670 square feet bigger
than the current building. It would have a
compact design to create economic and
operational efficiencies and to allow it to fit
next to the old high school on Rathbun Willard
Drive.
Under SBA rules. it’s being planned for a
student population of 1,725, or an increase of
about 75 over current numbers.
Cost estimates are made with 2021 dollars to
take inflation into account.
Officials insist that the school under
consideration is not a “Taj Mahal,” but is being
built to accommodate modern teaching methods
with few, if any, frills.
A concerted effort is being made to make areas
visited by the public to be easily accessible,
while at the same time improving the overall
security of the building by limiting entrances.
Savings are expected on energy and maintenance
costs which would allow more cash for classroom
expenses, they said.
While the numbers are big for the new school,
they’re not unprecedented.
In November, Somerville voters approved a debt
exclusion tax increase to pay for a $256 million
renovation/addition for their high school.
Waltham is paying $283.5 million for its high
school project and Lowell could be looking at a
bill of $344 million for its proposed new high
school.
The tax hike in Somerville was approved
overwhelmingly with 72 percent of the vote,
26,752 votes in favor and 10,374 against.
Once city voters know what the tax impacts are
and final cost estimates for the school are made
at the end of the year, the city council will be
asked to schedule a special election for late
winter or early spring of next year.
In the meantime, officials will finalize plans
and work to inform the community about the
project. That effort will be enhanced with reams
of information on the city’s website.
School and city officials are planning to meet
with parent-teacher organizations and the
public.
Vice-chairman of the school building committee
Jack Jacobi said his committee and all city
officials must establish the cost and fully vet
the project before they can urge the public to
vote for it.
“We have a whole lot of work to do over the next
six months to justify this to ourselves, never
mind the public,” he said. “We have to be able
to say to the public, we’ve done our homework
and we’ve done our due diligence and this is a
project we can recommend to the city of
Attleboro.”
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 4, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Community chest
Cities and towns that have adopted the Community
Preservation Act want the state to cough up more
money to offset the cost of their local
projects. And state lawmakers, of course, want
to keep their cities and towns happy.
So now comes a renewed push on Beacon Hill to
boost funding for the Community Preservation
Trust Fund, which provides state grants to local
communities for preservation of open space and
historic properties and for affordable housing.
And with it comes a pitch for higher fees for
the entire commonwealth.
Local funds for the CPA come from a surcharge on
municipal property tax bills. The state matching
grants come from a surcharge on recording fees
at state registries of deeds.
But supporters insist the $20 recording fee is
too low — and that with more and more
communities adopting the CPA, it doesn’t allow
for sufficient state grant funding.
So the Senate recently voted to jack up the
registry recording fees by 125 percent — to $45.
Yes, that means individuals in communities that
haven’t adopted the CPA would be paying
more than twice the current fee to fund
ballfields, bike paths and playgrounds in
communities, many of them quite wealthy, that
have.
A separate bill pending before the Legislature
would adjust registry fees to, well, whatever
amount is sufficient to guarantee a 50 percent
match from the state.
Of course rarely mentioned is the fact that the
law anticipated that the trust fund balance may
not always allow for the full state match. It
guarantees only that in the first round of
grants cities and towns will get at least 5
percent of the local amount raised.
There are other ways to boost funding in the
trust fund, without adding to the public’s
burden. In the House, for example, Rep. Brad
Jones (R-North Reading) called for transferring
funds out of the racehorse development fund,
where gaming revenue sits unspent. And Beacon
Hill routinely diverts a portion of surplus
state funds to the trust fund, when they’re
available.
CPA supporters believe the number of
participating communities and local projects
should determine how much money goes into the
state trust fund.
But it’s the balance in the trust fund that
ought to determine how much is available for
those elective municipal projects each
year. |
| |
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
|