|
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
Monday, July 10, 2017
Reducing profligate spending
increases is not "cuts"
|
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2017
JOINT COMMITTEE ON REVENUE: Joint Committee
on Revenue accepts testimony on bills pertaining to personal
income tax. Among the bills on the agenda is a Rep. Paul
Mark bill (H 1579) establishing a tax deduction for student
loan payment assistance employers make to employees, up to
$3,600 per qualified employee per year. Rep. Paul McMurtry
has filed a bill (H 1582) to create a tax deduction "equal
to 50 per cent of the cost of tuition and fee payments made
by the taxpayer to a public institution of higher
education." The
committee will also accept testimony on a handful of bills
filed by Republicans in both branches to reduce the state's
income tax rate to 5 percent. (Tuesday, 1 p.m.,
Hearing Room B-2)
State House News Service
Advances - Week of July 9, 2017
Stung by years of overly optimistic revenue
projections, the Legislature on Friday sent Governor Charlie
Baker a $40.2 billion budget marbled with limited cuts,
prompting one legislative leader to call it “the harshest
state budget since the last recession.”
The plan increases spending on health care
for the poor, aid to cities and towns, and K-12 education,
and represents an overall increase of about 2 percent, a
threadbare amount by recent Massachusetts standards.
The bottom line represents a reduction of
roughly $400 million to spending plans that passed both
chambers just months ago. Cuts from what lawmakers
originally passed hit an emergency shelter program for
homeless children, law enforcement, the state’s high court,
and a gamblers’ treatment initiative.
The budget paring sparked calls for new
revenue from some legislative Democrats. Senate President
Stanley C. Rosenberg, who said the state had not seen such
austerity in nearly a decade, took issue with the House’s
refusal to go along with his chamber’s bids to impose new
taxes....
Representative Brian S. Dempsey, the House
budget chairman, told reporters one of the ways lawmakers
bridged the gulf between anticipated revenues and spending
was to reduce increases in spending on several areas. For
example, he said the Department of Developmental Services
was originally going to get an $84 million increase. But
because of the tighter fiscal environment, it will now see a
smaller bump....
Lawmakers voted for their own pay raise in
January as part of an $18 million package. But they
struggled in the final days of budget negotiations, raising
temperatures between the two chambers as they grappled to
slice the budget after fresh evidence that this year’s tax
revenues would not fund their more optimistic spending
designs....
The accord was not filed until Friday
morning, leaving scant hours for lawmakers to review it
before votes in the afternoon. Negotiations over the annual
budget were conducted in secret, with even senior lawmakers
professing not to know details as late as Thursday night.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Legislature passes budget with $400m in cuts
The House and Senate long ago cut the public
out of their discussions of the annual state budget,
conducting most of their talks in a back room and combining
individual amendments into inscrutable “bundles” that ought
to come with decoder rings. This year House and Senate
leaders essentially cut their own members out of the
process, too, releasing the final $40.2 billion spending
plan Friday morning and holding a vote just hours later.
That means of course that the rank-and-file
members had almost no time to read or analyze the 327-page
budget, which was negotiated by a six-member conference
committee behind closed doors — and frankly we’re not
certain they would have had the inclination to review it
anyway. As long as they can skip right to their earmarks (gotta
get that gazebo money!), they seem perfectly content to take
the committee’s word that the budget is sound, vote “aye”
and head off to the beach for the weekend....
So why the rush-job? Well, at this point,
why not. The Democratic leadership knows the bobbleheads
will follow them anywhere. This is the same year the
Legislature pulled an end-run around the state constitution,
engineering a massive pay raise for members, and what price
have any of them paid for that? ...
Baker has 10 days to take action on the
budget, and his response — vetoes, amendments, etc. — will
prompt further discussion. But in the ongoing battle for
government transparency the public just lost more ground.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, July 10, 2017
The budget bypass
There’s nothing like a healthy drop in state
revenue (see above) to inspire calls for higher taxes. The
millionaires’ tax has been the big push lately. But now the
Sugar Mamas and Papas on Beacon Hill are renewing their call
for a tax on sweetened beverages....
The bill filed by Sen. Jason Lewis
(D-Winchester) and Rep. Kay Khan (D-Newton) calls for
varying levels of taxes depending on sugar content. There
would be a 24-cent tax on a 12-ounce can of sugary soda.
Syrups and powders would also be taxed heavily.
And there is even more to dislike under the
surface. The tax would be indexed to inflation — virtually
guaranteed to go up each year....
Supporters of the bill are looking for more
revenue, and they see no end to it in Mountain Dew and
Gatorade. They generously exempt infant formula. Oh, and
you’re off the hook if you order your jumbo Dunks with 10
sugars.
If this bill were really about public health
it would tax Snickers bars and sugar sold in 5-pound bags.
It’s really about dollars and cents, and a lazy way for the
state to collect more of them.
A Boston Herald editorial
Monday, July 10, 2017
Souring on this tax pitch
State lawmakers on Friday approved an annual
budget that imposes new fees on businesses to help pay the
state’s ever-rising health care costs, but they rejected a
controversial series of proposals from the Baker
administration to rein in those costs, drawing a rebuke from
the business community.
Advocates for the poor applauded the
Legislature’s decision to leave out policy changes that they
said would have hurt families who rely on public health
coverage. But employers said it was unfair of lawmakers to
ask them to pay more without also taking steps to attack the
underlying costs of the state Medicaid program, called
MassHealth....
Advocates for the poor applauded the
Legislature’s decision to leave out policy changes that they
said would have hurt families who rely on public health
coverage. But employers said it was unfair of lawmakers to
ask them to pay more without also taking steps to attack the
underlying costs of the state Medicaid program, called
MassHealth....
“When the administration was seeking support
for their package, they made it clear to the employer
community that they would accept this as a package only,”
said Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation....
NFIB, Mass. Taxpayers, Associated Industries
of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts, and other business
groups signed a letter Friday opposing the Legislature’s
decision to leave big MassHealth changes out of its budget.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 8, 2017
State budget includes new fees on businesses
to help the state pay for health care costs
Alan Sisitsky, a Springfield Democrat who
clashed with the leader of the Senate more than three
decades ago, died on Friday at the age of 75, according to
his family and an obituary....
In October 1981, Senate President William
Bulger expelled Sisitsky from the Senate chamber, according
to a Boston Globe article from the time. According to the
paper, Sisitsky had frequently disrupted Senate proceedings
and tried to strip Bulger of his presidency. After Bulger
ordered him removed from the Senate, Sisitsky reportedly
remarked it was "like being kicked out of a bordello." ...
In September 1983, Sisitsky penned a Globe
opinion column lambasting the top-down power structure of
Bulger's Senate.
"The internal structure of the Massachusetts
Legislature is so hierarchical, so authoritarian, that
election to the General Court merely constitutes admission
to a private club with full membership privileges afforded
only to the most supine, the most groveling of initiates, to
the minions who happily endorse the political epigram 'to
get ahead, go along,'" Sisitsky wrote. "The result is a
Legislature dominated by deferential underlings who confer
lavish praise on their leaders in exchange for additional
office space, more prestigious committee assignments and the
warm glow of collegial affection."
State House News Service
Monday, July 10, 2017
Former Bulger nemesis in Senate passes away at 75
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Tomorrow it's back to Beacon Hill for CLT for another day of
testimony before the Joint Committee on Revenue, to again
support bills to roll back the income tax rate to 5 percent.
It's only been twenty-seven years since it was hiked
"temporarily," only been seventeen years since the voters
overwhelmingly ordered the Legislature to roll it back to 5
percent by 2003, only fifteen years since the Legislature
"froze" the voters' mandate and replaced the rollback with
its own "trigger" scam.Here are the bills that will be
heard before the committee tomorrow:
Bill S.1642 - Senate - Sen. Bruce Tarr of Gloucester
An Act reducing the income tax
By Mr. Tarr, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate,
No. 1642) of Bruce E. Tarr, Timothy R. Whelan, David F.
DeCoste and Ryan C. Fattman for legislation to reduce
the income tax.
Bill H.1577 - House - Rep. Marc Lombardo of
Billerica
An Act relative to reducing the income tax to 5%
By Mr. Lombardo of Billerica, a petition (accompanied by
bill, House, No. 1577) of Marc T. Lombardo and others
relative to reducing the income tax to five percent.
Revenue.
Bill H.2606 - House - Rep. Brad Jones of North
Reading
An Act relative to an income tax rollback
By Mr. Jones of North Reading, a petition (accompanied
by bill, House, No. 2606) of Bradley H. Jones, Jr. and
others relative to the rate of taxation on income.
Revenue.
Bill H.2619 - House - Reps. James Lyons of Andover
and Shaunna O'Connell of Taunton
An Act relative to rolling back the income tax
By Representatives Lyons of Andover and O'Connell of
Taunton, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No.
2619) of James J. Lyons, Jr. and others for legislation
to reduce the income tax to five percent. Revenue.
Presenters: James J. Lyons, Jr., Shaunna L. O'Connell
CLT director of communications Chip Faulkner will again be present
before the committee to testify in support of the shamelessly stalled
income tax rollback, and to again pass out copies of " The
Promise" newspaper collage we created and published back in 1998.
On Saturday the Boston Globe reported ("Legislature
passes budget with $400m in cuts"):
Stung by years of overly
optimistic revenue projections, the Legislature on Friday sent
Governor Charlie Baker a $40.2 billion budget marbled with
limited cuts, prompting one legislative leader to call it “the
harshest state budget since the last recession.”
The plan increases spending
on health care for the poor, aid to cities and towns, and K-12
education, and represents an overall increase of about 2
percent, a threadbare amount by recent Massachusetts standards.
The bottom line represents
a reduction of roughly $400 million to spending plans that
passed both chambers just months ago. Cuts from what lawmakers
originally passed hit an emergency shelter program for homeless
children, law enforcement, the state’s high court, and a
gamblers’ treatment initiative.
The budget paring sparked
calls for new revenue from some legislative Democrats. Senate
President Stanley C. Rosenberg, who said the state had not seen
such austerity in nearly a decade, took issue with the House’s
refusal to go along with his chamber’s bids to impose new
taxes....
Representative Brian S.
Dempsey, the House budget chairman, told reporters one of the
ways lawmakers bridged the gulf between anticipated revenues and
spending was to reduce increases in spending on several areas.
For example, he said the Department of Developmental Services
was originally going to get an $84 million increase. But because
of the tighter fiscal environment, it will now see a smaller
bump....
The liberals' classic scam of calling reductions in
wishful big spending increases "cuts" in a budget has become
so predictable it's to be expected, but it's none the less
disgusting. The Legislature just whisked through a $40.2
billion state budget they're calling "the harshest state budget
since the last recession" with the usual deceitful hyperbole.
The budget the Legislature just sent to the governor
increases spending over last year's budget by $1.1 billion!
State House
News Service
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Budget vote expected on last day of FY16
The
$39.15 billion budget
accord (H 4450) agreed to Wednesday by six House and Senate
negotiators cut $750 million in projected revenue and $413 million
in proposed spending from the budget bills the branches agreed to in
April and May.
State
House News Service
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Rep riles colleagues during brief debate on $39.15 Bil budget
Members of the House roared in approval Thursday afternoon as
Speaker Robert DeLeo opened a roll call, ending what had been a
roughly 45-minute debate on the
$39.1 billion fiscal
2017 budget.
Rep. James Lyons, an Andover Republican, had extended the brief
discussion by arguing that spending cuts should be increased to
account for shrinking revenue estimates and protections should be
added to the legislation to ensure that those in the country
illegally cannot be granted licenses by the registrar of motor
vehicles.
Early discussion of the conference committee's budget, which
featured a lower bottom line than the $39.5 billion bills passed by
the House and Senate in April and May, had focused heavily on the
hard work of other members and staff, the priorities preserved in
the leaner spending document, and the fiscal prudence of acting
swiftly to adjust to lower revenue estimates announced this month.
But the attempted deception worsens:
The bottom line represents a reduction of roughly $400
million to spending plans that passed both chambers just
months ago. Cuts from what lawmakers originally passed
hit an emergency shelter program for homeless children,
law enforcement, the state’s high court, and a gamblers’
treatment initiative....
Representative Brian S. Dempsey, the House budget
chairman, told reporters one of the ways lawmakers
bridged the gulf between anticipated revenues and
spending was to
reduce increases in spending on several areas.
For example, he said the Department of Developmental
Services was originally going to get an $84 million
increase. But because of the tighter fiscal environment,
it will now see a smaller bump.
The Legislature didn't "cut" anything from
the budget; they agreed the state couldn't afford all the
increases they'd loaded into the initial House and Senate versions.
The budget they sent to the governor Friday afternoon is $1.1 billion
more than last year's budget — and
last year's budget ran out of money before the fiscal year ended.
The governor is still trying to
scrape together funds to balance last year's overspending
budget imposed by the Legislature, but it just sent him an even
bigger one.
Maverick former-state Senator
Alan Sisitsky (D-Springfield) has passed away. He was an
unique character in the Legislature and will be missed by some
— though not by many among the Beacon Hill
Insiders Club. Never mind speaking truth to power, Sen.
Sisitsky tried to overthrow the reigning despot, Senate President
Billy Bulger. In 1843 Ralph Waldo Emerson sagely warned: "Never
strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him." Sisitsky
failed in his coup and The King had him thrown out of the Massachusetts
Senate, but the good senator had the last word and it still rings clear
and true:
"The internal
structure of the Massachusetts Legislature is so hierarchical,
so authoritarian, that election to the General Court merely
constitutes admission to a private club with full membership
privileges afforded only to the most supine, the most groveling
of initiates, to the minions who happily endorse the political
epigram 'to get ahead, go along.' The result is a
Legislature dominated by deferential underlings who confer
lavish praise on their leaders in exchange for additional office
space, more prestigious committee assignments and the warm glow
of collegial affection."
Sadly, we no longer have any Democrats like Senator Alan Sisitsky.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Legislature passes budget with $400m in cuts
By Jim O’Sullivan and Joshua Miller
Stung by years of overly optimistic revenue
projections, the Legislature on Friday sent
Governor Charlie Baker a $40.2 billion budget
marbled with limited cuts, prompting one
legislative leader to call it “the harshest
state budget since the last recession.”
The plan increases spending on health care for
the poor, aid to cities and towns, and K-12
education, and represents an overall increase of
about 2 percent, a threadbare amount by recent
Massachusetts standards.
The bottom line represents a reduction of
roughly $400 million to spending plans that
passed both chambers just months ago. Cuts from
what lawmakers originally passed hit an
emergency shelter program for homeless children,
law enforcement, the state’s high court, and a
gamblers’ treatment initiative.
The budget paring sparked calls for new revenue
from some legislative Democrats. Senate
President Stanley C. Rosenberg, who said the
state had not seen such austerity in nearly a
decade, took issue with the House’s refusal to
go along with his chamber’s bids to impose new
taxes.
“It would have been somewhat better had it
contained the Senate’s modest revenue proposals
including those on Airbnb, Internet hotel
resellers, flavored cigars, film tax, and the
Community Preservation Act,” Rosenberg said in a
statement. “We can take some measure of pride in
what we were able to do for local aid, children,
and veterans, but too many were left behind.”
Representative Brian S. Dempsey, the House
budget chairman, told reporters one of the ways
lawmakers bridged the gulf between anticipated
revenues and spending was to reduce increases in
spending on several areas. For example, he said
the Department of Developmental Services was
originally going to get an $84 million increase.
But because of the tighter fiscal environment,
it will now see a smaller bump.
The plan relies on lawmakers’ assumption that
more than $200 million they are appropriating
will not be spent — instead remaining in
accounts across state government — a practice
watchdogs call unwise.
It also sets aside at least $50 million for the
state’s rainy day fund and $100 million for
supplemental spending needs over the course of
the year, which could range from snow and ice
costs to paying for lawyers for the poor. But
insiders say other areas, such as marijuana
regulation and sheriffs, will also surely need
supplemental funds later in the fiscal year.
Lawmakers voted for their own pay raise in
January as part of an $18 million package. But
they struggled in the final days of budget
negotiations, raising temperatures between the
two chambers as they grappled to slice the
budget after fresh evidence that this year’s tax
revenues would not fund their more optimistic
spending designs.
“In some ways, this budget is a fiscally prudent
response to another tax revenue shortfall —
notably its commitment to a rainy day fund
deposit,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation.
“However, in other aspects, the budget is
shortsighted; for example it does not include
any long-term MassHealth reforms and relies on a
new $200 million employer assessment, the
revenue from which is questionable given the
governor’s commitment to only support the
[assessment] as part of a larger health care
reform package.”
Baker proposed a wide-ranging plan that he said
would reduce health care costs, but the
Legislature only put part of it in the budget,
including a fee on employers to raise $200
million to help fund the rising costs of the
state’s Medicaid program.
House lawmakers voted, 140-9, to approve the
full budget accord shortly after 3:30 p.m.
Friday. A short time later, the Senate voted,
36-2, to do the same.
Baker, who now has 10 days to sign the budget or
veto sections of it, was noncommittal to the
accord that, after weeks of prolonged
negotiations, ultimately sped through the
chambers Friday on its way to his desk.
“The Baker-Polito administration appreciates the
Legislature’s work to deliver a budget and will
carefully review their proposal,” said William
F. Pitman, Baker’s press secretary.
The spending plan drew mixed reaction from
advocates.
“Representatives and senators are clearly
protecting and prioritizing municipal and school
aid,” said Geoff Beckwith, the executive
director of the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, which represents cities and towns.
“Family shelters are underfunded,” said Libby
Hayes, executive director of Homes for Families,
a nonprofit that aims to end homelessness. “It
will remain a challenge to address homelessness,
and curb spending on shelter without more
investments in housing subsidies.”
The accord was not filed until Friday morning,
leaving scant hours for lawmakers to review it
before votes in the afternoon. Negotiations over
the annual budget were conducted in secret, with
even senior lawmakers professing not to know
details as late as Thursday night.
Priyanka Dayal McCluskey of the Globe staff
contributed to this report.
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 10, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
The budget bypass
The House and Senate long ago cut the public out
of their discussions of the annual state budget,
conducting most of their talks in a back room
and combining individual amendments into
inscrutable “bundles” that ought to come with
decoder rings. This year House and Senate
leaders essentially cut their own members out of
the process, too, releasing the final $40.2
billion spending plan Friday morning and holding
a vote just hours later.
That means of course that the rank-and-file
members had almost no time to read or analyze
the 327-page budget, which was negotiated by a
six-member conference committee behind closed
doors — and frankly we’re not certain they would
have had the inclination to review it anyway. As
long as they can skip right to their earmarks (gotta
get that gazebo money!), they seem perfectly
content to take the committee’s word that the
budget is sound, vote “aye” and head off to the
beach for the weekend.
The warp-speed “debate” and vote were entirely
avoidable. Yes, we’re more than a week into the
fiscal year without a budget in place. But Gov.
Charlie Baker had already signed a temporary
measure to keep bills paid through July. The
conference committee could have released the
compromise budget Friday, and scheduled a vote
for next week, at least paying lip service to
the idea that members had a clue what they were
voting on. It’s not as if they had to rush the
vote so they didn’t lose anyone; the thing
sailed through.
So why the rush-job? Well, at this point, why
not. The Democratic leadership knows the
bobbleheads will follow them anywhere. This is
the same year the Legislature pulled an end-run
around the state constitution, engineering a
massive pay raise for members, and what price
have any of them paid for that?
Plus now they have more time to override any
Baker vetoes, which they will also do without
debate.
A review of the final budget this year was
particularly important. The plan tops $40
billion for the first time, and is based on
revenues that are $733 million below what
budget-writers had originally planned for. There
are 150 outside sections, several policy
changes, including a controversial new fee for
employers whose workers sign up for free or
subsidized health insurance.
Baker has 10 days to take action on the budget,
and his response — vetoes, amendments, etc. —
will prompt further discussion. But in the
ongoing battle for government transparency the
public just lost more ground.
The Boston Herald
Monday, July 10, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Souring on this tax pitch
There’s nothing like a healthy drop in state
revenue (see above) to inspire calls for higher
taxes. The millionaires’ tax has been the big
push lately. But now the Sugar Mamas and Papas
on Beacon Hill are renewing their call for a tax
on sweetened beverages.
For the bill’s sponsors it would be a two-fer —
tapping a revenue source they’ve been salivating
over for years, and an easy way to
micromanage their constituents’ dietary choices.
The bill filed by Sen. Jason Lewis
(D-Winchester) and Rep. Kay Khan (D-Newton)
calls for varying levels of taxes depending on
sugar content. There would be a 24-cent tax on a
12-ounce can of sugary soda. Syrups and powders
would also be taxed heavily.
And there is even more to dislike under the
surface. The tax would be indexed to inflation —
virtually guaranteed to go up each year. The
bill forbids chain restaurants from selling
kids’ meals if the “default drink” contains
added sugar. It requires warning labels on
beverage ads and requires schools to begin
teaching kids how to analyze advertising for
food, beverages, drugs and alcohol.
Sure, because what classroom teachers really
need is a mandate to teach kids how to tell
whether a Big Mac is fattening.
Supporters of the bill are looking for more
revenue, and they see no end to it in Mountain
Dew and Gatorade. They generously exempt infant
formula. Oh, and you’re off the hook if you
order your jumbo Dunks with 10 sugars.
If this bill were really about public health it
would tax Snickers bars and sugar sold in
5-pound bags. It’s really about dollars and
cents, and a lazy way for the state to collect
more of them.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, July 8, 2017
State budget includes new fees on businesses to
help the state pay for health care costs
By Priyanka Dayal McCluskey
State lawmakers on Friday approved an annual
budget that imposes new fees on businesses to
help pay the state’s ever-rising health care
costs, but they rejected a controversial series
of proposals from the Baker administration to
rein in those costs, drawing a rebuke from the
business community.
Advocates for the poor applauded the
Legislature’s decision to leave out policy
changes that they said would have hurt families
who rely on public health coverage. But
employers said it was unfair of lawmakers to ask
them to pay more without also taking steps to
attack the underlying costs of the state
Medicaid program, called MassHealth.
“We’re very disappointed,” said Christopher
Carlozzi, state director of the National
Federation of Independent Business, or NFIB.
“This was sold to the business community as a
temporary assessment that would directly go to
relieving and reining in the cost of MassHealth.
Without those reforms within this package, we
feel the underlying cost is not going to be
addressed.”
The annual budget includes a plan crafted by the
Baker administration to raise $200 million a
year in new revenue from fees on employers. An
existing assessment that almost all businesses
already pay, called the employer medical
assistance contribution, or EMAC, will increase
from $51 to $77 per employee. Employers whose
workers currently receive public health benefits
also will pay as much as $750 per worker.
The new employer fees are to be phased out after
two years. To help offset the costs for
employers, the Legislature agreed to lower the
rate of increase in state unemployment insurance
premiums.
But the budget omits a series of other changes
requested by the Baker administration, including
a proposal to move thousands of families and
individuals off MassHealth and onto private
health plans by changing eligibility rules. The
administration also wanted lawmakers to approve
a new kind of care provider called a dental
therapist, strengthen pricing requirements on
certain insurance plans, and make many other
changes to rein in spending.
MassHealth covers about 1.9 million state
residents and costs more than $16 billion a
year. The costs are split between the state and
federal governments.
It’s unclear whether the administration will
accept the Legislature’s decision to ask
employers to pay more for MassHealth without
making other changes to the program. Governor
Charlie Baker’s office did not directly respond
Friday when asked how he would handle the issue.
“The administration will continue to pursue the
reforms necessary to stabilize the health care
safety net and protect taxpayers from picking up
the tab for more workers’ health coverage,”
Billy Pitman, a spokesman for Baker, said in a
statement.
The governor has several options once he
receives the budget, including signing the
document or sending it back to legislators with
changes for further debate.
“When the administration was seeking support for
their package, they made it clear to the
employer community that they would accept this
as a package only,” said Eileen McAnneny,
president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation.
Legislators said they didn’t have enough time to
consider all of the administration’s health care
proposals, which they received just a couple
weeks ago. But State Representative Brian S.
Dempsey, the House budget chairman, said the
proposals deserve a closer look.
“I applaud them for their work,” Dempsey said
reporters Friday. “It takes time. You’re dealing
with a lot of stakeholders, a lot of interests.
I think it’s positive that we have those
proposals to go back to and look at.”
The Senate budget chief, Karen E. Spilka, said
in an interview that she’d be open to
reconsidering the proposals but that “there
should be more time, and the process should be
more transparent.”
NFIB, Mass. Taxpayers, Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Business
Roundtable, the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, and other business groups signed
a letter Friday opposing the Legislature’s
decision to leave big MassHealth changes out of
its budget.
“Further delays to meaningful health care cost
reforms are unacceptable and unwise. The
Commonwealth must not lose sight of this urgent
need for MassHealth and commercial health
insurance reforms and we call for the rapid
approval of the reform package in its entirety
by the end of July,” the business groups said.
The administration was criticized by health care
advocates and some Democrats last week for
proposing policy changes that would cause many
poor families to pay more out of pocket for
their health coverage — and for raising the
proposals so late. The lengthy plan was sent to
a small committee of lawmakers as they were
finalizing a budget behind closed doors in late
June. The proposals have not been publicly
debated.
Advocates had raised concerns about two policies
in particular: One change would have allowed the
administration to shift about 140,000 adults,
including 100,000 parents, from MassHealth to
commercial insurance plans on the state Health
Connector, where they would have received less
generous coverage at higher out-of-pocket costs.
Another proposal would have barred many
low-income adults with access to
employer-sponsored health insurance from
obtaining MassHealth.
“We’re definitely relieved that those changes
were not included in the conference budget,”
said Victoria Pulos, a health care lawyer at the
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. “We look
forward to working with the administration and
coming up with alternatives that aren’t so
harmful to MassHealth members.”
Brian Rosman, policy director at Health Care For
All, said given that Republicans in Congress are
working to repeal and replace the Affordable
Care Act — which could destabilize health care
programs in Massachusetts and other states —
this is not the right time “to be messing with
major changes to MassHealth and Connector
programs.”
But Jon B. Hurst, president of the retailers
association, said changes to MassHealth are
necessary. “We do not want an assessment that is
absent reforms of this system.”
State House News Service
Monday, July 10, 2017
Former Bulger nemesis in Senate passes away at
75
By Andy Metzger
Alan Sisitsky, a Springfield Democrat who
clashed with the leader of the Senate more than
three decades ago, died on Friday at the age of
75, according to his family and an obituary.
A Harvard- and Yale-educated former member of
the House, Sisitsky served in the Senate for a
decade until 1982 and later practiced law in
Springfield, according to the obituary.
In October 1981, Senate President William Bulger
expelled Sisitsky from the Senate chamber,
according to a Boston Globe article from the
time. According to the paper, Sisitsky had
frequently disrupted Senate proceedings and
tried to strip Bulger of his presidency. After
Bulger ordered him removed from the Senate,
Sisitsky reportedly remarked it was "like being
kicked out of a bordello."
In February 1982, Sisitsky's family hospitalized
him for "physical and emotional fatigue,"
according to the Globe. In September 1983,
Sisitsky penned a Globe opinion column
lambasting the top-down power structure of
Bulger's Senate.
"The internal structure of the Massachusetts
Legislature is so hierarchical, so
authoritarian, that election to the General
Court merely constitutes admission to a private
club with full membership privileges afforded
only to the most supine, the most groveling of
initiates, to the minions who happily endorse
the political epigram 'to get ahead, go along,'"
Sisitsky wrote. "The result is a Legislature
dominated by deferential underlings who confer
lavish praise on their leaders in exchange for
additional office space, more prestigious
committee assignments and the warm glow of
collegial affection."
Sisitsky died at the Jewish Nursing Home in
Longmeadow. He is survived by his wife Carol
Sisitsky, his son Thomas Hodges and other family
members. |
| |
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
|