|
Help save yourself
— join CLT
today! |
CLT introduction and membership application |
What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone |
Make a contribution to support
CLT's work by clicking the button above
Ask your friends to join too |
Visit CLT on Facebook |
Barbara Anderson's Great Moments |
Follow CLT on Twitter |
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
"Hope" is not a strategy,
Gov.
|
Gov. Charlie Baker has devised a
well-balanced plan for controlling the skyrocketing cost of
the MassHealth program by asking both employers and
beneficiaries to dig a little deeper. The Democrats who
control the Legislature now need to drop the excuses, and
take action on the plan.
And if it means (gasp!) working through
August? Well, consider it a trade-off for the fat pay raises
they gave themselves this year.
MassHealth, as the Medicaid program is known
here, covers more than one in four Massachusetts residents
and is devouring more tax dollars every year. Baker’s
proposal would ask more of employers — increasing an
existing employer medical contribution fee from $50 to $77
per employee, and imposing a new $750, per-employee fee on
businesses whose low-income workers reject their employer’s
plan in favor of MassHealth.
Baker has called for coupling those new fees
with a series of reforms, including transferring 140,000
adults currently on MassHealth into commercial insurance
plans offered through the state Health Connector. They
likely would still pay no premiums, but would have slightly
higher out-of-pocket costs.
(The governor would also like to revive the
“gate” that once prevented low-income Massachusetts adults
who have access to an employer-sponsored plan from enrolling
in MassHealth, which was dismantled by Obamacare. The change
would require federal approval.)
Baker asked legislative budget-writers to
include his changes in the final budget, but they had their
excuse at the ready: He didn’t give them enough time to vet
the plan. As if what he was proposing was completely foreign
to them. And as if they’ve never adopted major policy
changes on the fly.
No, the simple truth is that Democratic
lawmakers are allergic to changes that affect MassHealth
eligibility. They were perfectly content to adopt the new
fees as a stand-alone piece, but there needs to be balance
here.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Budget in the balance
House and Senate Democrats, insisting they
needed more time to consider strategies to control cost
growth in MassHealth and the broader health care system,
turned aside Gov. Charlie Baker's proposed Medicaid reforms
on Wednesday as they worked to return to him a $200 million
assessment on employers needed to balance the budget.
Baker and major business groups have been
insisting that the new employer fees to pay for growth in
the MassHealth program be packaged with longer-term cost
saving measures, including a shift of 140,000 low-income
residents from Medicaid to subsidized commercial plans
offered through the Connector.
Legislative leaders, however, have balked at
rushing to accept a proposal that Baker offered in June and
which would impact coverage for thousands of low-income
families without fully exploring the potential impacts and
alternatives to save money....
The House rejected the governor's budget
amendment 41-116, with seven Democrats joining all but one
Republican in supporting the governor's plan. The Senate
followed suit on a party-line vote of 6-31. One more vote is
required in the Senate to return the budget sections without
MassHealth reform to Baker.
Baker will have to choose whether to accept
the employer assessments without reforming MassHealth and
risk alienating the business community, or veto the
assessments. The assessments are accompanied by a proposal
to slow planned increases in unemployment insurance rates
paid by businesses, saving employers $334 million over the
next two years.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Passing on Baker's MassHealth plan, Dems say they'll work on
their own
Democratic lawmakers raised a host of
concerns about Gov. Charlie Baker’s proposed reforms to the
MassHealth program, including uncertainty over changes to
health care policy that might come out of Washington.
But without that excuse they would have
found something else. Beacon Hill is hungry for the $200
million in new employer assessments that Baker proposed, as
a way to offset higher health care costs that have blown a
crater in the state budget. But they have little interest in
embracing the reform side of the equation....
In the absence of the reforms the governor
could veto the employer assessments, though it would cancel
out $200 million in revenue needed to fund MassHealth and
make a bad budget situation worse. The inevitable anger from
the business community should be pointed directly at Beacon
Hill Democrats.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Time to take medicine
Do not pass go, but do collect $200 million.
That was the message from Democrats on
Beacon Hill to Gov. Charlie Baker this week, marking what
amounts to the most significant, if not the first major
policy dust-up between the Kumbaya Caucus of Three at the
State House.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate
President Stanley Rosenberg threw a brush-back pitch when -
in a mere matter of days after Baker signed the fiscal 2018
budget - they went along with Baker's request for a swift
public hearing on his proposed MassHealth eligibility
reforms.
But the court officers barely had time to
lock the doors and shut the lights out in Gardner Auditorium
when word trickled out that the Legislature would vote the
next day to rebuff the governor and his call for Medicaid
reforms to be packaged with new fees and fines on employers
to pay for health insurance for the low-income and disabled.
The Democratic leadership decided that
reform can wait, but the revenues can not. And so both
branches voted overwhelmingly, and for the second time, to
send Baker new employer assessments to pay for MassHealth
without the administration and business community's desired
cost saving measures.
"I'll take a look at it when it gets to my
desk and then we'll make a decision and I'll be sure to let
you know when we make that decision," Baker said Thursday
after the dust had settled, knowing he has three choices.
Baker can sign the assessments and risk
alienating the business community, veto the bill and force
lawmakers to override, for which they have the votes, or let
the assessments become law in protest without his signature
after 10 days.
State House News Service
Friday, July 28, 2017
Weekly Roundup - Someone has to be the thimble
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
Governor Charlie Baker, backing away from a
showdown with Democratic lawmakers, said Tuesday that he
will sign legislation that imposes $200 million in higher
fees on businesses to fund health care for the poor, even
though the measure omits his plans for reining in the
state’s Medicaid program.
Baker’s decision means he is shelving — for
now — his plans to curb the rising cost of MassHealth,
including one approach that would have moved 140,000 adults
from the program onto commercial health plans. Lawmakers
have twice rebuffed that proposal, most recently last week
after the administration had urged them to approve it and
the employer fee as a package.
His decision is likely to please health care
advocates but anger business groups, which had said they
would agree to higher fees only if the state began to reduce
the cost of MassHealth, which accounts for $16 billion in
annual spending, split between the state and federal
governments.
Asked how he would respond to employers
unhappy that he agreed to higher fees without the cost
savings, Baker said, “I believe this is the best way for us
to ensure that they and we and the Legislature get what we
all want, which is a sustainable MassHealth program.”
Baker also said he hopes to continue to work
with lawmakers to develop a plan to control spending on
MassHealth, which provides benefits for 1.9 million
low-income, elderly, and disabled residents. He said he
hopes both sides can reach an agreement by the fall.
“The Legislature told us they would work
with us on this, and we’re going to take them at their
word,” Baker said at the State House....
The bill Baker plans to sign increases a fee
that most businesses already pay, called the employer
medical assistance contribution, or EMAC. Beginning Jan. 1,
the fee would increase from $51 to $77 per employee. That
would raise $75 million in annual revenue for MassHealth.
But employers whose workers currently
receive public health insurance benefits would pay as much
as $750 more per worker. That would raise $125 million in
annual revenue. Both fees will end in two years.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Baker backs down on demand to rein in MassHealth costs
Gov. Charlie Baker will sign into law $200
million in new fees and fines on Massachusetts employers to
help pay for MassHealth without sought-after reforms to the
program, putting his faith in the Legislature to follow
through on pledges to work with him this fall to control
growth in Medicaid and health care spending.
Risking political backlash from influential
business groups, Baker, in an interview in his office
Tuesday, said he hoped the decision to sign, and not veto,
the measure on Wednesday would remove the controversial
employer assessments as a hot potato in the Beacon Hill
debate over rising Medicaid spending....
"We urge Governor Baker to veto the health
care assessment in its current form. Not only do we believe
that the time has come to prioritize reining in MassHealth
spending, but we fear that the "temporary" healthcare
assessment may ultimately be added to the long list of
permanent costs for Massachusetts small businesses. Our
members already struggle to provide health coverage for
their workers and do not need an additional expense to make
a bad situation worse," National Federation of Independent
Business Massachusetts State Director Christopher Carlozzi
said in a statement last week....
When asked how intends to smooth over his
decision with business groups like Associated Industries of
Massachusetts and the NFIB, Baker said, "I believe that this
is the best way to ensure that they and we and the
Legislature get what we all want, which is a sustainable
MassHealth program."
One assessment will boost a per-employee
fee, known as the Employer Medical Assistance Contribution,
from $51 to $77 per year for employers. The other will
penalize employers with a fine of up to $750 per employee if
their workers choose MassHealth even though they have access
to affordable insurance through work.
Both assessments will sunset after two
years.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Baker will agree to new health care fees, fines on employers
The state’s largest retail trade association
plans to appeal directly to Massachusetts voters in November
2018 to lower the state sales tax and possibly establish a
permanent sales tax holiday.
The Retailers Association of Massachusetts
plans to file state ballot initiatives to cut the current
6.25 percent state sales tax rate to 4.5 percent or 5
percent. It also may include language asking voters to
approve an annual two-day sales tax holiday each August.
The initiatives are aimed at helping the
trade group’s small business members in absence of state
legislative action to remedy what it calls economic inequity
and bad tax policy. “We keep explaining to them the
problems, and there has been no action,” the group’s
president, Jon Hurst, said....
The retail association plans to file four
ballot initiatives with the state attorney general’s office
today and likely will decide on a single one in the next six
weeks to put before voters in 2018 after talking with its
members, business groups and others.
It’s the first time the trade group has
filed a ballot initiative since 1994, when it successfully
pushed for a further overhaul of the state’s Blue Laws to
allow retailers to open Sunday mornings.
“We don’t take this lightly,” Hurst said.
“It’s a difficult, costly process. It’s a process we’d
prefer to avoid. We would rather work with the Legislature.”
Beacon Hill lawmakers review all ballot
initiatives from January to June, and have the opportunity
to pass legislation if they choose, he noted.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Retailers eye reining in sales tax
Group aims to lower rate with 2018 ballot question
Massachusetts voters in November 2018 may
have a major tax cut on their ballot to go along with a
proposed surtax on high income households.
Retail industry officials are poised to file
initiative petitions that would reduce the 6.25 percent
sales tax rate to either 5 percent or 4.5 percent, the News
Service has learned....
The [Retailers Association of Massachusetts]
plans to talk to its members in August before deciding which
of four questions to build a campaign around.
The four options are reducing the sales tax
to 4.5 percent, reducing the sales tax to 5 percent,
reducing the sales tax to 4.5 percent and establishing a
permanent two-day sales tax holiday in August, and reducing
the sales tax to 5 percent and establishing an annual
two-day sales tax holiday in August.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Retailers will file sales tax cut ballot question
The left-leaning coalition that used the
initiative petition process to get an earned sick time law
on the books in 2014 is now looking to load up the 2018
ballot with three proposals: an income surtax on high
earners, a $15 minimum wage by 2022, and a measure seeking
guaranteed paid family and medical leave.
Raise Up Massachusetts is familiar with
using the ballot as leverage. The group used the threat of a
ballot question to spur the Legislature in 2014 to raise the
minimum wage to its current level, $11 an hour, and the new
plans show a continued commitment to addressing income
inequality in Massachusetts.
Raise Up Massachusetts on Monday confirmed
plans to submit language for the two ballot questions to
Attorney General Maura Healey's office on Wednesday, the
deadline to propose initiative petitions. A constitutional
amendment, backed by the coalition, proposing a 4 percent
surtax on incomes over $1 million to raise revenue intended
for education and transportation, is already on track for
the ballot....
Small businesses are still absorbing the
cost of the 2014 laws, National Federation of Independent
Business Massachusetts director Christopher Carlozzi said.
He said the coalition's two new proposals could place an
added burden on NFIB members, which have an average of five
employees.
State House News Service
Monday, July 31, 2017
Taxes, wages, benefits part of coalition's three-pronged
2018 ballot agenda
Progressives in Massachusetts are going all
in on the 2018 ballot. Predictably, it turns out it’s not
just about millionaires anymore.
The coalition of labor unions, community and
religious groups known as Raise Up Massachusetts still plans
to continue its campaign for a higher tax on wealthy
individuals, of course. But they’re essentially tripling
down — also backing a proposed ballot initiative that would
mandate a $15 minimum wage and one that would expand paid
sick leave and family leave rights for workers....
The new ballot push is also proof that, when
it comes to the group’s wage and benefit demands, there
simply is no ceiling.
In 2014 the same coalition negotiated a
higher minimum wage — to the current $11 an hour. The
“highest in the nation” distinction didn’t last for long,
though, and so they’re back to insist that even part-time
grocery store baggers are entitled to $15 an hour (and
$22.50 on Sundays).
The group also backed a successful 2014
ballot initiative that guaranteed 40 hours of paid sick
leave for all Massachusetts workers. As expected, that was
just a foot in the door.
And don’t think for a minute that the
campaign for a millionaire’s tax will stop at, well,
millionaires. Once the constitution is amended to allow for
different income tax rates based on earnings, it will be a
very short journey to higher rates for those earning
$500,000, or $250,000. You get the idea.
One labor union executive pushing the
initiatives insists they will help Massachusetts “build an
economy that works for all of us, not just those at the
top.”
If they’re successful, the economy may not
“work” much at all.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Expensive triple threat
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
It's good to be back at just my real job
— with my computer
repairman's hat cast aside at least for a while. I
much prefer my usual 10-12 hour days six and seven days a
week to those blurry 18-20 hour marathon days and nights of
last week. You don't appreciate how nice it is to eat
and sleep until you're deprived of it, but I'm recovering
nicely. At last I can get on with all the news I've
been gathering but didn't have the time to pass on to you.
On Monday, July 17, Governor Baker returned the
Legislature's $40.2 billion FY 2018 budget, after vetoing
$320 million of wasteful spending from it. Now it's the
Legislatures turn again to override his vetoes or not.
On July 26 the State House News Service reported:
[Rep. Paul Donato,
the second assistant majority leader] said he
believes the House will consider overriding some of
Gov. Baker's spending vetoes in the fiscal 2018
budget when lawmakers return. He said House leaders
in September will know July and August revenue
collection totals before deciding which, if any, of
the spending vetoes they want to override.
"Since we're not going to have any formal sessions,
I would assume we're going to be waiting until after
Labor Day" . . . Donato said.
On that same day the House voted 41-116 to eliminate the
governor's MassHealth reforms, but of course to keep the
$200 million that accompanied it from new fees on employers.
The Senate quickly followed the lead on a party-line vote of
6-31 and sent it back to the governor: More money, no
reforms.
So apparently the Legislature, on vacation until after
Labor Day weekend, will return and then take up overrides of
the governor's other vetoes, and we know how that will go.
One gubernatorial
reform
trashed,
more
overrides
to come after legislators are fattened, tanned and rested up.
We can only hope that they don't secretly decide during
their idle time while lounging on the beach sipping umbrella
drinks that they need another obscene pay raise.
The Boston Globe today reported:
"Baker also
said he hopes to continue to work with lawmakers to
develop a plan to control spending on MassHealth,
which provides benefits for 1.9 million low-income,
elderly, and disabled residents. He said he hopes
both sides can reach an agreement by the fall.
“'The
Legislature told us they would work with us on this,
and we’re going to take them at their word,' Baker
said at the State House."
Guv, "hope" is not a strategy —
especially here in The People's Republic of Taxachusetts.
If you've missed it, Charlie, for most hope is almost
non-existent here.
And c'mon Guv, please don't tell us you
bought into this too:
"Both fees will end in two
years," The Boston Globe reported —
The State House News Service confirmed
"Both assessments will sunset
after two years."
The other trusting Charlie B. famously celebrating the
fruits of "hope"
Should we hope that's true too?
I don't know about him, but I've been-there-heard-that
too many times to not have learned a thing or two.
The Boston Herald editorial on more Gimme Lobby grabs
today ("Expensive triple threat") noted: "The new
ballot push is also proof that, when it comes to the group’s
wage and benefit demands, there simply is no ceiling."
For decades we've called this "More Is Never Enough (MINE),"
and more never will be until they have it all and leave us
with nothing.
We know what to vote against in November
— and that list just
keeps growing. Maybe we'll have something positive to
vote for with a sales tax rollback potentially on the
same ballot.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Budget in the balance
Gov. Charlie Baker has devised a well-balanced
plan for controlling the skyrocketing cost of
the MassHealth program by asking both employers
and beneficiaries to dig a little deeper. The
Democrats who control the Legislature now need
to drop the excuses, and take action on the
plan.
And if it means (gasp!) working through August?
Well, consider it a trade-off for the fat pay
raises they gave themselves this year.
MassHealth, as the Medicaid program is known
here, covers more than one in four Massachusetts
residents and is devouring more tax dollars
every year. Baker’s proposal would ask more of
employers — increasing an existing employer
medical contribution fee from $50 to $77 per
employee, and imposing a new $750, per-employee
fee on businesses whose low-income workers
reject their employer’s plan in favor of
MassHealth.
Baker has called for coupling those new fees
with a series of reforms, including transferring
140,000 adults currently on MassHealth into
commercial insurance plans offered through the
state Health Connector. They likely would still
pay no premiums, but would have slightly higher
out-of-pocket costs.
(The governor would also like to revive the
“gate” that once prevented low-income
Massachusetts adults who have access to an
employer-sponsored plan from enrolling in
MassHealth, which was dismantled by Obamacare.
The change would require federal approval.)
Baker asked legislative budget-writers to
include his changes in the final budget, but
they had their excuse at the ready: He didn’t
give them enough time to vet the plan. As if
what he was proposing was completely foreign to
them. And as if they’ve never adopted major
policy changes on the fly.
No, the simple truth is that Democratic
lawmakers are allergic to changes that affect
MassHealth eligibility. They were perfectly
content to adopt the new fees as a stand-alone
piece, but there needs to be balance here.
Spending on MassHealth is crowding out other
worthy programs. And Baker’s reforms are
carefully crafted to avoid being unduly
burdensome. The Legislature needs to get back to
work.
State House News Service
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Passing on Baker's MassHealth plan, Dems say
they'll work on their own
By Matt Murphy
House and Senate Democrats, insisting they
needed more time to consider strategies to
control cost growth in MassHealth and the
broader health care system, turned aside Gov.
Charlie Baker's proposed Medicaid reforms on
Wednesday as they worked to return to him a $200
million assessment on employers needed to
balance the budget.
Baker and major business groups have been
insisting that the new employer fees to pay for
growth in the MassHealth program be packaged
with longer-term cost saving measures, including
a shift of 140,000 low-income residents from
Medicaid to subsidized commercial plans offered
through the Connector.
Legislative leaders, however, have balked at
rushing to accept a proposal that Baker offered
in June and which would impact coverage for
thousands of low-income families without fully
exploring the potential impacts and alternatives
to save money.
"This is not the end of our health care debate,"
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez
said.
The House rejected the governor's budget
amendment 41-116, with seven Democrats joining
all but one Republican in supporting the
governor's plan. The Senate followed suit on a
party-line vote of 6-31. One more vote is
required in the Senate to return the budget
sections without MassHealth reform to Baker.
Baker will have to choose whether to accept the
employer assessments without reforming
MassHealth and risk alienating the business
community, or veto the assessments. The
assessments are accompanied by a proposal to
slow planned increases in unemployment insurance
rates paid by businesses, saving employers $334
million over the next two years.
"At the Legislature's request, the
administration presented lawmakers with a
comprehensive package that ensures quality
health care coverage for residents, addresses
the health care safety net's fiscal
sustainability over time while protecting
taxpayers from having to pick up the bill for
more individuals' health care, and the
administration looks forward to continuing to
work collaboratively on solutions," Baker press
secretary Lizzy Guyton said in a statement.
The governor's office would not comment on
whether Baker planned to veto the employer
assessment, which would require a two-thirds
vote in both branches to override. Baker
previously called for action on his full
proposal by mid-September, or he warned he would
have to take other corrective action to balance
the budget.
Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou
Sudders on Tuesday floated the idea of
across-the-board cuts to rates paid by
MassHealth to providers if enrollment reforms
were not passed.
Sanchez said the House remains committed to
identifying saving and reforms "through the
legislative process as the deliberative body
that we are," while Senate President Stanley
Rosenberg's office on Wednesday night outlined a
process to produce a bill by the early fall.
The Senate, meanwhile, held a private caucus on
Wednesday where many of the same players in the
health care field that testified publicly on
Tuesday at a joint hearing spoke to senators.
The group invited to the caucus included Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Vice
President Michael Caljouw, Massachusetts
Association of Health Plans President Lora
Pellegrini, Mass Law Reform Institute attorney
Vicky Pulos, Health Care for All policy director
Brian Rosman, Partners Health Care CEO David
Torchiana and Council of Community Hospitals
President Steve Walsh.
Senate Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka
said she was "dismayed" when Baker sent the
employer assessment and UI rate changes back to
the Legislature as an amendment to "hold a
balanced budget hostage" in order to secure
MassHealth reform.
"We will never be able to collect what the
governor says is collectible unless we pass it
now," Spilka said. The Ashland Democrat said an
"earnest review" of the governor's reform plan
was underway, but added that the administration
does not have "a monopoly on the ideas that are
out there on health care."
Sanchez and Spilka convened a hearing at the
request of Gov. Baker on Tuesday to take
testimony on the governor's proposals, but many
legislators and health advocates over the course
of several hours expressed concern.
"One thing that was abundantly clear from
yesterday's testimony is that there's
considerable uncertainty about the effect that
this plan will have on low-income individuals,
as well as the elderly and disabled," Sanchez
said.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr expressed his
own concern that if the Legislature accepts the
money in the form of employer assessments now it
may never return to cost control. He suggested
taking a "timeout" for a few days or passing a
resolution to consider MassHealth at a future
date certain.
"The only option that's not acceptable is to do
nothing, take the short-term solution and hope
it gets better," Tarr said.
Sen. Vinny deMaceco, the ranking Republican on
the Senate Ways and Means Committee, defended
Baker's proposal as a "humane and responsible
approach" to a Medicaid spending problem that he
said was crowding out investments in other
priorities.
He noted testimony from Sudders on Tuesday that
"not a single person" would lose coverage, and
low-income families would continue to have
access to zero-premium health plans.
"We all know at the national level there is a
battle going on there as well and we have to be
proactive in addressing our costs now so if
something changes we are in a better position to
address those changes and we don't have a
catastrophic drop all at once," deMacedo said.
A similar debate played out in the House where
House Minority Leader Brad Jones described the
actions being taken by lawmakers as pulling out
one leg of a three-legged stool that included
health care fees, a reduction in unemployment
insurance rate hikes and MassHealth reforms.
Jones' amendment to proceed with the
unemployment insurance rate relief immediately
and hold off on the employer assessments was
defeated 41-116.
Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Gus
Bickford applauded the defeat of Baker's
amendment.
"Taking Medicaid away from working families
won't do anything to reduce the overall cost of
health care; it's just a budgeting maneuver that
puts the costs on hard-working families who are
already struggling to make ends meet," he said.
"Governor Baker and his fellow Republicans
should end their attempt to take away Medicaid
from working families, and work with Democrats
on real bipartisan reforms that actually reduce
the cost of health care, like cracking down on
prescription drug pricing and investing in
addiction prevention and recovery."
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 27, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Time to take medicine
Democratic lawmakers raised a host of concerns
about Gov. Charlie Baker’s proposed reforms to
the MassHealth program, including uncertainty
over changes to health care policy that might
come out of Washington.
But without that excuse they would have found
something else. Beacon Hill is hungry for the
$200 million in new employer assessments that
Baker proposed, as a way to offset higher health
care costs that have blown a crater in the state
budget. But they have little interest in
embracing the reform side of the equation.
At a hearing Tuesday we heard the usual
complaints, that the poor would suffer under
Baker’s plan.
That ignores the fact that his main reform would
involve moving 140,000 adults — non-disabled,
non-elderly — from the MassHealth program to
commercial insurance plans with comparable
coverage, for which they would still pay no
premiums. They would have slightly higher
out-of-pocket costs (co-payments, for example,
and new costs for dental coverage). But most of
the cost of their care would still be paid for
by taxpayers.
Senate Ways and Means Chair Karen Spilka said
Tuesday there “may be other ways to do savings”
than what Baker has proposed.
But pray tell the taxpayers, what are the “other
ways”? Where is the Democrats’ plan?
This isn’t a theoretical problem, after all.
MassHealth accounts for 40 percent of state
spending. Enrollment has grown by 70 percent
over the past decade (slowing only after the
Baker administration introduced new
efficiencies). Without the reforms, MassHealth
spending is expected to grow by an additional
$340 million this year, requiring cuts in doctor
reimbursements and elsewhere in the budget.
In the absence of the reforms the governor could
veto the employer assessments, though it would
cancel out $200 million in revenue needed to
fund MassHealth and make a bad budget situation
worse. The inevitable anger from the business
community should be pointed directly at Beacon
Hill Democrats.
State House News Service
Friday, July 28, 2017
Weekly Roundup - Someone has to be the thimble
Recap and analysis of the week in state
government
By Matt Murphy
Do not pass go, but do collect $200 million.
That was the message from Democrats on Beacon
Hill to Gov. Charlie Baker this week, marking
what amounts to the most significant, if not the
first major policy dust-up between the Kumbaya
Caucus of Three at the State House.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg threw a brush-back pitch when
- in a mere matter of days after Baker signed
the fiscal 2018 budget - they went along with
Baker's request for a swift public hearing on
his proposed MassHealth eligibility reforms.
But the court officers barely had time to lock
the doors and shut the lights out in Gardner
Auditorium when word trickled out that the
Legislature would vote the next day to rebuff
the governor and his call for Medicaid reforms
to be packaged with new fees and fines on
employers to pay for health insurance for the
low-income and disabled.
The Democratic leadership decided that reform
can wait, but the revenues can not. And so both
branches voted overwhelmingly, and for the
second time, to send Baker new employer
assessments to pay for MassHealth without the
administration and business community's desired
cost saving measures.
"I'll take a look at it when it gets to my desk
and then we'll make a decision and I'll be sure
to let you know when we make that decision,"
Baker said Thursday after the dust had settled,
knowing he has three choices.
Baker can sign the assessments and risk
alienating the business community, veto the bill
and force lawmakers to override, for which they
have the votes, or let the assessments become
law in protest without his signature after 10
days.
Option two would force DeLeo and Rosenberg to
decided whether they must call members back from
the August recess, which began Friday, to
override or wait until after Labor Day in
contradiction of their assertions this week that
the assessments need to be implemented
immediately if the state is to collect the money
it is counting on for the fiscal 2018 budget.
The polite game of chicken unfolded as U.S.
Senate Republicans tried to muster 50 votes to
repeal and replace, repeal, or "skinny repeal"
Obamacare. After overcoming the odds to proceed
to a debate on health care, it seemed all week
that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn't care
what bill he could pass, as long as he could
pass something.
In the end, he couldn't. Sen. John McCain,
recently diagnosed with brain cancer,
dramatically slammed the door on repeal and
replace efforts when he joined two other
Republicans in the wee hours Friday morning
voting against a repeal measure intended to move
the Senate into negotiations with the House.
McCain said it was time for Republicans and
Democrats to work together and listen to the
country's governors about how best to fix the
health care system, which should be music to the
ears of governors like Baker.
The soap opera in Washington was not lost on
state policymakers. While some Democrats tried
to link Baker's MassHealth reforms to unpopular
Republican health care positions in Congress,
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez
worried about plunging into MassHealth reform at
home knowing that the complete disruption of the
marketplace "could be one Tweet away."
"This is not the end of our health care debate,"
Sanchez assured as the criticisms were expressed
over Baker's plan to move 140,000 MassHealth
enrollees onto subsidized commercial plans with
higher out-of-pocket costs.
The Gentlelady from Ashland took her own turn in
the spotlight at Tuesday's hearing when she was
anything but gentle. Senate Ways and Means
Chairwoman Karen Spilka came ready to tango with
with the administration's trio of secretaries
sent to defend and advocate for Gov. Baker's
plans to reform MassHealth.
Spilka made clear she believed the
administration did not have "a monopoly on the
ideas that are out there on health care," and
asked panel after panel to submit their own
recommendations for lawmakers to consider in the
coming weeks and months.
"This is an ongoing issue and there are other
ways to go about savings, rather than
necessarily moving people off of MassHealth,"
Spilka said.
Building consensus for health care changes in
Massachusetts, as in Washington, may be a
difficult task, but the governor and legislative
leaders were on the same page this week when it
came time to finalize marijuana oversight and
protections for pregnant workers.
Baker signed both bills upon his return from a
political trip to Colorado, and in doing so
helped cement the two biggest legislative
achievements of the year outside of pay raises
for public officials, which Baker opposed, and
an annual state budget.
The fall agenda now includes health care cost
savings to go along with criminal justice
reform, and the Supreme Judicial Court gave
Beacon Hill something else to think about.
Justices on the top court ruled Monday that
Massachusetts lacked any legal standing for
state or local police to honor a detainer
request from Immigration and Customs Services
(ICE) if they had no other criminal reason to
hold the individual.
Conservative Andover Republican Rep. Jim Lyons
immediately responded by filing legislation that
would empower state police to enforce federal
immigration law, which led the administration to
let it be known that they, too, were working on
slightly tamer legislation.
Baker's bill, according to aides, will likely
focus on upholding the policy put in place in
2016 allowing state police to hold individuals
on ICE detainers if they have prior convictions
or pending charges for violent crimes like rape
and murder.
Asked about his bill versus Lyons' bill, Baker
said, "I like our bill," which could get filed
as soon as next week.
With the traditional August recess starting a
few days early, Secretary of State William
Galvin helped Rosenberg by getting vote totals
to the Governor's Council this week in time to
certify Cindy Friedman's comfortable special
election victory Tuesday just a day later.
Friedman, while her husband was circling the
block looking for parking, took the oath of
office to officially replace her former boss and
late Sen. Kenneth Donnelly, bringing the upper
chamber to 39 members and 13 women - tying an
all-time high.
Rosenberg wanted to make Friedman official so
she could vote on the final business to be taken
up in the chamber until Labor Day, including an
expansion of property tax relief options for
active military members, the elderly and the
disabled, and a rewrite of the English language
learning program requirements.
The House and Senate also finalized a one-year
extension of the state's simulcasting laws that
will allow facilities like Suffolk Downs,
Raynham Park and Plainridge Park Casino to
continue accepting wagers and making profits off
horse and dog races in other states.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Health care reform here;
health care reform in D.C. Same result.
SONG OF THE WEEK: What you like, what I like.
Why can't we both be right?
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Baker backs down on demand to rein in MassHealth
costs
By Michael Levenson
Governor Charlie Baker, backing away from a
showdown with Democratic lawmakers, said Tuesday
that he will sign legislation that imposes $200
million in higher fees on businesses to fund
health care for the poor, even though the
measure omits his plans for reining in the
state’s Medicaid program.
Baker’s decision means he is shelving — for now
— his plans to curb the rising cost of
MassHealth, including one approach that would
have moved 140,000 adults from the program onto
commercial health plans. Lawmakers have twice
rebuffed that proposal, most recently last week
after the administration had urged them to
approve it and the employer fee as a package.
His decision is likely to please health care
advocates but anger business groups, which had
said they would agree to higher fees only if the
state began to reduce the cost of MassHealth,
which accounts for $16 billion in annual
spending, split between the state and federal
governments.
Asked how he would respond to employers unhappy
that he agreed to higher fees without the cost
savings, Baker said, “I believe this is the best
way for us to ensure that they and we and the
Legislature get what we all want, which is a
sustainable MassHealth program.”
Baker also said he hopes to continue to work
with lawmakers to develop a plan to control
spending on MassHealth, which provides benefits
for 1.9 million low-income, elderly, and
disabled residents. He said he hopes both sides
can reach an agreement by the fall.
“The Legislature told us they would work with us
on this, and we’re going to take them at their
word,” Baker said at the State House.
“They’re acutely aware of the fact that, if we
can’t come up with a way to manage this program
effectively and continue to cover people here in
the Commonwealth, it will crowd out
opportunities to invest in education, in
transportation, and other areas that are
important,” he said.
Some lawmakers have indicated they are
interested in developing health care legislation
but they have not unveiled any detailed plans.
Last month, however, lawmakers rejected, by a
veto-proof majority, the governor’s plan to
shift some MassHealth recipients onto commercial
plans and sent him a stripped-down version
imposing the $200 million in higher fees on
businesses.
Baker could have vetoed the legislation and told
lawmakers he would not sign it without
cost-savings attached. But he opted to sign the
measure and try to work more collaboratively
with lawmakers in the fall to craft a plan.
The bill Baker plans to sign increases a fee
that most businesses already pay, called the
employer medical assistance contribution, or
EMAC. Beginning Jan. 1, the fee would increase
from $51 to $77 per employee. That would raise
$75 million in annual revenue for MassHealth.
But employers whose workers currently receive
public health insurance benefits would pay as
much as $750 more per worker. That would raise
$125 million in annual revenue. Both fees will
end in two years.
By agreeing to higher costs on employers without
additional cost savings, Baker risks denting his
reputation as a business-friendly executive. He
has generally resisted raising taxes, but his
administration has argued that the employer fee
was important to help ease the state’s budget
crunch caused by rising health care costs.
He said the proposal is built on the idea that
there are currently hundreds of thousands of
residents who work and have access to health
insurance through their employers yet are
covered by MassHealth. Asking employers to help
the state pay for their workers’ coverage, he
said, “is not an unreasonable expectation.”
Baker’s MassHealth proposals would have shifted
140,000 adults, including 100,000 parents, onto
subsidized health plans on the state’s Health
Connector.
Those adults would not have to pay premiums, but
they would be hit with higher out-of-pocket
costs — on average, about 3 percent of their
income. They also would have to pay extra for
dental benefits, unless they sought dental care
at community health centers.
The change would apply to adults just over the
poverty line, earning between $16,240 and
$21,600 a year for a household of two.
Health care advocates and Democrats had argued
that moving residents off MassHealth would hurt
low-income families. Baker has opposed his
party’s efforts to repeal the federal health
care law.
“My expectation is there will continue to be
federal discussion and debate about health care
generally and we will continue to have to do
what we need to continue to advocate for
Massachusetts,” he said.
Priyanka Dayal McCluskey of the Globe staff
contributed to this report.
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Baker will agree to new health care fees, fines
on employers
By Matt Murphy
Gov. Charlie Baker will sign into law $200
million in new fees and fines on Massachusetts
employers to help pay for MassHealth without
sought-after reforms to the program, putting his
faith in the Legislature to follow through on
pledges to work with him this fall to control
growth in Medicaid and health care spending.
Risking political backlash from influential
business groups, Baker, in an interview in his
office Tuesday, said he hoped the decision to
sign, and not veto, the measure on Wednesday
would remove the controversial employer
assessments as a hot potato in the Beacon Hill
debate over rising Medicaid spending.
With the focus off the assessments, the governor
believes his administration and Democratic
leaders will be able to zero in on reforms in
the coming months that will put MassHealth on a
more sustainable trajectory. Democratic leaders
in the House and Senate would appear to have the
votes to override a veto, but the issue would
have lingered over the Legislature for weeks
until they return after Labor Day from their
summer recess.
"The Legislature told us they would work with us
on this, and we're going to take them at their
word," Baker said. The Republican said public
comments and private conversations with
legislators have convinced him they are serious
about tackling the spending problem.
MassHealth, which offers insurance coverage for
1.9 million low-income and disabled residents,
has a budget of more than $15.6 billion in
fiscal 2018, and without the governor's reforms
is expected to grow by $300 million this year.
Baker returned the employer assessments and
unemployment insurance (UI) rate relief to the
Legislature last month, insisting they be
packaged with MassHealth eligibility reforms to
address the long-term growth trend in the
program, which is crowding out available funds
for things like education and public safety.
He gave lawmakers 60 days to hold hearings and
vote on his legislation. They quickly held a
hearing and promptly rejected his MassHealth
reforms by veto-proof majorities, sending the
employer assessments and UI measures back to the
governor with a sign-or-veto option.
The package of assessments, reforms and UI rate
relief was carefully crafted over several months
with input from the business community after
lawmakers and companies initially balked at the
administration's proposal in January to tax
employers at $2,000 a head to pay for the shift
of full-time workers from commercial coverage to
MassHealth under Obamacare.
He presented the recommendations to budget
negotiators in late June - too late, lawmakers
said, for them to properly vet the proposal.
In signing the assessments, Baker risks angering
those members of the business community who
negotiated the package with the administration
and conditioned their support of the assessments
on being part of a package with longer-term
MassHealth cost controls.
"We urge Governor Baker to veto the health care
assessment in its current form. Not only do we
believe that the time has come to prioritize
reining in MassHealth spending, but we fear that
the "temporary" healthcare assessment may
ultimately be added to the long list of
permanent costs for Massachusetts small
businesses. Our members already struggle to
provide health coverage for their workers and do
not need an additional expense to make a bad
situation worse," National Federation of
Independent Business Massachusett State Director
Christopher Carlozzi said in a statement last
week.
The governor also acknowledged risk in giving up
some of his leverage and political positioning
with the Legislature to pressure them to act on
health care reform, but believes that signing
the bill presents the best opportunity to begin
a productive dialogue with lawmakers.
When asked how intends to smooth over his
decision with business groups like Associated
Industries of Massachusetts and the NFIB, Baker
said, "I believe that this is the best way to
ensure that they and we and the Legislature get
what we all want, which is a sustainable
MassHealth program."
One assessment will boost a per-employee fee,
known as the Employer Medical Assistance
Contribution, from $51 to $77 per year for
employers. The other will penalize employers
with a fine of up to $750 per employee if their
workers choose MassHealth even though they have
access to affordable insurance through work.
Both assessments will sunset after two years.
The bill Baker plans to sign would also reduce
scheduled increases in UI rates over the next
two years by $334 million, helping to offset the
cost of the new assessments for many businesses.
House Ways and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez
said the vote to reject Baker's reforms was not
an end to the debate, and Senate Ways and Means
Chairwoman Karen Spilka sought alternative
recommendations from stakeholders that might be
considered as the Senate prepares to draft a
bill of its own this fall.
Many lawmakers at last week's public hearing
expressed concerns with Baker's proposal to
shift 140,000 low-income MassHealth enrollees
onto subsidized commercial plans offered through
the Health Connector.
While those new plans could still come without a
premium, families might have faced higher
out-of-pocket costs, including co-pays and the
loss of dental coverage.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Marylou
Sudders, who joined Baker in the interview
Tuesday, said she believed she could work to
address many of their concerns, including a
potential cap on co-pays for plans offered
through the Connector.
"We can find a path," she said.
Both Baker and Sudders suggested it was unlikely
that MassHealth spending could be sufficiently
brought under control with measures targeting
the underlying cost-drivers of health care
without addressing enrollment.
Baker said the overarching goal is to rebalance
the market and stop the blurring of
responsibility for coverage of full-time workers
between commercial plans and MassHealth.
"The state, to the extent we can play a role in
supporting people who are low-income but working
people who have access to coverage through their
employer, we should support them, as we did and
as we have historically through premium
assistance and other kinds of premium assistance
and co-pay assistance and other ways of doing
that," Baker said.
The governor did not put a specific timetable on
when he would like to see legislative action on
health care reform, but said the fall would make
sense before he begins to prepare the fiscal
2019 budget and lawmakers' attention gets pulled
elsewhere.
He also said that he still believes the fiscal
2018 budget will have a roughly $150 million
hole that will have to be addressed unless the
Legislature acts to generate savings in
MassHealth.
In mid-July, the Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation speculated about the situation that
has come to pass.
"Should the Legislature reject the Governor's
proposed amendment to couple long-term
MassHealth reforms with a temporary assessment
on employers, the Legislature will need to find
$283 million elsewhere ($200 million from the
assessment in addition to the $83 million in
MassHealth savings) a task that will be
difficult on top of the spending reductions
already made in Conference," the foundation
wrote. "The Legislature's approach to the
Governor's proposal will be pivotal to the
state's fiscal condition in the months ahead."
As for the federal waiver requests that the
administration made to erect a "gate" that would
make full-time workers with access to affordable
employer-sponsored coverage ineligible for
MassHealth, Baker and Sudders said they intend
to proceed with the public comment period to get
feedback as the process at the State House plays
out.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Retailers eye reining in sales tax
Group aims to lower rate with 2018 ballot
question
By Donna Goodison
The state’s largest retail trade association
plans to appeal directly to Massachusetts voters
in November 2018 to lower the state sales tax
and possibly establish a permanent sales tax
holiday.
The Retailers Association of Massachusetts plans
to file state ballot initiatives to cut the
current 6.25 percent state sales tax rate to 4.5
percent or 5 percent. It also may include
language asking voters to approve an annual
two-day sales tax holiday each August.
The initiatives are aimed at helping the trade
group’s small business members in absence of
state legislative action to remedy what it calls
economic inequity and bad tax policy. “We keep
explaining to them the problems, and there has
been no action,” the group’s president, Jon
Hurst, said.
The 2009 increase in the state sales tax from 5
percent to 6.25 percent has proved “very, very
damaging,” according to Hurst.
“The combination of that increase (with) what’s
going on with ... consumers moving to mobile
commerce, and the majority of those sellers not
collecting the states sales tax — we have a real
problem here that we need to have both our state
policy leaders and consumers understand,” he
said. “The majority of our online competitors
enjoy a 365-day- a-year sales tax holiday. They
pay no state sales taxes.”
The state collected more than $6.2 billion in
sales taxes in the fiscal year that ended June
30, a 2.6 jump from the prior year.
The retail association plans to file four ballot
initiatives with the state attorney general’s
office today and likely will decide on a single
one in the next six weeks to put before voters
in 2018 after talking with its members, business
groups and others.
It’s the first time the trade group has filed a
ballot initiative since 1994, when it
successfully pushed for a further overhaul of
the state’s Blue Laws to allow retailers to open
Sunday mornings.
“We don’t take this lightly,” Hurst said. “It’s
a difficult, costly process. It’s a process we’d
prefer to avoid. We would rather work with the
Legislature.”
Beacon Hill lawmakers review all ballot
initiatives from January to June, and have the
opportunity to pass legislation if they choose,
he noted.
The Legislature has adjourned for the summer
without voting on a state sales tax holiday,
leaving consumers without a reprieve from the
6.25 percent tax for the second straight year.
The Senate did appoint a 13-member retail task
force to report by Jan. 1 on challenges faced by
local retailers and actions by state and local
governments to encourage brick-and-mortar sales.
But, Hurst said, “We need more now than to have
task forces. We need to change laws.”
State House News Service
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Retailers will file sales tax cut ballot
question
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts voters in November 2018 may have a
major tax cut on their ballot to go along with a
proposed surtax on high income households.
Retail industry officials are poised to file
initiative petitions that would reduce the 6.25
percent sales tax rate to either 5 percent or
4.5 percent, the News Service has learned.
"Massachusetts small businesses that employ
thousands of workers are significantly
disadvantaged when competing with stores in
tax-free New Hampshire and big online
retailers," Jon Hurst, president of the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts, said in
a statement. "Reducing the state sales tax will
help small business remain competitive, while
also putting money back in the pockets of those
who need it most including seniors on fixed
incomes and working class families."
The Legislature in 2009 raised the sales tax
from 5 percent to 6.25 percent to plug state
budget gaps that developed during and after the
Great Recession.
The association plans to talk to its members in
August before deciding which of four questions
to build a campaign around.
The four options are reducing the sales tax to
4.5 percent, reducing the sales tax to 5
percent, reducing the sales tax to 4.5 percent
and establishing a permanent two-day sales tax
holiday in August, and reducing the sales tax to
5 percent and establishing an annual two-day
sales tax holiday in August.
In the most recent fiscal year, which ended June
30, the state Department of Revenue reported
collecting $6.209 billion in sales taxes,
including $4.252 billion in regular sales taxes,
$1.106 billion in sales taxes on meals, and $851
million in sales taxes on motor vehicles.
The sales tax is the state's second largest
revenue source, behind the income tax, which
generated $14.696 billion in tax revenues during
fiscal 2017.
The proposed income surtax, a constitutional
amendment that some have labeled the
millionnaire's tax, would add a 4 percent surtax
on annual income above $1 million, with the
resulting revenues targeted for spending on
education and transportation only. Supporters
say it could raise $2 billion a year.
The deadline to file initiative petition
language is Wednesday at 5 p.m. The Raise Up
Massachusetts coalition announced on Monday that
it is filing ballot questions raising the
minimum wage to $15 an hour and seeking
guaranteed paid family and medical leave.
State House News Service
Monday, July 31, 2017
Taxes, wages, benefits part of coalition's
three-pronged 2018 ballot agenda
By Katie Lannan
The left-leaning coalition that used the
initiative petition process to get an earned
sick time law on the books in 2014 is now
looking to load up the 2018 ballot with three
proposals: an income surtax on high earners, a
$15 minimum wage by 2022, and a measure seeking
guaranteed paid family and medical leave.
Raise Up Massachusetts is familiar with using
the ballot as leverage. The group used the
threat of a ballot question to spur the
Legislature in 2014 to raise the minimum wage to
its current level, $11 an hour, and the new
plans show a continued commitment to addressing
income inequality in Massachusetts.
Raise Up Massachusetts on Monday confirmed plans
to submit language for the two ballot questions
to Attorney General Maura Healey's office on
Wednesday, the deadline to propose initiative
petitions. A constitutional amendment, backed by
the coalition, proposing a 4 percent surtax on
incomes over $1 million to raise revenue
intended for education and transportation, is
already on track for the ballot.
"By raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour,
ensuring access to paid family and medical
leave, and investing in our transportation and
public education systems with the Fair Share
Amendment, Massachusetts can build an economy
that works for all of us, not just those at the
top," Tyrék Lee, the executive vice president of
1199 SEIU, said in a statement. "We're committed
to winning this agenda in the Legislature or at
the ballot box."
If both the initiatives are certified, it will
set up a dynamic similar to 2014, when the
coalition proposed ballot questions hiking the
wage minimum wage and instituting earned sick
time.
The activists had proposed raising the minimum
wage from $8 to $10.50 and tying it to
inflation, but withdrew their petition after
legislators, pushed into action to avert a
ballot fight, passed a law increasing the hourly
wage floor to $11 over three years. The sick
leave question remained on the ballot and passed
with 59.4 percent of the vote.
"Since our diverse coalition came together,
we've raised wages and won benefits for over a
million working people in Massachusetts," said
Raise Up co-chair Lew Finfer, the executive
director of the Massachusetts Communities Action
Network. "By organizing people where they live,
where they work, and where they worship, we are
building a majority movement to create an
economy that that invests in families, gives
everyone the opportunity to succeed, and creates
broadly shared prosperity."
The final phase of the 2014 minimum wage hike, a
$1 increase, took effect in January of this
year.
Small businesses are still absorbing the cost of
the 2014 laws, National Federation of
Independent Business Massachusetts director
Christopher Carlozzi said. He said the
coalition's two new proposals could place an
added burden on NFIB members, which have an
average of five employees.
"It's just not a good time, especially with the
economy heading in the wrong direction,"
Carlozzi told the News Service. "Proposals like
this only make that situation worse."
Carlozzi said lawmakers are often mindful that
businesses in Massachusetts compete against
peers in neighboring states with lower labor
costs, and that he expects the Legislature would
look to take some action on the issues before
next year's election.
Bills are pending before the Legislature to
raise the hourly wage floor to $15 and create an
insurance program making workers eligible for
paid leave to recover from a serious illness or
injury, care for a sick or injured family member
or new child. But there's no apparent consensus
among legislators on a path forward on either
issue.
Raise Up backs paid leave bills filed by Senate
Ways and Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka of
Ashland (S 1048) and Rep. Ken Gordon of Bedford
(H 2172). Rep. Antonio Cabral of New Bedford has
also filed a paid leave bill (H 3134).
The coalition is putting forward ballot question
language that most closely aligns with Spilka's
bill, with up to 16 weeks of job-protected paid
leave and a maximum weekly benefit of $1,000,
according to a press release. Currently, leave
policies vary from employer to employer.
Critics say the paid leave plans differ from
similar laws passed elsewhere because other
states do not require employers to contribute to
the paid leave insurance, while the bills in
Massachusetts would.
California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington
and New York have passed paid family leave
insurance laws, according to the National
Partnership for Women and Families. New York's
law, the most recent, was enacted in 2016 and
takes effect in 2018. Washington D.C. also
passed a paid leave law this year, with the
policy set to take effect in July 2020.
Gordon said he would prefer to see paid leave
passed by the Legislature rather than as a
ballot question.
"I think this is a program that is best
implemented through the legislative process
because it's complicated, and we can get to the
best place through hearing from all sides and
making it make sense to all interests," he said.
Massachusetts and Washington currently have the
highest minimum wage of any state in the country
at $11 an hour, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures. Washington,
D.C. now has a $12.50 minimum wage, which is set
to become $15 by 2020.
Rep. Dan Donahue of Worcester and the late Sen.
Ken Donnelly of Arlington each filed bills that
would raise the minimum wage by $1 per year
until it reaches $15 in 2021, with further
increases each year tied to the cost of living.
The proposed ballot question would also phase in
the wage floor increases and includes a cost of
living trigger.
Minimum wage bills (H 2365, S 1004) are
scheduled for a Sept. 19 Joint Committee on
Labor and Workforce Development hearing,
according to the coalition.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Expensive triple threat
Progressives in Massachusetts are going all in
on the 2018 ballot. Predictably, it turns out
it’s not just about millionaires anymore.
The coalition of labor unions, community and
religious groups known as Raise Up Massachusetts
still plans to continue its campaign for a
higher tax on wealthy individuals, of course.
But they’re essentially tripling down — also
backing a proposed ballot initiative that would
mandate a $15 minimum wage and one that would
expand paid sick leave and family leave rights
for workers.
And if they get everything they want? Well, the
commonwealth will get truckloads of new revenue
from the wealthy (those who don’t establish
residency in Florida, anyway). And those minimum
wage workers who are lucky enough to hold onto
their jobs under this scheme will earn more.
But Bay State businesses that don’t already
offer such wages or benefits will either cut
jobs or raise prices to manage the additional
burden. Massachusetts is already mired in a
revenue slump attributed in part to stagnating
wages; increasing the financial burden, on small
businesses especially, won’t make Massachusetts
more competitive.
The new ballot push is also proof that, when it
comes to the group’s wage and benefit demands,
there simply is no ceiling.
In 2014 the same coalition negotiated a higher
minimum wage — to the current $11 an hour. The
“highest in the nation” distinction didn’t last
for long, though, and so they’re back to insist
that even part-time grocery store baggers are
entitled to $15 an hour (and $22.50 on Sundays).
The group also backed a successful 2014 ballot
initiative that guaranteed 40 hours of paid sick
leave for all Massachusetts workers. As
expected, that was just a foot in the door.
And don’t think for a minute that the campaign
for a millionaire’s tax will stop at, well,
millionaires. Once the constitution is amended
to allow for different income tax rates based on
earnings, it will be a very short journey to
higher rates for those earning $500,000, or
$250,000. You get the idea.
One labor union executive pushing the
initiatives insists they will help Massachusetts
“build an economy that works for all of us, not
just those at the top.”
If they’re successful, the economy may not
“work” much at all. |
| |
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
|