 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(508)
915-3665
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
43 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, December 16, 2017
A Taxing Weekend
|
For 101
years the state constitution has commanded that income be
taxed at a uniform rate, a shield against populist agitators
whipping up class envy to raise taxes. The constitutional
ban on graduated income-tax rates keeps the Legislature from
raising revenue at will by targeting one bracket at a time.
Lawmakers have to change everybody’s tax rate — or nobody’s
A ballot initiative now being pushed by a left-wing umbrella
group would change all that. Raise Up Massachusetts wants to
amend the constitution by requiring a sharp increase in the
tax rate for income over $1 million. The activists know that
the state’s voters have repeatedly rejected initiatives to
eliminate the state’s uniform-rate rule. So this time
there’s a sweetener: The proposed amendment decrees that all
revenue raised from the new tax may be expended for only two
purposes — public education and public transportation.
Unfortunately for Raise Up Massachusetts, their sweetened
ballot question is illegitimate.
Because the initiative process is something else
Massachusetts gets right....
Unless the SJC is prepared to overturn decades of
precedent, the Raise Up Massachusetts initiative will fall.
There’s little mystery about what the law requires. A better
question is why a measure so obviously flawed was ever
certified by Attorney General Maura Healey in the first
place.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
If the SJC sticks to precedent, the millionaire’s tax
initiative is going nowhere
By Jeff Jacoby
New Jersey’s incoming Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy was
aiming to impose a millionaires’ tax to boost state
spending. But top statehouse Democrats balked as they saw
the Republican tax plan advancing in Congress.
In rewriting the compact between Washington and lower
levels of government, most notably by significantly limiting
the state and local tax deduction, the GOP tax plan would
make such state tax hikes much more painful.
The tax overhaul would raise the taxes of some earners
and make it harder for states to do the same. The ultimate
effect would be to decrease governments’ ability to raise
taxes and increase spending – essentially reining in state
budgeteers.
That is an advantage to conservatives who have long
sought to advance fiscal conservatism at the state level and
who see the state and local tax deduction as a subsidy for
high-spending, high-taxing states – that is, blue states.
“This was our point from the start,” said Jonathan
Williams, chief economist at the American Legislative
Exchange Council, a group that advocates free-market
policies for state governments.
“We hope that it engenders more fiscal discipline at the
state level in those high-tax states,” Williams said....
By limiting the deductibility of state and local taxes,
the GOP tax plan would result in tax increases on some
moderate- to high-income people in blue states.
In the first few years, most taxpayers would get tax cuts
or be held harmless, thanks to the lower rates, doubled
standard deduction, and expanded child tax credits. But
taxpayers paying lots of property taxes and itemizing other
deductions, such as mortgage interest and charitable
contributions, could see tax increases. About a third of the
top fifth of income earners in New York state, for instance,
would see net tax increases, according to the Institute on
Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-of-center think tank.
Once those residents got hit by the higher taxes, it
would be difficult for state governments to tax them more.
That’s a problem, said Manhattan Institute budget expert
Steven Malanga, because many state governments are already
struggling to meet their obligations. “This clearly makes it
more difficult for states to raise taxes because these folks
who they are most likely to raise taxes on to solve budget
problems, meaning rich people, are already going to be
taking a very big hit,” because of the limitation on state
and local tax deductions, he said....
Republican members of Congress who back the tax plan,
though, have argued that best course of action for state
governments would be for them to follow the federal
government’s lead and cut their own taxes to prevent
residents from fleeing.
“The problem isn’t the deduction on federal taxes,” Rep.
Tom Reed, representative for an upstate New York district,
wrote in a response to [New York Gov. Andrew] Cuomo. “The
problem is the crushing burden of New York state taxes.”
The Washington Examiner
Monday, December 11, 2017
Republican tax bill would tie the hands of blue-state
governments
Sponsors of several possible ballot questions for the
November 2018 election faced another deadline last week in
the long process to get their proposed law on the ballot.
Sponsors had until December 6 to file 64,750 valid
signatures with Secretary of State’s Bill Galvin’s office.
If the signatures are certified by Galvin’s office, the
proposal would then be sent to the Legislature and if not
approved by May 2, 2018, proponents must gather another
10,792 signatures by July 4, 2018, in order for the question
to appear on the November 2018 ballot. Supporters try to
gather a lot more than the 64,750 signatures required in
order to ensure that they have 64,750 certified ones.
When this process began several months ago, there were 26
initiative petitions for proposed laws filed for the 2018
ballot. Only five have made it to this semi-final stage.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of December 4-8, 2017
Some 2018 possible ballot questions clear another hurdle
By Bob Katzen
Attorney General Maura Healey joined a cadre of other
state attorneys general who plan to file suit against the
Federal Communications Commission over its split decision to
roll back Obama-era net neutrality protections.
The lawsuit, which Healey's office announced with New
York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, is the 23rd she has
joined against the Trump administration this year, and the
second announced Thursday alone.
State House News Service
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Healey sues FCC, Education Dept. bringing her lawsuit tally
to 23
There is something deeply wrong with a
system that allows some state employees to hoard enough sick
time to pay for a small house when they cash it out, all for
the grand career accomplishment of not getting sick very
often. But here we go again, with two top State Police
officials who retired abruptly amid controversy leaving with
enough cash to pick up his-and-her Range Rovers for
Christmas.
And that’s before they ever see a
dime of their (yes, well-deserved) pensions....
This is not a new problem. Nor is it a
complicated fix.
But rather than address this scandalously
self-serving policy lawmakers have chosen to just ride out
the bad headlines, knowing one day they’ll leave state
service with their own “sick” bonus, paid for by taxpayers.
Baker filed a modest reform bill in 2016 to
cap unused sick time at a still-generous 1,000 hours. It
would have grandfathered in employees like McKeon and
Hughes, who had accrued more.
Lawmakers ignored him.
They ignored him again this year when he
re-filed the proposal.
The state inspector general has put
lawmakers on notice that the value of unused leave for state
employees stands at a “staggering” $558 million. Not
staggering enough for Beacon Hill to do anything about it,
apparently, which is simply shameful.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, December 15, 2017
Prescription for pain
You can deduct just $10,000 in state, local
and property taxes: One of the most controversial parts of
the GOP tax plan is the push to greatly scale back how much
state and local taxes Americans can deduct on their federal
income taxes. Under current law, the state and local
deduction (SALT) is unlimited. In the final GOP plan, people
can deduct up to $10,000 (married couples are also limited
to just $10,000). The House initially restricted the $10,000
deduction to just property taxes, but the final bill allows
any state and local taxes to be deducted, whether for
property, income or sales taxes. The move is widely viewed
as a hit to blue states such as New York, Connecticut and
California, and there are concerns it could cause property
values to fall in high-tax cities and leave less money for
public schools and road repairs.... Most
Americans will pay less in taxes until 2026. The final plan
lowers the tax rates for each income level and nearly
doubles the standard deduction (while also scrapping the
personal exemption). The result is that the vast majority of
Americans will see their tax bills drop next year. Trump is
fond of saying the "typical" family will save $2,000, but
the reality is the amount will vary greatly depending up the
size, location and circumstances of each family. The bill
will also increase the number of Americans who owe nothing
in taxes from 44 percent today to 47.5 percent after the
plan takes effect on January 1, 2018.... The
Washington Post
Saturday, December 16, 2017
The final GOP tax bill is complete. Here’s what is in it
[Excerpt from
full report]
After months of debate, Republicans late
Friday released the details of their plan to overhaul the
U.S. tax code for businesses and individuals. Here’s how it
would affect individual filers, including those with a
pass-through business....
Standard Deduction
●
Current for 2018: $13,000 (married); $9,550 (head
of household); $6,500 (single)
●
Proposed: $24,000 (married); $18,000 (head of
household); $12,000 (single)
Personal Exemption
●
Current: $4,150
●
Proposed: Repealed
Child Tax Credit
●
Current: $1,000, starts phasing out for married
couples at $110,000 in income; $75,000 for others
●
Proposed: $2,000, $1,400 of which is refundable;
starts phasing out at $400,000 in income for married
couples, $200,000 for nonmarried households.
State and Local Taxes
Rather than fully repeal the deduction as
planned, Republicans cap it at $10,000 to address concerns
from high-earning residents in high-tax states.
●
Current: Deductible for taxpayers who itemize,
with limits
●
Proposed: Caps at $10,000 amount that can be
deducted
Mortgage-Interest Deduction for Both
Primary and Second Homes
●
Current: Itemized deduction on loans up to $1
million
●
Proposed: Itemized deduction on loans up to
$750,000
The Wall Street Journal
Saturday, December 16, 2017
What the Republican Tax Plan Means for You
A first look at how the agreed-to proposal would affect
individual filers
[Excerpt from
full report]
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
So many taxing issues this weekend, so close
to the holidays when not many are paying attention.
First, Jeff Jacoby summed up my view but in
much finer detail on the legal challenge of the proposed
graduated income tax constitutional amendment that we hope
never reaches the ballot. As I've said before, it
seems to me that, based on the merits, it should receive a
unanimous rejection by the state's highest court when it
hears the challenge on February 5 —
but this is the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court where any outcome is possible.
Recognizing that, whatever the outcome I won't be surprised.
More exposés of
why More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never will be. We
have a benighted attorney general obsessed with suing the
Trump administration at every turn —
on Thursday she initiated her 22nd and 23rd lawsuit this
year since he was inaugurated. That's an average of
filing one every two weeks. Lawsuits are very
expensive. To gratify her ditzy "Resist" obsession her
politically-motivated whims are costing taxpayers millions
of our bucks. She wasn't elected to carry on a
personal vendetta at our expense.
But the state must have more money than
legislators knows what to do with —
so they keep lightening that burden by paying out
extravagant "unused leave" pay to every departing hack on
the state payroll gaming the system. Besides the
billions in unfunded generous state employee pension and
health insurance liabilities, we now learn we taxpayers are
also on the hook for an additional “staggering” $558 million
for their "unused leave"!
To keep greasing the wheels on the Beacon
Hill gravy train — they want to
hike taxes on "millionaires" because, we're told, otherwise
the state can't afford to fund transportation and education,
the basics!
The Takers had better be careful what they
wish for — if they have any
honest concern for the fiscal health of Massachusetts state
government. The Republican majority in the United
States House and Senate appears ready to pass its "Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act of 2017" next week, get it to President Trump's
desk for his signature before Christmas.
While it keeps some of the SALT (State And
Local Taxes) deductions — up to
a combined total of $10,000 of income, sales, and/or
property taxes whether filing single or jointly
— that's going to affect higher
income brackets greatly.
This reform alone is going to change how
states function — or don't.
For too long low-tax states — states
with no income or sales tax or low property taxes, fiscally
frugal, stable, functional states — have been forced to
subsidized high-tax big-spending states like Massachusetts
through SALT deductions. Think of fiscally responsible
New Hampshire taxpayers, who've been unable to take an
big deduction on their federal income tax returns for
an income or sales tax — because they don't have them —
while taxpayers in high-tax states like ours write off
thousands if not tens of thousands in federal taxes.
High-tax profligate
blue states like Massachusetts have abused that federal tax
write-off while selling perpetual tax increases for decades
— "It's not as bad as it seems," they've told us over and
over, "You can write if off on your federal taxes!"
That scam will be removed in large part. U.S.
taxpayers won't be bailing out Massachusetts profligacy
as much anymore — only up to $10,000 per tax return. If Bacon Hill wants to tax Bay Staters into
oblivion, low state tax New Hampshire, Florida, Texas, etc., will no
longer be paying as much into filling this and other
big-taxing-big-spend states' fiscal black holes.
You can call this
true "tax fairness."
A millionaires' federal tax bracket will
come down only from 39.6% to 37% while they too are limited
to the $10,000 deduction in SALT taxes. The Takers want
to hike the Massachusetts state income tax rate on
millionaires by 4%. Even
the newly-elected tax-and-spend governor of New Jersey, who
campaigned and was elected on quickly imposing a
"millionaires' tax," has awakened to the reality that
millionaires are mobile and can escape, and is back-peddling.
During my research this morning for today's
update I came across this ingenious state-specific tax
calculator made available by Maxim Lott, executive producer
for Stossel Productions and senior producer for Reason
Magazine. If it's accurate, filing as single,
homeowner with no dependents, who itemizes (state and
property taxes), with the lowered tax brackets I'll save
about $1,000 in federal taxes over last year if I don't
itemize and just take the new $12,000 standard
deduction. If it's accurate, it really has simplified
completing tax returns at least for me. And that will
also save me the $350 I pay the accountant each year for his
tax preparation.
Try it yourself and see how you'll make out.
Tax Plan Calculator
Find what the GOP tax plans mean for YOU
By Maxim Lott
How the GOP tax plan affects you
CRTV interview with Maxim Lott
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
If the SJC sticks to precedent, the
millionaire’s tax initiative is going nowhere
By Jeff Jacoby
Some things Massachusetts gets right.
For 101 years the state constitution has
commanded that income be taxed at a uniform
rate, a shield against populist agitators
whipping up class envy to raise taxes. The
constitutional ban on graduated income-tax rates
keeps the Legislature from raising revenue at
will by targeting one bracket at a time.
Lawmakers have to change everybody’s tax rate —
or nobody’s.
A ballot initiative now being pushed by a
left-wing umbrella group would change all that.
Raise Up Massachusetts wants to amend the
constitution by requiring a sharp increase in
the tax rate for income over $1 million. The
activists know that the state’s voters have
repeatedly rejected initiatives to eliminate
the state’s uniform-rate rule. So this time
there’s a sweetener: The proposed amendment
decrees that all revenue raised from the new tax
may be expended for only two purposes —
public education and public transportation.
Unfortunately for Raise Up Massachusetts, their
sweetened ballot question is illegitimate.
Because the initiative process is something else
Massachusetts gets right.
Political elites often
scorn the whole idea of policy-making at the
ballot box; they argue that voters aren’t
equipped to properly weigh the pros and cons of
legislation, and are too easily manipulated by
slick advertising and gaudy promises. But the
initiative process in Massachusetts was designed
to resist such abuse. Article 48 of the state
constitution strikes a prudent balance: It
allows ballot questions to be originated by
private groups of citizens — but it limits the
scope of those initiatives, barring them from
encroaching on matters only the Legislature may
decide.
Two of those limits are especially significant:
First, ballot initiatives must involve matters
that are “related” or “mutually dependent.”
Second, initiatives cannot make “a specific
appropriation of money from the treasury” —
i.e., earmarks are not allowed.
On both grounds, the proposed millionaire’s
surtax initiative fails.
Whatever else may be said about higher taxes,
education funding, and repairing roads and
bridges, they are obviously not intimately
related. From a legal perspective, education is
unrelated to transportation, and neither of them
is related to taxing the wealthy. Even more
obviously, they are not “mutually dependent.” As
several business groups — including the
Massachusetts High Technology Council and
Associated Industries of Massachusetts — argue
in a brief submitted this week to the state’s
highest court, “an income-based surtax could
exist independent of earmarks for education and
transportation spending, and earmarks for
education and transportation spending could
exist independently of each other.”
The Supreme Judicial Court has always construed
the “related” limitation narrowly. Two years ago
the justices
disqualified a ballot initiative that would
have ended the use of Common Core standards and
required the state to annually publish the
previous year’s assessment test questions.
Though the provisions dealt generally with
public schooling, the SJC unanimously ruled that
they were “separate public policy issues.” It
would not be fair, [5]
the court held, [5] to place voters in the
“untenable position” of having to decide “two or
more dissimilar subjects” with a single
yes-or-no vote.
Even if the relatedness bar weren’t in the way,
there’s no getting around the ban on using the
ballot to make “specific appropriations.” The
proposed amendment declares that revenue raised
by soaking millionaires must be spent “only” on
education and transportation. Flashback to 1937:
A proposed amendment would have mandated that
revenue from a specific tax be spent “only” on
“highway purposes.” Nothing doing, said the SJC:
The Legislature alone is empowered to earmark
funds for specific needs, and that initiative
would render the Legislature “powerless” to
spend the revenue in question on “any other
public use.”
Unless the SJC is prepared to overturn decades
of precedent, the Raise Up Massachusetts
initiative will fall. There’s little mystery
about what the law requires. A better question
is why a measure so obviously flawed was ever
certified by Attorney General Maura Healey in
the first place.
The Washington Examiner
Monday, December 11, 2017
Republican tax bill would tie the hands of
blue-state governments
by Joseph Lawler
New Jersey’s incoming Democratic Gov. Phil
Murphy was aiming to impose a millionaires’ tax
to boost state spending. But top statehouse
Democrats balked as they saw the Republican tax
plan advancing in Congress.
In rewriting the compact between Washington and
lower levels of government, most notably by
significantly limiting the state and local tax
deduction, the GOP tax plan would make such
state tax hikes much more painful.
The tax overhaul would raise the taxes of some
earners and make it harder for states to do the
same. The ultimate effect would be to decrease
governments’ ability to raise taxes and increase
spending – essentially reining in state
budgeteers.
That is an advantage to conservatives who have
long sought to advance fiscal conservatism at
the state level and who see the state and local
tax deduction as a subsidy for high-spending,
high-taxing states – that is, blue states.
“This was our point from the start,” said
Jonathan Williams, chief economist at the
American Legislative Exchange Council, a group
that advocates free-market policies for state
governments.
“We hope that it engenders more fiscal
discipline at the state level in those high-tax
states,” Williams said.
The deduction has long been a target, as former
President Ronald Reagan also sought to eliminate
it. And now, the state and local tax deduction
is in real trouble. Under current law, taxpayers
can use it to subtract state and local property
taxes and income or sales taxes from their
federal taxable income. Under both versions of
the Republican bill, that would be limited to
just $10,000 on property taxes, although the
final legislation could broaden the break.
The deduction has been part of the Internal
Revenue Code since the beginning. What has
changed is that there are no longer Republican
senators from high-tax, high-spending blue
states to defend it. “The increasing partisan
polarization at the national level was one of
the conditions that made this possible,” said
Michael Greve, a professor at the Antonin Scalia
Law School at George Mason University who has
studied the U.S. system of federalism and favors
limiting the deduction.
President Trump's administration has gone
directly at the break as a subsidy for
lower-government fiscal irresponsibility. Asked
for comment, the White House Council of Economic
Advisers pointed to studies finding that states
rely more on deductible taxes, rather than
business taxes or fees, thereby shunting their
costs onto Uncle Sam.
The prospect of Trump succeeding and the bill
passing has some blue-state Democratic
executives employing apocalyptic rhetoric.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, for instance, has
compared House Republican lawmakers who voted
for the bill to the infamous traitor Benedict
Arnold and, in a recent call with editorial
writers, said the tax bill was an attempt to
"rape and pillage” New Yorkers.
Rhetoric aside, Cuomo and other states have
reason to worry. Over time, the limitation on
state and local tax deductions would turn many
blue states into credit risks by diminishing
their control over taxation, said Laura Porter,
head of the states rating group at Fitch
Ratings.
“The clearest thing is that it seems like it
would make it harder for states, those states,
to raise taxes,” she said.
Here’s why. By limiting the deductibility of
state and local taxes, the GOP tax plan would
result in tax increases on some moderate- to
high-income people in blue states.
In the first few years, most taxpayers would get
tax cuts or be held harmless, thanks to the
lower rates, doubled standard deduction, and
expanded child tax credits. But taxpayers paying
lots of property taxes and itemizing other
deductions, such as mortgage interest and
charitable contributions, could see tax
increases. About a third of the top fifth of
income earners in New York state, for instance,
would see net tax increases, according to the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a
left-of-center think tank.
Once those residents got hit by the higher
taxes, it would be difficult for state
governments to tax them more.
That’s a problem, said Manhattan Institute
budget expert Steven Malanga, because many state
governments are already struggling to meet their
obligations. “This clearly makes it more
difficult for states to raise taxes because
these folks who they are most likely to raise
taxes on to solve budget problems, meaning rich
people, are already going to be taking a very
big hit,” because of the limitation on state and
local tax deductions, he said.
In bearing the full cost of state and local
taxes, Malanga said, wealthy taxpayers may
decide to simply leave for lower-tax locales. He
cited the example of the hedge fund manager
Jonathan Tepper, who left New Jersey in 2016 for
income-tax-free Florida, costing New Jersey
likely hundreds of millions of dollars and
singlehandedly threatening the state’s budget.
The GOP plan would significantly increase the
tax differentials between states.
There is mixed evidence about how much state tax
differentials can influence residents to leave.
Carl Davis, the research director for the
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy,
called the phenomenon of tax-driven moves
“overblown,” citing a 2016 study by economists
at Stanford University and the Treasury that
found minimal millionaire “tax flight.”
Republican members of Congress who back the tax
plan, though, have argued that best course of
action for state governments would be for them
to follow the federal government’s lead and cut
their own taxes to prevent residents from
fleeing.
“The problem isn’t the deduction on federal
taxes,” Rep. Tom Reed, representative for an
upstate New York district, wrote in a response
to Cuomo. “The problem is the crushing burden of
New York state taxes.”
That is an outrageous solution from the liberal
point of view. Right after Congress cuts taxes
for the 1 percent, “the last thing states should
do is pile onto that problem with more tax cuts
for the rich,” Davis said.
Also, most states just aren’t in a position to
cut taxes, said Fitch Ratings’ Porter, given
that they are still struggling to shore up their
budgets in the wake of the recession. “We don’t
think it’s a reasonable expectation that states
would be lowering taxes in response” to the tax
bill, she said.
Instead, states are in a bind and will soon face
pressures to scale back spending on services.
Especially since they are soon likely to also
face a significant drop in federal funding,
thanks to reductions in Medicaid and other
programs, Porter noted.
The deduction “is just one in a whole suite of
issues that we think are going to fundamentally
change state and local relationships,” said
Matthew Chase, executive director of the
National Association of Counties.
Today, states with many rich inhabitants, such
as New York, subsidize states with lots of poor
residents, like Mississippi, paying more into
the Treasury in taxes than they get back in
Medicaid, food stamps and other programs.
“The entire fiscal arrangement that we’ve had
was built on sort of a rough consensus that
wealthy states would subsidize less prosperous
ones,” Greve said.
If Republicans in Congress follow through by
raising blue states’ taxes while sending them
fewer dollars for welfare programs, those
inequalities will worsen. For blue states, he
said, “this has always been a sucker’s deal.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of December 4-8, 2017
Some 2018 possible ballot questions clear
another hurdle
By Bob Katzen
Sponsors of several possible ballot questions
for the November 2018 election faced another
deadline last week in the long process to get
their proposed law on the ballot. Sponsors had
until December 6 to file 64,750 valid signatures
with Secretary of State’s Bill Galvin’s office.
If the signatures are certified by Galvin’s
office, the proposal would then be sent to the
Legislature and if not approved by May 2, 2018,
proponents must gather another 10,792 signatures
by July 4, 2018, in order for the question to
appear on the November 2018 ballot. Supporters
try to gather a lot more than the 64,750
signatures required in order to ensure that they
have 64,750 certified ones.
When this process began several months ago,
there were 26 initiative petitions for proposed
laws filed for the 2018 ballot. Only five have
made it to this semi-final stage.
In the 2016 election, 35 proposals were
submitted, with only four ultimately collecting
sufficient signatures to make it to the ballot.
Only two of those were approved by voters and
are law today. One legalized the possession,
growing and sale of marijuana. The other one
prohibits any farmers from confining any pigs,
calves or hens in a way that prevents the animal
from lying down, standing up, fully extending
its limbs or turning around freely.
The sponsors of five ballot questions, certified
by the Attorney General Maura Healey in
September, dropped off their signatures last
week. Although the secretary of state has not
yet certified the signatures, proponents of the
five questions are confident they have collected
sufficient signatures.
HIKE MINIMUM WAGE - Increases the minimum hourly
wage from $11 per hour to $12 in 2019, $13 in
2020, $14 in 2021 and $15 in 2022. Raise Up
Massachusetts, the group sponsoring the
question, says it has dropped off 139,055
signatures.
“Our state’s economy works best for everyone
when all working people are able to meet their
basic needs,” said spokesman Andrew Farnitano.
“But today, a full-time worker in Massachusetts
earning the current minimum wage of $11 an hour
can’t afford the cost of groceries, housing,
heating and other basic needs.”
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE - Creates a program to
provide paid family and medical leave to
Massachusetts workers. Raise Up Massachusetts is
also the group sponsoring this question, and
says sponsors dropped off 135,597 signatures.
“When a family medical emergency happens, or a
new child is born, workers are often left to
choose between taking care of the family member
they love or keeping the job that puts food on
the table,” said spokesman Andrew Farnitano.
REDUCE SALES TAX TO 5 PERCENT AND ESTABLISH
SALES TAX HOLIDAY - Reduces the state’s sale tax
from 6.25 percent to 5 percent and at the same
time establishes an annual two-day permanent
sales tax holiday in August that allows
consumers to buy most products that cost under
$2,500 without paying the state.
“There exists significant support for reducing
the state sales tax and creating an annual sales
tax holiday with the voters, as evidenced by
recent public polls and the ease at which we
were able to collect signatures,” said Jon
Hurst, chairman of the coalition and President
of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
“Voters support reducing the sales tax because
it hits seniors and low-income families
disproportionately and is making it more
difficult for our small business to compete with
the tax-free New Hampshire and online sellers.”
LIMIT THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS PER NURSE - Limits
how many patients can be assigned to each
registered nurse in Massachusetts hospitals and
certain other healthcare facilities. The maximum
number of patients per registered nurse would
vary by type of unit and level of care. Sponsors
say they dropped off more than 100,000
signatures.
“Nurses are tasked with addressing life or death
scenarios every single day, and are the critical
line of defense protecting your loved ones,”
said Jeffrey Crosby of the Committee to Ensure
Safe Patient Care. “There are safe staffing
limits for so many other fields, like daycare
providers and children, pharmacists and support
staff, nursing home care providers and
residents. Study after study after study shows
that safe staffing limits are a no-brainer.”
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS - Creates a citizens’
commission to consider and recommend potential
amendments to the U.S. Constitution to establish
that corporations do not have the same
constitutional rights as human beings and that
corporations’ campaign contributions and
expenditures may be regulated. Sponsors say they
delivered more than 85,000 signatures.
The proposal is in response to the Supreme
Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission. In that decision,
the court ruled that the First Amendment
prohibits the government from restricting
corporations, unions and individuals from
donating unlimited funds to Super Political
Action Committees that do not donate directly to
candidates or political parties.
“Since that decision, more than $46 billion from
corporations, unions, the wealthy, super PACs,
and it now appears, foreign intelligence
operations, has been spent to influence the
outcome of American elections,” says Jeff
Clements, President of the sponsor American
Promise. “The 28th Amendment is the only way to
combat a corrupt political system dominated by
money.”
State House News Service
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Healey sues FCC, Education Dept. bringing her
lawsuit tally to 23
By Matt Murphy
Attorney General Maura Healey joined a cadre of
other state attorneys general who plan to file
suit against the Federal Communications
Commission over its split decision to roll back
Obama-era net neutrality protections.
The lawsuit, which Healey's office announced
with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,
is the 23rd she has joined against the Trump
administration this year, and the second
announced Thursday alone.
Healey also filed a lawsuit Thursday against
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for allegedly
failing to provide federal loan discharges for
students victimized by Corinthian Colleges and
subjecting them to wage garnishment and tax
refund interception.
"With today’s FCC vote, Americans will pay more
for the internet and will have fewer options,"
Healey said in a statement. "The agency has
completely failed to justify this decision and
we will be suing to stand up for the free
exchange of ideas and to keep the American
people in control of internet access."
The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday to end net
neutrality, which required internet providers to
treat all web traffic equally. Healey and 18
other attorneys general wrote to the FCC on
Wednesday urging them to delay the vote after
reports that nearly 2 million comments on the
new rule submitted to the agency were fake.
The Boston Herald
Friday, December 15, 2017
A Boston Herald editorial
Prescription for pain
There is something deeply wrong with a system
that allows some state employees to hoard enough
sick time to pay for a small house when they
cash it out, all for the grand career
accomplishment of not getting sick very often.
But here we go again, with two top State Police
officials who retired abruptly amid controversy
leaving with enough cash to pick up his-and-her
Range Rovers for Christmas.
And that’s before they ever see a dime of
their (yes, well-deserved) pensions.
Former State Police Col. Richard McKeon was
sitting on more than two years’ worth of unused
sick days when he retired. Deputy Superintendent
Francis Hughes had about 83 weeks of unused sick
time.
Combined with unused vacation days, McKeon will
walk away with a check for $161,688. Hughes is
owed $130,368. Both are facing lawsuits filed by
two front-line troopers who said they felt
pressured into changing a police report on the
arrest of a judge’s daughter for impaired
driving arrest of a judge’s daughter.
State law permits nonunion, executive branch
employees to cash in 20 percent of the value of
unused sick time when they leave but — despite
the best efforts of Gov. Charlie Baker — there
is no limit to how much they can accrue over the
years.
This is not a new problem. Nor is it a
complicated fix.
But rather than address this scandalously
self-serving policy lawmakers have chosen to
just ride out the bad headlines, knowing one day
they’ll leave state service with their own
“sick” bonus, paid for by taxpayers.
Baker filed a modest reform bill in 2016 to cap
unused sick time at a still-generous 1,000
hours. It would have grandfathered in employees
like McKeon and Hughes, who had accrued more.
Lawmakers ignored him.
They ignored him again this year when he
re-filed the proposal.
The state inspector general has put lawmakers on
notice that the value of unused leave for state
employees stands at a “staggering” $558 million.
Not staggering enough for Beacon Hill to do
anything about it, apparently, which is simply
shameful. |
| |
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
|
