 |
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”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Senate's Sanctuary State Budget
|
After
lengthy and emotional debate late Wednesday evening, the
Massachusetts Senate adopted a budget amendment to restrict
cooperation between local police and federal immigration
authorities. The amendment filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge,
which had been the subject of behind-the-scenes discussions
all week, was approved on a 25-13 vote after 90 minutes of
debate that stretched until 11 p.m. Democratic Sens. Michael
Brady, Anne Gobi, Marc Pacheco, Michael Rodrigues, Michael
Rush and Walter Timilty joined the Senate's seven
Republicans in opposition.
The amendment (# 1147) would prevent law enforcement from
asking people about their immigration status, prohibit
collaboration between Massachusetts law enforcement and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and would bar state
resources from being used to create a registry based on
ethnicity, religion, country of origin and other criteria.
"This would assure police and law enforcement refrain
from inquiring about immigration status unless required by
law. It would also require police to obtain consent before
an interview with ICE and inform them of their right to deny
an interview with ICE," Eldridge said. "It would also
prohibit 287G agreements which deputize local authorities to
enforce federal immigration law."
State House News Service
Thursday, May 24, 2018
After tense debate, Senate adopts Safe Communities amendment
You’d think the Massachusetts Senate would
have had enough disgrace for one year.
Think again.
In another late-night session with much of
the public heading off to bed, Democratic senators pushed
through a “budget” amendment that had nothing to do with the
budget but everything to do with crass politics.
The amendment would all but establish
Massachusetts as a “sanctuary state” — preventing state and
local authorities from asking immigrants about their
residency status and essentially restricting collaboration
between Massachusetts law enforcement and federal
immigration officials.
“We will all rest easier once this is law,”
proclaimed state Sen. Barbara L’Italien in a giddy press
release announcing the vote....
The 25-13 vote in favor of the amendment was
actually close for the Legislature. Normally every Democrat
will get behind one of their own proposals, but in this case
seven Democrats voted against the so-called “safe
communities” amendment.
“I feel badly for our body at the moment,”
said Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, noting that the
amendment “won’t be considered by the House, would be
rejected by the governor and is not viable in this
building.”
But reality is not what’s important here.
It’s all about politics and elections. That’s what really
rules in the Legislature.
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 25, 2018
Senate slips ‘sanctuary state’ amendment into Massachusetts'
budget plan
By Joe Battenfeld
Gov. Charlie Baker would veto a Senate
budget provision limiting state law enforcement's role in
enforcement of federal immigration laws, he said Thursday.
The measure - a pared-down version of the
so-called Safe Communities legislation - passed the Senate
25-13 and was added to the Senate's fiscal 2019 budget bill
late Wednesday night.
"I don't support it and I would veto it if
it ends up coming to my desk," Baker said after a Memorial
Day event on Boston Common. "I've said many times that I
think decisions like this belong with local law
enforcement." ...
Touting what he called a "strong vote" on
the proposal Wednesday, [the bill's sponsor, Acton Democrat
Sen. Jamie Eldridge] said he is optimistic about the
proposal gaining traction.
"I think it's really just the beginning,"
Eldridge said. He said, "We'll see what happens in the
conference committee."
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Baker would veto senate immigration measure
This week the Massachusetts Senate
demonstrated why people don’t trust politicians. Late
Thursday night, it slipped through a budget amendment that
would essentially establish the commonwealth as a “sanctuary
state.” The classification would prevent law enforcement
from making inquiries into the residency status of
immigrants. There is nothing “budgetary”
about giving illegal immigrants special protections. Not
only did the Senate completely disrespect law-abiding Bay
Staters by advocating on behalf of non-citizens on time
meant to be spent in service to its constituents, but it
brazenly misused the process for a boutique, progressive
cause. Earlier in the month, one state
senator proudly proclaimed that the issue was part of a
bigger battle against a more ominous threat. Jamie Eldridge
(D-Acton) declared that “sanctuary state” status “limits the
damage to our economy due to Donald Trump’s xenophobic
agenda.” The taxpayers of Massachusetts
deserve priority status from their elected officials. The
Legislature certainly has the capacity to pass laws that
directly benefit legal citizens. They proved that last year
when they approved $18 million in pay raises for themselves.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Taxpayers deserve ‘sanctuary’
The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed
a $41.49 billion spending plan for fiscal 2019 in the early
morning hours Friday. Senators tacked on
$75.5 million in spending through amendments in their three
days of debate, according to the Ways and Means Committee,
which said the budget includes $88 million for regional
transit authorities, $156 million for emergency assistance
family shelters, and $4.91 billion in Chapter 70 education
funds. A conference committee will reconcile
differences between the Senate budget and the $41.065
billion bill the House passed last month.
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Senate adds $75.5 Million to FY19 budget over three days
On Tuesday — by a vote of 14 to 24 — the
state Senate failed to schedule a two-day sales tax holiday.
For a dozen years, the state gave taxpayers a weekend-long
reprieve of the 6.25 percent sales tax, usually in August,
encouraging families to make the rounds for new clothes,
fresh supplies and other back-to-school sundries.
Not so much these past two years. No holiday was scheduled
because of budgetary straits that made it more convenient
for lawmakers to keep the money — estimated at $20 million
to $25 million in forfeited revenue in a given weekend — and
spend it for some other purpose. Passed-up
observances of the tax-free weekend spawned a movement to
memorialize it in law, and this fall, a ballot question asks
voters to force the issue. A Salem News
editorial
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Lawmakers should adopt tax holiday before voters do it for
them
Bleary-eyed senators and staffers put the
finishing touches on a $41.49 billion budget in the wee
small hours of Friday, just in time to take a quick nap,
pack up the car and sit in bridge traffic on Route 3.
Over three days and three nights of debate, the Senate
budget grew by $75.5 million as senators worked through some
1,200 amendments. The debate went in fits and starts, and
President Harriette Chandler put her experience as a teacher
at Worcester's North High School to use as she repeatedly
had to bang the gavel and ask, tell, implore and sometimes
beg everyone to be quiet and pay attention.
At one point Thursday afternoon, Chandler asked senators to
keep their remarks brief so they could get through the 150+
amendments that remained. Instead, senators took to the
podium to talk about the importance of the next five
amendments, only to then withdraw them. No
matter the time, senators continued their parade to the
podiums in Gardner Auditorium to tout their amendments, the
pet projects they would fund and, of course, to pose for a
picture that could be tweeted in an attempt to climb up the
Senate's in-house social media rankings.
After 1 a.m. Friday, once the budget had been adopted
unanimously and everyone had been thoroughly thanked,
Chandler had one final announcement for her colleagues:
"Because of the lateness of the hour, there will not be an
ice cream party as there usually has been in the past.
Instead, we are meeting again on Thursday of next week and
we will have the ice cream party after that. OK?"
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Weekly Roundup - I scream, you scream
By Colin A. Young
Two of five major bills likely to pass this
session moved out of conference committees this week but the
biggest bill of them all, the annual state budget at more
than $41 billion, is about to be placed before a six-member
negotiating panel. Fiscal 2019 budget
conferees will get to pick and choose from a House budget
strewn with spending earmarks for local projects and a
Senate budget laden with policy proposals unrelated to state
spending. The new fiscal year begins in 37
days. Talks will be led by House budget chief
Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez and Senate Ways and Means Chair Karen
Spilka and the timing here is important since the budget is
the most time-consuming and labor intensive bill to assemble
and it's heading into conference just as the political
season intensifies and forces behind an array of other bills
are growing more anxious because the calendar is flipping to
June and formal legislative sessions end on July 31....
The Senate budget would lift the cap Jan. 1 and authorize
$5.5 million to cover the additional benefits over the last
six months of Massachusetts' fiscal year. The provision must
be reconciled with language in the House budget that also
repeals the rule, but not until July 1, 2019.
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Advances - Week of May 27, 2018
Driven by rising welfare costs and the
unproven notion that women on welfare were conceiving
children for the purpose of increasing their monthly
benefits, more than 20 U.S. states enacted policies in the
1990s that critics decried as harmful and punitive.
Often called family caps or caps on kids, the laws vary
among states but essentially serve to deny additional
benefits to children born to families already on welfare. In
several of those states, the tide has turned against such
rules, with Massachusetts poised to become the eighth to
repeal its cap. A $41.5 billion state budget
recently approved by the Senate would eliminate what
Democrat Karen Spilka called an "outdated, unjust policy
that impacts nearly 9,000 vulnerable children."
In Massachusetts, a mother with two kids who would otherwise
be eligible for $578 in monthly cash benefits receives $478
per month if one child was born while she was on public
assistance. That child would also be ineligible for a $300
annual clothing allowance provided by the state, though
would remain eligible for food assistance and Medicaid.
Advocacy groups pushing for change say they hear frequently
from mothers unable to afford diapers or other baby
essentials due to the policy. Associated
Press
Monday, May 28, 2018
States rethink rules that cap welfare to children
Cutting the sales tax will create jobs and
spur economic growth, according to a Beacon Hill think tank,
which also suggests that losses to the state’s coffers will
be offset by a separate tax on millionaires.
A proposal to cut the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5
percent and set a tax-free weekend would trigger more than
9,500 new jobs and increase consumers' disposable income by
$362 million in its first year, according to a study by the
Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy.
While the proposed cut and annual tax-free weekend — which
could be put to voters in the November elections — would
mean about $998 million less for the state, the lost revenue
will be much less than what opponents claim, the study's
authors say. "It is hard to imagine a more
compelling case for a tax cut," said David Tuerck, president
of the Beacon Hill Institute, who authored the report.
"Because of the economic expansion that the tax cut would
bring about, the loss in revenue would be 20 percent less
than that predicted by opponents of the measure."
Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts and chairman of the Massachusetts Main Street
Fairness Coalition, said the study shows cutting the sales
tax won't require major cuts in spending, and it could
actually increase revenue if a separate measure taxing the
state's biggest earners is approved.... House
Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, helped push through a 25
percent increase to the sales tax to 6.25 percent in 2009,
in order to plug a $1 billion budget gap related, in part,
to debt incurred by the MBTA. Perennial
efforts by Republican legislators to roll back the sales tax
have been unsuccessful.... The state collects
about $6 billion a year in sales taxes. The money is used
for everything from plugging budget gaps to funding schools.
The Salem News
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Tax cut supporters say it will spur growth
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
On April 26 the Massachusetts
House passed its $41.065 billion budget by a vote of
150-4. In the early hours of Friday (May 25) the state
Senate unanimously passed its own $41.49 billion budget plan
then hit the road for the long holiday weekend. Both
branches have proposed another year-over-year spending
increase of an additional billion of our dollars.
Next the two versions will go to a
six-member House/Senate conference committee to compromise
both into a single budget plan agreeable to both branches.
Then it will be rubber-stamped by legislators in both
branches and sent on to the governor for his action.
The new fiscal year begins on July 1, now but a month away.
As usual, there is nothing in either
version for taxpayers to celebrate. But when was the
last time there was, when taxpayers were even recognized and
appreciated? It's just more and higher spending on
others at our expense, as always.
While legislators absolutely could "afford"
to fund last year's obscene pay grab for themselves, for the
third year they still can't find a way to "afford" a sales
tax-free holiday. They've found an additional billion
dollars of our money to spend on new and expanding
"programs" but still can't "afford" to give anything
back to taxpayers ― who fund
the entire bloated state government.
Rejecting passage of their obscene pay grab
would have alone offset any "loss" from an annual sales
tax-free weekend. But we now know for sure where their
true priorities are ― if we
didn't before. They always come first,
taxpayers come last if even a passing consideration.
Then there's the trick of piling everything
every legislator desires into the state budget
― the only "must pass" bill
that comes up every year. These individual pork
amendments then get "bundled" before voted on as a package.
This year there's a new twist on that
old scam.
When Sen. Jamie
Eldridge (D-Acton) couldn't get his standalone Sanctuary
State bill passed legitimately, he simply tacked it onto the
Senate budget bill as an amendment. His amendment was
adopted by a 25-13 vote ― thus,
making Massachusetts a Sanctuary State is now a Senate
budget item!
Only in Massachusetts, again.
Gov. Charlie Baker immediately vowed to veto
a Sanctuary State Budget if one makes it to his desk
― while his opinion might still
matter. Imagine that? It must be an election
year and he'll need to face voters, or something, you think?
But appreciate that any "progressive" Democrat in the corner
office would enthusiastically endorse and rubber-stamp a
Sanctuary State Budget and celebrate the designation.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Thursday, May 24, 2018
After tense debate, Senate adopts Safe
Communities amendment
By Colin A. Young
After lengthy and emotional debate late
Wednesday evening, the Massachusetts Senate
adopted a budget amendment to restrict
cooperation between local police and federal
immigration authorities.
The amendment filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge,
which had been the subject of behind-the-scenes
discussions all week, was approved on a 25-13
vote after 90 minutes of debate that stretched
until 11 p.m. Democratic Sens. Michael Brady,
Anne Gobi, Marc Pacheco, Michael Rodrigues,
Michael Rush and Walter Timilty joined the
Senate's seven Republicans in opposition.
The amendment (# 1147) would prevent law
enforcement from asking people about their
immigration status, prohibit collaboration
between Massachusetts law enforcement and U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and would
bar state resources from being used to create a
registry based on ethnicity, religion, country
of origin and other criteria.
"This would assure police and law enforcement
refrain from inquiring about immigration status
unless required by law. It would also require
police to obtain consent before an interview
with ICE and inform them of their right to deny
an interview with ICE," Eldridge said. "It would
also prohibit 287G agreements which deputize
local authorities to enforce federal immigration
law."
The amendment shared many similarities with the
Safe Communities Act, legislation that Eldridge
has promoted on Beacon Hill. In late April,
House Speaker said he does not envision bringing
the Safe Communities Act to the House floor for
a vote this session because he said there was no
consensus in the body.
"I feel badly for our body at this moment. We
are being asked to vote on an amendment that
won't be considered by the House, would be
rejected by the governor and is not viable in
this building," Senate Minority Leader Bruce
Tarr said. "The amendment before us has internal
contradictions, violates federal law, is not
practical in terms of its application, and could
have what I would hope would be the unintended
consequence of prohibiting communication between
law enforcement officials when it is in the
interest of public safety. I am deeply
disappointed."
Tarr and the Republican caucus proposed their
own versions of Eldridge's amendment, but those
amendments were voted down by the Senate.
The Boston Herald
Friday, May 25, 2018
Senate slips ‘sanctuary state’ amendment into
Massachusetts' budget plan
By Joe Battenfeld
You’d think the Massachusetts Senate would have
had enough disgrace for one year.
Think again.
In another late-night session with much of the
public heading off to bed, Democratic senators
pushed through a “budget” amendment that had
nothing to do with the budget but everything to
do with crass politics.
The amendment would all but establish
Massachusetts as a “sanctuary state” —
preventing state and local authorities from
asking immigrants about their residency status
and essentially restricting collaboration
between Massachusetts law enforcement and
federal immigration officials.
“We will all rest easier once this is law,”
proclaimed state Sen. Barbara L’Italien in a
giddy press release announcing the vote.
L’Italien, of course, is running for office —
the 3rd District congressional seat — and this
amendment plays perfectly with liberal voters
and immigrants who are incensed about the Trump
administration’s enforcement of immigration law.
And that’s what this is all about. State
senators who just got done with the scandal
surrounding newly resigned Sen. Stanley
Rosenberg and his estranged husband’s alleged
sexual assaults couldn’t pass this through the
normal legislative process, but they badly
wanted some kind of victory. So they abused the
budget process to get their amendment rammed
through.
What does immigration have to do with the state
budget? Nothing, of course, but that doesn’t
matter in the state Legislature. Senators also
pushed through an amendment allowing candidates
to use their campaign funds for baby-sitting
expenses — another nonbudget item that couldn’t
get through the normal legislative process.
The immigration amendment has little chance of
passage in the more moderate House and Gov.
Charlie Baker has already vowed to veto it.
But that doesn’t matter either, because
Democrats got to put out their press releases
vowing to protect immigrants.
“To do it under the cover of darkness as an
amendment, it reeks of creepy back room
(dealing),” Rick Green, Republican candidate for
the 3rd District congressional seat, said of the
immigration amendment. “The process was just
horrible. It was all political.”
And of course now Green and other Republicans
are using it for political purposes — to serve
their own constituencies.
The 25-13 vote in favor of the amendment was
actually close for the Legislature. Normally
every Democrat will get behind one of their own
proposals, but in this case seven Democrats
voted against the so-called “safe communities”
amendment.
“I feel badly for our body at the moment,” said
Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, noting
that the amendment “won’t be considered by the
House, would be rejected by the governor and is
not viable in this building.”
But reality is not what’s important here. It’s
all about politics and elections. That’s what
really rules in the Legislature.
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Baker would veto senate immigration measure
By Andy Metzger
Gov. Charlie Baker would veto a Senate budget
provision limiting state law enforcement's role
in enforcement of federal immigration laws, he
said Thursday.
The measure - a pared-down version of the
so-called Safe Communities legislation - passed
the Senate 25-13 and was added to the Senate's
fiscal 2019 budget bill late Wednesday night.
"I don't support it and I would veto it if it
ends up coming to my desk," Baker said after a
Memorial Day event on Boston Common. "I've said
many times that I think decisions like this
belong with local law enforcement."
The provision would bar state and local police
from inquiring into someone's immigration status
and prevent collaborations known as 287G
agreements where state and county officials are
essentially deputized by the federal Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Department of
Correction officials would be able to continue
those agreements under the provision. The
legislation would require state and local
officials to share immigration documents with
individuals within their custody and inform them
that they do not need to talk to federal
immigration officials.
In his remarks Thursday, Baker spoke out against
legislation prohibiting communication between
ICE and local officials.
"I do not believe the state should be stepping
into this. And I especially don't believe that
we should pass legislation that makes it
impossible for the state of Massachusetts - with
criminals who are currently in our prisons and
have been convicted of terrible crimes and may
be here illegally - that we should not be
allowed to talk to the feds. I think that's
ridiculous and outrageous and I don't support
it," Baker said.
An Acton Democrat, Sen. Jamie Eldridge, the
sponsor of the amendment, said prohibiting
communication between ICE and local officials is
not part of the provision adopted in the Senate
on Wednesday. Eldridge suggested that the
governor has not actually read the amendment and
said he is "troubled" by the Republican
governor's rhetoric about unauthorized
immigrants.
"His language has been very much in line with
Donald Trump's rhetoric regarding undocumented
immigrants," Eldridge told the News Service,
saying, "I hope he reads the amendment."
The amendment (#1147) states, "Nothing in this
section shall prohibit or restrain the
commonwealth, any political subdivision thereof,
or any employee or agent of the commonwealth or
any of its political subdivisions, from sending
to, or receiving from, any local, state, or
federal agency, information regarding
citizenship or immigration status, consistent
with Section 1373 of Title 8 of the United
States Code."
"Governor Baker opposes a sanctuary state and
this amendment does not address the issue of
creating clear guidelines for state and local
law enforcement to work with federal immigration
officials to detain violent and dangerous
criminals convicted of heinous crimes like rape
and murder, as the governor's legislation
would," communications director Elizabeth Guyton
said. Last summer, Baker filed legislation (H
3870) that would allow state officials to honor
detainer requests from ICE.
Senators debated the issue Wednesday night, and
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr predicted
Eldridge's proposal "won't be considered by the
House, would be rejected by the governor and is
not viable in this building."
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has previously said
the House lacks consensus on how to address the
interplay between immigration officials and
state and local law enforcement, and on Thursday
he indicated that dynamic remains the same.
"Not a whole lot has changed in terms of the
general feelings of the members," DeLeo told
reporters on Thursday after the Memorial Day
event. He said, "Sure, things can change but as
of right now that is not one of the issues I
have been hearing from members about."
The Supreme Judicial Court changed how state law
enforcement interacts with federal immigration
agents when the court ruled last July that state
officials cannot detain someone solely at the
request of ICE.
"The prudent course is not for this court to
create, and attempt to define, some new
authority for court officers to arrest that
heretofore has been unrecognized and undefined,"
the court wrote in its unsigned opinion in
Commonwealth v. Sreynuon Lunn. "The better
course is for us to defer to the Legislature to
establish and carefully define that authority if
the Legislature wishes that to be the law of
this Commonwealth."
Touting what he called a "strong vote" on the
proposal Wednesday, Eldridge said he is
optimistic about the proposal gaining traction.
"I think it's really just the beginning,"
Eldridge said. He said, "We'll see what happens
in the conference committee."
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Senate adds $75.5 Million to FY19 budget over
three days
By Katie Lannan
The Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a
$41.49 billion spending plan for fiscal 2019 in
the early morning hours Friday.
Senators tacked on $75.5 million in spending
through amendments in their three days of
debate, according to the Ways and Means
Committee, which said the budget includes $88
million for regional transit authorities, $156
million for emergency assistance family
shelters, and $4.91 billion in Chapter 70
education funds.
A conference committee will reconcile
differences between the Senate budget and the
$41.065 billion bill the House passed last
month.
"Believe it or not, I'm wide awake," Senate Ways
and Means Chair Karen Spilka said after the bill
passed at 12:38 a.m. "It is early. The night is
still young."
Spilka, an Ashland Democrat who is expected to
ascend to the presidency later this session,
thanked Senate President Harriette Chandler for
setting the tone for a "healthy, wonderful"
debate.
Chandler, in remarks to the chamber at the end
of the night, thanked her colleagues for showing
respect and strength. A Worcester Democrat who
took over as president when her predecessor,
former Sen. Stan Rosenberg, stepped down amid
sexual assault allegations against his husband,
Chandler said the Senate has gone through "some
challenging moments."
"I won't let anybody say the Senate is in chaos,
that we're confused, that we have no stability,"
she said. "We are strong, we are going forward."
The Salem News
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
A Salem News editorial
Lawmakers should adopt tax holiday before voters
do it for them
It gets turned away at the door of the
Statehouse like one of those neighborhood strays
that people sometimes feed but no really owns.
Only, it’s been two years now since this
cast-off has gotten much attention, and
lawmakers who neglect it this time could find
voters taking matters into their own hands.
On Tuesday — by a vote of 14 to 24 — the state
Senate failed to schedule a two-day sales tax
holiday. For a dozen years, the state gave
taxpayers a weekend-long reprieve of the 6.25
percent sales tax, usually in August,
encouraging families to make the rounds for new
clothes, fresh supplies and other back-to-school
sundries.
Not so much these past two years. No holiday was
scheduled because of budgetary straits that made
it more convenient for lawmakers to keep the
money — estimated at $20 million to $25 million
in forfeited revenue in a given weekend — and
spend it for some other purpose.
Passed-up observances of the tax-free weekend
spawned a movement to memorialize it in law, and
this fall, a ballot question asks voters to
force the issue.
Ballot questions are a lousy way to write
policy, but right now this appears to be the
only option with much of a chance. Gov. Charlie
Baker is urging lawmakers to get ahead of the
referendum by voting the tax holiday, and
presumably creating a better version than voters
might produce.
But if the past couple of years and this week’s
vote are any indication, the Legislature may
well let this opportunity pass.
It would be a shame. A sales tax holiday may not
amount to a big boon for individuals, maybe
saving $25 or $50 depending upon how much they
spend, although it does inspire some to make
bigger purchases they've put off.
The collective impact is great, however,
especially for businesses near the border that
compete with New Hampshire retailers who collect
no tax. And that describes a large group of
retailers in the Merrimack Valley and North
Shore.
The sales tax holiday is also timely — a shot in
the arm come August, when sales are light
because many customers are soaking up the last
of the summer before getting into school mode.
Not that any of this has inspired action by
lawmakers the past couple of years. Unlike those
years, however, the state’s coffers now appear
relatively healthy.
“Revenues are good. Consumer confidence is
high,” said Jon Hurst, president of the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts, whose
group is advocating a ballot question for a
sales-tax holiday as well as another to reduce
the income tax rate.
As he told State House News Service: “The
question is where do we want the customers to
spend their money?”
In other words, are they shopping here in
Massachusetts? Or across the border?
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr said much the
same in proposing a Senate bill to adopt the
sales tax holiday. Unfortunately, just 13 of his
peers went along.
There's hope yet. Hurst remarked that this
week’s outcome in the Senate isn’t so
surprising, given that lawmakers typically
haven’t set a sales-tax holiday during the
budget process. Instead, it usually comes some
time later.
To be sure, summer break hasn’t even started for
most schoolchildren. Most are presumably focused
on camp and other summertime activities, and
have barely given a thought to the shopping list
for the fall.
Still, lawmakers need to act promptly to reverse
course and open the door to the sales tax
holiday, lest the state’s taxpayers again get
left outside.
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Weekly Roundup - I scream, you scream
By Colin A. Young
Bleary-eyed senators and staffers put the
finishing touches on a $41.49 billion budget in
the wee small hours of Friday, just in time to
take a quick nap, pack up the car and sit in
bridge traffic on Route 3.
Over three days and three nights of debate, the
Senate budget grew by $75.5 million as senators
worked through some 1,200 amendments. The debate
went in fits and starts, and President Harriette
Chandler put her experience as a teacher at
Worcester's North High School to use as she
repeatedly had to bang the gavel and ask, tell,
implore and sometimes beg everyone to be quiet
and pay attention.
At one point Thursday afternoon, Chandler asked
senators to keep their remarks brief so they
could get through the 150+ amendments that
remained. Instead, senators took to the podium
to talk about the importance of the next five
amendments, only to then withdraw them.
No matter the time, senators continued their
parade to the podiums in Gardner Auditorium to
tout their amendments, the pet projects they
would fund and, of course, to pose for a picture
that could be tweeted in an attempt to climb up
the Senate's in-house social media rankings.
After 1 a.m. Friday, once the budget had been
adopted unanimously and everyone had been
thoroughly thanked, Chandler had one final
announcement for her colleagues:
"Because of the lateness of the hour, there will
not be an ice cream party as there usually has
been in the past. Instead, we are meeting again
on Thursday of next week and we will have the
ice cream party after that. OK?"
House Democrats celebrated on Wednesday evening,
after passing a controversial bill allowing a
judge to take away someone's guns if they pose a
threat to themselves or others.
The bill picked up steam on Beacon Hill in the
wakes of mass shootings around the country this
year, though it was fiercely opposed by the Gun
Owners Action League and several House
Republicans who argued that the bill missed its
opportunity to focus on mental health as a cause
of gun violence and suicide.
The "red flag" bill ultimately cleared the House
139-14, with two Democrats -- Reps. Colleen
Garry of Dracut and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner
-- joining 11 of 34 Republicans and one
independent, Rep. Susannah Whipps, voting
against the measure before House Speaker Bob
DeLeo and bill sponsor Rep. Marjorie Decker
celebrated with advocates in the speaker's
chambers.
Passage of the "red flag" bill was a fairly safe
bet, but DeLeo this week set the odds on
legalizing sports betting in Massachusetts way
back when he declared that it is likely too
complex of an issue to handle in the two months
left of formal sessions.
"I think that there are so many questions that
have to be answered and I think that right now
for us to be able to expect to do this within
the last two months of session, I'm not saying
we're not going to talk about it, we're going
continue to try to come to some type of an
answer yes or no, but what I'm saying is I think
it would be very, very difficult," DeLeo said,
dashing the hopes of bettors.
State House News Service
Friday, May 25, 2018
Advances - Week of May 27, 2018
Two of five major bills likely to pass this
session moved out of conference committees this
week but the biggest bill of them all, the
annual state budget at more than $41 billion, is
about to be placed before a six-member
negotiating panel.
Fiscal 2019 budget conferees will get to pick
and choose from a House budget strewn with
spending earmarks for local projects and a
Senate budget laden with policy proposals
unrelated to state spending.
The new fiscal year begins in 37 days.
Talks will be led by House budget chief Rep.
Jeffrey Sanchez and Senate Ways and Means Chair
Karen Spilka and the timing here is important
since the budget is the most time-consuming and
labor intensive bill to assemble and it's
heading into conference just as the political
season intensifies and forces behind an array of
other bills are growing more anxious because the
calendar is flipping to June and formal
legislative sessions end on July 31.
Sanchez, Spilka and Democratic legislative
leaders are also likely preoccupied by the
agendas of ballot activists, whose initiative
petition proposals call for a sales tax
reduction, a $15 minimum wage and a paid family
and medical leave law. There's just over a month
for lawmakers to come up with a deal on those
measures, or risk having them locked in for
voters on the November ballot.
Gov. Charlie Baker on Monday signed a $147
million spending bill after lawmakers delivered
it to his desk without an early voting reform
sought by the Senate and designed to boost
turnout in the Sept. 4 primary elections.
The other bill adopted by the House and Senate
after emerging from conference this week was a
$1.8 billion housing bond bill (H 4536) that
Baker is likely to agree to since he filed a
similar proposal.
Bills dealing with borrowing to maintain and
improve state assets, the taxation and
regulation of short-term rentals and consumer
protections against data breaches remain pending
before conference committees and may be joined
by a veterans benefits bill, unless legislative
leaders can come to an agreement on that bill
informally.
It's the Senate's turn to decide what to do
about a bill creating a "red flag" judicial
process to remove guns from people deemed a
threat to themselves or others. That bill
cleared the House on Wednesday 139-14.
Other major issues are pending in a much more
uncertain state.
Senators who last November advanced a health
care cost bill have been waiting six months for
a House counter-offer and it's beginning to feel
like the branches may not be willing or able to
agree on a health care bill this session, unless
the pace suddenly quickens.
Ditto for housing production legislation and a
bill authorizing additional tools to fight
opioid addiction.
With eight-plus weeks of formal sessions
remaining, the housing and opioid bills have yet
to surface in either branch and lawmakers, who
by this point are sizing up their election
opponents, are beginning to shift their
attention to campaigning.
Democrats plan to go into full political mode on
Friday and Saturday when they convene for their
nominating convention in Worcester, where Jay
Gonzalez and Robert Massie are scheduled to
compete for the endorsement of party delegates,
as well as Secretary of State William Galvin and
his Democratic opponent, Boston City Councilor
Josh Zakim.
Associated Press
Monday, May 28, 2018
States rethink rules that cap welfare to
children
BOSTON — Driven by rising welfare costs and the
unproven notion that women on welfare were
conceiving children for the purpose of
increasing their monthly benefits, more than 20
U.S. states enacted policies in the 1990s that
critics decried as harmful and punitive.
Often called family caps or caps on kids, the
laws vary among states but essentially serve to
deny additional benefits to children born to
families already on welfare. In several of those
states, the tide has turned against such rules,
with Massachusetts poised to become the eighth
to repeal its cap.
A $41.5 billion state budget recently approved
by the Senate would eliminate what Democrat
Karen Spilka called an "outdated, unjust policy
that impacts nearly 9,000 vulnerable children."
In Massachusetts, a mother with two kids who
would otherwise be eligible for $578 in monthly
cash benefits receives $478 per month if one
child was born while she was on public
assistance. That child would also be ineligible
for a $300 annual clothing allowance provided by
the state, though would remain eligible for food
assistance and Medicaid.
Advocacy groups pushing for change say they hear
frequently from mothers unable to afford diapers
or other baby essentials due to the policy.
Naomi Meyer, a senior attorney with Greater
Boston Legal Services, rejects the premise of
the family cap, which was ostensibly to
discourage out-of-wedlock births and remove any
financial incentive for more children.
"People's decisions about having babies are
sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional
... but they are not impacted by whether they
are going to get another $100 a month," said
Meyer.
For Rachel Mulroy, a single mother who was on
and off welfare for several years while in what
she called an abusive relationship, the cap
meant skimping on things like bus fare and
"making terrible decisions to try and save on
diapers because they are so expensive."
Instead of taking the bus, the New Bedford woman
recalls loading her daughters — then ages 1 and
3 — into a little red wagon and walking more
than a mile back and forth to the nearest
grocery store. Once, when it began to pour, a
sympathetic police officer stopped and gave the
family a lift.
Though not on welfare when her second child was
born, when Mulroy became homeless and reapplied
for benefits she was told that under
Massachusetts rules the second child would still
fall under the cap.
"It felt like we were being punished," said
Mulroy, 35, who later earned a college degree
and now works full-time as a community
organizer.
The Senate budget would lift the cap Jan. 1 and
authorize $5.5 million to cover the additional
benefits over the last six months of
Massachusetts' fiscal year. The provision must
be reconciled with language in the House budget
that also repeals the rule, but not until July
1, 2019.
Eliminating the cap is a "bad idea" that fails
to address welfare dependency, said Paul Craney,
spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance,
a conservative-leaning group that frequently
targets Democratic lawmakers on spending and
taxes. He called instead for stronger work
requirements for welfare recipients.
"Everything else is a feel good Band-Aid for the
problem," said Craney.
California repealed the cap in 2016 in a move
that at the time was estimated would cost the
state $220 million annually. Caps were also
lifted by Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio,
Oklahoma and Wyoming, according to a tally from
the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.
Full or partial caps remain in Arizona,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Indiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Virginia, according to The Urban
Institute's welfare rules database.
Idaho is an example of a state with an
"implicit" cap, as it provides the same maximum
welfare benefit to families regardless of size.
Studies have been largely inconclusive as to
whether family caps serve to discourage
additional births or push recipients off
welfare, as proponents suggest. A 2001 report
from Congress' General Accounting Office cited
methodological limitations with previous
academic studies and difficulties assessing
out-of-wedlock births in the context of other
social and economic changes.
In New Jersey, the first state to institute a
family cap in 1992, proposals to abolish the
rule in recent years twice met with vetoes from
then-Republican Gov. Chris Christie. With
Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy now in office,
advocates for low-income residents are
cautiously optimistic.
Cash benefits in the state have remained
stagnant for decades, according to the group New
Jersey Policy Perspective, resulting in a
monthly benefit of just $322 for a mother with
two children when the second child is capped.
"A family of three can't survive on $322 a
month," said Raymond Castro, NJPP's health
policy director.
The Salem News
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Tax cut supporters say it will spur growth
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Cutting the sales tax will create jobs and spur
economic growth, according to a Beacon Hill
think tank, which also suggests that losses to
the state’s coffers will be offset by a separate
tax on millionaires.
A proposal to cut the sales tax from 6.25
percent to 5 percent and set a tax-free weekend
would trigger more than 9,500 new jobs and
increase consumers' disposable income by $362
million in its first year, according to a study
by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy.
While the proposed cut and annual tax-free
weekend — which could be put to voters in the
November elections — would mean about $998
million less for the state, the lost revenue
will be much less than what opponents claim, the
study's authors say.
"It is hard to imagine a more compelling case
for a tax cut," said David Tuerck, president of
the Beacon Hill Institute, who authored the
report. "Because of the economic expansion that
the tax cut would bring about, the loss in
revenue would be 20 percent less than that
predicted by opponents of the measure."
Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts and chairman of the
Massachusetts Main Street Fairness Coalition,
said the study shows cutting the sales tax won't
require major cuts in spending, and it could
actually increase revenue if a separate measure
taxing the state's biggest earners is approved.
"When paired with the income surtax question on
track for the ballot this fall, the net revenue
effect of the combined ballot measures would be
an increase in state revenue of nearly a $1
billion a year," he said.
Massachusetts has one of the highest sales taxes
in New England, which retailers and small
business owners say puts them at a disadvantage.
Rhode Island has the highest sales tax in the
region at 7 percent, followed by Connecticut's
6.35 percent.
Efforts to roll back the sales tax to 3 percent
in 2010 made it to the ballot but were
ultimately rejected by voters. The referendum
proved one of the most costly questions on the
ballot that year, with both sides spending $5
million to sway voters.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, helped
push through a 25 percent increase to the sales
tax to 6.25 percent in 2009, in order to plug a
$1 billion budget gap related, in part, to debt
incurred by the MBTA.
Perennial efforts by Republican legislators to
roll back the sales tax have been unsuccessful.
Besides a sales tax rollback, a coalition of
labor, community groups and faith-based
organizations are pursuing a so-called
"millionaire’s tax" on top earners for the
November ballot. Revenues from the surtax would
be earmarked for education and transportation.
That proposal is being challenged in the state
Supreme Judicial Court by business groups who
say it would cost jobs and hurt the economy.
Supporters of the sales tax cut say revenue from
the new income surtax — estimated at $1.9
billion a year — would more than absorb the hit.
The state collects about $6 billion a year in
sales taxes. The money is used for everything
from plugging budget gaps to funding schools.
Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts state
director of the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, says paring down the
sales tax would be a boon for both consumers and
small businesses, "spurring economic growth and
job creation" across the board.
"With some of the highest health care, energy
and labor costs in the nation, a sales tax
reduction provides much-needed relief for
struggling Main Street shops," he said. |
| |
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
|
