 |
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
Friday, June 8, 2018
A challenging time for
embattled taxpayers
|
The House 149-2, approved and sent to the Senate a local
option bill allowing a city or town to authorize the
creation of community benefit districts which would permit
owners of contiguous property in a city or town to form a
district and impose taxes to pay for additional services,
improvements, events and other projects and activities
within the district. The districts would be operated by a
nonprofit board....
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), one of only two
representatives to vote against the bill, said this new
option allows certain property owners to create their own
fiefdoms and the ability to assess other property owners for
purposes determined by themselves. “These are the kind of
activities for which local government exists,” said Provost.
“Why would we want to have a class of … private, parallel
quasi-governments to perform these functions? Is the
democracy, transparency and accountability of local elected
government a problem?”
“Homeowners, family-owned businesses and their employees
could be negatively impacted by groups who manipulate or
misuse the powers created under this bill that privatizes
some of local government's management and expense of tax
dollars, community development and community services
functions,” said Rep. Michelle DuBois (D-Brockton).
“Block by block they're coming for taxpayers,” said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation. “Will the Legislature next propose also taxing
us at the street level, then backyard by backyard? Today
such speculation is not so far-fetched.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of May 28-June 1, 2018
A Neighborhood Can Band Together and Form a District with
Taxing Power (H-4546)
By Bob Katzen
Property owners would be allowed to create
special taxing districts to pay for neighborhood services
and improvements under a proposal working its way through
Beacon Hill, but fiscal watchdogs caution the move amounts
to a cash grab by developers.
The bipartisan proposal, approved by the
House last week, allows "community benefit districts" in
which property owners create a nonprofit board to make
neighborhood upgrades — like added security, beautification
projects or cultural programs — funded through a property
assessment.
"This would empower communities by giving
them another way to improve their downtowns and Main
Streets," said Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Lynn Democrat and
primary sponsor of the Senate's version of the bill. "There
are a lot of towns and cities — specifically gateway cities
— that stand to benefit from this."
Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has vetoed
two similar proposals. He has called the assessments "the
functional equivalent of new property taxes."
But Crighton and other supporters say the
Baker administration is slowly warming to the idea as
lawmakers have amended it over the years....
Some fiscal watchdogs oppose the proposal,
arguing that it would lead to additional layers of local
taxation and government in a state already overtaxed.
"Effectively it's an end-run around the
restrictions of Proposition 2½ by dividing
municipalities into ‘community benefit districts’ that can
then additionally tax individual sub-divisions of cities and
towns — a new neighborhood tax," said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
The Salem News
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Special taxing districts eyed for neighborhood projects
Baker opposed to idea as 'new property tax'
The state Legislature is cooking up another
piece of warm “money” pie — complete with a cherry on top —
for its friends.
From the same group that voted themselves an
18-percent pay raise comes an end-of-the-budget-season
“gift” to state and municipal retirees seeking to earn more
taxpayer-funded income as “double-dippers.” They want to
cash their public pensions — plus be able to pad them with
less restrictive rules on how may hours they can work in
retirement doing their former jobs.
You’ve read that right. Police officers,
firefighters, teachers and others who chose to retire early
from their jobs with public pensions want to work more and
earn more on the public dole. It appears both the
Democratic-controlled House and Senate are planning to
oblige them....
At present, retirees — both state and local
government — are limited to working 960 hours per year. A
bill passed by the Senate would raise the cap to 1,200
hours; the House version would pack on a generous 56 percent
increase to 1,500 hours. The bills were tucked into each
chamber’s proposed $41.5 billion state budget, and need to
be reconciled to become law....
Few government retirees leave the job early
unless they’ve maxed out their pension benefits or have
something else in the works — most likely another
decent-paying position. By raising the cap, lawmakers are
creating a “double-dipping” statute plain and simple. It’s
no secret this is an election year. For lawmakers facing a
competitive race, there are 120,000 state and teacher
retirees — and thousands more on the municipal side — whose
backs can be scratched with a double-dipping bonus....
In our view, this issue deserves more study
on its overall impact on state and local government
operations — and taxpayers. If this proposal reaches Gov.
Charlie Baker’s desk, he should veto it until citizens are
assured that lawmakers aren’t introducing a public payroll
abuse that will be the object of future reform.
A Boston Herald editorial
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Public pension changes a giveaway to retirees
Retailers in Massachusetts need help, a fact
made abundantly clear in a report released on Beacon Hill
last week.
The report, compiled by a state Senate task
force, did a fine job outlining the obstacles facing the Bay
State retail industry. The question remains, however,
whether the Democrat-dominated Legislature will do anything
to lend a hand....
State Sen. Michael Barrett, who served on
the task force, told the State House News Service last month
that the panel would not be making recommendations.
"The press will be frustrated," he said.
"They'll want us to make the call on issues like the tax
holiday, like the training wage, and if we're not prepared
to make the call, we need to clarify that."
Fortunately, there are already a handful of
initiatives before lawmakers that would help boost the
retail industry. Reinstating the sales tax holiday would be
a relatively easy first step. The late-summer reprieve from
the 6.25 percent Massachusetts sales tax usually occurs over
an August weekend. Retail business leaders have it
positioned for a statewide vote on the November ballot, but
lawmakers don't need to wait. They can make it happen now.
It would be distressing to see the work of
the task force simply shelved alongside the dozens of
similar reports compiled by, and then ignored by, the
Legislature.
A Salem News editorial
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Help for retailers can start with sales tax holiday
By the end of the day Thursday, the
Massachusetts Legislature is expected to have approved more
than $6 billion in borrowing in just more than two weeks.
The House and Senate have already approved a
housing bond bill and action in the House on Wednesday left
two more borrowing bills -- one dealing with capital needs
and the other focused on the life sciences industry -- a
Senate vote away from Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.
The borrowing blitz began when the House and
Senate approved a housing bond bill on May 23, authorizing
$1.8 billion over five years to finance affordable housing
development and improvements at public housing facilities.
Baker signed that into law May 31....
If Baker signs both Thursday, he and the
Legislature will have OK'ed $6.14 billion in borrowing in
about 15 days.
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Lawmakers, Baker on pace to add $6 Billion in borrowing
The two different versions of $41 billion
spending plans for fiscal 2019 are now officially in the
hands of six lawmakers, who voted Thursday morning to take
their negotiations behind closed doors.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Karen
Spilka, who helms the conference committee with House Ways
and Means Chair Jeffrey Sánchez, said she hopes the
negotiations on the budget for the fiscal year that starts
in 24 days will be "very fruitful, productive and somewhat
swift." ...
Spilka briefly hosted Sánchez and fellow
conferees Sens. Joan Lovely and Vinny deMacedo and Reps.
Stephen Kulik and Todd Smola, along with several staffers,
in a conference room in her office. The panel met in open
session for less than 10 minutes before agreeing to continue
their talks in private....
Spilka said education and "regional
empowerment" were among main priorities in the Senate's
plan....
The Senate, on a 25-13 vote, also agreed to
a Sen. Jamie Eldridge amendment prohibiting law enforcement
officers from asking about immigration status and limiting
local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement. The House budget does not address immigration
enforcement.
Jonathan Paz, a member of Progressive
Massachusetts and the Safe Communities Coalition, dropped
off a painting of the Statue of Liberty at Spilka's office
Thursday morning. He said his goal was to highlight that the
conferees were meeting in private, leaving observers with
little insight into how they were discussing the immigration
policy attached to the budget.
"This is a back-room meeting, and immigrant
lives are being leveraged," he told the News Service....
Spilka is expected to ascend to the Senate
presidency later this session, a fact that appeared to be on
her vice chair's mind Thursday morning.
"Madam president, I mean Madam
President-elect, Madam Chair," Sen. Lovely said, addressing
Spilka as she introduced a motion that the committee close
its negotiations to the public.
State House News Service
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Facing July 1 deadline, negotiators embark on state budget
talks
Raise Up Massachusetts said Thursday it has
reached an impasse in its negotiations with business
lobbying groups over a $15-per-hour minimum wage, throwing
the possibility of a “grand bargain” compromise on multiple
ballot proposals into doubt.
Raise Up, a coalition of labor unions and
their allies, has been in talks with lawmakers and
organizations like the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts and Associated Industries of Massachusetts to
find middle ground on three ballot questions: a minimum wage
increase, required paid family and medical leave, and a cut
to the state sales tax. Raise Up supports the wage and
paid-leave proposals, while the retailers group is pushing
the sales tax measure. The two sides are seeking to reach a
legislative compromise, rather than allow the proposals to
go directly to voters in November.
On Thursday, Raise Up sent a letter to House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Harriette
Chandler, saying that the minimum-wage talks had hit a
“standstill.” The retailers want a special minimum wage for
teenagers, as well as the elimination of an existing
requirement that businesses pay workers 1.5 times their
normal wages on Sundays and holidays. But Raise Up said it
wouldn’t budge on those issues....
The so-called millionaires’ tax, which would
raise income taxes on those who earn $1 million or more
annually, is not on the table during the negotiations.
Because the proposal is a constitutional amendment, the
legislature cannot pass it into law. Instead, the proposal
must be approved by voters.
However, the Supreme Judicial Court is
considering whether the tax is constitutional. Its ruling,
which is expected any day now, could affect the “grand
bargain” negotiations, since it could change the leverage
both sides believe they have.
The effective deadline for any legislative
compromise in July 3, the date by which the sponsors of the
ballot questions must submit their final round of signatures
in support of the initiatives to the state.
Boston Business Journal
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Ballot talks at ‘standstill’ as labor group holds firm on
minimum wage
Negotiators trying to assemble a "grand
bargain" to settle sales tax reduction, paid family and
medical leave benefits, and a minimum wage increase appear
on the verge of receiving a piece of information that's
potentially critical to their talks. The Supreme Judicial
Court appears to be taking its full allotment of time to
render a decision on whether a citizen-backed constitutional
amendment imposing a 4 percent surtax on household income
above $1 billion is properly certified for the November
ballot, or should be discarded without a vote.
But just as negotiators on the three initiative petitions
are looking at early July as their deadline for a deal, time
is also running out on the high court, which aims to render
decisions on cases it hears within 115 to 130 days of oral
arguments. A standing order says that cases "should be
decided within 130 days after argument" and both sides
squared off in oral arguments on Feb. 6. The
130-day mark falls on Saturday, June 16.
Opponents of the 4 percent surtax on incomes over $1
million, argue that the format of the amendment violates the
state constitution by bundling multiple unrelated policies
into one question. Supporters of the question say it could
raise roughly $2 billion that would be directed to pay for
transportation and education. The case filed by leaders of
business groups is called Christopher Anderson & others v.
Maura Healey & another. At 8 a.m. through its
Twitter feed, the Office of the Reporter of Decisions
notifies the public of decisions that will be published two
hours later at 10 a.m. every weekday. The
proposed sales tax cut is worth about $1.2 billion a year,
and negotiators weighing multiple ballot proposals, each
carrying significant fiscal and economic implications, are
eagerly awaiting the SJC's ruling. The
supporters of the $15 minimum wage and paid leave ballot
proposals plan a "week of action," starting with a 2 p.m.
rally on Monday. State House News Service
Friday, June 8, 2018
Advances - Week of June 10, 2018
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
On April 11th we warned that The Takers
would soon be assaulting CLT's Proposition 2½
again ("A
calm before the storm?"), but this latest approach, I
must admit, is novel. Instead of directly attacking
the law itself, they've devised a scheme to run around it in
a way so devious that nobody ever could have foreseen.
Instead of again
attempting to change, weaken, and subvert our
property tax-limitation law ― which CLT has managed to fend
off in the past, most recently in
2013 and before that in
2010 ― this time they intend to simply create an
entire new layer of government, with its own power to
tax separately and additionally.
You've got to give
them points for creativity, and persistence.
So should we don the
armor and prepare for battle again ― or are you worn down,
disinterested, and ready to stand down and let them have
their way at last?
From the disappointing
response to our last mailing, I suspect the fighting spirit,
sufficient taxpayer resistance, has waned and for most must
be over, gone.
Apparently sensing
this apathy, the state is plowing ahead with more and more
spending, bigger and more expansive government. This
week the Governor and Legislature just borrowed another $6
Billion to spend, a huge sum (with accruing interest) which
doesn't grow on trees. That $6 Billion plus interest
will need to be repaid and, like everything else state
government borrows and spends, it is us productive taxpayers
who will pay the bill.
At publication of the
State House News Service report on Wednesday the
House and Senate had already approved a housing bond bill
authorizing $1.8 billion of borrowing.
After the Senate met on Thursday, the
State House News Service further reported:
"The
Senate voted 33-5 to enact the $473 million life
sciences bill (H 4501), and voted 38-0 to enact
$3.87 billion in borrowing and spending on state
facility repairs and other capital needs (H 4549)."
$6.14 billion borrowed in 15 days.
What do you suppose
your "fair share" will be of that $6.14 Billion now added to
the state's debt?
Meanwhile legislators
are still taking care of their friends on Bacon Hill.
According to the Boston Herald editorial:
"From
the same group that voted themselves an 18-percent
pay raise comes an end-of-the-budget-season 'gift'
to state and municipal retirees seeking to earn more
taxpayer-funded income as 'double-dippers.' They
want to cash their public pensions — plus be able to
pad them with less restrictive rules on how may
hours they can work in retirement doing their former
jobs."
This further assault on taxpayers is in the
Senate's budget now in conference committee, an amendment
(#5) by Sen. Michael Rodrigues, "Post-retirement earnings
cap increase." It was adopted by the state Senate on
May 22, right before the Senate offhandedly rejected rolling
back the sales tax to 5 percent and the income tax to 5
percent. As has become the rule rather than the
exception ― again there were
no roll call votes. None of us will ever know how
our senator voted on any of those. That's the way they
want it, cultivating their constituents as mushrooms, kept
in the dark and well fertilized until the fall harvest.
CLT members may recall the double-dipper
amendment's sponsor, Michael J. Rodrigues of Westford, from
2009. He was a state representative then, when an alert
CLT member caught and photographed him filling his trunk
with liquor at a New Hampshire state liquor store
― right after he voted to
increase the alcohol tax on the rest of us.
Any day now the state Supreme Judicial
Court's decision will come down on the constitutionality of
the sixth graduated income tax ballot question. Also
known by its advocates as the "Millionaires Tax," or the
"Fair Share Amendment," it directs how the new revenue raised
would be spent, which clearly should be
unconstitutional and prohibit the question from the ballot.
It would appear that the sales tax rollback
will be on the ballot. The Retailer's Association has
been using its threat as a negotiation lever while dealing
with Raise Up Massachusetts, the latest incarnation of
The Takers usual coalition. Raise Up Massachusetts
is the sponsor of the graduated income tax ballot question,
the $15-per-hour minimum wage ballot question, the required
paid family leave ballot question, and the required paid
medical leave ballot question. The Retailers
Association is fighting tooth and nail to save its
Massachusetts small business members from bankruptcy and
extinction, but the only thing The Takers aren't
taking is prisoners.
The Takers want it all, or nothing.
Voters should give them the latter.
But this is, after all, Massachusetts and
recent polls show The Takers walking away with their
plunder, crushing small businesses. The best ray of
hope is that those same polls show the sales tax rollback
winning big too. But if small businesses are forced to
close we'll still need to drive to New Hampshire,
out-of-state, to buy anything. Either nothing will be
available here, or anything that is will be too expensive.
And my friends are surprised that I'm
looking at shutting down CLT soon and moving out-of-state
while I still can?
My father, William "Woody" Ford, a WWII and
Battle of the Bulge veteran, passed away at 99 years old on
Wednesday ― appropriately on
the 74th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. I've got
to get back to our family's funeral arrangements but wanted
to get this out to you.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of May 28-June 1, 2018
A Neighborhood Can Band Together and Form a
District with Taxing Power (H-4546)
By Bob Katzen
The House 149-2, approved and sent to the Senate
a local option bill allowing a city or town to
authorize the creation of community benefit
districts which would permit owners of
contiguous property in a city or town to form a
district and impose taxes to pay for additional
services, improvements, events and other
projects and activities within the district. The
districts would be operated by a nonprofit
board.
“Community benefit districts are another tool
that municipalities can use to help grow their
local economies and build good neighborhoods
where people can live, work and play,” said the
bill’s sponsor Sen. Brendan Crighton (D-Lynn).
“This nationally proven model will create
opportunities in downtowns, main streets and
town centers across the commonwealth.”
“The Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance
believes that community benefit districts can be
a game changer,” said Andre Leroux, Executive
Director MA Smart Growth Alliance. “Cities and
towns in Massachusetts are struggling to
maintain basic services for residents and
businesses, much less provide the amenities that
world-class, walkable places need to thrive. The
bill establishes a way for communities to
organize a public-private-nonprofit partnership
to support their downtown, Main Street, cultural
district, historic area or other important
place. It’s really about empowering local people
to tackle their own challenges.”
Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), one of only
two representatives to vote against the bill,
said this new option allows certain property
owners to create their own fiefdoms and the
ability to assess other property owners for
purposes determined by themselves. “These are
the kind of activities for which local
government exists,” said Provost. “Why would we
want to have a class of … private, parallel
quasi-governments to perform these functions? Is
the democracy, transparency and accountability
of local elected government a problem?”
“Homeowners, family-owned businesses and their
employees could be negatively impacted by groups
who manipulate or misuse the powers created
under this bill that privatizes some of local
government's management and expense of tax
dollars, community development and community
services functions,” said Rep. Michelle DuBois
(D-Brockton).
“Block by block they're coming for taxpayers,”
said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Will the
Legislature next propose also taxing us at the
street level, then backyard by backyard? Today
such speculation is not so far-fetched.”
The Salem News
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Special taxing districts eyed for neighborhood
projects
Baker opposed to idea as 'new property tax'
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Property owners would be allowed to create
special taxing districts to pay for neighborhood
services and improvements under a proposal
working its way through Beacon Hill, but fiscal
watchdogs caution the move amounts to a cash
grab by developers.
The bipartisan proposal, approved by the House
last week, allows "community benefit districts"
in which property owners create a nonprofit
board to make neighborhood upgrades — like added
security, beautification projects or cultural
programs — funded through a property assessment.
"This would empower communities by giving them
another way to improve their downtowns and Main
Streets," said Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Lynn
Democrat and primary sponsor of the Senate's
version of the bill. "There are a lot of towns
and cities — specifically gateway cities — that
stand to benefit from this."
Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, has vetoed two
similar proposals. He has called the assessments
"the functional equivalent of new property
taxes."
But Crighton and other supporters say the Baker
administration is slowly warming to the idea as
lawmakers have amended it over the years.
For one, Crighton said lawmakers have included
an "opt-out" provision for churches, soup
kitchens and other tax-exempt groups that don't
want to participate, as well as exemptions for
economically challenged businesses that can't
afford to pay into the system.
"However, we believe that the nonprofits will
want to be partners because of the benefits that
they would receive as well," he said.
Some fiscal watchdogs oppose the proposal,
arguing that it would lead to additional layers
of local taxation and government in a state
already overtaxed.
"Effectively it's an end-run around the
restrictions of Proposition 2½ by
dividing municipalities into ‘community benefit
districts’ that can then additionally tax
individual sub-divisions of cities and towns — a
new neighborhood tax," said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation.
The idea’s supporters, which include the
Massachusetts Municipal Association and many
regional chambers of commerce, say local
governments would be required to hold public
hearings before creating the districts and put a
proposal before a city council or governing body
for approval.
"This isn't something that can just be imposed
on property owners," said Rep. Ann-Margaret
Ferrante, D-Gloucester. "There's a local
approval process."
Ferrante said the added revenue would help many
cash-strapped cities and towns afford
improvements and services such as snowplowing.
"In these economic times, it's very difficult
for communities to meet all the needs and
requests of their residents," she said. "This
would help with that."
Community development groups support the move,
saying it would help business districts improve
the quality of life for shoppers and residents.
"We think this is really important to the
evolution and growth of our towns and cities
that we have shopping districts that are
vibrant, safe and clean," said Joseph Kriesberg,
president of the Massachusetts Association of
Community Development Corporations, a
Boston-based advocacy group.
"The best analogy would be a condo association
pooling its money to maintain common areas," he
said. "It's a model that's worked well in other
states."
The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 3, 2018
A Boston Herald editorial
Public pension changes a giveaway to retirees
The state Legislature is cooking up another
piece of warm “money” pie — complete with a
cherry on top — for its friends.
From the same group that voted themselves an
18-percent pay raise comes an
end-of-the-budget-season “gift” to state and
municipal retirees seeking to earn more
taxpayer-funded income as “double-dippers.” They
want to cash their public pensions — plus be
able to pad them with less restrictive rules on
how may hours they can work in retirement doing
their former jobs.
You’ve read that right. Police officers,
firefighters, teachers and others who chose to
retire early from their jobs with public
pensions want to work more and earn more on the
public dole. It appears both the
Democratic-controlled House and Senate are
planning to oblige them.
Why are former state workers who chose to
retire early now saying they can’t make ends
meet?
Except for state judges, there’s no mandatory
retirement age in public service. No one kicked
the former employees out of their public jobs,
so why are they returning to public service
seeking more part-time hours?
At present, retirees — both state and local
government — are limited to working 960 hours
per year. A bill passed by the Senate would
raise the cap to 1,200 hours; the House version
would pack on a generous 56 percent increase to
1,500 hours. The bills were tucked into each
chamber’s proposed $41.5 billion state budget,
and need to be reconciled to become law.
Currently, the retirees’ workweek is capped at
18 hours on the public payroll. It would
increase to 23 hours (Senate) and 29 hours
(House) under the competing legislative schemes.
Proponents say the higher cap would offer cities
and towns the option of hiring a part-timer over
a full-timer in order to save money. Opponents
argue that the original double-dipping law was
put on the books to prevent workers from
exploiting the system — and this expansion of
hours only exacerbates it.
That’s the opinion of Kevin Blanchette, a former
state representative and now the chief executive
of the Worcester Regional Retirement System.
“With some of these folks, they retire early and
go right back to work in the same job,” he told
The Boston Globe. “It raises, for me, the
question of, why retire at all?”
The system’s already lopsided and the expanded
cap is no reform.
Few government retirees leave the job early
unless they’ve maxed out their pension benefits
or have something else in the works — most
likely another decent-paying position. By
raising the cap, lawmakers are creating a
“double-dipping” statute plain and simple. It’s
no secret this is an election year. For
lawmakers facing a competitive race, there are
120,000 state and teacher retirees — and
thousands more on the municipal side — whose
backs can be scratched with a double-dipping
bonus. But what if it backfires? What if state
agencies and municipalities start hiring more
retirees to fill positions — thus eliminating
full-time jobs — in order to cut salaries and
benefit costs?
It would be the smart thing to do, so,
conceivably, it could happen. Will it lead to
better overall government? Your guess is as good
as ours.
In our view, this issue deserves more study on
its overall impact on state and local government
operations — and taxpayers. If this proposal
reaches Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk, he should
veto it until citizens are assured that
lawmakers aren’t introducing a public payroll
abuse that will be the object of future reform.
The Salem News
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
A Salem News editorial
Help for retailers can start with sales tax
holiday
Retailers in Massachusetts need help, a fact
made abundantly clear in a report released on
Beacon Hill last week.
The report, compiled by a state Senate task
force, did a fine job outlining the obstacles
facing the Bay State retail industry. The
question remains, however, whether the
Democrat-dominated Legislature will do anything
to lend a hand.
First, the challenges:
-- The online marketplace is making things
difficult for traditional retailers. "E-commerce
and the rise of technology, evolving consumer
preferences and demographic factors are changing
the Massachusetts retail sector," the task force
wrote in its report. One only needs to look to
the recent decision to close Sears, one of the
longtime anchor stores at the Northshore Mall,
for recent evidence of the shift to mobile
shopping.
-- Brick-and-mortar retailers in Massachusetts
have to charge a sales tax. In most cases,
online retailers do not. Neither do businesses
north of the border in New Hampshire. And Bay
State legislators have consistently rejected
calls for an August sales tax holiday.
-- Restrictive zoning has made it difficult for
new business to grow in the state's downtowns,
and the Legislature has kept a tight hold on
liquor licenses, artificially stifling the
growth of the hospitality industry.
-- The state's high cost of living — everything
from health and child care to housing costs — is
putting an increasing burden on retailers and
their employees. State policy, the task force
writes, isn't making things easier: "Existing
and future mandates, including minimum wage,
premium pay and health care assessments, are
contributing to rising costs of operation for
Massachusetts retailers."
-- While the number of mandates multiplies, the
report notes, little is being done at the state
level to help spur innovation because officials
don't see it as "a strategic sector." A mere 3
percent of workplace training grants went to
retail businesses, and the teen employment
initiative YouthWorks placed about 3 percent of
its participants in summer retail jobs in 2016,
according to the report.
There's the rub. Retail is a bread-and-butter
industry. It doesn't spark the imagination like
green energy, financial services or biotech. It
makes up a relatively modest 4 percent of the
economic activity in the state. But it is a
job-creator and a moneymaker. It deserves more
attention from lawmakers. "Direct retail
spending by travelers and tourists in
Massachusetts totaled $1.7 billion in 2015,
generating $220 million in payroll and 7,800
jobs," the task force notes in its report. "In
2016, the restaurant and food service industry
accounted for over 330,000 jobs in
Massachusetts, and 10 percent of the employment
in the state."
We are left to wonder why the state Legislature
has not done more to help boost the industry.
Even the senators on the task force seem to be
trying to lower expectations.
State Sen. Michael Barrett, who served on the
task force, told the State House News Service
last month that the panel would not be making
recommendations.
"The press will be frustrated," he said.
"They'll want us to make the call on issues like
the tax holiday, like the training wage, and if
we're not prepared to make the call, we need to
clarify that."
Fortunately, there are already a handful of
initiatives before lawmakers that would help
boost the retail industry. Reinstating the sales
tax holiday would be a relatively easy first
step. The late-summer reprieve from the 6.25
percent Massachusetts sales tax usually occurs
over an August weekend. Retail business leaders
have it positioned for a statewide vote on the
November ballot, but lawmakers don't need to
wait. They can make it happen now.
It would be distressing to see the work of the
task force simply shelved alongside the dozens
of similar reports compiled by, and then ignored
by, the Legislature.
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Lawmakers, Baker on pace to add $6 Billion in
borrowing
By Colin A. Young
By the end of the day Thursday, the
Massachusetts Legislature is expected to have
approved more than $6 billion in borrowing in
just more than two weeks.
The House and Senate have already approved a
housing bond bill and action in the House on
Wednesday left two more borrowing bills -- one
dealing with capital needs and the other focused
on the life sciences industry -- a Senate vote
away from Gov. Charlie Baker's desk.
The borrowing blitz began when the House and
Senate approved a housing bond bill on May 23,
authorizing $1.8 billion over five years to
finance affordable housing development and
improvements at public housing facilities. Baker
signed that into law May 31.
On Wednesday, the House and Senate each accepted
a compromise bill (H 4549) that would approve
$3.87 billion in borrowing and spending on state
facility repairs and other capital needs. The
House also enacted that bond bill, but the
Senate adjourned Wednesday without enacting the
bill and sending it to the governor.
The House also enacted a $473 million bond bill
aimed at supporting the life sciences sector (H
4501) Wednesday. Similarly, the Senate adjourned
without enacting that bill but the branch is
back in a formal session on Thursday.
Thursday is the last day that lawmakers would be
able to tout their action directly to attendees
at the four-day Biotechnology Innovation
Organization International Convention, which
wraps up in Boston on Thursday.
After the Senate votes on the two outstanding
bond bills, the legislation would need Baker's
signature to become law. Baker had filed his own
versions of life sciences and capital needs bond
bills and is expected to sign both when they
reach his desk.
If Baker signs both Thursday, he and the
Legislature will have OK'ed $6.14 billion in
borrowing in about 15 days.
State House News Service
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Facing July 1 deadline, negotiators embark on
state budget talks
By Katie Lannan
The two different versions of $41 billion
spending plans for fiscal 2019 are now
officially in the hands of six lawmakers, who
voted Thursday morning to take their
negotiations behind closed doors.
Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair Karen
Spilka, who helms the conference committee with
House Ways and Means Chair Jeffrey Sánchez, said
she hopes the negotiations on the budget for the
fiscal year that starts in 24 days will be "very
fruitful, productive and somewhat swift."
"I look forward to working with Chairman Sánchez
and the whole conference committee to iron out
the differences -- there are many more
similarities, I believe, and some differences --
between our budgets to produce a fiscally
responsible spending plan for fiscal year 2019,"
said Spilka, an Ashland Democrat.
Spilka briefly hosted Sánchez and fellow
conferees Sens. Joan Lovely and Vinny deMacedo
and Reps. Stephen Kulik and Todd Smola, along
with several staffers, in a conference room in
her office. The panel met in open session for
less than 10 minutes before agreeing to continue
their talks in private.
Sánchez, a Jamaica Plain Democrat, said each
branch wrote a budget that is "focused on people
where they're at."
"They're budgets that celebrate people's lives,
and also recognizes what role that we have in
making sure that everybody can benefit from the
prosperity of this great commonwealth," he said.
Spilka said education and "regional empowerment"
were among main priorities in the Senate's plan.
The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center on
Wendesday flagged differences between the
branches on health care, housing and education,
noting that the House proposed larger
investments in early education and care, while
the Senate proposed greater funding for K-12
schools.
The House also added $5 million for a new
program to help homeless individuals move into
housing, and the Senate increased Registry of
Deeds fees to bolster the Community Preservation
Act Trust Fund, which supports affordable
housing, open space and historic preservation.
On health care, the Senate included language
allowing the state to negotiate drug prices
directly with manufacturers, a proposal
MassBudget said is similar to one introduced by
Gov. Charlie Baker. The House, meanwhile,
included more funding for pediatric hospitals,
adult foster care, and adult day health rates
than the Senate, according to MassBudget.
The Senate, on a 25-13 vote, also agreed to a
Sen. Jamie Eldridge amendment prohibiting law
enforcement officers from asking about
immigration status and limiting local law
enforcement's cooperation with federal
immigration enforcement. The House budget does
not address immigration enforcement.
Jonathan Paz, a member of Progressive
Massachusetts and the Safe Communities
Coalition, dropped off a painting of the Statue
of Liberty at Spilka's office Thursday morning.
He said his goal was to highlight that the
conferees were meeting in private, leaving
observers with little insight into how they were
discussing the immigration policy attached to
the budget.
"This is a back-room meeting, and immigrant
lives are being leveraged," he told the News
Service.
Speaker Robert DeLeo elevated Sanchez to the
Ways and Means chairmanship last July -- the
same day Baker signed this year's budget into
law -- following the resignation of former House
budget chief Brian Dempsey, who left for a
lobbying job.
The fiscal 2019 budget is likely the only annual
spending plan that will be finalized with Spilka
and Sanchez serving as lead negotiators.
Spilka is expected to ascend to the Senate
presidency later this session, a fact that
appeared to be on her vice chair's mind Thursday
morning.
"Madam president, I mean Madam President-elect,
Madam Chair," Sen. Lovely said, addressing
Spilka as she introduced a motion that the
committee close its negotiations to the public.
"Chair's good," Spilka responded.
Boston Business Journal
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Ballot talks at ‘standstill’ as labor group
holds firm on minimum wage
By Greg Ryan
Raise Up Massachusetts said Thursday it has
reached an impasse in its negotiations with
business lobbying groups over a $15-per-hour
minimum wage, throwing the possibility of a
“grand bargain” compromise on multiple ballot
proposals into doubt.
Raise Up, a coalition of labor unions and their
allies, has been in talks with lawmakers and
organizations like the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts and Associated Industries of
Massachusetts to find middle ground on three
ballot questions: a minimum wage increase,
required paid family and medical leave, and a
cut to the state sales tax. Raise Up supports
the wage and paid-leave proposals, while the
retailers group is pushing the sales tax
measure. The two sides are seeking to reach a
legislative compromise, rather than allow the
proposals to go directly to voters in November.
On Thursday, Raise Up sent a letter to House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Harriette Chandler, saying that the minimum-wage
talks had hit a “standstill.” The retailers want
a special minimum wage for teenagers, as well as
the elimination of an existing requirement that
businesses pay workers 1.5 times their normal
wages on Sundays and holidays. But Raise Up said
it wouldn’t budge on those issues.
“Policies such as a sub-minimum wage for teens
or the elimination of Sunday time-and-a-half pay
would hurt some of our most vulnerable workers
and their families, and we cannot support or
accept them,” the group said in its letter.
Raise Up criticized the tactics of RAM President
Jon Hurst. “Clearly the Retailers Association is
using its sales tax cut ballot question as a
threat to gain concessions on regressive
policies that would never pass in the
legislature, or on the ballot, on their own,”
the coalition said.
Hurst said in an emailed statement that the
retailers group is still working toward a middle
ground.
"Although our ballot proposal has the support of
almost 70 percent of voters in a recent public
poll, we remain committed to working with
legislators, other employer organizations, and
other negotiators to see if a legislative
solution can be reached," he said.
On the other hand, Raise Up believes a
compromise is close on the paid-leave proposal,
saying the two sides have mostly agreed on a new
paid-leave program, with the remaining points of
contention “very close” to being resolved. Two
other sources familiar with the paid-leave
talks, who wished to remain anonymous, have told
the Business Journal that the two sides are
close.
One source said that the two sides have
discussed reducing the amount of time off given
to workers as proposed in Raise Up’s ballot
initiative. The ballot proposal would give
workers up to 26 weeks of medical leave, but
negotiators are discussing whether to cut that
to 20 weeks, according to the source. Similarly,
the ballot proposal would give employees up to
16 weeks of family leave, but a compromise could
reduce that to 12 weeks, the source said.
Negotiators have also discussed allowing
companies to opt out of the state-run paid-leave
program if they offer policies that meet a
certain threshold, according to the source.
There may also be a carve-out for small
employers, the source said.
The so-called millionaires’ tax, which would
raise income taxes on those who earn $1 million
or more annually, is not on the table during the
negotiations. Because the proposal is a
constitutional amendment, the legislature cannot
pass it into law. Instead, the proposal must be
approved by voters.
However, the Supreme Judicial Court is
considering whether the tax is constitutional.
Its ruling, which is expected any day now, could
affect the “grand bargain” negotiations, since
it could change the leverage both sides believe
they have.
The effective deadline for any legislative
compromise in July 3, the date by which the
sponsors of the ballot questions must submit
their final round of signatures in support of
the initiatives to the state. |
| |
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
|
