 |
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, June 26, 2018
Grad Tax gone (for now), new
taxes coming (naturally)
|
It is
Governor Charlie Baker’s most sacrosanct policy position.
The one he repeated on the campaign trail. The one that
helped him win his close race in 2014. The one that’s
easiest for voters to remember: No new taxes. No new fees.
Now the Republican has a bill on his desk — one supported by
large bipartisan majorities in the Legislature — that
includes a sweeping paid family and medical leave program
funded by imposing a new $800 million payroll tax on workers
and employers in Massachusetts.
So, will he sign the bill?
Baker told reporters Monday he was still reviewing the
legislation but indicated support for the measure. Asked if
signing it would violate his no-new-taxes pledge, Baker did
not directly reply, saying, “There’s a benefit that’s
attached to this thing, and that benefit is a paid family
leave provision that did not previously exist in state law.”
...
Several parts of the bill have drawn concern from the
business community, including the new payroll tax.
“The grand bargain’s new paid family and medical leave
program is funded by a payroll tax, very similar to how the
unemployment insurance and Social Security programs are
funded,” said Eileen McAnneny, president of the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
“While this version is significantly better than the
language that would have been on the ballot in November had
a compromise not been reached, it represents a sizable new
cost to employers.” ...
On the campaign trail in 2014, Baker said he would not
raise taxes or fees. In TV ads during the race, he savaged
his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, as having “only
plans for higher taxes.”
And in a 2015 interview with the Globe before he was
sworn in, Baker affirmed that his no-new-taxes, no-new-fees
pledge was an irrevocable promise — with one caveat.
At the time, Baker said he would not consider it a
violation of his pledge if the state rolls out a “new
service” that has never been offered and attaches a charge
to it.
If the governor signs the bill, it would fall under the
new service category, aides said Monday....
But low-tax activists say talk is cheap.
Chip Ford, executive director of the Citizens
for Limited Taxation, said without any corresponding tax
cut, the grand bargain measure is an instance of businesses
“getting hammered again.”
“There’s no way other than describing it as a new tax.
It’s not an old tax, it’s not in existence now. Every tax
increase has its rationale and its explanation and its
excuse. It doesn’t make it any less of a tax,” Ford said.
“Charlie Baker is a politician. Politicians say what they
have to say in the moment,” he later added. “But I still
say, he’s the best Democrat out of the bunch to elect.”
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
After no new taxes pledge, Baker faces grand bargain bill
— with an $800 million new tax
No longer a political safety net, the death of the
"millionaire's tax" ballot question on Monday could put
Beacon Hill Democrats in the hot seat leading into this
year's elections to either scale back their ambitious
spending promises or produce an alternative tax plan.
The ballot question that was struck down by the Supreme
Judicial Court on Monday, and its potential to generate as
much as $2 billion a year in new taxes, has been held out
for years by Democrats as a potential panacea.
How can the state afford to expand pre-kindergarten and
invest in K-12 education? The millionaire's tax. How could
the state improve the reliability of the MBTA and expand
rail service to western Massachusetts? The millionaire's
tax.
No longer.
State House News Service
Monday, June 18, 2018
Democrats will need to regroup on taxes in wake of SJC
ruling
Make no mistake, Massachusetts just dodged the economic
bullet that the so-called millionaires tax would have been.
But to those public employee unions and progressives that
were virtually salivating over the potential $1.9 billion in
new revenue extracted from the wallets of the state’s
wealthiest residents, there ought to be a broader lesson —
play fair....
Raise Up Massachusetts, which had backed the tax hike,
knew full well that past efforts to change the state’s
Constitution to allow for a graduated income tax had gone
down to inglorious defeat — five times in the past 50 years.
It was a fact duly noted by Justice Frank Gaziano in his
majority opinion. In fact, the voters rejected a graduated
tax in 1994 by a whopping 65-28 percent.
So proponents knew they had to throw in a sweetener —
because, well, you can fool some of the people some
of the time and, sure, it was worth a try. So the ballot
measures also promised voters all that extra cash would go
toward education and transportation....
Even the attorney general can’t wave her magic wand and
turn an unconstitutional ballot question into a winner just
because she likes it and wouldn’t mind currying favor with
the progressive activists who supported it....
Raise Up Massachusetts, aided and abetted by an attorney
general who chose to be more tax hike cheerleader than
objective arbiter of that which properly belongs on the
ballot, did itself a huge disfavor. If it truly believes the
state’s wealthiest — and dare we say, most productive —
citizens need to be taxed more, it could have proposed a
clean surtax bill.
Instead the group outsmarted itself and wasted the past
three years. But then again, it’s what they deserve.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Misguided millionaires tax was a nonstarter
By Rachelle G. Cohen
Shed no tears for the “millionaires tax” ballot
initiative, which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
struck down on Monday. From the outset, the initiative was a
cynical ploy to get voters to do something they have
repeatedly rejected — replacing the state’s flat-rate income
tax with a system of graduated tax brackets. But nobody was
fooled by the ruse, least of all the SJC.
Five times in five decades, Massachusetts voters have
been asked to scrap the uniform tax rate required by the
state’s constitution. Five times they have refused. So
activists this time came up with a two-fer: They proposed a
“Fair Share Amendment” that would not only whack anyone
earning more than $1 million with an 80 percent income-tax
surcharge, but would also earmark the money raised for two
popular purposes — public education and public
transportation.
On both counts, the two-fer was illegal.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Striking down the ‘millionaires tax,’ the SJC cleans up
Maura Healey’s mess
By Jeff Jacoby
In a decision policy makers and advocates have waited for
months to arrive, the Supreme Judicial Court on Monday
sounded a death knell for the so-called “millionaires tax.”
The decision’s impact was immediate and far-reaching,
turning what was supposed to be a ballot question to fund
transportation and education initiatives with up to $2.2
billion in new annual revenue into a litany of questions
about where lawmakers and state officials go from here:
Two billion dollars is a lot of money. What happens to
the state’s transportation systems?
The decision was a major blow for advocates who believe
the state’s transportation system needs more money,
especially after a plan to automatically boost the gas tax
based on inflation lost at the ballot box in 2014....
So voters won’t be able to weigh in on a millionaires tax
hike. Does this mean the Legislature will?
It will certainly turn up the pressure on the
Democrat-controlled Legislature to act. But how they could
move, and whether it includes transportation- or
education-focused tax initiatives, is unclear.
Led by the House and Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, lawmakers
have in recent years veered from instituting any new
broad-based taxes, in what some saw as a deferment to the
millionaires tax ballot question that public polls showed
had widespread support.
But within hours of Monday’s decision, some officials
quickly called for the Legislature to consider tapping into
new revenue streams to replace the $2.2 billion that the
question could have generated. That included Senate
President Harriette L. Chandler, who said the Legislature
needs to “take a hard look” at it, and Mayor Martin J.
Walsh, who said the decision shifts responsibility squarely
on lawmakers to act as early as next legislative session.
“I think if you go out and explain to voters why [new]
revenues are necessary at this particular moment in time,
they’ll understand it,” Walsh said.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Voters won’t be able to weigh in on the millionaires tax.
How about the Legislature?
As the Massachusetts High Technology Council took a
victory lap celebrating the Supreme Judicial Court’s
decision to block a ballot question on the so-called
millionaire tax, a state lawmaker promised to revive the
popular proposal to boost spending on education and
transportation next year.
State Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) said in a statement
he will revive the millionaire tax — in identical fashion to
the ballot initiative — when lawmakers return in January
2019.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Millionaire tax not dead yet
State sen. pledges to bring bill on issue
After the state's highest court torpedoed a proposed new
tax on Monday, a Winchester Democrat announced his intention
to pick up the pieces for another try next session, when his
plan will have the support of the next Senate president.
Sen. Jason Lewis's proposed constitutional amendment
would create the same policy as the so-called Fair Share
Amendment or Prop 80 - as proponents and opponents
alternately dubbed it - but he would follow a different
procedural course to advance it.
If the effort is successful, the earliest it could appear
on the ballot would be 2022, and it's unclear whether
Democratic legislative leaders, having spent the past
several years talking about the need for new revenues, would
want to wait that long to address tax increases.
Lewis's proposal would avoid the legal snag that derailed
activists' years of work, though it would face new political
hurdles both within the Legislature and in voting booths -
if it makes it that far....
The Senate president controls the constitutional
conventions that an amendment would need to clear. A
spokeswoman for Sen. Karen Spilka, who is scheduled to
become Senate president next month, did not respond to a
request for comment on Lewis's proposal.
In response to the court ruling, Spilka said, "I respect
the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, and thank them
for their considered deliberation on this matter, Income
inequality and the opportunity gap, however, remain serious
threats to Massachusetts' continued prosperity. I believe in
Massachusetts’ bold vision of leadership, and that includes
the notion that the wealthiest among us are able to
contribute a little bit more to ensure a thriving
Commonwealth for all of our residents."
A spokeswoman for Spilka, who is scheduled to become
Senate president next month, said she supports Lewis's
proposal.
State House News Service
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Winchester senator hopes to revive income surtax on wealthy
In Massachusetts, residents need look no
further than Proposition 2½ to know ballot questions
have always been a blunt instrument for political change.
Approved by voters in 1980, Prop. 2½
went into effect two years later, the high point of a
citizen’s revolt against reflexive tax hikes at the state
and especially the local level. The measure, which garnered
56 percent of the vote, essentially caps annual growth in a
community’s property tax revenue at 2.5 percent.
Almost 40 years later, the battle over
Proposition 2½ is in many ways still being fought.
Its proponents are quick to note it struck a
blow against the “Taxachusetts” stereotype — between 1980
and 1985, property taxes as a percentage of income fell from
76 percent above the national average to 13 percent above,
the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities notes. Critics, meanwhile, point to an
ever-increasing reliance on state aid by cities and towns,
and near-constant, divisive override battles.
It is a lesson legislative leaders should
take to heart as they try to cut through the thicket of
initiative petitions set to go before Bay State voters this
spring. While the Supreme Judicial Court Monday nixed the
so-called “millionaires tax,” which would have dunned the
state’s top earners for another 4 percent in taxes, there
are still several remaining questions that have conflicting
aims. If they all pass, with their conflicting agendas and
less-than-nuanced approaches to policy, the state will be
dealing with the aftermath in both the public and private
sectors for decades to come.
Lawmakers can still reach what is being
called a “grand bargain” on the measures, but they must move
quickly to pass compromise legislation that would render the
questions moot.
A Salem News editorial
Monday, June 18, 2018
Legislature needs to strike a deal on ballot questions
The House passed the compromise bill
Wednesday afternoon, 126-25, that would raise the
minimum wage to $15 and increase the wage for tipped
workers to $6.75 over five years. The bill also phases
out extra pay for workers who clock in on Sundays and
holidays, develops a program for paid family and medical
leave, and mandates an annual summer sales tax-free
weekend....
The legislation was the result of months of
negotiations, and as a result the Raise Up coalition
voted to drop its paid family and medical leave ballot
proposal. Retailers, after scoring a series of
concessions in the bill, have also agreed to drop their
proposed sales tax ballot question....
Retailers Association of Massachusetts President Jon
Hurst, who agreed to drop his own ballot question that
would have cut the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5
percent as a result of the deal, said his position won't
change if Raise Up continues on to the ballot with the
minimum wage question as long as the compromise bill
becomes law.
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Coalition undecided between ballot and
compromise on minimum wage
Massachusetts lawmakers on Wednesday agreed
to historic wage and benefits legislation designed to
improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers, but
the bill's passage was tainted with charges that legislators
had backtracked on important worker issues in order to
appease the retail industry sector.
Under the bill, the hourly minimum wage will
rise from $11 to $15 over a five-year period and a $1
billion paid family and medical leave program overseen by
state government and backed by a payroll tax will be
launched so workers can more easily take care of themselves
and their families without facing fiscal crises.
Legislators scrambled to assemble the
so-called grand bargain bill after interest groups, fed up
with the lack of action on Beacon Hill, initiated ballot
drives and forced legislative leaders to engage with them at
the negotiating table, or risk having major policies written
into law by voters.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who says he
favors bipartisanship and compromise, was largely a
bystander in the negotiations and has declined to stake out
positions on the issues while encouraging legislators to
work on alternatives to the ballot questions. Baker on
Wednesday said it was "great news" that a deal had been
reached and the votes to engross the bill -- 126-25 in the
House and 30-8 in the Senate -- indicate a veto, however
unlikely, could be overridden.
The House later voted 119-24 to enact the
bill and the Senate enacted the bill on a voice vote with
just two senators present....
"The compromise legislation passed today
contains very costly initiatives that will negatively impact
the thousands of small business owners and their employees
that RAM represents. The retail marketplace has never been
more competitive, and the margins have never been smaller.
The new payroll mandates passed today will significantly
increase costs, resulting in businesses being less
competitive, forcing some doors to close and good jobs to be
lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality," RAM President Jon
Hurst said Wednesday evening. "At the same time, the results
would be far worse had these measures gone to the ballot,
and the Legislature deserves credit for bringing the parties
together to bring a balanced resolution."
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Over grumbles, lawmakers swiftly move wage,
benefits deal to Guv's desk
Dubbed the “Grand Bargain Bill” by its
supporters, the compromise bill is in response to the likely
successful effort by the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition to
get the minimum wage and paid leave questions on the
November ballot; and the likely success of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts (RAM) to get a question on the
ballot to reduce the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5
percent.
Raise Up Massachusetts has agreed not to
bring its family and medical question to the ballot while
RAM has agreed to drop its effort to reduce the sales tax to
5 percent. The fate of the minimum wage ballot question is
undetermined. The version passed by the Legislature differs
from the ballot question version in several ways. The
legislative version gives the raise to $15 over five years
rather than the four years on the ballot version; does not
include tying the minimum wage to inflation; and includes
phasing out extra pay for employees who work on Sundays and
holidays.
RAM President Jon Hurst had mixed feelings
about the compromise but ultimately embraced it. “The
compromise legislation passed today contains very costly
initiatives that will negatively impact the thousands of
small business owners and their employees that RAM
represents,” said Hurst. “The retail marketplace has never
been more competitive, and the margins have never been
smaller. The new payroll mandates passed today will
significantly increase costs, resulting in businesses being
less competitive, forcing some doors to close and good jobs
to be lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality. At the same
time, the results would be far worse had these measures gone
to the ballot, and the Legislature deserves credit for
bringing the parties together to bring a balanced
resolution.”
Meanwhile, critics of the compromise say
that RAM was able to extract compromises from Raise Up by
using the sales tax cut as a bargaining chip. The Supreme
Judicial Court had just ruled that a proposed ballot
question imposing an additional 4 percent income tax on
taxpayers’ earnings of more than $1 million cannot go on the
November 2018 ballot. Supporters of that measure saw
millions of tax dollars lost as a result of the decision and
said that reducing the sales tax would cause a fiscal crisis
and require cutbacks of many programs.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of: June 18-22, 2018
Raise minimum wage, family and medical leave and sales tax
holiday (H 4640)
By Bob Katzen
After this week, Charlie Baker has got to be
feeling like a million bucks.
The one question he least wanted to answer -
do you or do you not support the millionaire's tax? - was
non-answered for him, when the Supreme Judicial Court
disallowed the ballot question that would have raised the
annual tax on income over $1 million by four percentage
points.
Four years in the making, and four
excruciating months in the deciding, the central referendum
topic of the year was yanked off the agenda with the tap of
a Send button, probably denying Democrats $1.9 billion in
new revenue for education and transportation and denying
their gubernatorial candidates a standard behind which to
rally progressive forces.
The SJC ruled that by combining two
disparate issues in one question - the tax hike and the
purposes for which it was required to be used - the Raise Up
coalition of unions and progressive organizations violated
Constitutional strictures on drafting referenda. It will be
looked upon as a very costly error.
Though no one knew how the court would rule,
or claimed they knew, there still was an air of presumption
about the new $1.9 billion, because the question was polling
so favorably. Now, Democratic candidates who advanced the
need for investment in schools and transit must explain how
they will pay for their ambitions. And they're denied the
chance to lower Baker's sky-high approval numbers by
tormenting the governor for his lack of a firm stand on the
matter....
The elimination of the millionaire's tax
gave business groups more room to negotiate on other ballot
initiatives, and that they apparently did with great vigor
and no transparency. Two days after the bombshell ruling,
the complex of compromises commonly dubbed the Grand Bargain
was sitting before the governor, ready for him to resolve
some of the state's most prominent policy proposals with a
single signature.
In breathtakingly short order Wednesday, the
House unveiled, reported from Ways and Means, and then
passed a package in which long-debated and
fiercely-negotiated provisions affecting virtually everyone
in Massachusetts were settled. The Senate followed suit, and
by 8 p.m. Baker had the bargain.
State House News Service
Friday, June 22, 2018
Weekly Roundup ― Ain't it
Grand?
Thirteen years ago Saturday, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a private organization could
legally use eminent domain powers granted by the city to
seize private property in a seaside Connecticut neighborhood
and hand it over to another private corporation in the name
of economic development.
The 5-4 ruling in Kelo vs. City of New
London -- which revolved around a divorcee who sought a new
start in life in the working-class Fort Trumbull
neighborhood only to have the government take her little
pink house to make way for a luxury hotel and office space
-- led to a public outcry and spurred 44 states to take
legislative action to strengthen private property rights.
But what happened to Susette Kelo could
still happen today in Massachusetts, one of the few states
that did not change its laws in the wake of the Kelo
decision, an attorney who represented the New London
homeowners said.
"Massachusetts is one of a handful of states
that made no statutory or constitutional changes in response
to Kelo. Virtually every state did, but Massachusetts was
one of the few that did not," Dana Berliner, an attorney
from the Institute for Justice, told the News Service. "It
also has not had any state high court decision or court of
appeals decision about eminent domain since Kelo. So really
Massachusetts is in a tiny minority of states that have had
zero response on any level."
Since the Kelo case was decided, 44 states
have passed laws aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent
domain for private use -- 40 states have changed their
statutes to limit the use of eminent domain, 30 have
narrowed their definition of what constitutes a public use,
25 have changed their definition of blighted property, and
two have outlawed the transfer of condemned property to
private parties entirely, according to the Institute for
Justice.
"The Kelo decision said that individual
protection from eminent domain is now up to the states,"
Berliner said. "What has happened is that in some states you
have great protection and in some, you have terrible
protection. That should not be the case, that if your home
is in New Hampshire it can't be taken for private
development, but if it's in Massachusetts it can be."
In Massachusetts, efforts to put guardrails
on the use of eminent domain since the 2005 decision have
routinely been turned aside.
"Massachusetts really has not done much
since Kelo. Our laws may be a little different, but there
was a pretty big uproar at the time and a number of states
did take some action. We were one who did not," House
Minority Leader Brad Jones said.
Jones has routinely filed constitutional
amendments and legislation to address concerns that cropped
up after the Kelo decision. None have become law.
State House News Service
Friday, June 22, 2018
Mass. among few states that did not respond to eminent
domain ruling
When it comes to far left liberalism, we’re
not just good. We’re the best.
Better than New York. Better than
California. Even liberal little Vermont can’t touch us.
And there’s new evidence to back up our
claim to liberal fame.
The American Conservative Union has put out
its new ratings of all 50 states, and the Massachusetts
Legislature came out the absolute worst when it comes to
fiscal and social conservatism. Dead last.
“It’s tough not to regard Massachusetts as
the shining example of bad liberalism in America,” said Ian
Walters, communications director of the American
Conservative Union Foundation.
Basing its ratings on votes ranging from tax
hikes to reductions in spending, the ACUF found that more
than 100 of the 160 Massachusetts House members ranked a
score of under 10 percent, putting them in the “Coalition of
the Radical Left.” And 29 members of the state Senate joined
the coalition....
The state Senate rated as more radically
liberal than the House. Even among Republicans, the score
was 60 percent, or a D mark....
This is the third year in a row that
Massachusetts lawmakers snatched the worst ranking, so we
are remarkably consistent anyway.
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 22, 2018
Survey rates Mass. leftmost of 50 states
By Joe Battenfeld
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
When I returned home late Saturday night from my four-day
expedition scouting for a more hospitable state in which to
resettle, I was greeted by the news that "No New Taxes" Gov.
Charlie Baker is about to sign a "Grand Bargain." Part of
this deal to keep policy questions off the November ballot
will hike taxes on employers and employees by another $800
million. Blink and Beacon Hill is raising taxes again.
In less than a week we went from the Supreme Judicial
Court deep-sixing the sixth graduated income tax, tossing it
off the ballot ― to no sales
tax rollback on the ballot either, and another almost a
billion dollars in taxes imposed by the Legislature and
Governor as a "compromise."
The ink had barely dried on the SJC's decision to prevent
the "millionaires tax" from being on the ballot when the
insatiable lust for more revenue was redirected.
The Boston Globe reported:
"But within hours of Monday’s
decision, some officials quickly called for the
Legislature to consider tapping into new revenue streams
to replace the $2.2 billion that the question could have
generated. That included Senate President Harriette L.
Chandler, who said the Legislature needs to 'take a hard
look' at it, and Mayor Martin J. Walsh, who said the
decision shifts responsibility squarely on lawmakers to
act as early as next legislative session.
“'I think if you go out and
explain to voters why [new] revenues are necessary at
this particular moment in time, they’ll understand it,'
Walsh said."
"State
Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) said in a statement he
will revive the millionaire tax — in identical fashion
to the ballot initiative — when lawmakers return in
January 2019," the Boston Herald reported. The
State House News Service added: "If the effort is
successful, the earliest it could appear on the ballot
would be 2022, and it's unclear whether Democratic
legislative leaders, having spent the past several years
talking about the need for new revenues, would want to
wait that long to address tax increases."
The "Grand Bargain" ― a
compromise among ballot question sponsors and the
Legislature that eliminates them from the ballot
― was raced through the
Legislature. The probable rollback of the sales tax
was eliminated from the ballot, but the statutory sales tax
holiday weekend every August it also sought was created
(until the Legislature next decides "the state can't afford
it," I presume).
The State House News Service reported:
"The
Mass. Retailers Association dropped its proposal for a
sales tax increase, but accepted an increase in the
minimum wage, in return for which it won an end to the
state law requiring workers be paid time-and-a-half for
Sunday and holiday hours. The minimum wage increase from
$11 to $15 an hour will occur in five years, not four,
as the Raise Up ballot question proposes, and tipped
workers won't see their minimum rise as much as in the
question. There will be a permanent annual sales tax
holiday on state lawbooks (again, if the governor signs
the compromise). Raise Up and the unions won their
long-sought paid leave program, covering sick time,
family care, maternity and paternity, and bereavement
absences from the workplace."
Beacon Hill Roll Call reported:
"'The
compromise legislation passed today contains very costly
initiatives that will negatively impact the thousands of
small business owners and their employees that RAM
represents. The retail marketplace has never been more
competitive, and the margins have never been smaller.
The new payroll mandates passed today will significantly
increase costs, resulting in businesses being less
competitive, forcing some doors to close and good jobs
to be lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality,' RAM
President Jon Hurst said Wednesday evening. 'At the same
time, the results would be far worse had these measures
gone to the ballot, and the Legislature deserves credit
for bringing the parties together to bring a balanced
resolution.'"
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's despicable
Kelo decision in 2005 CLT has filed numerous bills to defend
Massachusetts property owners from such unconscionable
assaults. Barbara Anderson wrote columns about the
outrage (here
and
here are samples). Thirteen years later still
nothing has been done:
"'Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that made
no statutory or constitutional changes in response to
Kelo. Virtually every state did, but Massachusetts was
one of the few that did not,' Dana Berliner, an attorney
from the Institute for Justice, told the News Service.
'It also has not had any state high court decision or
court of appeals decision about eminent domain since
Kelo. So really Massachusetts is in a tiny minority of
states that have had zero response on any level.'"
"The Best Legislature Money Can Buy" strikes
again. Not only does Massachusetts remain a one-party
state but has achieved the distinction of being the most
liberal state of the fifty. In the
CLT Update of April 11 I noted:
The
recent Gallup poll explains our plight as abused
taxpayers who fund all of state government and its
insuppressible excesses. Along with Vermont, it found
Massachusetts to be the most liberal state in the
nation. As usual The Pay State moguls are striving to
again make this state Number One in notoriety,
profligate and insatiable spending, and abysmal
mismanagement.
Massachusetts has quickly jumped over
Vermont to achieve Number One Most Liberal State
status, according to a
new report just released by the American Conservative
Union Foundation:
“'With the
lowest score in the nation, radical liberals drove the
Massachusetts General Court to the bottom of the
rankings, accompanied by a slew of liberal legislatures
run amok,' said ACU Chairman Matt Schlapp. 'Instead of
reducing the state’s ballooning $1 billion deficit,
liberal lawmakers chose to fund campaigns for public
office, subsidies for government-favored businesses, and
a so-called "art" exhibit that apparently promotes
replacing the Second Amendment to the Constitution with,
ahem, bedroom-items for grown-ups. It’s truly a shame
that liberals have turned the birthplace of American
independence into a failed socialist experiment.'”
"'It’s
tough not to regard Massachusetts as the shining example
of bad liberalism in America,' said Ian Walters,
communications director of the American Conservative
Union Foundation.
"Basing its
ratings on votes ranging from tax hikes to reductions in
spending, the ACUF found that more than 100 of the 160
Massachusetts House members ranked a score of under 10
percent, putting them in the 'Coalition of the Radical
Left.' And 29 members of the state Senate joined the
coalition....
"The state
Senate rated as more radically liberal than the House.
Even among Republicans, the score was 60 percent, or a D
mark."
See how your rep and senator rated
―
read the full report here.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
After no new taxes pledge, Baker faces grand
bargain bill
— with an $800 million new tax
By Joshua Miller and Matt Stout
It is Governor Charlie Baker’s most
sacrosanct policy position. The one he repeated
on the campaign trail. The one that helped him
win his close race in 2014. The one that’s
easiest for voters to remember: No new taxes. No
new fees.
Now the Republican has a bill on his desk — one
supported by large bipartisan majorities in the
Legislature — that includes a sweeping paid
family and medical leave program funded by
imposing a new $800 million payroll tax on
workers and employers in Massachusetts.
So, will he sign the bill?
Baker told reporters Monday he was still
reviewing the legislation but indicated support
for the measure. Asked if signing it would
violate his no-new-taxes pledge, Baker did not
directly reply, saying, “There’s a benefit
that’s attached to this thing, and that benefit
is a paid family leave provision that did not
previously exist in state law.”
The bill would establish a program that would
allow almost all employees to take up to 12
weeks of paid family leave and up to 20 weeks of
paid medical leave — with a guarantee that they
could return to their same or equivalent
positions, with the same status, pay, and
employment benefits.
The program would be funded through a 0.63
percent payroll tax that would average between
$4 and $4.50 weekly per employee, according to
Senator Jason M. Lewis, a Democrat from
Winchester, who helped craft the bill. The cost
would be split roughly 50-50 between employee
and employer, he said. Workers would see a
deduction from their take-home pay starting in
the summer of 2019, with the leave benefits
available to them starting in 2021.
Speaking on the Senate floor last week, Lewis
estimated the annual cost of the program at $750
million to $800 million, a range that outside
analysts confirmed was in the ballpark.
The legislation, known on Beacon Hill as the
grand bargain, would also raise the minimum wage
to $15 by 2023, eventually eliminate
time-and-half pay on Sundays and holidays, and
create a yearly sales tax holiday. Baker has
until July 1 to act on the package.
The bargain moniker comes from the expectation
that, in return for the bill becoming law,
advocacy groups will drop three proposed ballot
questions that seek to lower the sales tax to 5
percent, raise the minimum wage, and create a
paid leave program.
Several parts of the bill have drawn concern
from the business community, including the new
payroll tax.
“The grand bargain’s new paid family and medical
leave program is funded by a payroll tax, very
similar to how the unemployment insurance and
Social Security programs are funded,” said
Eileen McAnneny, president of the
business-backed Massachusetts Taxpayers
Foundation.
“While this version is significantly better than
the language that would have been on the ballot
in November had a compromise not been reached,
it represents a sizable new cost to employers.”
Speaking to reporters, Baker also said that the
version in the legislation makes more sense,
especially for small businesses, than the one in
the proposed ballot question, “which is a pretty
important consideration.”
On the campaign trail in 2014, Baker said he
would not raise taxes or fees. In TV ads during
the race, he savaged his Democratic opponent,
Martha Coakley, as having “only plans for higher
taxes.”
And in a 2015 interview with the Globe before he
was sworn in, Baker affirmed that his
no-new-taxes, no-new-fees pledge was an
irrevocable promise — with one caveat.
At the time, Baker said he would not consider it
a violation of his pledge if the state rolls out
a “new service” that has never been offered and
attaches a charge to it.
If the governor signs the bill, it would fall
under the new service category, aides said
Monday.
That’s how his administration framed a law Baker
signed regulating ride-sharing services such as
Uber, which slapped a 20-cent per-ride fee on
the transportation network companies.
It’s part of how aides framed Baker signing into
law a rewrite of the voter-passed marijuana
legalization measure, which increased the
state’s not-yet-implemented pot tax above what
voters had approved.
Baker also supports subjecting short-term
rentals booked through websites such as Airbnb
to a new tax, a move he said last week is about
“leveling the playing field.” That is, if
someone is running what is effectively a hotel
out of their house using Airbnb, their guests
should pay the state’s 5.7 percent room
occupancy tax, just like someone staying at a
Hyatt or a Hilton.
But even as he backs those new sources of
revenue, Baker has touted his support for
lowering one big tax and holding the line on
others.
In his speech to the state Republican Party
convention in April, Baker said that his
administration supports “reducing the sales tax
and making the sales tax holiday permanent.”
And in his State of the Commonwealth address in
January, Baker said that his administration
began its term with a $1 billion structural
budget deficit. “Today,” he boasted, “we’ve
reduced that deficit to less than 100 million
[dollars] without raising taxes.”
But low-tax activists say talk is cheap.
Chip Ford, executive director of the
Citizens for Limited Taxation, said without
any corresponding tax cut, the grand bargain
measure is an instance of businesses “getting
hammered again.”
“There’s no way other than describing it as a
new tax. It’s not an old tax, it’s not in
existence now. Every tax increase has its
rationale and its explanation and its excuse. It
doesn’t make it any less of a tax,” Ford said.
“Charlie Baker is a politician. Politicians say
what they have to say in the moment,” he later
added. “But I still say, he’s the best Democrat
out of the bunch to elect.”
Baker faces a challenger in the Republican
primary on Sept. 4.
State House News Service
Monday, June 18, 2018
Democrats will need to regroup on taxes in wake
of SJC ruling
By Matt Murphy
No longer a political safety net, the death of
the "millionaire's tax" ballot question on
Monday could put Beacon Hill Democrats in the
hot seat leading into this year's elections to
either scale back their ambitious spending
promises or produce an alternative tax plan.
The ballot question that was struck down by the
Supreme Judicial Court on Monday, and its
potential to generate as much as $2 billion a
year in new taxes, has been held out for years
by Democrats as a potential panacea.
How can the state afford to expand
pre-kindergarten and invest in K-12 education?
The millionaire's tax. How could the state
improve the reliability of the MBTA and expand
rail service to western Massachusetts? The
millionaire's tax.
No longer.
The highest court's split decision invalidating
the proposed 4 percent surtax on income over $1
million now throws the ball back into the court
of the Legislature to decide whether they
believe the state can thrive with its current
revenue structure, or if another tax hike is in
the offing.
"I think as we're beginning the new legislative
session we'll take a look to see where we are
relative to our tax revenues, what we expect for
tax revenue. That process will begin in December
and we'll go from there. I don't think right now
we can talk about elimination of anything right
now until we have those figures before us,"
House Speaker Robert DeLeo said, calling himself
"disappointed" with the outcome in the courts.
Senate President Harriette Chandler, who will
hand the reins of the Senate to Ways and Means
Chairwoman Karen Spilka in July, also said she
was "terribly disappointed."
"As I have said since January, without this Fair
Share Amendment, we will need to be creative and
take a hard look at potential revenues from new
sources to address the very real challenges we
face as a Commonwealth," Chandler said.
The income surtax had the added political
benefit of representing a revenue generating
proposal that lawmakers wouldn't have had to
decide alone. While Democrats supported the
proposal and voted twice to advance it to the
ballot, it was the voters who would have
ultimately decided the proposal's fate.
And it seemed quite popular. Suffolk University
poll results released last week found 66 percent
of voters supported the surtax on wealthier
residents, compared to 26 percent opposed.
Gov. Charlie Baker, arguably, walks away a clear
winner having never taken a position on the
proposal as he awaited the court's decision, and
now never having too. The governor's silence and
deference to the judicial process seemed to be a
political calculation that paid off Monday, not
having to choose between his
hold-the-line-on-taxes reputation and a ballot
question that seemed sure to pass and energize
left-leaning Democratic voters in the process.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Gus
Bickford saw it differently, suggesting the
decision has created a "crisis" for Baker now
that a potential revenue stream to improve
transportation and education has been
eliminated. "Massachusetts residents deserve to
know his plans to address these critical issues
before voting for our next governor," Bickford
said.
The decision will force the two men running
against Baker to recalibrate their campaign
messaging. Both Jay Gonzalez and Bon Massie have
been proponents of the surtax as a way to
generate new revenue to make investments in
pubic transit and education, including
Gonzalez's call for universal pre-kindergarten.
Gonzalez, after a debate with Massie in May,
said that if the question failed he would
propose "another progressive tax to raise the
income we need," but said he had not yet
developed that plan. He doubled down on that
Monday after the SJC decision was released, and
now faces increased pressure to detail specifics
about what such a tax plan might look like.
"Jay Gonzalez and Bob Massie owe the public an
explanation as to which other taxes they intend
to raise to pay for the billions they have
proposed in new public spending," MassGOP
Chairwoman Kirsten Hughes.
While the ruling was a win for business groups -
the Mass. High Tech Council, Mass. Taxpayers
Foundation and Associated Industries of
Massachusetts - that challenged the ballot
question's constitutionality, it was a notable
defeat for Attorney General Maura Healey on two
fronts, both because she supported the policy
objective of the ballot question and had her
office's decision to validate the question
overturned.
That loss, however, might not be as painful as
the one dealt to the labor unions and community
leaders in the Raise Up Coalition who spent four
years pushing to get the proposed constitutional
amendment through the Legislature and in
position for a successful ballot drive, only to
see that work discarded.
The decision might also impact other ballot
questions, with the removal of the millionaire's
tax from the equation perhaps making it easier
politically for business groups, the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts and Raise Up to
strike a deal over a minimum wage hike, paid
family and medical leave and a sales tax cut.
For Retailers Association of Massachusetts
President Jon Hurst, the millionaire's tax has
always been the lynchpin to him reconsidering a
ballot proposal that would slash the 6.25
percent sales tax to 5 percent.
Some observers of the behind-the-scenes
negotiations said they wouldn't be surprised if
Monday's decision led to a quick settlement of
"grand bargain" talks on Beacon Hill, and RAM
board members have their weekly conference call
on Tuesday on ballot negotiations that could
lead to a resolution.
"The Retailers Association of Massachusetts
remains prepared to take the sales tax reduction
to the ballot this fall. At the same time, we
remain open to negotiating a balanced
legislative resolution that will give our Main
Street businesses, and seniors and low-income
families a helping hand," Hurst said in a
statement after the court ruling.
With one question and its potential billions in
new revenue off the table and another question –
a sales tax cut to 5 percent – that would reduce
revenue still in the mix, Education Committee
Co-chair Sonia Chang Diaz said elected officials
have an obligation to address their failure to
ensure quality education for all children,
regardless of where they live.
But she also acknowledged, "There is no magical
revenue stream coming any time soon."
Rep. Jay Kaufman, a retiring Democrat from
Lexington who for years has chaired the Revenue
Committee, said the SJC's decision should be
taken as a "challenge" to the Legislature to
restart the four-year process next year of
amending the state constitution as "the one and
only way to advance tax fairness."
"Until the wealthiest among us pay their fair
share, we are destined to live with inadequate
state services and the gross inequity of our
state taxes," Kaufman said.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Misguided millionaires tax was a nonstarter
By Rachelle G. Cohen
Make no mistake, Massachusetts just dodged the
economic bullet that the so-called millionaires
tax would have been.
But to those public employee unions and
progressives that were virtually salivating over
the potential $1.9 billion in new revenue
extracted from the wallets of the state’s
wealthiest residents, there ought to be a
broader lesson — play fair.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled 5-2 Monday that
the effort to impose a 4 percent surtax on
households with incomes of more than $1 million
— thereby raising their tax rate to 9.1 percent,
the fifth highest in the country — could not
properly be put before the voters because it
simply tried to do too much.
Raise Up Massachusetts, which had backed the tax
hike, knew full well that past efforts to change
the state’s Constitution to allow for a
graduated income tax had gone down to inglorious
defeat — five times in the past 50 years. It was
a fact duly noted by Justice Frank Gaziano in
his majority opinion. In fact, the voters
rejected a graduated tax in 1994 by a whopping
65-28 percent.
So proponents knew they had to throw in a
sweetener — because, well, you can fool
some of the people some of the time and, sure,
it was worth a try. So the ballot measures also
promised voters all that extra cash would go
toward education and transportation.
What’s not to like?
Problem is, the state Constitution wisely
prohibits voter petitions on issues that aren’t
“mutually dependent.” And this one, Gaziano
wrote “contains three provisions on three
distinct subjects presented as a single ballot
question.”
“Even if we were to accept the argument that the
proposed spending provisions are dependent upon
a particular funding mechanism — the proposed
tax — that could not change the evident fact
that the proposed tax can stand on its own and
neither spending provision depends on the
other,” the opinion notes.
Now you’d think Attorney General Maura Healey —
no slouch in the legal reasoning department —
would have grasped that fact back in September
2015, when she certified the petition and sent
tax hike proponents down this fruitless (not to
mention costly) path that has now left them
empty-handed.
Even the attorney general can’t wave her magic
wand and turn an unconstitutional ballot
question into a winner just because she likes it
and wouldn’t mind currying favor with the
progressive activists who supported it.
“The attorney general has not articulated a
common purpose between these spending priorities
[education and transportation] beyond the
abstract determination that both purposes are
‘broad areas of public concern,’ ” the opinion
noted.
So is the opioid crisis, for that matter, but it
doesn’t mean it should be tied to an income
surtax.
Raise Up Massachusetts, aided and abetted by an
attorney general who chose to be more tax hike
cheerleader than objective arbiter of that which
properly belongs on the ballot, did itself a
huge disfavor. If it truly believes the state’s
wealthiest — and dare we say, most productive —
citizens need to be taxed more, it could have
proposed a clean surtax bill.
Instead the group outsmarted itself and wasted
the past three years. But then again, it’s what
they deserve.
Rachelle G. Cohen, former editorial page
editor of the Boston Herald, is a contributing
member of the editorial board.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Striking down the ‘millionaires tax,’ the SJC
cleans up Maura Healey’s mess
By Jeff Jacoby
Shed no tears for the “millionaires tax” ballot
initiative, which the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court struck down on Monday. From the
outset, the initiative was a cynical ploy to get
voters to do something they have repeatedly
rejected — replacing the state’s flat-rate
income tax with a system of graduated tax
brackets. But nobody was fooled by the ruse,
least of all the SJC.
Five times in five decades, Massachusetts voters
have been asked to scrap the uniform tax rate
required by the state’s constitution. Five times
they have refused. So activists this time came
up with a two-fer: They proposed a “Fair Share
Amendment” that would not only whack anyone
earning more than $1 million with an 80 percent
income-tax surcharge, but would also earmark the
money raised for two popular purposes — public
education and public transportation.
On both counts, the two-fer was illegal.
Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution
allows private citizens to initiate ballot
questions, but there are conditions: An
initiative’s provisions (1) must be so plainly
“related or . . . mutually dependent” that they
embody a single purpose, and (2) earmarking — a
“specific appropriation of money from the
treasury” — is disallowed. The proposed
amendment met neither condition. Its provisions
were obviously not closely related (public
education has no inherent link to public
transportation, and neither is connected to
taxing the wealthy). And by specifying how the
surtax revenue would be spent, the Fair Share
Amendment was an exercise in blatant earmarking.
The rules for ballot questions have been in
effect for 100 years. The millionaires tax
initiative violated those rules, and it was
Attorney General Maura Healey’s obligation to
say so. Instead, abdicating her duty, she
certified the initiative for submission to the
voters. It was not her finest hour.
Now the Supreme Judicial Court has cleaned up
Healey’s mess. In a 5-2 decision, it ruled that
the proposed initiative, by jumbling together
unrelated elements, was disqualified for the
ballot. “It would be unfair to place voters in
the untenable position of casting a single vote
on two dissimilar subjects,” the court held.
Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of
a flat-rate vs. graduated income tax, on the
wisdom of a millionaires surtax, and on how much
the state should spend on education or the
repair of roads and bridges. All are perfectly
legitimate subjects for political debate; the
court, quite correctly, didn’t weigh in on any
of them.
But while the justices may be nonpolitical, they
aren’t deaf and dumb. The SJC didn’t just fall
off the turnip truck. And its opinion makes
clear that it understood perfectly well what the
progressive coalition behind the Fair Share
Amendment had hoped to pull off.
“We are not entirely unaware of the possibility”
that the amendment was purposely drafted “to
‘sweeten the pot’ for voters,” the majority
remarked dryly. Knowing that every previous
attempt to permit graduated tax rates had
failed, activists this time around hoped to
tempt voters with the prospect of more money for
favored causes — and with a dash of eat-the-rich
class envy thrown in for good measure. The SJC
doesn’t actually say that, of course. Instead it
quotes someone who did: former Senate President
Stanley Rosenberg.
“In the past, constitutional amendments have
been very differently constructed,” Rosenberg
explained when he endorsed the initiative. “This
one, because it is focused specifically on money
for education and transportation, will stand a
better chance of being approved. And also
because it is very clear that it [affects]
people who make more than $1 million.”
It was just that kind of cynical “wheedling and
deceiving,” wrote the majority in spiking the
proposed amendment, that Article 48 was designed
to block. The place for jury-rigged legislation
that cobbles together widely disparate
provisions is the Legislature, not in initiative
petitions placed before the voters. A ballot
question isn’t a wish list. It must present a
unified and coherent statement of public policy.
The millionaires tax missed the mark by a mile,
and the SJC gave it what it deserved.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Voters won’t be able to weigh in on the
millionaires tax.
How about the Legislature?
By Matt Stout
In a decision policy makers and advocates have
waited for months to arrive, the Supreme
Judicial Court on Monday sounded a death knell
for the so-called “millionaires tax.”
The decision’s impact was immediate and
far-reaching, turning what was supposed to be a
ballot question to fund transportation and
education initiatives with up to $2.2 billion in
new annual revenue into a litany of questions
about where lawmakers and state officials go
from here:
Two billion dollars is a lot of money. What
happens to the state’s transportation systems?
The decision was a major blow for advocates who
believe the state’s transportation system needs
more money, especially after a plan to
automatically boost the gas tax based on
inflation lost at the ballot box in 2014.
Governor Charlie Baker has countered that the
state’s “current tools” for funding it are
“pretty good.”
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other options
advocates could push.
James Aloisi, a former state transportation
secretary, said attention could turn to a tax
based on the distance motorists drive, and
higher fees on trips through ride-hail services
like Uber, which currently stand at 20 cents a
ride.
Chris Dempsey, who leads the nonprofit
Transportation for Massachusetts, said his
group’s focus will shift toward creating an
“incentive-driven” transportation system. That
could include toll changes to encourage drivers
to use highways during off-peak hours. He said
that could be discounts, rather than increases,
on tolls.
So voters won’t be able to weigh in on a
millionaires tax hike. Does this mean the
Legislature will?
It will certainly turn up the pressure on the
Democrat-controlled Legislature to act. But how
they could move, and whether it includes
transportation- or education-focused tax
initiatives, is unclear.
Led by the House and Speaker Robert A. DeLeo,
lawmakers have in recent years veered from
instituting any new broad-based taxes, in what
some saw as a deferment to the millionaires tax
ballot question that public polls showed had
widespread support.
But within hours of Monday’s decision, some
officials quickly called for the Legislature to
consider tapping into new revenue streams to
replace the $2.2 billion that the question could
have generated. That included Senate President
Harriette L. Chandler, who said the Legislature
needs to “take a hard look” at it, and Mayor
Martin J. Walsh, who said the decision shifts
responsibility squarely on lawmakers to act as
early as next legislative session.
“I think if you go out and explain to voters why
[new] revenues are necessary at this particular
moment in time, they’ll understand it,” Walsh
said.
What about the other ballot initiatives floating
around Beacon Hill?
The SJC’s ruling doesn’t technically interfere
with any other potential ballot question. In
fact, a separate question on nurse staffing
levels met legal muster Monday.
But it’s hung like a cloud over negotiations
surrounding other questions, with advocates for
raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and
mandating paid family and medical leave on one
side, a business-backed group backing a question
to reduce the sales tax to 5 percent on the
other, and lawmakers in the middle.
The intent of the so-called “grand bargain” is
to strike a compromise and keep the petitions
off the ballot. But neither side could say how
big of a wrench the SJC decision could throw
into their talks.
Steve Crawford, a spokesman for the Raise Up
Massachusetts coalition, said formal discussions
have yet to even resume since advocates said
they hit a standstill earlier this month.
Jon Hurst, of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts, said the group, which is behind
the sales tax petition, is still open to
negotiating but that it is also still prepared
to take it to voters.
Ditto for Raise Up, Crawford said.
Both face a July 3 deadline for submitting
signatures.
What’s the political fallout of all this?
The petition’s sudden death is a political win
for Baker, a Republican governor who has
generally been against new taxes but had avoided
taking a formal position on the question.
And it removes a key talking point for his
Democratic rivals, Jay Gonzalez and Robert K.
Massie, both of whom have openly supported the
millionaires tax.
Democrats also viewed the ballot question as a
potential draw for left-leaning voters, who
often turn out to cast a ballot for president
but not as much for midterm elections.
Other ballot questions could still stir energy
amongst progressives, including one that seeks
to repeal the state’s antidiscrimination law on
transgender rights. US Senator Elizabeth Warren
will also be up for reelection, providing
another outlet for all that pent-up enthusiasm.
―Adam Vaccaro of
the Globe staff contributed to this report.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Millionaire tax not dead yet
State sen. pledges to bring bill on issue
By Brian Dowling
As the Massachusetts High Technology Council
took a victory lap celebrating the Supreme
Judicial Court’s decision to block a ballot
question on the so-called millionaire tax, a
state lawmaker promised to revive the popular
proposal to boost spending on education and
transportation next year.
State Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) said in a
statement he will revive the millionaire tax —
in identical fashion to the ballot initiative —
when lawmakers return in January 2019.
“Income inequality is at unacceptable levels in
Massachusetts and, at the same time, our
transportation infrastructure is woefully
inadequate and our schools are struggling to
provide a quality education to every student,”
Lewis said. “If we don’t act boldly and
comprehensively to address these issues, then we
will put the future of our communities and state
economy at risk.”
The proposal would have added a 4 percent surtax
on incomes above $1 million and directed the
resulting $2 billion to be spent on education
and transportation.
Lewis said his proposal wouldn’t face the same
constitutional challenges since it is a
legislative proposal. It would need support in
two successive sittings in the Legislature, then
it could go before voters as soon as 2022.
Lewis said polls indicated “overwhelming public
support for the proposal” and lawmakers
previously voted with 70 percent support to move
the ballot initiative forward.
Speaking to members of the Massachusetts High
Technology Council — which fought the
millionaire tax in court — Chairman Aron Ain,
the chief executive of Kronos Incorporated, said
the ballot initiative’s aim to tell lawmakers
how to raise and spend state funds was
unconstitutional.
“Allowing any special interest group, regardless
of their objective, to permanently enshrine
budgetary decisions and favored spending
priorities in the state constitution is simply a
bad idea for the commonwealth and it has always
been prohibited it,” Ain told a gathering of the
group yesterday at the Seaport Hotel.
“To do so would open a Pandora’s box of
budget-by-bumper-sticker efforts for years to
come with devastating efforts for our long-term
fiscal stability,” Ain added. “The decision
issued by the Supreme Judicial Court yesterday
reinforces that this type of end-run around the
process is something the Massachusetts
Constitution simply does not allow, and we
applaud the court for its careful consideration
and wise decision.”
The SJC blocked the ballot initiative on the
grounds that it included too many unrelated
subjects — taxation, education and
transportation.
State House News Service
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Winchester senator hopes to revive income surtax
on wealthy
By Andy Metzger
After the state's highest court torpedoed a
proposed new tax on Monday, a Winchester
Democrat announced his intention to pick up the
pieces for another try next session, when his
plan will have the support of the next Senate
president.
Sen. Jason Lewis's proposed constitutional
amendment would create the same policy as the
so-called Fair Share Amendment or Prop 80 - as
proponents and opponents alternately dubbed it -
but he would follow a different procedural
course to advance it.
If the effort is successful, the earliest it
could appear on the ballot would be 2022, and
it's unclear whether Democratic legislative
leaders, having spent the past several years
talking about the need for new revenues, would
want to wait that long to address tax increases.
Lewis's proposal would avoid the legal snag that
derailed activists' years of work, though it
would face new political hurdles both within the
Legislature and in voting booths - if it makes
it that far.
The proposed amendment that the Supreme Judicial
Court tossed off the ballot on Monday would
impose a 4 percent surtax on incomes over $1
million, earmarking that revenue for spending on
transportation and education.
"Income inequality is at unacceptable levels in
Massachusetts and, at the same time, our
transportation infrastructure is woefully
inadequate and our schools are struggling to
provide a quality education to every student,"
Lewis wrote in a statement posted on Facebook
Tuesday. "If we don't act boldly and
comprehensively to address these issues, then we
will put the future of our communities and state
economy at risk."
Steve Crawford, who worked on the citizen's
initiative to advance the surtax question, said
he has seen other lawmakers advocate for the
same approach as Lewis.
Concerned that the proposed tax would discourage
growth in the state and hit small businesses, a
group of prominent business group leaders sued
Attorney General Maura Healey last fall, arguing
she erred in approving the question for the
November 2018 ballot. The proposal improperly
combined the unrelated subjects of taxation and
spending on education and transportation, the
court determined in a decision written by
Justice Frank Gaziano.
"A parent of young children, who lived in a
rural part of the Commonwealth and did not own a
motor vehicle, would be unable to vote in favor
of prioritizing funding for early childhood
education without supporting spending for
transportation," Gaziano wrote.
Whether they intend to write new statutes or
amend the state constitution, citizen
initiatives cannot include multiple unrelated
independent provisions, but there is no such
restriction on bills and constitutional
amendments that originate in the Legislature.
The state constitution mandates a flat income
tax, and voters have repeatedly defeated efforts
to institute a graduated or progressive income
tax over the years, so in order to tax the
biggest earners at a higher rate, proponents of
the surtax would need to amend the constitution.
The Fair Share movement, led by the liberal
group Raise Up Massachusetts, collected around
150,000 signatures, more than enough to put the
matter before the Legislature, which advanced it
in two back-to-back sessions in 2016 and 2017.
Any member of the 40-seat Senate or the 160-seat
House can sponsor a bill to amend the
constitution.
A citizen's initiative needs 50 lawmakers' votes
in back-to-back sessions - a number the surtax
amendment far exceeded - while a legislatively
sponsored constitutional amendment needs the
support of 101 lawmakers in back-to-back
sessions. In both cases, once a proposed
constitutional amendment has cleared the
Legislature, it would go before voters unless it
is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme
Judicial Court.
Before the high court's ruling, a lawyer for the
plaintiff business leaders acknowledged that
there would be no legal argument to keep a
proposed amendment off the ballot if it had been
sponsored by a lawmaker.
But while a legislatively-sponsored amendment
would avoid legal challenges, it would arguably
be a heavier lift, politically. Beyond the
101-lawmaker threshold, a legislatively
sponsored amendment would lack the grassroots
origins and built-in organization of a citizens'
initiative. In the case of the surtax, it might
also carry the whiff of defeat – even if it was
struck down by a seven-member court with two
justices dissenting.
Lewis faces a primary challenge from Melrose
Democrat Samantha Hammar, and Paul Craney, who
opposed the surtax as spokesman for the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, suggested that
election had something to do with Lewis's
proposal.
"Someone's worried about his primary
challenger," Craney wrote to the News Service.
The Senate president controls the constitutional
conventions that an amendment would need to
clear. A spokeswoman for Sen. Karen Spilka, who
is scheduled to become Senate president next
month, did not respond to a request for comment
on Lewis's proposal.
In response to the court ruling, Spilka said, "I
respect the decision of the Supreme Judicial
Court, and thank them for their considered
deliberation on this matter, Income inequality
and the opportunity gap, however, remain serious
threats to Massachusetts' continued prosperity.
I believe in Massachusetts’ bold vision of
leadership, and that includes the notion that
the wealthiest among us are able to contribute a
little bit more to ensure a thriving
Commonwealth for all of our residents."
A spokeswoman for Spilka, who is scheduled to
become Senate president next month, said she
supports Lewis's proposal.
The Salem News
Monday, June 18, 2018
A Salem News editorial
Legislature needs to strike a deal on ballot
questions
In Massachusetts, residents need look no further
than Proposition 2½ to know ballot
questions have always been a blunt instrument
for political change.
Approved by voters in 1980, Prop. 2½ went
into effect two years later, the high point of a
citizen’s revolt against reflexive tax hikes at
the state and especially the local level. The
measure, which garnered 56 percent of the vote,
essentially caps annual growth in a community’s
property tax revenue at 2.5 percent.
Almost 40 years later, the battle over
Proposition 2½ is in many ways still being
fought.
Its proponents are quick to note it struck a
blow against the “Taxachusetts” stereotype —
between 1980 and 1985, property taxes as a
percentage of income fell from 76 percent above
the national average to 13 percent above, the
Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities notes. Critics, meanwhile,
point to an ever-increasing reliance on state
aid by cities and towns, and near-constant,
divisive override battles.
It is a lesson legislative leaders should take
to heart as they try to cut through the thicket
of initiative petitions set to go before Bay
State voters this spring. While the Supreme
Judicial Court Monday nixed the so-called
“millionaires tax,” which would have dunned the
state’s top earners for another 4 percent in
taxes, there are still several remaining
questions that have conflicting aims. If they
all pass, with their conflicting agendas and
less-than-nuanced approaches to policy, the
state will be dealing with the aftermath in both
the public and private sectors for decades to
come.
Lawmakers can still reach what is being called a
“grand bargain” on the measures, but they must
move quickly to pass compromise legislation that
would render the questions moot. The last day to
file signatures for initiative questions is July
3, and statewide ballots are printed soon after.
“The ball is really in the Legislature’s court
now,” Lew Finfer, chair of Raise Up
Massachusetts, told Statehouse reporter
Christian M. Wade last week. “We’re quickly
running out of time to reach a compromise and
get it passed.”
Among the remaining ballot questions are
measures that would raise the state’s minimum
wage to $15 per hour, require paid medical leave
and cut the sales tax. Labor unions have pressed
for the wage and medical leave changes, while
the retail industry has pushed hard to see the
sales tax, one of the highest in the nation, cut
to 5 percent from 6.25 percent.
While it is not unusual for employers and
employees to be at odds, it is rare to see the
lines so clearly drawn on the ballot. And it is
difficult to predict how citizens will vote come
November. A poll released late last week by
Suffolk University showed residents favored by a
wide margin increasing the minimum wage, a
measure opposed by business groups. But they
also support cutting the state sales tax, which
is favored by the retail industry but opposed by
social service leaders.
Monday’s Supreme Judicial Court ruling only adds
to the drama. Supporters of the millionaires tax
— or Fair Share Amendment, depending on whose
side you are on — are now much less likely to
budge on their other key initiatives.
“We are incredibly disappointed that a few
wealthy corporate executives and their lobbyists
brought this lawsuit that blocked the right of
Massachusetts voters to amend our state’s
Constitution,” Raise Up Massachusetts said in a
statement Monday. ... While we determine our
next steps, the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition
remains strongly committed to winning a $15
minimum wage and paid family and medical leave
for all Massachusetts workers this year, in the
Legislature or on the ballot.”
Lawmakers would do well to bring both sides back
to the negotiating table until their “grand
bargain” is struck. Otherwise, they risk another
four-decade fight.
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Coalition undecided between ballot and
compromise on minimum wage
By Matt Murphy and Katie Lannan
The Raise Up Massachusetts coalition of more
than 100 labor, community and faith-based groups
did not reach a decision Wednesday on whether a
fast-moving bill to raise the minimum wage would
be enough to keep it from pursuing a ballot
question on that topic in November.
The coalition, in a statement Wednesday
afternoon, said it could be days before the
group makes a final judgment on the bill, which
has been billed by lawmakers as a "grand
bargain" that accomplishes some of the
grassroots group's goals, but not all.
The House passed the compromise bill Wednesday
afternoon, 126-25, that would raise the minimum
wage to $15 and increase the wage for tipped
workers to $6.75 over five years. The bill also
phases out extra pay for workers who clock in on
Sundays and holidays, develops a program for
paid family and medical leave, and mandates an
annual summer sales tax-free weekend.
The legislation was the result of months of
negotiations, and as a result the Raise Up
coalition voted to drop its paid family and
medical leave ballot proposal. Retailers, after
scoring a series of concessions in the bill,
have also agreed to drop their proposed sales
tax ballot question.
However, with concerns about elimination of
Sunday time-and-a-half pay, the size of the wage
hike for tipped workers, and the lack of an
inflation indexing measure, the coalition has
not agreed to drop its minimum wage ballot
campaign.
"Over the next several days, we will continue
having conversations among our coalition and
expect to reach a decision on whether to take
our minimum wage question to the ballot early
next week," the coalition said in a statement.
Retailers Association of Massachusetts President
Jon Hurst, who agreed to drop his own ballot
question that would have cut the sales tax from
6.25 percent to 5 percent as a result of the
deal, said his position won't change if Raise Up
continues on to the ballot with the minimum wage
question as long as the compromise bill becomes
law.
The progressive coalition cannot stop the
elimination of the Sunday premium pay with its
ballot question if the bill gets signed by Gov.
Charlie Baker, but if successful at the ballot
it could speed up the transition to a $15 hourly
wage by one year, raise wages for tipped workers
higher than $6.75 and index the minimum wage to
inflation.
Democrat Sen. Paul Feeney of Foxborough said he
plans to vote against minimum wage hike and paid
family and medical leave bill because it
includes measure rolling back premium pay for
those who work Sundays and holidays.
"We've paid the ransom and we've let the
retailers keep the hostage," Feeney said,
suggesting retailers can afford to pay workers
extra for Sunday and holiday work.
"I'm for letting the ballot question go forward
on minimum wage," said Senate President Pro
Tempore Marc Pacheco.
The bill cleared the House mid-afternoon
Wednesday on a 126-25 vote. While it's
encountering resistance in the Senate, it
appears legislative leaders plan to get it to
the governor's desk sometime on Wednesday.
"I look forward to voting for this compromise
and seeing it signed into law," incoming Senate
President Karen Spilka said as Senate debate
began.
The phasing out of the requirement that
retailers pay workers time and a half on Sundays
and holidays will help prevent struggling stores
from closing on those days, according to the
head of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts.
"Those 58 days, 52 Sundays and 6 holidays,
they're only 17 percent of the sales days of the
year but they're probably 25 percent of retail
sales because so many sales occur on Sundays and
holidays," association President Jon Hurst said.
"Think about what that does for your profit
margins versus your competitors who do not have
that mandate. We're talking about the very
survival of a lot of stores and their ability to
keep the doors open seven days a week, let alone
on Sunday."
Hurst said his association's executive committee
voted to accept the deal instead of moving
forward with their ballot question lowering the
sales tax, but said the sales tax would
"continue to be an issue going forward."
The three ballot questions addressed in the bill
-- the sales tax cut, the minimum wage hike and
paid leave -- were all popular enough that they
looked like they would pass, Hurst said.
"It was a tough decision, but we thought
ultimately it's best to try to mitigate those
costs as opposed to looking at something more
costly and probably unbeatable," he said.
The wage hike ballot question includes what
Hurst characterized as "a far more aggressive"
increase in the tipped wage.
If the Raise Up Massachusetts Coalition
continues to pursue the minimum wage ballot
question -- which reaches $15 in four years
instead of the five years laid out in the bill
-- Hurst said the question will be how lawmakers
respond.
"Will they agree like they did with marijuana,
to come back and try to fix this thing after the
fact?" he said.
Before passing the bill (H 4640), the House on
Wednesday rejected a Republican-backed proposal
to institute a sub-minimum wage for workers
under the age of 18. Ipswich Republican Rep.
Brad Hill's amendment was defeated 35-115.
Hill, the assistant minority leader, argued that
teenagers have trouble finding work and that
effort will only become more challenging if the
state hikes the minimum wage again.
Melrose Rep. Paul Brodeur, the House chairman of
the labor committee, countered that many teens
are the breadwinners for their households and
lawmakers are trying to create a
"family-friendly environment" in the state.
The amendment would have kept the minimum wage
for those 17 and younger at $11 per hour while
the regular minimum wage climbs to $15 per hour
under the bill.
— Andy Metzger
and Michael Norton contributed reporting
State House News Service
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Over grumbles, lawmakers swiftly move wage,
benefits deal to Guv's desk
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts lawmakers on Wednesday agreed to
historic wage and benefits legislation designed
to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of
workers, but the bill's passage was tainted with
charges that legislators had backtracked on
important worker issues in order to appease the
retail industry sector.
Under the bill, the hourly minimum wage will
rise from $11 to $15 over a five-year period and
a $1 billion paid family and medical leave
program overseen by state government and backed
by a payroll tax will be launched so workers can
more easily take care of themselves and their
families without facing fiscal crises.
Legislators scrambled to assemble the so-called
grand bargain bill after interest groups, fed up
with the lack of action on Beacon Hill,
initiated ballot drives and forced legislative
leaders to engage with them at the negotiating
table, or risk having major policies written
into law by voters.
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, who says he
favors bipartisanship and compromise, was
largely a bystander in the negotiations and has
declined to stake out positions on the issues
while encouraging legislators to work on
alternatives to the ballot questions. Baker on
Wednesday said it was "great news" that a deal
had been reached and the votes to engross the
bill -- 126-25 in the House and 30-8 in the
Senate -- indicate a veto, however unlikely,
could be overridden.
The House later voted 119-24 to enact the bill
and the Senate enacted the bill on a voice vote
with just two senators present.
While two groups were behind the three
questions, the Raise Up Massachusetts coalition
that is pushing the minimum wage and paid leave
questions escaped the hostile criticisms
targeted Wednesday at the Retailers Association
of Massachusetts, which leveraged a sales tax
reduction ballot question into a series of
concessions that did not sit well with some
lawmakers but were viewed as just a part of the
compromise by most in the Democrat-controlled
Legislature.
Sen. Marc Pacheco said on the floor that the
retailers "successfully held us up" with the
potential sales tax cut. Sen. Barbara L'Italien
called it an "impossible" vote, and Sen. Cynthia
Creem said she felt she had to choose between
standing with labor and standing with women.
"The compromise legislation passed today
contains very costly initiatives that will
negatively impact the thousands of small
business owners and their employees that RAM
represents. The retail marketplace has never
been more competitive, and the margins have
never been smaller. The new payroll mandates
passed today will significantly increase costs,
resulting in businesses being less competitive,
forcing some doors to close and good jobs to be
lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality," RAM
President Jon Hurst said Wednesday evening. "At
the same time, the results would be far worse
had these measures gone to the ballot, and the
Legislature deserves credit for bringing the
parties together to bring a balanced
resolution."
As many cheered the $15 per hour minimum wage
moving forward as part of Wednesday's deal, one
worker from a Boston McDonald's says union
rights are the next goal.
"When fast-food workers first went on strike
demanding $15 an hour and union rights five
years ago, no one gave us a shot," Mackinley
Celestin, a McDonald's worker from Boston said
in a statement released Wednesday by the Fight
for $15 campaign. "But now, workers in
Massachusetts are on a path to joining more than
10 million Americans across the country who have
already won a $15 an hour minimum wage since our
Fight for $15 began. Our momentum is
unstoppable, and once we win $15 an hour, we are
going to keep speaking out, protesting, and
going on strike until we win the union rights
we’ve demanded since Day One."
The compromise bill that passed the Legislature
on Wednesday would deliver a $15 minimum wage in
five years, rather than the four years proposed
in the initiative petition sponsored by the
Raise Up Massachusetts coalition, and also does
not tie the minimum wage to inflation, as the
ballot question does.
Though Raise Up said Wednesday that it will not
bring its paid family and medical leave question
to the ballot if the deal agreed to Wednesday
becomes law, the coalition of more than 100
groups said it will not decide until next week
whether to drop its ballot effort to raise the
minimum wage.
Democrats on Monday absorbed a stinging defeat
when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled a surtax
on wealthy residents was not eligible for the
November ballot, and some lawmakers said a piece
of Wednesday's deal rolling back time-and-a-half
pay for working Sundays and holidays marked an
unforgivable retreat from a benefit that workers
have relied upon for decades to boost their
incomes.
"My no vote is against taking thousands of
dollars away from the paychecks of retail
workers in particular. For a person working
full-time at a retail job, (it would be) about a
$3,200 cut in pay," Pacheco, one of the six
Senate Democrats to vote in opposition to the
deal, said. "A $3,200 cut in pay for the worker,
but the big box store smiles all the way to the
bank because what we're saving is on the backs
of those workers."
Once the Legislature had sent the compromise
bill to the governor's desk Wednesday evening, a
Baker spokeswoman said only that he would review
it.
―Colin A. Young
and Katie Lannan contributed to this report.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 43 - Report No. 25
Week of: June 18-22, 2018
Raise minimum wage, family and medical leave and
sales tax holiday (H 4640)
By Bob Katzen
House 119-24, Senate 30-8, approved and sent to
Gov. Charlie Baker a bill that would hike the
minimum wage from $11 to $15 over five years;
increase the wage for tipped workers from $3.75
to $6.75 over five years; phase out over five
years extra pay for employees who work on
Sundays and holidays; institute a permanent
sales tax holiday on a weekend every August; and
establish a $1 billion family and medical leave
program funded by a payroll tax paid for by both
employers and employees.
Dubbed the “Grand Bargain Bill” by its
supporters, the compromise bill is in response
to the likely successful effort by the Raise Up
Massachusetts coalition to get the minimum wage
and paid leave questions on the November ballot;
and the likely success of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts (RAM) to get a
question on the ballot to reduce the sales tax
from 6.25 percent to 5 percent.
Raise Up Massachusetts has agreed not to bring
its family and medical question to the ballot
while RAM has agreed to drop its effort to
reduce the sales tax to 5 percent. The fate of
the minimum wage ballot question is
undetermined. The version passed by the
Legislature differs from the ballot question
version in several ways. The legislative version
gives the raise to $15 over five years rather
than the four years on the ballot version; does
not include tying the minimum wage to inflation;
and includes phasing out extra pay for employees
who work on Sundays and holidays.
RAM President Jon Hurst had mixed feelings about
the compromise but ultimately embraced it. “The
compromise legislation passed today contains
very costly initiatives that will negatively
impact the thousands of small business owners
and their employees that RAM represents,” said
Hurst. “The retail marketplace has never been
more competitive, and the margins have never
been smaller. The new payroll mandates passed
today will significantly increase costs,
resulting in businesses being less competitive,
forcing some doors to close and good jobs to be
lost. This is not rhetoric, but reality. At the
same time, the results would be far worse had
these measures gone to the ballot, and the
Legislature deserves credit for bringing the
parties together to bring a balanced
resolution.”
Meanwhile, critics of the compromise say that
RAM was able to extract compromises from Raise
Up by using the sales tax cut as a bargaining
chip. The Supreme Judicial Court had just ruled
that a proposed ballot question imposing an
additional 4 percent income tax on taxpayers’
earnings of more than $1 million cannot go on
the November 2018 ballot. Supporters of that
measure saw millions of tax dollars lost as a
result of the decision and said that reducing
the sales tax would cause a fiscal crisis and
require cutbacks of many programs.
“This bill empowers workers, recognizes the
needs of business owners, and ensures that
Massachusetts residents will no longer have to
choose between caring for a sick relative or
losing their job,” said Rep. Paul Brodeur
(D-Melrose). “It is the result of months of
negotiations and demonstrates that regardless of
what happens in Washington, here in
Massachusetts we focus on cooperation and
compromise.”
“I fundamentally disagree with the premise that
we have to give up some workers’ rights in order
to gain new workers’ rights,” said Sen. Kathleen
O’Connor-Ives (D-Newburyport). “This bill ends
time and a half on Sundays in order to start
paid family and medical leave and phase-in a $15
minimum wage. This was a strategic decision in
order to prevent these issues and the sales tax
roll-back from going on the ballot. I would
rather see the ballot question process play out
and then respond as a Legislature and raise lost
revenues by ending wasteful corporate tax
credits if the sales tax was rolled-back to 5
percent.”
“This deal represents a series of compromises
made in the best interest of the commonwealth,”
said Rep. Joseph Wagner (D-Chicopee). “By
reaching a thoughtful balance, this package will
protect Massachusetts workers while promoting a
competitive environment for our local
businesses.”
“My ‘no’ vote is for a better minimum wage” said
Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “My ‘no’ vote is
for hardworking Massachusetts citizens, many of
whom depend on the guarantee of a fair wage for
working Saturdays and Sundays. My ‘no’ vote is
for the rights of Massachusetts voters who
brought this initiative forward so that the
people would be able to decide the issue for
themselves.”
State House News Service
Friday, June 22, 2018
Weekly Roundup ―
Ain't it Grand?
By Craig Sandler
After this week, Charlie Baker has got to be
feeling like a million bucks.
The one question he least wanted to answer - do
you or do you not support the millionaire's tax?
- was non-answered for him, when the Supreme
Judicial Court disallowed the ballot question
that would have raised the annual tax on income
over $1 million by four percentage points.
Four years in the making, and four excruciating
months in the deciding, the central referendum
topic of the year was yanked off the agenda with
the tap of a Send button, probably denying
Democrats $1.9 billion in new revenue for
education and transportation and denying their
gubernatorial candidates a standard behind which
to rally progressive forces.
The SJC ruled that by combining two disparate
issues in one question - the tax hike and the
purposes for which it was required to be used -
the Raise Up coalition of unions and progressive
organizations violated Constitutional strictures
on drafting referenda. It will be looked upon as
a very costly error.
Though no one knew how the court would rule, or
claimed they knew, there still was an air of
presumption about the new $1.9 billion, because
the question was polling so favorably. Now,
Democratic candidates who advanced the need for
investment in schools and transit must explain
how they will pay for their ambitions. And
they're denied the chance to lower Baker's
sky-high approval numbers by tormenting the
governor for his lack of a firm stand on the
matter.
Therefore, Democratic gubernatorial hopefuls Jay
Gonzalez and Robert Massie were considered
losers in the decision, as Beacon Hill plunged
into its much-beloved pastime of labeling
stakeholders as victors or vanquished.
Raise Up: huge loser. AG Maura Healey: kind of a
loser, because she certified the question as
valid when it wasn't. Assistant AG Juliana
deHaan Rice definitely a loser, on this one,
because she argued the case on behalf of the
Commonwealth.
Conversely, Chris Anderson and the Mass. High
Technology Council he heads were obvious
winners, along with the Council's legal team at
Goodwin Proctor. Baker unquestionably a winner,
because he now doesn't have to alienate anyone
by declaring on the question. And, don't forget,
that question was going to pull a certain,
unknown quantity of voters to the polls this
November, and it was polling well, and it's
reasonable to think the motivated ballot-casters
would lean more progressive than moderate. Now
that that debate won't pull people out, Baker
looks that much more secure.
The elimination of the millionaire's tax gave
business groups more room to negotiate on other
ballot initiatives, and that they apparently did
with great vigor and no transparency. Two days
after the bombshell ruling, the complex of
compromises commonly dubbed the Grand Bargain
was sitting before the governor, ready for him
to resolve some of the state's most prominent
policy proposals with a single signature.
In breathtakingly short order Wednesday, the
House unveiled, reported from Ways and Means,
and then passed a package in which long-debated
and fiercely-negotiated provisions affecting
virtually everyone in Massachusetts were
settled. The Senate followed suit, and by 8 p.m.
Baker had the bargain.
The Mass. Retailers Association dropped its
proposal for a sales tax increase, but accepted
an increase in the minimum wage, in return for
which it won an end to the state law requiring
workers be paid time-and-a-half for Sunday and
holiday hours. The minimum wage increase from
$11 to $15 an hour will occur in five years, not
four, as the Raise Up ballot question proposes,
and tipped workers won't see their minimum rise
as much as in the question. There will be a
permanent annual sales tax holiday on state
lawbooks (again, if the governor signs the
compromise). Raise Up and the unions won their
long-sought paid leave program, covering sick
time, family care, maternity and paternity, and
bereavement absences from the workplace.
Lawmakers' response to the sweeping deal bore
the classic marks of the successful compromise:
no one seemed gleeful or miserable, no one
seemed overly happy, but most seemed satisfied.
Sen. Barbara L'Italien called it an "impossible"
vote. Sen. Cynthia Creem said she felt forced to
choose between workers and women. But,
obviously, the majority made their peace with
the mix of pros and cons (including L'Italien
and Creem).
The most aggrieved parties, those angry about
backtracking on premium pay, began to claw back
on Thursday as the Senate passed a wage theft
bill that they say will give the attorney
general new tools to tackle about $700 million
in waged earned by workers but not delivered by
their employers each year. The bill passed
unanimously and a majority of House lawmakers
have signed on to a similar measure. The grand
bargain may give the wage theft bill momentum.
The proposal for extra taxes on the wealthy was
dismissed for this election, but not forever.
The ubiquitous Sen. Jason Lewis told reporters
to expect its re-emergence next session, though
the earliest it seemingly could come before
voters is 2022. More immediately, the biggest
piece of remaining suspense is over whether
Raise Up really will pull its minimum-wage
question, if coalition members signal they
didn't get enough.
The death of the millionaire's levy and passage
of the Bargain knocked a few items that would
have led the news some weeks down to sidebar
status. Like: the governor defying his president
on the planet's top issue of the week,
enforcement against illegal border crossings,
and announcing Massachusetts won't send any
National Guard presence to the Southwest border
after all (Monday). Like the first license award
under legalized marijuana (Thursday). Like a
massive, complicated health reform initiative
clearing the House, setting up a very tough
conference committee (Tuesday). Like the
North-South Link suffering perhaps its most
serious setback to date after 30 years of public
conservation (A $12 billion to $21 billion cost
estimate, Monday).
A shame, really, that big stories can't be
banked like sick days.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Super Ballot Question
Settlement.
State House News Service
Friday, June 22, 2018
Mass. among few states that did not respond to
eminent domain ruling
By Colin A. Young
Thirteen years ago Saturday, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that a private organization could
legally use eminent domain powers granted by the
city to seize private property in a seaside
Connecticut neighborhood and hand it over to
another private corporation in the name of
economic development.
The 5-4 ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London --
which revolved around a divorcee who sought a
new start in life in the working-class Fort
Trumbull neighborhood only to have the
government take her little pink house to make
way for a luxury hotel and office space -- led
to a public outcry and spurred 44 states to take
legislative action to strengthen private
property rights.
But what happened to Susette Kelo could still
happen today in Massachusetts, one of the few
states that did not change its laws in the wake
of the Kelo decision, an attorney who
represented the New London homeowners said.
"Massachusetts is one of a handful of states
that made no statutory or constitutional changes
in response to Kelo. Virtually every state did,
but Massachusetts was one of the few that did
not," Dana Berliner, an attorney from the
Institute for Justice, told the News Service.
"It also has not had any state high court
decision or court of appeals decision about
eminent domain since Kelo. So really
Massachusetts is in a tiny minority of states
that have had zero response on any level."
Since the Kelo case was decided, 44 states have
passed laws aimed at curbing the abuse of
eminent domain for private use -- 40 states have
changed their statutes to limit the use of
eminent domain, 30 have narrowed their
definition of what constitutes a public use, 25
have changed their definition of blighted
property, and two have outlawed the transfer of
condemned property to private parties entirely,
according to the Institute for Justice.
"The Kelo decision said that individual
protection from eminent domain is now up to the
states," Berliner said. "What has happened is
that in some states you have great protection
and in some, you have terrible protection. That
should not be the case, that if your home is in
New Hampshire it can't be taken for private
development, but if it's in Massachusetts it can
be."
In Massachusetts, efforts to put guardrails on
the use of eminent domain since the 2005
decision have routinely been turned aside.
"Massachusetts really has not done much since
Kelo. Our laws may be a little different, but
there was a pretty big uproar at the time and a
number of states did take some action. We were
one who did not," House Minority Leader Brad
Jones said.
Jones has routinely filed constitutional
amendments and legislation to address concerns
that cropped up after the Kelo decision. None
have become law.
"I think some of the concern was that if we
tighten up our laws, we may be tightening them
and we couldn't necessarily foresee every
circumstance," Jones said when asked what the
concerns about updating eminent domain laws were
in the wake of Kelo. "I'm not saying that I
agree with this, but I think the sentiment was,
'let's not overreact or since we can't envision
every scenario let's not create a situation
where we have precluded ourselves from
something.'"
The minority leader said he would have been
"more comfortable if Massachusetts had gone
forward and established a bit more of a brighter
line" about whether economic development is a
suitable public use.
"While there is a public interest in economic
development, we shouldn't use the power of the
state simply to say, 'we're going to take your
land simply to benefit somebody else,'" he said.
Though the state has not taken legislative
action, Jones said he thinks the overwhelming
public opposition to the Kelo ruling -- public
polling after the 2005 decision showed that as
much as 95 percent of the public disagreed with
it -- has helped limit the use of eminent domain
in Massachusetts.
"I think the Kelo decision probably made the
exercise of eminent domain, even if it was
allowed, people want to make sure they're really
doing it for what the public would generally
accept as a public use, building a new road or a
new school or something like that."
'...taken for public use...'
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution gives
governments the power to take private property
"by eminent domain" -- regardless of the owner's
wishes -- so long as the government proves the
property is needed for a public use and the
owner is paid fairly for the property.
Massachusetts law supports that right for
municipalities.
The last line of the Fifth Amendment -- commonly
referred to as the "takings clause" --
stipulates that "private property (shall not) be
taken for public use, without just
compensation." The crux of the Kelo case was
whether the development plan championed as a
significant benefit to the local economy by the
city's development corporation, city and state
qualified under the Constitution as a public
use.
The Institute for Justice argued in favor of a
narrow interpretation -- that the taking of the
condemned property must be by government or by a
private owner that is legally required to serve
the public, like a public utility company.
The city argued for a broad interpretation --
that "public use" could be understood to be the
same as "public purpose" or "public benefit"
because the redevelopment would create jobs,
increase tax revenue to the city and grow the
local economy, all of which would benefit the
public. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices
agreed.
Berliner said Massachusetts law does not make
clear whether private property can be taken
"purely for economic development."
"There is no statute that either says that such
eminent domain is allowed or that it is
prohibited," she said. "It is fair to say that
eminent domain for economic development alone
may be legal under Massachusetts law -- we won't
know for sure until the Massachusetts Court of
Appeals considers the issue."
Berliner said the Institute for Justice has
worked on eminent domain cases in Massachusetts
since the Kelo decision, including in Somerville
and Carver.
'A miserable situation'
Though some of New London's Fort Trumbull
neighborhood, where the city's private
development corporation took 15 parcels from
seven property owners, has been cleaned of
contamination, some roads have been replaced and
the utilities have been upgraded, virtually none
of the promised developments have come to
fruition in the 13 years since the Kelo ruling.
In the years since the Supreme Court's decision,
Susette Kelo has testified before state and
federal committees, and advocated for
restrictions on eminent domain use in other
states. Her story first became a book and has
now been adapted to a movie.
"It's nice that people are keeping this up in
the forefront. I think people need to be
reminded of what happened here," she told The
Day newspaper of New London in an interview
marking the 10th anniversary of the court's
ruling. "I don't know so much that I need to be
reminded, but I think it's good that people
still have an interest in what happened here. It
shouldn't happen to anybody in this country."
After reaching an agreement with the state of
Connecticut in 2006 to have her pink house
spared from the wrecking ball and rebuilt
elsewhere in New London, Kelo moved across the
Thames River to Groton. From her home there,
Kelo can look across the river and see the
peninsula where her house once stood. In 2015,
she said she had not returned to her old
property since she left and her insistence that
the Supreme Court made the wrong decision had
not wavered.
"It was a miserable situation. It was wrong,"
Kelo said. "What they did was wrong then and
it’s still wrong today."
The Boston Herald
Friday, June 22, 2018
Survey rates Mass. leftmost of 50 states
By Joe Battenfeld
When it comes to far left liberalism, we’re not
just good. We’re the best.
Better than New York. Better than California.
Even liberal little Vermont can’t touch us.
And there’s new evidence to back up our claim to
liberal fame.
The American Conservative Union has put out its
new ratings of all 50 states, and the
Massachusetts Legislature came out the absolute
worst when it comes to fiscal and social
conservatism. Dead last.
“It’s tough not to regard Massachusetts as the
shining example of bad liberalism in America,”
said Ian Walters, communications director of the
American Conservative Union Foundation.
Basing its ratings on votes ranging from tax
hikes to reductions in spending, the ACUF found
that more than 100 of the 160 Massachusetts
House members ranked a score of under 10
percent, putting them in the “Coalition of the
Radical Left.” And 29 members of the state
Senate joined the coalition.
Only a single legislator earned an award for
“excellence” — that’s Rep. James Lyons of Essex
County. And just 10 others got an “achievement”
award, indicating a score of between 80 and 89
percent — or essentially a B grade. All of them,
not surprisingly, are Republicans, and just one
was in the Senate — Ryan Fattman.
The state Senate rated as more radically liberal
than the House. Even among Republicans, the
score was 60 percent, or a D mark.
The highest ranking Democrat was Sen. Sonia
Chang-Diaz, whose score was 38 percent.
The rankings are based on a series of 16 votes
taken in the House and 13 votes in the Senate
last year, including putting the so-called
“millionaire tax” on the ballot, which just this
week was struck down by the Supreme Judicial
Court, and an amendment to cut the income tax
rate, which failed miserably.
Other votes included: Gov. Charlie Baker’s
amendment to institute cost-saving reforms at
MassHealth; an amendment to cut funding to the
Massachusetts Cultural Council, and bills
reducing funding for free school lunches, the
state travel and tourism office, and a rental
assistance program.
The ACUF also counted votes on an amendment
laying the groundwork for single-payer health
care, and bills reducing funding for community
organizations, cutting funding for the
Transformative Development Fund, and funding for
the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
This is the third year in a row that
Massachusetts lawmakers snatched the worst
ranking, so we are remarkably consistent anyway.
As for the most conservative Legislature in the
nation, you might be surprised to know it’s
Tennessee.
And don’t forget — one person’s bad liberalism
is another’s exceptional liberalism.
Massachusetts liberals are proud of their
ranking.
So next time you see someone from Vermont — like
Bernie Sanders — turn up your nose and tell them
they got nothing on you. |
| |
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
|
