 |
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
Saturday, July 21, 2018
The budget aftermath slowly
revealed
|
― Allow Neighborhoods To Band
Together And Form A District (H-4546) Senate 22-15,
approved a local option bill allowing a city or town to
authorize the creation of community benefit districts which
would permit owners of contiguous property in a city or town
to form a district and require property owners to pay for
additional services, improvements, events and other projects
and activities within the district. The districts would be
operated by a nonprofit board.
Is the required payment a tax or an assessment fee? It
depends on who you ask.
“Assessment fees are not a tax,” said Andre Leroux,
Executive Director MA Smart Growth Alliance which supports
the bill. “They are established by local initiative through
the development of a management plan, a petition signed by
participants, after a public hearing, approval by the City
Council or Board of Selectmen, and under the control of a
nonprofit management entity that allows broad community
input and control. The fees are paid by property owners for
services (benefits) that they receive and manage. Is a condo
fee a tax? It’s the same principle on a district scale.”
“Condo fees are a voluntary imposition, part of a
contract entered into only if one chooses,” said Citizens
for Limited Taxation Executive Director Chip Ford
who opposes the measure. “They are avoidable. Community
Benefit District taxes will be imposed ex-post facto on an
unwilling entity by a hungry majority of beneficiaries. It
will become the proverbial two wolves and a lamb
democratically voting on what’s for dinner. By the way, the
wolves and lamb have already paid their dinner tab, to the
state and municipality, so don’t need to vote on it.” ...
The House and Senate have approved different versions of
the bill. The Senate version now goes to the House for
consideration.
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of July 16-20, 2018
By Bob Katzen
The Senate beat back a volley of amendments
Wednesday as fresh doubt emerged when lawmakers considered
legislation that has been passed by the Legislature in each
of the last two years, both times rejected by the governor.
The bill (H 4546) would authorize the
creation of community benefit districts, through which
property owners in a neighborhood establish a nonprofit
board to procure additional services -- like security,
signage, beautification efforts or cultural activities --
funded through an assessment on district members....
The state budget that lawmakers sent Baker
last summer included language authorizing the creation of
community benefit districts -- Baker vetoed the proposal and
said the assessments are "the functional equivalent of new
property taxes."
The governor struck similar language from an
economic development bill in 2016 because there were "too
many unanswered questions about how it would work."
But the bill and its provisions seemed to
come as news to some senators, who said they had only
recently learned about the bill and concerns among outside
advocacy groups.
Sens. Patricia Jehlen and Jamie Eldridge
argued that the bill gives greater power to large property
owners, developers and corporations while limiting the
rights of small property owners and tenants.
"I've seen a lot of gentrification in my
district and that is what this enables," Jehlen, a
Somerville Democrat who said she "became aware of the bill
coming forward" on Tuesday, said. "A large property owner
wants higher value, they may want to improve the district to
add amenities and then to raise rents. That spiral
disempowers smaller property owners and business tenants."
...
After rejecting all seven amendments that
had been proposed, the Senate approved the community benefit
districts bill by a narrow 22-15 vote, leaving the bill two
procedural votes away from the governor's desk.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Tax, equity concerns swirl around advancing benefit district
bill
Rejecting the loud pleas of immigration
advocates and liberal lawmakers, the Massachusetts
Legislature enacted a $42 billion state budget on Wednesday
after dropping provisions designed to protect undocumented
immigrants from the ongoing federal crackdown.
The Democratic-controlled House and Senate
sent the compromise bill to Governor Charlie Baker hours
after legislative leaders made the 331-page spending and
policy proposal public. The speed of the vote, which
required lawmakers to suspend their own rules, represented a
stunning lack of public deliberation even in a State House
known for its opacity.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 19, 2018
State budget won’t include provisions on immigration
Yesterday, Beacon Hill lawmakers finally
filed their budget, and language that paved the way for
Massachusetts to become a “sanctuary state” did not make the
cut.
That is a good thing....
Gov. Charlie Baker was right to push back
against the measure. We must hold accountable all who do not
rise to the defense of practical law enforcement to protect
the citizenry.
Compassion for immigrants is a moral
imperative but we cannot dismantle any part of our
immigration enforcement apparatus based on that alone. To do
so is harmful to everyone.
A Boston Herald editorial
Thursday, July 19, 2018
No ‘sanctuary’ from the law
Commuters voiced outrage yesterday as news
emerged that the state is looking at congestion pricing that
could have toll-road drivers and rail passengers paying more
to go to work during rush hours than off-peak travelers.
A MassDOT pilot program, included in the
state budget now being reviewed on Beacon Hill, is aimed at
easing congestion on highways by offering commuters steep
discounts for avoiding peak traffic hours. But people who
drive to work and straphangers with 9-to-5 jobs told the
Herald that feels like they would be penalized for going to
work.
“I think it’s absolutely unfair to charge
people who have no control over their schedules or timing,
who unfortunately have to deal with large crowds as it is
and delays and such. I think it’s completely unfair,” said
rail commuter Jennifer Calouro of Milton. “I know some
companies offer flex hours, but not all companies do. So it
shouldn’t be a matter of what time you take the train.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Off-peak toll pricing measure seen as punishing commuters
"I am extremely disappointed that police
training money was used as a cover to create a new tax on
rental cars,” said Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton). "The
commonwealth has a $1.2 billion surplus of revenue and yet
the state could not find the money to fund police training
without raising taxes. Unfortunately, all too often when a
tax is implemented for a purpose it disappears into the
General Fund.”
“I completely support our police and their
need for ongoing training,” said Rep. Marc Lombardo
(R-Billerica). “I oppose a new tax to fund this while we
have a $1.2 billion budget surplus. We should have funded
this within the budget with existing revenues.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of July 16-20, 2018
By Bob Katzen
As Governor Charlie Baker cut his profile as
a socially moderate Republican, he’s touted two
unquestionably traditional GOP tenets: support law
enforcement and hold the line on taxes and fees.
Now, a new bill awaits his signature that
pits the two against each other.
This week, state lawmakers sent legislation
to Baker’s desk that would create a new $2 fee on car rental
transactions across the state, putting up to $10 million
toward training for local police.
Baker has indicated he supports the fee’s
goal, saying this week that officials need to funnel more
cash to the state’s Municipal Police Training Committee,
which trains local police around the state and would draw
from the new fee’s revenues....
“We need to put more money into the
municipal police training council,” Baker said Monday. “And
it’s my expectation that one way or another that will happen
by the time the discussions around the budgets for closing
out this year and opening next year are done.”
On Thursday, a Baker spokesman, Brendan
Moss, declined to comment on if the governor would sign the
bill, and referred back to his comments from earlier this
week....
But, as written, the new fee could also plow
cash into far more than just police training. If the state
collects more than $10 million from the surcharge, the extra
cash could flow to the general fund, where officials could
use it to pay for any number of needs and priorities —
including filling any potential budget gaps.
It would also add to the procession of costs
that are already layered on top the price of many car
rentals.
For example, the base price for a one-day
rental of a compact car from Hertz at Logan International
Airport from Friday to Saturday was $149. According to the
Hertz website, when the $11.78 in taxes, $18.24 airport
concession fee, the $6 customer facility charge, the $10.63
city surcharge, $13.68 vehicle licensing fee and tax, and
the $1.49 energy surcharge are added, the total amount jumps
to $210.82.
Baker campaigned on a no-new-taxes,
no-new-fees pledge, including during an October 2014 debate
with then-Democratic nominee Martha Coakley.
“Is Charlie pledging — are you signing that
in blood, Charlie? You’re not going to raise fees?” said
Coakley, turning to Baker.
“I’m not going to raise fees,” Baker
responded.
After he was elected, Baker affirmed his
no-new-fees stance, with a caveat: He 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.
It’s a position Baker pointed to last month,
when he signed a sweeping bill that — in addition to raising
the minimum wage to $15 and creating a yearly sales tax
holiday — funded a new paid family and medical leave program
through an estimated $800 million payroll tax on workers and
employers in Massachusetts.
Creating a new fee to support a new program,
Baker said after signing the bill, “is a lot different than
just raising taxes just to balance the budget.”
But police training and, specifically, the
Municipal Police Training Committee are hardly new. The
committee’s roots date back more than 50 years, when it was
first established as the Municipal Police Training Council
in 1964....
The bill enjoyed overwhelming support in the
House, 143-5, and the Senate, 36-0, this week to move to
Baker’s desk.
“I will say that it has taken far too long
for us to get to this point,” said Senate minority leader
Bruce E. Tarr, who, like Baker, is a Republican.
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 20, 2018
Charlie Baker to decide on new fee for law enforcement
training
Gov. Charlie Baker signaled he’s likely to
put the brakes on a Senate plan to test rush-hour congestion
pricing on the state’s toll roads, saying his working
constituents would see it as “incredibly punitive.”
The Herald reported yesterday that a new
MassDOT pilot program, included in the state budget that is
now being reviewed on Beacon Hill, is aimed at easing
congestion on highways by offering commuters steep discounts
of as much as 25 percent for avoiding peak traffic hours.
While the current plan doesn’t raise tolls, drivers have
told the Herald they consider it unfair and are suspicious
that it could ultimately lead to rush-hour surge pricing. A
separate plan would study congestion pricing for commuter
rail service....
Despite the governor’s strong rhetoric,
Baker’s office, when asked whether he intends to veto the
measure, said he would “carefully review final legislation
on his desk.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 20, 2018
Charlie Baker trolls toll congestion pricing
Says voters see ‘incredibly punitive’ proposal
A pilot program designed to test and collect
data on an innovative transportation idea, at no extra cost
to drivers, and with the potential to reduce traffic and
stretch transportation dollars?
That should be an easy call for Governor
Baker, who ran as a data-driven pragmatist in 2014.
The Legislature included a pilot program to
test variable road tolling in the budget. All it needs now
is the governor’s sign-off.
A Boston Globe editorial
Friday, July 20, 2018
Opportunity for Baker to seize the moment on toll test
Gov. Charlie Baker is doing the right thing
by pushing back on state Senate plans to test rush-hour
congestion pricing on the state’s toll roads....
The current plan doesn’t raise tolls but
many feel that it would take a precipitous step toward
rush-hour surge pricing....
Though reducing congestion on the highways
would be a positive thing, it is doubtful that there are
many commuters who are choosing to embark on the arduous,
stressful trek that is rush hour.
It is also fair to ask whether all that toll
revenue is needed by the state if they are willing to see so
much of it go away as a result of drivers hitting the roads
during discounted hours.
Gov. Baker is right, and our legislators
should follow his lead and say no to congestion pricing.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, July 21, 2018
Follow Baker’s lead – just say no
The conventional wisdom is that
Massachusetts elects Republican governors, not because they
can actually stop the Democrats from spending every penny
they get their hands on, but they can at least slow them
down....
The Massachusetts House wanted to spend
$41.52 billion of our money next year. Those “skinflints” in
the State Senate want to spend a mere $41.49 billion.
(That’s what passes for “fiscal conservatism” in the Bay
State.)
Shortly after 10 a.m. yesterday, after
hard-fought negotiations that went weeks past the July 1
deadline, the two sides finally hammered out a compromise:
$41.88 billion.
If you noticed that this figure is higher
than both of the original budget numbers — congratulations!
You’re not only smarter than a fifth grader, you’re
overqualified to serve as a state legislator in
Massachusetts.
This is a classic Beacon Hill “compromise.”
Like the midmorning drunk whose motto is “It’s 5 o’clock
somewhere,” the dollar-addicted Democrats of Beacon Hill
live by the creed “There’s more money to spend somewhere.”
And they know exactly where it is: your pocket....
Under Gov. Patrick, the state budget went
from $26.8 billion to $36.5 billion, for an average increase
over eight years in office of 4.5 percent per year.
Under Gov. Charlie “Penny-Pincher” Baker,
that craven Koch Brothers’ apparatchik, the budget grew from
that $36.5 to the new $41.9 billion. Over four years, that’s
an average of 3.7 percent.
Baker’s the 0.8 percent solution to
Massachusetts’ spending problem!
If you’re wondering why Gov. Baker isn’t
facing serious opposition from the dominant Democratic
Party, or why his approval rating in America’s most blue
state is the highest for any governor in the country, this
is a good place to start....
People who believe in small government and
low taxes can complain about Beacon Hill’s shenanigans until
they’re blu … er, “red” in the face. Or move to New
Hampshire.
But, in fact, the elected officials reflect
the views of their electorate. Massachusetts is the
second-most liberal state in the U.S. according to Gallup
(one point behind Vermont), and it’s got the most liberal
state government. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.
Republicans who are bothered by the fact
that Gov. Baker is both (a) Republican and (b) one of the
most liberal governors in the country shouldn’t blame him.
They should blame — or rather try to persuade — their
neighbors.
Massachusetts is the third-most expensive
state to live in, we have the fourth-highest per-capita
state/local tax burden in the country and we continue to
suffer a net domestic outmigration as more and more locals
leave for more affordable pastures.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 19, 2018
State budget numbers don’t add up
By Michael Graham
It's always head-scratching when a
Legislature rolling in dough, with Democrat super-majorities
in both chambers, and with months and months to write the
same spending bill it's had to prepare annually for
basically the past century can't get it together to meet its
own fiscal year deadline....
And, when revenues soar above projections
after the branches have approved spending figures, pressure
arises to turn spending "nos" into "yeses," and who doesn't
love doing that in an election year?
Maybe that explains it: It takes a long time
to decide what to put back in. Well, anyhow, it's done,
almost three weeks late, and let's be clear -- nobody really
got hurt by the delay. We know, because when people are
getting hurt, the News Service hears about it long and
loud....
As to spending itself, whatever else they
fought about, budget conferees agreed on one thing: they
should spend more than they originally planned. The budget
has $340 million more in spending on legislative priorities
than when it went into conference, much of it in essence a
supplemental to fund areas where needs arose over the course
of the last fiscal year. Their confidence comes from the
fact that tax collections out-performed estimates by some
$1.1 billion in fiscal 2018, and leaders are betting on some
of that good fortune to continue. This budget starts out
$1.7 billion above last year, House Ways and Means
estimates, weighing in at $41.9 billion....
Now stressed-out government affairs types
can turn their attention to the other matters that need
consideration in the next 10 days, namely: everything.
Formal sessions end July 31. . . .
State House News Service
Friday, July 20, 2018
Weekly Roundup - Bills coming due
Gov. Baker has until Saturday, July 28 to
sign the $41.9 billion fiscal 2019 budget and announce
spending vetoes and budget amendments. If the governor takes
the full 10 days allotted to him to review the budget,
lawmakers will have only three full days, including one
Sunday, to take up veto overrides.
Overrides require two-thirds votes in each
branch and roll call votes under joint rules may only be
taken until midnight July 31 in an election year.
According to the House Ways and Means
Committee, the budget compromise increases state spending by
$1.69 billion, or 4.2 percent, compared to the fiscal 2018
budget.
State House News Service
Friday, July 20, 2018
Advances - Week of July 22, 2018
The Budget
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
I closed the
last CLT Update on Wednesday night with: "There
will undoubtedly be more analysis in the days ahead ― once
what is included in this spending spree begins to bubble to
the surface and becomes exposed to light."
Here we go.
"It ain't over til
it's over."
The "Community Benefit District"
neighborhood tax bill is still not law. The senate
version with its tweaks has been returned to the House,
where it was previously passed with only two dissenting
votes (both cast by Democrats). If the House
sends it on to the governor and he vetoes it, a two-thirds
vote in both the House and in the Senate will be required to
override his veto. It passed in the Senate by only
seven votes (22-15), so it's possible for the governor's
veto to be sustained and the law defeated.
Its fate is again in the hands of the
Senate.
SEE HOW YOUR STATE SENATOR VOTED HERE
In his Boston Herald column, Michael Graham
wrote: "Massachusetts is the third-most expensive
state to live in, we have the fourth-highest per-capita
state/local tax burden in the country and we continue to
suffer a net domestic outmigration as more and more locals
leave for more affordable pastures." Right on!
Brother Michael, and I'm about to add one more to that
exodus body count.
By the way, regarding the new tax on car
rentals: I flew into Nashville International Airport
on Sunday night, July 1. There I rented a car (Thrifty
Car Rentals) for my 60-mile drive up to
Kentucky for my two-day whirlwind search for my exodus
strategy sanctuary home. The bill is in front of me.
That two-day rental of a mid-size 2018 Toyota Camry cost me
a total of $81.70, including the tax ($7.98), airport
concession fee ($4.66), customer facility charge ($9.00),
and energy surcharge ($1.49). Compare my two-day
rental to:
"For
example, the base price for a one-day rental of a
compact car from Hertz at Logan International
Airport from Friday to Saturday was $149. According
to the Hertz website, when the $11.78 in taxes,
$18.24 airport concession fee, the $6 customer
facility charge, the $10.63 city surcharge, $13.68
vehicle licensing fee and tax, and the $1.49 energy
surcharge are added, the total amount jumps to
$210.82."
And they just added another two bucks!
Where would anyone rather live, given the
opportunity?
The new MassDOT "pilot program" tucked into
the state budget is another obvious bait-and-switch Beacon
Hill scam. Does anyone with half a brain
honestly expect the end game is to reduce tolls when
traffic is lighter ― and
not to soften up drivers in preparation for the inevitable,
irreversible "congestion pricing" hike literally down the
road? If there are any so naive,
I’ve got a
"temporary" turnpike tolls scheme to sell them. They
deserve what they get. Too bad, because as usual,
we'll all get what they deserve right along with
them.
As a concerned and educated taxpayer you
have a lot to digest from the "day after" revelations
provided here, so I'll end my remarks and close with one
final, if belated, observation.
A stranger called at 7:00 Friday evening
asking for information and help from CLT. As I've been
doing lately, I opened the membership database while I asked
if he was a member. No, he readily admitted, he
wasn't; hadn't managed to ever get around to it over the
past 44 years and besides, he was too financially stretched
to join, to support what we do. I replied that
unfortunately CLT is also too financially stretched to help
anyone who's not a member, sorry, good-bye.
This should have been CLT's standing policy from the
beginning.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Week of July 16-20, 2018
By Bob Katzen
Allow Neighborhoods To Band Together And Form A
District (H-4546)
Senate 22-15, approved a local option bill
allowing a city or town to authorize the
creation of community benefit districts which
would permit owners of contiguous property in a
city or town to form a district and require
property owners to pay for additional services,
improvements, events and other projects and
activities within the district. The districts
would be operated by a nonprofit board.
Is the required payment a tax or an assessment
fee? It depends on who you ask.
“Assessment fees are not a tax,” said Andre
Leroux, Executive Director MA Smart Growth
Alliance which supports the bill. “They are
established by local initiative through the
development of a management plan, a petition
signed by participants, after a public hearing,
approval by the City Council or Board of
Selectmen, and under the control of a nonprofit
management entity that allows broad community
input and control. The fees are paid by property
owners for services (benefits) that they receive
and manage. Is a condo fee a tax? It’s the same
principle on a district scale.”
“Condo fees are a voluntary imposition, part of
a contract entered into only if one chooses,”
said Citizens for Limited Taxation Executive
Director Chip Ford who opposes the measure.
“They are avoidable. Community Benefit District
taxes will be imposed ex-post facto on an
unwilling entity by a hungry majority of
beneficiaries. It will become the proverbial two
wolves and a lamb democratically voting on
what’s for dinner. By the way, the wolves and
lamb have already paid their dinner tab, to the
state and municipality, so don’t need to vote on
it.”
“While our statewide economy is strong and
unemployment low, there are still many
communities where that is not the case,” said
the bill’s sponsor Sen. Brendan Crighton
(D-Lynn). “Municipalities across the state do
their best to create environments that spur
economic growth, but they are often dealing with
limited resources and capacities. Community
Benefit Districts can help by offering a tool
that brings all of the stakeholders together
with the goal of making neighborhood
improvements, creating jobs, and growing our
local economies. These benefits could include
improved walkability, lighting, cultural
programs, branding, landscaping, and supports
for local businesses.”
"Communities already have democratic and
voluntary tools to make district improvements,”
said Sen. Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville) who voted
against the proposal. “This bill would make it
easier for a minority of property owners to form
a private corporation with the power to tax
their neighbors and make decisions about public
spaces and district services.”
The House and Senate have approved different
versions of the bill. The Senate version now
goes to the House for consideration.
State House News Service
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Tax, equity concerns swirl around advancing
benefit district bill
By Colin A. Young
The Senate beat back a volley of amendments
Wednesday as fresh doubt emerged when lawmakers
considered legislation that has been passed by
the Legislature in each of the last two years,
both times rejected by the governor.
The bill (H 4546) would authorize the creation
of community benefit districts, through which
property owners in a neighborhood establish a
nonprofit board to procure additional services
-- like security, signage, beautification
efforts or cultural activities -- funded through
an assessment on district members.
"Municipalities across the state do their best
to create environments that spur economic growth
but they are often dealing with limited
resources and capacities," Sen. Brendan Crighton,
the chief supporter of the bill, said.
"Community benefit districts can help by
offering a tool that brings all stakeholders
together with the goal of making neighborhood
improvements, creating jobs and growing local
economies."
The bill stipulates that a community benefit
district can only be created if the property
owners initiating the district pay more than
half of the annual assessment and limits the
yearly assessment to one-half of one percent of
the property valuation, according to a bill
summary.
Crighton said the bill had been passed by the
Senate in some form three times and "has
thoroughly been reviewed and vetted throughout
our legislative process."
The state budget that lawmakers sent Baker last
summer included language authorizing the
creation of community benefit districts -- Baker
vetoed the proposal and said the assessments are
"the functional equivalent of new property
taxes."
The governor struck similar language from an
economic development bill in 2016 because there
were "too many unanswered questions about how it
would work."
But the bill and its provisions seemed to come
as news to some senators, who said they had only
recently learned about the bill and concerns
among outside advocacy groups.
Sens. Patricia Jehlen and Jamie Eldridge argued
that the bill gives greater power to large
property owners, developers and corporations
while limiting the rights of small property
owners and tenants.
"I've seen a lot of gentrification in my
district and that is what this enables," Jehlen,
a Somerville Democrat who said she "became aware
of the bill coming forward" on Tuesday, said. "A
large property owner wants higher value, they
may want to improve the district to add
amenities and then to raise rents. That spiral
disempowers smaller property owners and business
tenants."
Eldridge read from a letter from the American
Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, in which
the advocacy group raised issues it has with the
legislation, specifically around restrictions on
free speech and the freedom of assembly, and
equal access in public spaces.
"The ACLU has had a significant impact on a
number of bills before the Legislature this
session and I hope that all the members take
these concerns very seriously about the entire
bill," Eldridge said.
Eldridge and Jehlen each offered amendments that
sought to increase the rights of small property
owners and other tenants and to alter the
process for disbanding a community benefit
district. All seven amendments were rejected
while supporters warned that if the Senate
adopted any changes to the version the House
passed 149-2 in May the bill would likely not
get finished before the end of formal sessions.
Sen. Marc Pacheco also voiced uncertainty about
the bill on Wednesday, singling out its possible
effects on unionized municipal employees.
"I was told that we have actually supported this
bill in the past in other forms and while that
may be the case I have not had any opposition
brought to my attention about the bill until
most recently," he said. "I found out about it
earlier today and in checking around and
receiving a few phone calls as a result of it, I
have become increasingly concerned."
Pacheco said he spoke with the leadership of the
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees on Wednesday and what the
bill could mean for the municipal workforce.
"If the ACLU has some concerns and AFSCME
leadership has some concern, then I have some
concerns about it," Pacheco said. He added, "I'm
worried about municipal parks and playgrounds
and services in neighborhoods that should be
maintained by a municipal government ... I'd
hate to have a situation sometime in the future
where some sections of a city or a community
will have extraordinarily well-maintained parks
and playground, where other areas of the city
you just wouldn't want to drive through because
they don't have the supplemental assistance."
Pacheco said he would vote Wednesday to engross
the bill and send it back to the House for
enactment, but warned that he might not vote to
enact the bill unless his concerns are assuaged.
Sen. Julian Cyr, who co-chairs the Committee on
Community Development and Small Businesses, said
none of the concerns raised on the floor
Wednesday were brought to him or his committee
while the committee was vetting the bill.
"I believe this is a good bill and one that
merits our support," Cyr said. "I just want to
speak to the fact that both the committee and
the Senate has really done our due diligence
here on this bill and in fact, we voted on this
bill several times ... Now that this has passed
the House, this is a bill that has been in the
public and the legislative eye."
After rejecting all seven amendments that had
been proposed, the Senate approved the community
benefit districts bill by a narrow 22-15 vote,
leaving the bill two procedural votes away from
the governor's desk.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, July 19, 2018
State budget won’t include provisions on
immigration
By Joshua Miller
Rejecting the loud pleas of immigration
advocates and liberal lawmakers, the
Massachusetts Legislature enacted a $42 billion
state budget on Wednesday after dropping
provisions designed to protect undocumented
immigrants from the ongoing federal crackdown.
The Democratic-controlled House and Senate sent
the compromise bill to Governor Charlie Baker
hours after legislative leaders made the
331-page spending and policy proposal public.
The speed of the vote, which required lawmakers
to suspend their own rules, represented a
stunning lack of public deliberation even in a
State House known for its opacity.
The budget would plow new money into mental
health services, health care for the poor, K-12
education, and it would subject the beleaguered
State Police to new scrutiny. It would not
impose any new or additional taxes or fees, but
the plan is premised on the state raking in
about $60 million in recreational pot taxes and
almost $100 million from gaming revenues in the
fiscal year that runs through next June.
Most notably, the compromise jettisoned several
immigration policies that the more liberal
Senate put in its budget, yet had received a
cool response from House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo.
DeLeo, who has said the House has lacked
consensus on the issue, said Wednesday that he
believes the state’s current laws won’t endanger
immigrants.
“I think we will have those protections. I do
not see any danger to folks here in
Massachusetts,” he told reporters.
But keeping the immigration provisions out of
the budget drew condemnation from the ACLU of
Massachusetts and progressive politicians.
“It’s a shameful day for the Commonwealth,” said
Senator James B. Eldridge, the Senate’s top
advocate for those policies. “I think we’re
going to look back at this time, and as elected
officials, realize that we could have taken
action and we didn’t, even in liberal
Massachusetts.”
Carol Rose, the executive director of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts,
said the decision “enshrines the politics of
fear and silences the politics of hope and
compassion.”
The provisions stripped from the budget proposal
would have:
• Stopped county sheriffs from entering into
agreements with federal authorities to perform
certain federal immigration enforcement
functions;
• Prohibited police from asking anyone about
their immigration status unless doing so was
required by federal or state law;
• Ensured that undocumented immigrants who were
arrested are informed of their right to have a
lawyer present for questioning by federal
immigration agents, and are provided a copy of
any detainer request;
• Forbidden state resources from going toward
the creation of a religious registry.
Representative James J. Lyons Jr., an Andover
Republican, cheered the decision to cut the
sections from the budget, which came out 17 days
after the new fiscal year began.
“We had to wait 17 days for the Senate to
recognize that we should keep front and center
the protection of our citizens, but I’m very
happy to see that,” Lyons said, referring to the
immigration provisions.
The Legislature’s final budget proposal, the
result of seven months of hearings, debate,
lobbying, and behind-closed-doors negotiation,
reflected fiscal and legal developments this
year.
The Massachusetts State Police have been
battered by a series of scandals, including the
arrest of three troopers — and a guilty plea
from a fourth — in a burgeoning overtime fraud
case involving the now-defunct troop that
patrolled the Massachusetts Turnpike. The budget
includes language, originally passed by the
House, that would create a “special audit unit”
within the State Police that would operate
independently of the department and under the
supervision of the state inspector general’s
office. It would also create a special
commission to review the hiring and promotion
policies and practices of the department.
In recent weeks, the state has seen a huge
windfall of tax revenue and, as a result, Senate
and House leaders increased how much money they
expect to flow into state coffers in the new
fiscal year — and how much they plan to spend.
That helped iron out differences between favored
spending areas of each chamber. For example, the
House proposed spending $12.8 million for a
program that subsidizes summer jobs for at-risk
youth, while the Senate proposed $10.3 million.
The compromise: $12.8 million.
The Senate proposed spending $15 million for
state-backed family resource centers. The House
proposed $7.8 million. The compromise? You
guessed it: $15 million.
“The decision to increase tax revenue available
for the budget,” the business-backed
Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation said,
“allowed the conferees to opt for the higher
spending figure in almost all instances where
there was a discrepancy” between the chambers.
Other changes to state law were also marbled
throughout the lengthy bill. The spending plan
includes a provision that loosens the rules
intended to curb “double-dipping” by increasing
the hours that government retirees who are
collecting a public pension are allowed to work
at another public job, from 960 to 1,200 a year.
That’s equivalent to a 23-hour work week.
Senator Karen E. Spilka, the chamber’s budget
chief, trumpeted parts of the budget that she
said “provide tools for low-income families to
climb the economic ladder.”
One example she gave in an interview was
increasing the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit,
which is expected to benefit more than 400,000
poor working people in the state.
The Ashland Democrat, who is slated to be sworn
in as Senate president next week, also heralded
new funding for regional transit authorities,
expected to boost local bus service in places
like Springfield and Worcester.
After the budget reaches his desk, Baker will
have 10 days to take action on the bill.
Following tradition, the Republican is likely to
sign the spending plan into law while vetoing
specific sections. But the Democratic-controlled
Legislature will only have limited time to
override those vetoes because the formal
legislative session ends on July 31.
On Wednesday, Baker told reporters his team had
not yet had time to review the proposal.
The fact that the final budget did not include
the immigration provisions marked something of a
loss for the two top negotiators of the package:
Spilka, whose chamber had backed the measures;
and Representative Jeffrey Sánchez, the top
budget official in the House who personally
backed such immigration efforts.
Sánchez, who faces a Democratic primary opponent
who has pressed him on immigration issues, said,
that there wasn’t “consensus” on the provisions.
Asked whether his primary race affected the
negotiations, which stretched several weeks past
the deadline, Sánchez said no. “I bust my back
every single day to make sure that I follow my
heart and I do the right things by my
community,” he said. “Nobody said this was going
to be easy, but who the hell cares about a
politician complaining?”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 19, 2018
A Boston Herald editorial
No ‘sanctuary’ from the law
Yesterday, Beacon Hill lawmakers finally filed
their budget, and language that paved the way
for Massachusetts to become a “sanctuary state”
did not make the cut.
That is a good thing.
The measure to limit cooperation between
Massachusetts law enforcement agencies and
federal immigration officials was ripe for
removal as it was both cynical and
irresponsible.
The rule of law is a fundamental necessity in
our society and those laws are put in place by
lawmakers at the behest of the people. The fact
that so many of our local legislators are
advocating on behalf of noncitizens over the
interests of citizens is disgraceful.
Gov. Charlie Baker was right to push back
against the measure. We must hold accountable
all who do not rise to the defense of practical
law enforcement to protect the citizenry.
Compassion for immigrants is a moral imperative
but we cannot dismantle any part of our
immigration enforcement apparatus based on that
alone. To do so is harmful to everyone.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Off-peak toll pricing measure seen as punishing
commuters
Mary Markos, Brooks Sutherland, and Brian
Dowling
Commuters voiced outrage yesterday as news
emerged that the state is looking at congestion
pricing that could have toll-road drivers and
rail passengers paying more to go to work during
rush hours than off-peak travelers.
A MassDOT pilot program, included in the state
budget now being reviewed on Beacon Hill, is
aimed at easing congestion on highways by
offering commuters steep discounts for avoiding
peak traffic hours. But people who drive to work
and straphangers with 9-to-5 jobs told the
Herald that feels like they would be penalized
for going to work.
“I think it’s absolutely unfair to charge people
who have no control over their schedules or
timing, who unfortunately have to deal with
large crowds as it is and delays and such. I
think it’s completely unfair,” said rail
commuter Jennifer Calouro of Milton. “I know
some companies offer flex hours, but not all
companies do. So it shouldn’t be a matter of
what time you take the train.”
“It’s a terrible idea,” said Elenah Gorbitskiy,
29, of Malden, whose husband commutes on the
Pike. “Most people work 9 to 5,” she said. “My
husband, for instance, he works 9 to 5 and he
drives the Mass Pike every single day.”
Anne Woodring of Franklin is retired but spoke
out for working people who can’t avoid rush-hour
travel.
“I don’t see why they should be penalized,”
Woodring said. Noting that the state is
proposing discounts of 25 percent or more for
off-peak drivers, she said, “Why don’t they just
lower it for everybody?”
Senate President Harriette L. Chandler’s office
said in a statement: “Our goal is we are trying
to create a financial incentive to relieve
traffic.”
A spokesman said that those paying higher
rush-hour rates would also benefit because they
would face less traffic.
The pilot program seeks to “test the
technological feasibility of charging toll rates
that are different depending on the time of day,
with the goal of relieving congestion for
motorists.” Budget negotiators adopted the
measure into the final budget, including the
clarification that it would only lower tolls
during off-peak hours, as opposed to raising
them during peak times. Toll discounts would be
at least 25 percent.
The program is aimed at the traffic that clogs
greater Boston roadways during peak hours —
making it the seventh most congested urban area
in the nation, at an annual cost of $5.7 billion
in fuel and time lost to workers and employers.
The state currently has tolls on the
Massachusetts Turnpike, the harbor tunnels and
the Tobin Bridge.
The toll-road pilot is set to launch by April 1
— a delay from an aggressive timeline offered in
the Senate version calling for the program to
start by Oct. 31.
Another budget section proposes a study of
variable pricing on the commuter rail based on
the time of day. A report on this study would be
due by January.
Ha Neul On, 20, of Southboro said he would
benefit from off-peak discounts. On commutes at
about noon most days to a family-owned dry
cleaning business in Hingham and attends
Northeastern University.
“That would be amazing,” On said about the
discounts. “I have to go through a lot of
tolls.”
Chris Dempsey of the advocacy group
Transportation for Massachusetts, which backs
the plan said, “If someone needs to be commuting
at the busiest time, you want to make sure
people who do have that flexibility are driving
at a different time. It leaves more space for
you on the road when you need it. If we can
provide a small incentive for people that have
that choice to be off the roads at rush hour,
that’s exactly what we’re trying to accomplish.”
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 20, 2018
Charlie Baker to decide on new fee for law
enforcement training
By Matt Stout
As Governor Charlie Baker cut his profile as a
socially moderate Republican, he’s touted two
unquestionably traditional GOP tenets: support
law enforcement and hold the line on taxes and
fees.
Now, a new bill awaits his signature that pits
the two against each other.
This week, state lawmakers sent legislation to
Baker’s desk that would create a new $2 fee on
car rental transactions across the state,
putting up to $10 million toward training for
local police.
Baker has indicated he supports the fee’s goal,
saying this week that officials need to funnel
more cash to the state’s Municipal Police
Training Committee, which trains local police
around the state and would draw from the new
fee’s revenues.
“I certainly think it’s important that we do
some of the things that the folks in law
enforcement have urged us to do,” Baker told
reporters a day after authorities said a
Weymouth police officer and innocent bystander
were murdered in a shocking, Sunday morning
shooting.
“We need to put more money into the municipal
police training council,” Baker said Monday.
“And it’s my expectation that one way or another
that will happen by the time the discussions
around the budgets for closing out this year and
opening next year are done.”
On Thursday, a Baker spokesman, Brendan Moss,
declined to comment on if the governor would
sign the bill, and referred back to his comments
from earlier this week.
Lawmakers enacted the bill Wednesday, after it
was removed from the final version of the budget
that they sent Baker the same day.
The bill changes the funding formula for the
Municipal Police Training Fund that the state
created as part of the sweeping criminal justice
reform package passed this year and helps seed
the training committee.
If signed, it would set aside up to $10 million
annually for the fund from the new surcharge
applied to all rental car transactions.One
exception: hourly rentals spanning less than 12
hours. (Think Zipcar.)
But, as written, the new fee could also plow
cash into far more than just police training. If
the state collects more than $10 million from
the surcharge, the extra cash could flow to the
general fund, where officials could use it to
pay for any number of needs and priorities —
including filling any potential budget gaps.
It would also add to the procession of costs
that are already layered on top the price of
many car rentals.
For example, the base price for a one-day rental
of a compact car from Hertz at Logan
International Airport from Friday to Saturday
was $149. According to the Hertz website, when
the $11.78 in taxes, $18.24 airport concession
fee, the $6 customer facility charge, the $10.63
city surcharge, $13.68 vehicle licensing fee and
tax, and the $1.49 energy surcharge are added,
the total amount jumps to $210.82.
Baker campaigned on a no-new-taxes, no-new-fees
pledge, including during an October 2014 debate
with then-Democratic nominee Martha Coakley.
“Is Charlie pledging — are you signing that in
blood, Charlie? You’re not going to raise fees?”
said Coakley, turning to Baker.
“I’m not going to raise fees,” Baker responded.
After he was elected, Baker affirmed his
no-new-fees stance, with a caveat: He 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.
It’s a position Baker pointed to last month,
when he signed a sweeping bill that — in
addition to raising the minimum wage to $15 and
creating a yearly sales tax holiday — funded a
new paid family and medical leave program
through an estimated $800 million payroll tax on
workers and employers in Massachusetts.
Creating a new fee to support a new program,
Baker said after signing the bill, “is a lot
different than just raising taxes just to
balance the budget.”
But police training and, specifically, the
Municipal Police Training Committee are hardly
new. The committee’s roots date back more than
50 years, when it was first established as the
Municipal Police Training Council in 1964.
The bill’s supporters say the surcharge will
essentially serve as another source of local
aid, providing a lifeline for police departments
at a time when cash-strapped cities and towns
have had to scale back on training.
“There is a dire need for better police training
for the safety of those officers and for the
safety of the general public,” said
Representative David P. Linsky, a Natick
Democrat who backs the measure. “That should
outweigh political points that [Baker] would be
worried about for imposing a $2 car rental fee.”
Linsky said he expects it would generate $7.3
million a year; Representative Jeffrey Sánchez
said he thought it could raise up to the $10
million.
“There was a sense that we had to . . . create a
funding stream for municipal training because
it’s so important, especially for those smaller
police departments that don’t have the resources
that the larger cities do,” Sánchez said.
Sánchez argued Wednesday that the burden would
largely fall on tourists, not Massachusetts
taxpayers. But the country’s top rental car
company trade group has raised concerns about
the fees, contending that at least 50 percent of
those who rent cars in Massachusetts are local
residents and companies.
The bill enjoyed overwhelming support in the
House, 143-5, and the Senate, 36-0, this week to
move to Baker’s desk.
“I will say that it has taken far too long for
us to get to this point,” said Senate minority
leader Bruce E. Tarr, who, like Baker, is a
Republican.
The Boston Herald
Friday, July 20, 2018
Charlie Baker trolls toll congestion pricing
Says voters see ‘incredibly punitive’ proposal
By Mary Markos
Gov. Charlie Baker signaled he’s likely to put
the brakes on a Senate plan to test rush-hour
congestion pricing on the state’s toll roads,
saying his working constituents would see it as
“incredibly punitive.”
The Herald reported yesterday that a new MassDOT
pilot program, included in the state budget that
is now being reviewed on Beacon Hill, is aimed
at easing congestion on highways by offering
commuters steep discounts of as much as 25
percent for avoiding peak traffic hours. While
the current plan doesn’t raise tolls, drivers
have told the Herald they consider it unfair and
are suspicious that it could ultimately lead to
rush-hour surge pricing. A separate plan would
study congestion pricing for commuter rail
service.
“A lot of people come in based on when their
boss requires them to come in,” Baker said
yesterday in an interview on WAAF. “They also
come in based on things like dropping their kids
off at school and putting their kids at day care
and a whole bunch of other things. And I think
for a lot of folks who don’t have the
flexibility to manage their schedule, because,
you know, they are working on a time clock, and
stuff like that, they are going to view this as
incredibly punitive.”
“My guess is that a modest difference between
what you pay before 6 and what you pay after 9
and what you pay between 6 and 9 probably
doesn’t make much difference at all,” Baker
said. “I doubt we’re going to want to get into
the business of dramatically charging people
extremely different prices depending upon what
time of day they come in.”
Despite the governor’s strong rhetoric, Baker’s
office, when asked whether he intends to veto
the measure, said he would “carefully review
final legislation on his desk.”
House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo declined to
comment on the congestion pricing program. A
DeLeo spokeswoman noted it was a Senate
proposal.
Incoming Senate president Karen Spilka’s office
did not respond to a request for comment. Senate
President Harriette L. Chandler has said she
supports the measure as “a financial incentive
to relieve traffic.”
The program is aimed at the traffic that makes
greater Boston the seventh-most congested urban
area in the nation, at an annual cost of $5.7
billion in fuel and time lost for workers and
employers. The state has tolls on the
Massachusetts Turnpike, the harbor tunnels and
the Tobin Bridge.
Braintree Mayor Joseph Sullivan, a MassDOT Board
of Directors member, backed the program, saying,
“Gridlock has a huge economic impact, and so we
need to attempt to manage as best we can the
flow of traffic ... if you look at the plan it
still needs details.”
“I would be averse to any increase in tolls,”
said state Rep. Tom Walsh, a member of the
Transportation Committee. “I guess people are
always suspicious whenever you discuss tolling,
however the idea behind this is to reduce the
amount of cars during rush hour and it’s a pilot
suggestion — we have to see if it works. If it
doesn’t work, then so be it.”
AAA spokeswoman Mary Maguire said the drivers’
organization wants to study the issue further
because there can be “all sorts of
implications.” But she said, “I think that when
it comes to reducing congestion, which is
certainly a tremendous problem in the Boston
metro area, we really have to consider all
options.”
If it survives the budget approval process, the
toll-road pilot would launch by April 1 — a
delay from an aggressive timeline offered in the
Senate version calling for the program to start
by Oct. 31.
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 20, 2018
A Boston Globe editorial
Opportunity for Baker to seize the moment on
toll test
A pilot program designed to test and collect
data on an innovative transportation idea, at no
extra cost to drivers, and with the potential to
reduce traffic and stretch transportation
dollars?
That should be an easy call for Governor Baker,
who ran as a data-driven pragmatist in 2014.
The Legislature included a pilot program to test
variable road tolling in the budget. All it
needs now is the governor’s sign-off.
His administration is reviewing it. Baker could
veto the pilot.
The hope of transportation advocates is that the
pilot program will show that variable tolling is
technologically feasible and provide some
initial data on how it affects congestion. Based
on the experience of other jurisdictions,
advocates hope that by giving drivers a small
incentive to commute at odd hours, more will do
so, reducing peak congestion and making trips
quicker for motorists who have no choice but to
drive in rush hour.
Baker said on the radio Thursday that “a lot of
folks . . . are going to view this as incredibly
punitive.” But he might want to point out that
those folks would be wrong. Higher prices in
rush hour may in fact be good policy, but that’s
not what the legislation calls for: It only
discounts tolls off-peak.
It’s a policy that Baker should champion — or,
at the very least, not hinder.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, July 21, 2018
A Boston Herald editorial
Follow Baker’s lead – just say no
Gov. Charlie Baker is doing the right thing by
pushing back on state Senate plans to test
rush-hour congestion pricing on the state’s toll
roads.
As the Herald reported, a new MassDOT pilot
program included in the state budget that is now
being reviewed on Beacon Hill is aimed at easing
congestion on highways by offering commuters
steep discounts of as much as 25 percent for
avoiding peak traffic hours. The current plan
doesn’t raise tolls but many feel that it would
take a precipitous step toward rush-hour surge
pricing. A similar plan would study congestion
pricing for commuter rail service.
Baker explained his position Thursday on WAAF.
“A lot of people come in based on when their
boss requires them to come in. They also come in
based on things like dropping their kids off at
school and putting their kids at day care and a
whole bunch of other things. And I think for a
lot of folks who don’t have the flexibility to
manage their schedule, because, you know, they
are working on a time clock, and stuff like
that, they are going to view this as incredibly
punitive.”
Though reducing congestion on the highways would
be a positive thing, it is doubtful that there
are many commuters who are choosing to embark on
the arduous, stressful trek that is rush hour.
It is also fair to ask whether all that toll
revenue is needed by the state if they are
willing to see so much of it go away as a result
of drivers hitting the roads during discounted
hours.
Gov. Baker is right, and our legislators should
follow his lead and say no to congestion
pricing.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, July 19, 2018
State budget numbers don’t add up
By Michael Graham
The conventional wisdom is that Massachusetts
elects Republican governors, not because they
can actually stop the Democrats from spending
every penny they get their hands on, but they
can at least slow them down.
How much? Now that the new budget’s in, we have
a number: Charlie Baker is worth 0.8 percent.
I’ll explain my math (“Always show your work,
Michael!” — Mrs. Rast, ninth grade algebra) in a
moment. But first, I have to explain how basic
calculations work on Beacon Hill. It’s not so
much “Common Core” as “blatant corruption.”
The Massachusetts House wanted to spend $41.52
billion of our money next year. Those
“skinflints” in the State Senate want to spend a
mere $41.49 billion. (That’s what passes for
“fiscal conservatism” in the Bay State.)
Shortly after 10 a.m. yesterday, after
hard-fought negotiations that went weeks past
the July 1 deadline, the two sides finally
hammered out a compromise: $41.88 billion.
If you noticed that this figure is higher than
both of the original budget numbers —
congratulations! You’re not only smarter than a
fifth grader, you’re overqualified to serve as a
state legislator in Massachusetts.
This is a classic Beacon Hill “compromise.” Like
the midmorning drunk whose motto is “It’s 5
o’clock somewhere,” the dollar-addicted
Democrats of Beacon Hill live by the creed
“There’s more money to spend somewhere.” And
they know exactly where it is: your pocket.
Ah, but how does this fit in with the Charlie
Baker calculation, you ask. Well, assuming that
he doesn’t add more spending to the budget (like
he did last week), here’s how spending breaks
down under Gov. Baker vs. his predecessor, Gov.
(and 2020 presidential candidate?) Deval
Patrick:
Under Gov. Patrick, the state budget went from
$26.8 billion to $36.5 billion, for an average
increase over eight years in office of 4.5
percent per year.
Under Gov. Charlie “Penny-Pincher” Baker, that
craven Koch Brothers’ apparatchik, the budget
grew from that $36.5 to the new $41.9 billion.
Over four years, that’s an average of 3.7
percent.
Baker’s the 0.8 percent solution to
Massachusetts’ spending problem!
If you’re wondering why Gov. Baker isn’t facing
serious opposition from the dominant Democratic
Party, or why his approval rating in America’s
most blue state is the highest for any governor
in the country, this is a good place to start.
Not that it truly matters. The fact is Democrats
have a veto-proof majority on Beacon Hill and
they’re going to spend more no matter what.
That’s why they’re elected. And if they don’t
spend enough, the state’s liberals will organize
to get billions in new taxes put on the ballot
in a referendum, as they did earlier this year.
People who believe in small government and low
taxes can complain about Beacon Hill’s
shenanigans until they’re blu … er, “red” in the
face. Or move to New Hampshire.
But, in fact, the elected officials reflect the
views of their electorate. Massachusetts is the
second-most liberal state in the U.S. according
to Gallup (one point behind Vermont), and it’s
got the most liberal state government. That’s
how democracy is supposed to work.
Republicans who are bothered by the fact that
Gov. Baker is both (a) Republican and (b) one of
the most liberal governors in the country
shouldn’t blame him. They should blame — or
rather try to persuade — their neighbors.
Massachusetts is the third-most expensive state
to live in, we have the fourth-highest
per-capita state/local tax burden in the country
and we continue to suffer a net domestic
outmigration as more and more locals leave for
more affordable pastures.
And what does Beacon Hill do? The world’s worst
math.
State House News Service
Friday, July 20, 2018
Weekly Roundup - Bills coming due
By Craig Sandler
. . . It's always head-scratching when a
Legislature rolling in dough, with Democrat
super-majorities in both chambers, and with
months and months to write the same spending
bill it's had to prepare annually for basically
the past century can't get it together to meet
its own fiscal year deadline.
True enough, this year featured a rookie House
Ways and Means chairman and a Senate budget
chief contending for the title of World's Most
Complicated Professional Life, and the budget is
very far from a simple document to finalize. The
Senate badly wanted the Safe Communities
provision blocking local police from cooperating
with D. Trump's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement service, and the House would not
budge(t). And, when revenues soar above
projections after the branches have approved
spending figures, pressure arises to turn
spending "nos" into "yeses," and who doesn't
love doing that in an election year?
Maybe that explains it: It takes a long time to
decide what to put back in. Well, anyhow, it's
done, almost three weeks late, and let's be
clear -- nobody really got hurt by the delay. We
know, because when people are getting hurt, the
News Service hears about it long and loud.
The spending bill, negotiated amidst a level of
House-Senate acrimony that can only be described
as precedented (meaning it was pretty high),
finally did make its way up from the interim
Senate chamber in Gardner Auditorium to the desk
of Gov. Charlie Baker at 6:58 p.m. Wednesday.
The latest he can get vetoes back for possible
overrides is July 28 - very very late, which
will give lawmakers all of two weekdays to
consider them, as they're also trying to pass or
reject everything else during a period of
reduced attention spans.
As ever, the post-enactment combthrough of the
document yielded some interesting elements. The
budget keeps daily fantasy betting legal in
Massachusetts, and imposes no new levy on the
wagering. Sports betting in general is an issue
of the future (in Massachusetts, anyhow.) The
Transportation Department is authorized to test
congestion pricing (higher tolls) on stretches
of the turnike. At the same time, regional
transit authorities get some of the funding
increase they said was crucial for survival. A
commission is established to look at personnel
practices within the scandal-plagued State
Police, and there's funding for a new internal
audit unit. And the Department of Revenue is
ordered to look at the impact of business tax
breaks and whether any should be eliminated.
As to spending itself, whatever else they fought
about, budget conferees agreed on one thing:
they should spend more than they originally
planned. The budget has $340 million more in
spending on legislative priorities than when it
went into conference, much of it in essence a
supplemental to fund areas where needs arose
over the course of the last fiscal year. Their
confidence comes from the fact that tax
collections out-performed estimates by some $1.1
billion in fiscal 2018, and leaders are betting
on some of that good fortune to continue. This
budget starts out $1.7 billion above last year,
House Ways and Means estimates, weighing in at
$41.9 billion.
Now stressed-out government affairs types can
turn their attention to the other matters that
need consideration in the next 10 days, namely:
everything. Formal sessions end July 31. . . .
State House News Service
Friday, July 20, 2018
Advances - Week of July 22, 2018
The Budget
Gov. Baker has until Saturday, July 28 to sign
the $41.9 billion fiscal 2019 budget and
announce spending vetoes and budget amendments.
If the governor takes the full 10 days allotted
to him to review the budget, lawmakers will have
only three full days, including one Sunday, to
take up veto overrides.
Overrides require two-thirds votes in each
branch and roll call votes under joint rules may
only be taken until midnight July 31 in an
election year.
According to the House Ways and Means Committee,
the budget compromise increases state spending
by $1.69 billion, or 4.2 percent, compared to
the fiscal 2018 budget.
It's unclear whether Baker is on board with the
decision by legislative leaders to boost their
estimate of available revenues by $667 million.
If he's not, that could lead to a midsummer
clash on spending.
Also, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
this week concluded it's "unlikely" that the $63
million anticipated by lawmakers in marijuana
sales tax revenues will materialize due to the
slow rollout of legal adult use retail
marijuana. The foundation also said lawmakers
opted for higher spending levels when deciding
between House and Senate proposals in "almost
all instances" after bumping up their revenue
estimate.
According to Early Education for All, lawmakers
in all nine conferenceable instances affecting
Department of Early Education and Care funding
opted for the higher funding amount. The
conference committee also drove $153 million
into underfunded accounts to minimize midyear
appropriations. Even with the attempt to address
typically underfunded accounts, there's still
about $70 million in underfunded accounts left,
the MTF says.
In a statement after the budget was approved,
House Minority Leader Brad Jones said the
budget's late arrival should not impede the
governor's ability to use the full 10 days to
review the bill. "This is an extensive document
that includes more than 100 outside sections and
pushes state spending to a historically high
level. That is all the more reason for the
Governor to take his time to carefully analyze
this proposal so he can identify any spending
and policy changes that warrant a veto," Jones
said.
* * * *
Along with a $41.9 billion fiscal 2019 budget,
bills raising the tobacco purchase age, rolling
back "archaic" abortion and contraception laws,
and assessing car renters to pay for municipal
police training tumbled on to Gov. Charlie
Baker's desk this week. As they wait to see how
Baker treats those bills and their budget,
lawmakers hope next week to begin flooding the
Corner Office with another wave of proposed
laws.
Amidst a frenzied period when legislators are
literally writing laws on the fly, Sen. Karen
Spilka of Ashland plans to take the gavel from
Worcester Sen. Harriette Chandler and become the
third Senate president of the 2017-2018 session.
Spilka's ascendance, following a behind the
scenes competition among senators over the
winter, has been known since March and she is
scheduled to take the presidency early Thursday
afternoon, which means she'll have five months
of informal sessions to adjust to being
president before the 2019-2020 session launch in
January. There's more suspense surrounding the
overcrowded legislative docket.
Ten bills -- addressing short-term rental
regulation, consumer data protection, civics
education, veterans benefits, health care,
education funding, automatic voter registration,
state borrowing for environmental investments,
animal welfare and clean energy -- are being
negotiated by House-Senate conference
committees, which all meet privately. Lawmakers
are also trying to pass opioid addiction
treatment and economic development bills, and
may need to use a informal and secretive process
to reconcile bills since the deadline for
appointing conference committees passed on
Tuesday. Formal legislative sessions end July
31. House Speaker Robert DeLeo had said this
week he hoped to vote on Airbnb rental
regulations, but a compromise bill never emerged
from the conference committee being led by Rep.
Aaron Michlewitz and Sen. Michael Rodrigues.
Here are the issues being ironed out behind
closed doors on Beacon Hill:
SHORT-TERM RENTALS: Being negotiated by Reps.
Michlewitz, Peake and Barrows, and Sens.
Rodrigues, Spilka and Fattman. Time in
conference: 100 days.
CONSUMER DATA: Being negotiated by Reps. Chan,
D. Hunt and R. Hunt, and Sens. L'Italien, Keenan
and Fattman. Time in conference: 78 days.
CIVICS EDUCATION: Being negotiated by Reps.
Peisch, Tucker and Crocker, and Sens.
Chang-Diaz, Friedman and Tran. Time in
conference: 39 days.
VETERANS BENEFITS: Being negotiated by Reps.
Lawn, Cronin and DeCoste, and Sens. Rush,
Brownsberger and Humason. Time in conference: 25
days.
HEALTH CARE: Being negotiated by Reps. Mariano,
Roy and R. Hunt, and Sens. Welch, Lewis and Tarr.
Time in conference: 25 days.
EDUCATION FUNDING: Being negotiated by Reps.
Peisch, Cronin and Ferguson, and Sens.
Chang-Diaz, DiDomenico and O'Connor. Time in
conference: five days.
AUTO VOTER REGISTRATION: Being negotiated by
Reps. M. Moran, Mahoney and Dooley, and Sens.
Creem, Gobi and Fattman. Time in conference:
five days.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOND: Being negotiated by Reps.
Nangle, Pignatelli and Berthiaume, and Sens.
Brownsberger, Gobi and Humason. Time in
conference: four days.
ANIMAL WELFARE: Being negotiated by Reps. Kafka,
O'Day and Muradian, and Sens. Montigny, Hinds
and Tarr. Time in conference: four days.
CLEAN ENERGY: Being negotiated by Reps. Golden,
Haddad and Jones, and Sens. Barrett, Pacheco and
O'Connor. Time in conference: four days. |
| |
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
|
