 |
and the
Citizens Economic Research Foundation
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 990-1251
“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, October 13, 2018
Voters'
upcoming choices
|
Gov. Charlie Baker and his challenger Jay
Gonzalez met in a televised debate for the first time
Tuesday night, where the Republican incumbent focused on his
accomplishments in his nearly four years in office and
Gonzalez, a Democrat, cast himself as someone with vision to
take the state beyond business as usual.
In the hourlong WBZ-TV debate, the two men
sparred over issues including transportation, education
funding, tax policy and Baker's endorsement of Republican
U.S. Senate candidate Geoff Diehl.
Gonzalez knocked Baker for delivering
"small-ball, status quo stuff," while Baker accused Gonzalez
of offering "empty promises." ...
Baker touted his own "D" rating from the
NRA, and said it will be important for the next governor to
build bipartisan relationships. He did not vote for
president in 2016 and said his views on Trump and opposition
to several of the president's positions are "quite well
known."
"I'm running for governor, not Geoff Diehl,"
Baker said....
To pay for new investments in education and
transportation, Gonzalez has proposed taxing the endowments
of the state's nine wealthiest private colleges and
universities. He also plans to pursue a constitutional
amendment instituting a surtax on incomes over $1 million, a
measure knocked off this year's ballot when the Supreme
Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutionally drafted.
Baker said his administration intends to
spend $8 billion on capital projects at the T over five
years, saying the that plan was "not made up of funny
money."
"His three billion dollars wouldn't actually
start until his second term, because two billion of that is
associated with a constitutional amendment that he has to
get through two sets of the Legislature before it actually
happens," Baker said.
Asked afterward about his approach to
revenue, Baker said the $8 billion in capital spending at
the T was "already baked into our financials" and could be
done "without going back to the taxpayers."
"I said before that I'm not interested in
going back to the taxpayer, but that said, I have supported
a number of initiatives that either level the playing field
-- and I'm still hoping we get an Airbnb bill done by the
end of the year, I don't think that one's fair to the hotel
industry -- and I supported some modest taxes on other
things where you either had a level playing field issue or
something else that was involved," Baker told reporters when
asked if he'd pursue new taxes in a second term. "But as a
general rule, I don't think balancing the budget should be
coming out of the pocket of the taxpayer." ...
On the subject of public education, Gonzalez
said he wanted to "increase the pie" of state support and
that he backs changes to the school funding formula. He said
Baker has "no plan to invest more."
"You can't fund local aid, you can't fund
K-12 education on empty promises," Baker told Gonzalez.
"Your plan is zero additional investment,"
Gonzalez shot back. "Whether you think three billion dollars
in additional tax revenue from the wealthy each year is
enough or not, it's three billion dollars more than you're
promising." ...
The two candidates will next square off on
Oct. 17, in a debate hosted by WGBH.
State House News Service
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Baker, Gonzalez spar in first debate over who has vision to
lead
Gonzalez tried to use the state’s blue hue
to his advantage.
Starting with the opening question, he
repeatedly criticized Baker for his endorsement of the
state’s Republican ticket, namely conservative state
Representative Geoff Diehl, a Trump supporter who is vying
to unseat Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Gonzalez called Diehl a “rubber stamp for
the Trump agenda” and said through his endorsement, Baker is
backing an “anti-choice . . . pro-NRA agenda.” The Democrat
echoed past criticisms he’s lobbed at Baker, calling him a
hypocrite for backing Diehl, who lists “standing up to
protect the Second Amendment” as a priority.
“I would never support anyone like that who
could go tip the balance in the United States Senate,”
Gonzalez said.
Baker — who has opposed several Trump
administration initiatives and said he didn’t vote for the
billionaire in 2016 — emphasized that he supports abortion
rights. He also touted the “F” rating he’s received from the
Gun Owners’ Action League, the National Rifle Association’s
state affiliate.
“I’m running for governor,” Baker said, “not
Geoff Diehl.”
Several times, the debate — moderated by WBZ-TV
political analyst Jon Keller — veered into a discussion of
taxes. Gonzalez is pressing a plan to levy a 1.6 percent tax
on endowments of any private, nonprofit college or
university with a fund of more than $1 billion....
The Republican noted that Gonzalez’s support
of a millionaires tax wouldn’t even come to fruition in his
first term because of state constitutional requirements.
Baker also cast criticism on his plan to tax
college endowments by trying to tie Gonzalez to — among all
things — Republicans. The plan, he said, was “actually
originally proposed by President Trump and the Republican
Congress,” a nod to the 1.4 percent levy enacted on the
investment earnings of high-endowment institutions as part
of the tax overhaul bill Trump signed last year.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Baker, Gonzalez tangle in first gubernatorial debate
The Democratic ticket for governor has been
competing at a severe financial deficit to incumbent Gov.
Charlie Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, but Jay Gonzalez
and Quentin Palfrey are about to get an infusion of cash
thanks to the state's public financing system.
The Office of Campaign and Political Finance
said Wednesday that Gonzalez and Palfrey had qualified for
$542,284 in public matching funds, and could receive up to
an additional $173,258 depending on the ticket's fundraising
receipts through Oct. 19....
Baker has raised over $3.65 million this
cycle and has spent nearly $6 million on his re-election
campaign. The governor currently has $4.9 million in his
campaign account.
Gonzalez, meanwhile, has raised only
$937,688 and has $201,610 left in his account before the
public financing with less than a month until the Nov. 6
election.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 10, 2018
Gonzalez-Palfrey qualify for $542,000 in public campaign $$$
Gov. Charlie Baker weighed in Wednesday on
one of this year's most contentious election issues,
indicating that he planned to vote against a ballot question
that would set minimum nurse to patient staffing ratios.
The governor had been waiting to see the
results of a report produced last week by the Health Policy
Commission, which he said he read over the weekend.
"Based on the results of that report, I'm
going to vote no on Question 1. I'm going to vote no because
the Health Policy Commission report raised three issues that
I was, frankly, not aware of," Baker told reporters at an
unrelated event downtown on Wednesday afternoon.
The Health Policy Commission analysis
estimated that implementing the nurse to patient staffing
ratios called for in the ballot question would cost the
health care system between $676 million and $949 million and
would require 2,286 to 3,101 additional full-time nurses to
be hired.
In addition to cost, Baker said that he had
been unaware "that Massachusetts has a higher
nurse-to-patient staffing ratio already than the state of
California does," where a similar law was put into place.
Finally, Baker said he was concerned that
"many community hospitals and some nursing homes and even
some rehab hospitals would have their operational future put
in jeopardy if that law were to pass."
"Many of these community hospitals are
critical care access providers in their districts," Baker
said.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 10, 2018
Baker against ballot question to boost nurse staffing
There are no contribution caps for people or
corporations giving to committees for and against ballot
questions — and it shows as millions of dollars pour into
the causes.
“There are no limits — that’s the theme,”
Jason Tait of the state Office of Campaign and Political
Finance told the Herald.
The committees for and against Question 1,
which deals with staffing levels in hospitals, have combined
to drop $20.1 million — $8 million for, $12.1 million
against — on the campaign, according to OCPF data.
That’s largely on the back of huge donations
that are massively over what would be allowed to go to
candidates or parties. The Massachusetts Nurses Association
gave $2.1 million for the question over the past month,
doing so over five installments, each over $150,000. The
union’s political action committee would only be able to
give $500 to a candidate or $5,000 to a party in a calendar
year. On the other side, hospitals lined up to give hundreds
of thousands of dollars each, according to the data.
The committee for Question 3, which would
keep in place anti-discrimination protections for
transgender people, has spent $2 million, while the
committee against it has spent $333,000, according to the
data.
Question 2 focuses on campaign spending. A
“yes” vote would create a committee to look into measures
including a national constitutional amendment to cut down on
money in politics. The committee in favor of this, though,
has dramatically outspent those opposed to restricting money
in politics: $182,000 for to no money spent against.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Prospects limitless for spending on questions
Question 3 asks voters if they support a
2016 law signed by Gov. Charlie Baker that prohibits
discrimination in public places on the basis of gender
identity, which was added to a list of protected classes in
the state. The list also includes race, national origin and
gender.
A question that proposes eliminating certain
rights for transgender people will appear on the statewide
ballot in Massachusetts this November.
Question 3 asks voters if they support a
2016 law signed by Gov. Charlie Baker that prohibits
discrimination in public places on the basis of gender
identity, which was added to a list of protected classes in
the state. The list also includes race, national origin and
gender.
A “yes” vote would keep the current law in
place and a “no” vote would repeal the part of the law that
prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public
places, including public restrooms....
Freedom for All has vastly out-raised Keep
Massachusetts Safe, according to the state Office of
Campaign and Political Finance. Between the first of the
year and the Sept. 7 reporting deadline, Keep Mass. Safe
raised $106,378 and Freedom for All raised $1,837,392.
The Patriot Ledger
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Statewide ballot question proposes repeal of transgender
rights
Comptroller Thomas Shack feels like he's the
chirping smoke detector of state government, regularly
sloughed off when he attempts to warn of an impending
problem.
"When the smoke detector starts to go off
you have two things you can do; you can either address the
smoke or you can unplug it or take the battery out of it,"
Shack said Friday morning. "Sometimes I feel like the
battery is taken out of it as opposed to dealing with the
smoke and I think that that's a fair assessment."
In the latest instance, Shack has been
trying to warn the Legislature that its inaction on a bill
to close the books on fiscal year 2018 and spend surplus
funds is putting his ability to meet a financial reporting
deadline prescribed by the Legislature in serious doubt.
It's the same issue he's been raising with legislative
leaders annually for four years.
Shack's office must close the books on the
fiscal year that ended June 30 and file the annual Statutory
Basis Financial Report by Oct. 31 and he said that having
the Legislature pass its final supplemental budget by Aug.
31 is an industry best practice because it allows his team
enough time to properly prepare the financial report, which
needs to independently audited before its filing.
"This is the fourth fiscal year that I've
operated as the commonwealth's comptroller and this is the
fourth year under my comptrollership that we will not meet
the statutory deadline," he said Friday at a meeting of the
Comptroller Advisory Board. "I would reiterate that such
late activity is really perilous. It's a well-known risk
within the audit world that if you do not meet your own
statutory obligations you may well subject yourself to
really, really significant scrutiny." ...
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg noted that the
state is in strong financial shape and said that while there
are "all sorts of legitimate explanations as to what's going
on" with the supplemental budget, two things are "a little
bit shocking."
"One is not a real strict adherence to the
deadlines, which are critical in terms of how the outside
world looks at all of this, so sort of getting away with
this, it's sort of like kids getting away with stuff for too
long," Goldberg said. She said the other thing of concern is
that repeatedly missing deadlines opens the state up to more
scrutiny from rating agencies.
"We just don't want to be giving the outside
world things to point to," she said.
In June 2017, S&P Global Ratings lowered its
rating for Massachusetts bonds to AA from AA+ and admonished
the state for its approach to stashing funds in its rainy
day fund....
Auditor Suzanne Bump, who sits on the
advisory board, said she recently met with audit firm KPMG
to discuss potential financial risks to the commonwealth and
that KPMG raised the lateness of the closeout budget as an
issue.
"This is constantly presented, not just
internally to state government but to the rest of the world
as a problem and a potential financial risk for the state,"
Bump said. She told Shack, "I share your frustration that
the Legislature doesn't seem to comprehend the magnitude of
the ramifications of their failure to act."
On Friday afternoon, spokespeople for
legislative leaders said that the Legislature understands
Shack's concerns and plans to get the supplemental budget
done soon. Legislative leaders in mid-September said they
were working on the bill and hoped to get it done as soon as
possible....
Shack said one of the most frustrating
things about the position he has found himself in the last
several years is that the Oct. 31 deadline he is bound by
was imposed by the Legislature.
"If you cannot meet your own laws, then why
are you establishing those laws in the first place?" he
said. "I'm loathe, as any attorney would be, to engage in
any behavior that results in laws being broken. In this
case, as I've said on other occasions, that's exactly what
I'm forced to do and I have been forced to do." ...
Some lawmakers who might be involved in the
bill's formation are out of the country. Fifteen
legislators, including [Senate President Karen] Spilka, are
in the midst of a weeklong trip to Portugal where they are
meeting with government officials to discuss maritime
security, economic development, guns and drugs, and human
trafficking.
State House News Service
Friday, October 12, 2018
State finance officials frustrated over budget bill hangup
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Baker
touted his own "D" rating from the NRA, and said
it will be important for the next governor to
build bipartisan relationships. He did not vote
for president in 2016 and said his views on
Trump and opposition to several of the
president's positions are "quite well known."
—State House News
Service - October 10, 2018
Baker — who
has opposed several Trump administration
initiatives and said he didn’t vote for the
billionaire in 2016 — emphasized that he
supports abortion rights. He also touted the “F”
rating he’s received from the Gun Owners’ Action
League, the National Rifle Association’s state
affiliate.
—The Boston Globe,
October 10, 2018.
Democrat
Light or Democrat Left for Governor. That's our
choice, and I'm not sure we even have a Democrat
Light candidate any more. Left and Lefter is
more accurate these days, as Charlie Baker
strives to out-liberal his Democrat challenger,
Jay Gonzalez.
—Chip Ford,
CLT Update, October 2, 2018
As I've
said before, Charlie Baker is the best Democrat
we taxpayers can hope to elect as governor in
Massachusetts. While he's not as conservative
as Democrat Edward J. King was as governor, he's
definitely head and shoulders and then some
above Michael Stanley Dukakis.
—Chip Ford,
CLT Update, September 10, 2018
Here we are, folks, with little if any
choices again in the election but a few weeks away.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I'm still
here in The People's Republic until then so I get to
– ahem
–
vote before taking my leave permanently. Down
ballot from Governor there are some very good
challengers for statewide offices, far better options
than the status quo, but this being Deep Blue
Massachusetts I don't expect much
–
but we could get lucky!
Our self-proclaimed "Republican"
governor, the "lovable" Charlie Baker is, if nothing
else, a good example. He proudly blanked the
presidential ballot two years ago, so following his
civic example and in his honor, with my final vote in
Massachusetts I shall blank my
vote for governor. In good conscience I cannot
vote for anyone who "touts" his "F" rating from Gun
Owners' Action League, and for the life of me I can't
comprehend how he received even a "D" rating from the
NRA, which he also "touts" with pride. I wouldn't
even consider voting for his opponent, Jay Gonzalez
– even out of spite.
So like Charlie, I have nobody I can vote for and won't
encourage either of them.
I got worried when it was reported that Charlie Baker
had finally taken a rare actual position when he could
have dodged it again, announcing he opposes Question 1,
the Nursing Staffing ballot question. As when The
Boston Globe comes out in favor of something I support,
I had to halt in my tracks and reconsider my position.
But with Question 1, all I need to know is who is
backing it to inform my vote. The left-wing
Massachusetts Nurses Association (the state's nurses'
union) has been an opponent of taxpayers and adversary
of CLT ballot initiatives for so long that opposing them
is simply a natural reaction, has become ingrained in my
DNA.
Question 2 is a silly, feel-good liberal
shout against one of its bęte noires, with no teeth and
no effect. It would create an "advisory
commission" to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Citizens United v. FEC.
Question 3 is tricky, because how to vote for or against
is tricky. It is a repeal referendum, attempting
to repeal an existing law that established transgender
public accommodations. If you support the law, you
must vote Yes to keep it on the law books; if you
oppose the law, you must vote No, to repeal it.
I point this out because of our experience when we put
repeal of the second mandatory seat belt law on
the 1994 ballot.
We put it on the ballot the first time in 1986, and
voters resoundingly supported repeal of the law.
Regardless, the Legislature re-imposed it in 1994. (This
is after all Massachusetts, where nuisance voters are
routinely ignored, their mandates overturned by the
Legislature when results are not to its liking).
Generally, a repeal referendum ballot question is
preceded by the statement "Do you agree with the law as
it appears below?" Then the text of the law is
printed as it stands. If you agree with the law
(in our case back then, the seat belt law) and want to
keep it, you vote Yes. If you do not agree
with the law (like us with the seat belt law) and want
to get rid of it, repeal it, you vote No. In 1994
that statement did not appear on the ballot; just "Seat
Belt Law." I knew we were in trouble when callers
to Jerry Williams' radio program announced over and
over, "I voted with you, Jerry –
I voted Yes to repeal the law!" It required a
No vote to repeal the law –
"No, I do not agree with the law as it appears
below." Unfortunately that statement, and the text
of the law, did not appear anywhere on the 1994 ballot,
for any of the numerous ballot questions that year.
If you support
transgender public accommodations, you must vote Yes.
If you oppose
transgender public accommodations, you must vote No.
The budget impasse continues, even
though "The Best Legislature Money Can Buy"
– one of the few supposed
"full-time" legislatures in the nation
–
remains AWOL since August. The unfortunate state
comptroller,
Thomas Shack, has been begging the Legislature to close
last fiscal year's state books for months now but is
still going ignored by that
"Best Legislature Money Can Buy." He's now being
pushed to break the law, just do as legislators do with
impunity and ignore his responsibilities.
"Gov.
Charlie Baker in July filed a spending bill to close out
unsettled accounts and spend fiscal 2018 surplus funds
but months later the Legislature has not taken action on
it as most lawmakers have cleared out of Beacon Hill for
campaign season," the State House News Service reported.
All that is in the comptroller's way,
all that's preventing him from doing what's legally
required of him, is the Legislature which wrote the law
that legally requires him to do his job. Most
legislators are too busy campaigning and vacationing and
on junkets to foreign destinations
– and have been for the past two-plus months of
taxpayer-funded vacation. Our "full-time"
legislators won't be back from their well-paid
sabbatical for another two-and-a-half months.
Though there are too few challengers to sitting,
incumbent legislators – all
too common a predicament in this forlorn commonwealth
–
almost every challenger deserves sober consideration and
likely your vote, if you are one of the fortunate few to
have such opportunity. That broad statement is
supported by just recalling the first order of business
when the current legislators took their oaths of office
– then immediately rammed
through a $18 million pay raise for themselves within
their first month of being elected as "public servants."
No, we have not forgotten here at CLT.
If you need to refresh your memory (and restoke your
anger) review the despicable history of
The Legislator's Obscene Pay Grab. Then vote
accordingly.
House Rollcall Vote
|
Senate Rollcall Vote
I'm anxiously counting down the days
until I can escape from this political septic tank.
Thanks to the support, generosity, and encouragement of
many members I've been able to keep CLT going through
the election as I'd hoped to do. I put off my
move, but my decampment, the exodus to my personal
sanctuary state, is but a month away and closing fast.
It's possible that CLT will restart in January from my
new and improved location, should there be enough
support. We shall see . . .
Last week I sold my snow-blower, and the
full dumpster was taken away. This week I sold my
'99 Blazer with its snowplow, and the PODS container
arrived.
I'm bringing along a shovel for emergencies, should the
annual snowfall in Kentucky exceed its average 8 inches.
On November 15th
I'll be on my way, driving Barbara Anderson's and my cat
Gilly with me in her 2001 Honda CR-V, both of which I
inherited when she left us. Citizens for Limited
Taxation in exile is coming . . .
Bye-bye dumpster and decades of CLT accumulation .
. .
Hello PODS!
Now the packing will begin . . .
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
State House News Service
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Baker, Gonzalez spar in first debate over who
has vision to lead
By Katie Lannan
Gov. Charlie Baker and his challenger Jay
Gonzalez met in a televised debate for the first
time Tuesday night, where the Republican
incumbent focused on his accomplishments in his
nearly four years in office and Gonzalez, a
Democrat, cast himself as someone with vision to
take the state beyond business as usual.
In the hourlong WBZ-TV debate, the two men
sparred over issues including transportation,
education funding, tax policy and Baker's
endorsement of Republican U.S. Senate candidate
Geoff Diehl.
Gonzalez knocked Baker for delivering
"small-ball, status quo stuff," while Baker
accused Gonzalez of offering "empty promises."
Gonzalez brought up Baker's endorsement of
Diehl, a state representative from Whitman who
was involved in President Donald Trump's 2016
campaign, three minutes into the debate,
responding to moderator Jon Keller's question
about abortion rights. Both Baker and Gonzalez
are pro-choice.
"By backing Geoff Diehl, Gov. Baker is
supporting an anti-choice agenda as well as an
anti-LGBTQ, pro-NRA agenda, and I would never
support someone like that who could go tip the
balance in the United States Senate, someone who
would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and
might vote to confirm the next Brett Kavanaugh,"
Gonzalez said.
Baker touted his own "D" rating from the NRA,
and said it will be important for the next
governor to build bipartisan relationships. He
did not vote for president in 2016 and said his
views on Trump and opposition to several of the
president's positions are "quite well known."
"I'm running for governor, not Geoff Diehl,"
Baker said.
Baker and Gonzalez share similar backgrounds,
both having served as state budget chiefs before
stints as health insurance executives.
When Gonzalez went after Baker over the state of
the MBTA, Baker countered that he had inherited
the system from Gov. Deval Patrick's
administration, in which Gonzalez was
administration and finance secretary.
Gonzalez said Baker needs to listen to
commuters.
"With the lack of urgency and the fact the
system hasn't been fixed, I'm surprised
commuters haven't revolted and started a
petition to change the name of these T passes
from CharlieCard to 'Where's Charlie Card,"
Gonzalez said, brandishing a T pass before
slipping it back in his pocket.
Baker said his administration "went hard at
making significant investments in the T,"
spending on items like signals, switches, third
rail and track necessary to improve service.
To pay for new investments in education and
transportation, Gonzalez has proposed taxing the
endowments of the state's nine wealthiest
private colleges and universities. He also plans
to pursue a constitutional amendment instituting
a surtax on incomes over $1 million, a measure
knocked off this year's ballot when the Supreme
Judicial Court ruled it was unconstitutionally
drafted.
Baker said his administration intends to spend
$8 billion on capital projects at the T over
five years, saying the that plan was "not made
up of funny money."
"His three billion dollars wouldn't actually
start until his second term, because two billion
of that is associated with a constitutional
amendment that he has to get through two sets of
the Legislature before it actually happens,"
Baker said.
Asked afterward about his approach to revenue,
Baker said the $8 billion in capital spending at
the T was "already baked into our financials"
and could be done "without going back to the
taxpayers."
"I said before that I'm not interested in going
back to the taxpayer, but that said, I have
supported a number of initiatives that either
level the playing field -- and I'm still hoping
we get an Airbnb bill done by the end of the
year, I don't think that one's fair to the hotel
industry -- and I supported some modest taxes on
other things where you either had a level
playing field issue or something else that was
involved," Baker told reporters when asked if
he'd pursue new taxes in a second term. "But as
a general rule, I don't think balancing the
budget should be coming out of the pocket of the
taxpayer."
Gonzalez said he was honest about asking the
wealthy to pay more in taxes and said that his
revenue proposal has been met with enthusiasm on
the campaign trail.
"The status quo is not working for working
families across this state, and our
transportation system is the thing I hear the
most about everywhere I go," he said. "I will
provide the bold leadership we need to fix it."
Gonzalez said repeatedly he would fight for "the
little guy" and "aim high," and described the
"status quo" under Baker as "not good enough."
Baker disputed the idea that he was a "status
quo governor," saying the state would not have
taken steps toward major wind and hydropower
procurements and instituted reforms at
Bridgewater State Hospital if that were the
case.
Baker turned one of his opponent's lines on its
head, raising the issue of cuts at the
Department of Children and Families and for
early childhood education when Gonzalez was in
Patrick's cabinet during the recession of the
late 2000s.
"When he had his tiller on the state budget, he
cut the Department of Children and families,"
Baker said. "Now that's about as little guy as
you can get….We've increased spending at DCF by
$180 million, because we believe we should be
spending on the little guys and the little gals
and the moms and dads that are associated with
that agency."
Gonzalez accused Baker of "fuzzy math" and said
Baker was working off the "same old Republican
playbook" of no new taxes and leaving working
families behind.
Polling in the race has consistently given Baker
a wide lead over Gonzalez, who remains unknown
to a large swath of voters.
A WBUR/MassINC survey conducted from Sept. 17
through Sept. 22, gave Baker a 66 percent to 22
percent lead, with 45 percent saying they had
not heard of the Democrat nominee. Among
Democrats, Baker was ahead 52 percent to 32
percent.
Baker also maintains a commanding fundraising
advantage, with $4.9 million in the bank at the
end of September, compared to Gonzalez's
$201,610, and Baker's campaign has already spent
millions on the race.
"I feel great about tonight, excited to have the
chance to present a clear choice to voters and
as we're talking to people all across the
campaign trail, people are just starting to tune
into this race and we are earning a lot of
support, so I feel very good about where things
stand and our chances of winning this election,"
Gonzalez said after the debate.
On the subject of public education, Gonzalez
said he wanted to "increase the pie" of state
support and that he backs changes to the school
funding formula. He said Baker has "no plan to
invest more."
"You can't fund local aid, you can't fund K-12
education on empty promises," Baker told
Gonzalez.
"Your plan is zero additional investment,"
Gonzalez shot back. "Whether you think three
billion dollars in additional tax revenue from
the wealthy each year is enough or not, it's
three billion dollars more than you're
promising."
Both candidates also were asked if they agreed
with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's description of
the criminal justice system in a speech this
summer as "racist" from "front to back."
Gonzalez called the criminal justice system "the
biggest civil rights issue of our time" and said
racial disparities need to be addressed.
Baker said he does not "think our system is
racist from front to back," but believes it has
issues that need to be fixed.
The two candidates will next square off on Oct.
17, in a debate hosted by WGBH.
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Baker, Gonzalez tangle in first gubernatorial
debate
By Joshua Miller
Governor Charlie Baker and Democratic challenger
Jay Gonzalez tangled in a tense televised debate
Tuesday, with each trading attacks on their
bureaucraticresumes and framing the other as
having the wrong vision for running state
government.
Throughout the one-hour forum, Gonzalez tried to
tie Baker to President Trump, paint him as a GOP
stooge, and criticize his tenure as falling
woefully short of the challenges of our time,
saying if he were to win on Nov. 6, he’d raise
taxes on the wealthy and plow the new billions
into education and transportation.
Baker, who holds a massive lead in public
opinion polls, aimed to parry the attacks,
sharply criticized Gonzalez’s 3˝-year tenure as
state budget chief, and trumpeted his record
over the last four years. The Republican weaved
between his administration’s efforts to help
homeless families, boost renewable energy, and
increase funding for the state family social
services agency and early education — each time
rejecting the criticism that he’s a “status quo”
leader.
Although the debate aired on WSBK-TV (Channel
38) and overlapped with Tuesday’s Red Sox
playoff game, it marked the highest-profile
event of the previously sleepy governor’s race,
and it gave Gonzalez and his attacks on Baker’s
record one of the largest audiences to date.
“It’s small-ball, status quo stuff,” Gonzalez
said of Baker’s record on education spending.
“There are huge disparities in our public school
system. I will not accept that as governor. I
want us to aim high.”
“If I was a status quo governor, there’d still
be thousands of homeless families living in
hotels and motels in Massachusetts — there
aren’t,” Baker replied. “If I was a status quo
governor, we wouldn’t have a huge offshore wind
and hydro[electric] program going on to replace
a third of our fossil fuels with clean,
renewable energy.”
Baker jabbed at Gonzalez’s record, saying that
as state budget chief under Deval Patrick he cut
early childhood education funding by $85 million
at the same time state spending was growing.
Baker said his administration, on the other
hand, had increased spending on early childhood
education by over $100 million.
“There’s a lot of fuzzy math there,” Gonzalez
said. “But I’m telling people what I’m going to
do as governor, not what I did when I worked for
Governor Patrick.”
Gonzalez tried to use the state’s blue hue to
his advantage.
Starting with the opening question, he
repeatedly criticized Baker for his endorsement
of the state’s Republican ticket, namely
conservative state Representative Geoff Diehl, a
Trump supporter who is vying to unseat Senator
Elizabeth Warren.
Gonzalez called Diehl a “rubber stamp for the
Trump agenda” and said through his endorsement,
Baker is backing an “anti-choice . . . pro-NRA
agenda.” The Democrat echoed past criticisms
he’s lobbed at Baker, calling him a hypocrite
for backing Diehl, who lists “standing up to
protect the Second Amendment” as a priority.
“I would never support anyone like that who
could go tip the balance in the United States
Senate,” Gonzalez said.
Baker — who has opposed several Trump
administration initiatives and said he didn’t
vote for the billionaire in 2016 — emphasized
that he supports abortion rights. He also touted
the “F” rating he’s received from the Gun
Owners’ Action League, the National Rifle
Association’s state affiliate.
“I’m running for governor,” Baker said, “not
Geoff Diehl.”
Several times, the debate — moderated by WBZ-TV
political analyst Jon Keller — veered into a
discussion of taxes. Gonzalez is pressing a plan
to levy a 1.6 percent tax on endowments of any
private, nonprofit college or university with a
fund of more than $1 billion.
If the plan were in place, he has said, it would
have taxed Harvard University, MIT, Boston
College, Boston University, Williams College,
Amherst College, Tufts University, Smith
College, and Wellesley College, generating
roughly $1 billion in revenue.
He said he also supports a renewed push to
impose a so-called millionaires tax aimed at
bringing in an estimated $2 billion from the
state’s wealthiest residents. (The state’s
Supreme Judicial Court this year rejected a
ballot question that, if passed, would have done
just that, but a legislative effort could meet
constitutional muster.)
Baker argued that Gonzalez’s priorities, from
pumping more money into transportation to
boosting education spending, could cost tens of
billions of dollars — a price tag Gonzalez
rejected.
The Republican noted that Gonzalez’s support of
a millionaires tax wouldn’t even come to
fruition in his first term because of state
constitutional requirements.
Baker also cast criticism on his plan to tax
college endowments by trying to tie Gonzalez to
— among all things — Republicans. The plan, he
said, was “actually originally proposed by
President Trump and the Republican Congress,” a
nod to the 1.4 percent levy enacted on the
investment earnings of high-endowment
institutions as part of the tax overhaul bill
Trump signed last year.
Baker and Gonzalez, both former health insurance
executives and state budget chiefs, also dove
into wonky territory. Gonzalez talked about
megawatts from wind power and the MBTA’s “state
of good repair.” Baker spoke of “signals and
switches, and third rail” and cited the number
of investigations conducted by the Department of
Public Utilities.
Recent scandals at the Massachusetts State
Police also surfaced.
“Corruption is rampant at the State Police,”
Gonzalez said. “When are you going to fire
someone at the State Police, Governor?”
In reply, Baker said Democrats have called
Gonzalez’s demands “political nonsense,” and
underscored that the current head of the agency,
State Police Colonel Kerry Gilpin, had referred
48 Troopers to the attorney general and US
attorney for investigation.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 10, 2018
Gonzalez-Palfrey qualify for $542,000 in public
campaign $$$
By Matt Murphy
The Democratic ticket for governor has been
competing at a severe financial deficit to
incumbent Gov. Charlie Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn
Polito, but Jay Gonzalez and Quentin Palfrey are
about to get an infusion of cash thanks to the
state's public financing system.
The Office of Campaign and Political Finance
said Wednesday that Gonzalez and Palfrey had
qualified for $542,284 in public matching funds,
and could receive up to an additional $173,258
depending on the ticket's fundraising receipts
through Oct. 19.
While the money won't come close to putting the
Democrats on equal footing with Baker and Polito,
it should give them a boost at a time when
Gonzalez needs to increase his name recognition
and get his message in front of more voters.
Baker has raised over $3.65 million this cycle
and has spent nearly $6 million on his
re-election campaign. The governor currently has
$4.9 million in his campaign account.
Gonzalez, meanwhile, has raised only $937,688
and has $201,610 left in his account before the
public financing with less than a month until
the Nov. 6 election.
Baker opted out of the public financing system,
which would have forced him to agree to certain
spending limits. Instead, he set a spending cap
of $20 million on his re-election campaign,
which means Gonzalez and Palfrey can also spend
up to that amount, though its unlikely either
will approach that figure.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 10, 2018
Baker against ballot question to boost nurse
staffing
By Matt Murphy
Gov. Charlie Baker weighed in Wednesday on one
of this year's most contentious election issues,
indicating that he planned to vote against a
ballot question that would set minimum nurse to
patient staffing ratios.
The governor had been waiting to see the results
of a report produced last week by the Health
Policy Commission, which he said he read over
the weekend.
"Based on the results of that report, I'm going
to vote no on Question 1. I'm going to vote no
because the Health Policy Commission report
raised three issues that I was, frankly, not
aware of," Baker told reporters at an unrelated
event downtown on Wednesday afternoon.
The Health Policy Commission analysis estimated
that implementing the nurse to patient staffing
ratios called for in the ballot question would
cost the health care system between $676 million
and $949 million and would require 2,286 to
3,101 additional full-time nurses to be hired.
In addition to cost, Baker said that he had been
unaware "that Massachusetts has a higher
nurse-to-patient staffing ratio already than the
state of California does," where a similar law
was put into place.
Finally, Baker said he was concerned that "many
community hospitals and some nursing homes and
even some rehab hospitals would have their
operational future put in jeopardy if that law
were to pass."
"Many of these community hospitals are critical
care access providers in their districts," Baker
said.
Supporters of Question 1 say it would improve
patient care and reduce medical errors, assert
that hospitals can afford to invest in more
nurses, and claim that opponents have used scare
tactics to stir up opposition to the proposal.
"It is incredibly disappointing – but not
surprising – to see Governor Baker make a
decision to oppose Question 1 based on a flawed,
one-sided report by the Health Policy
Commission. But moreover, his concern about
community hospitals and services for our most
vulnerable is disingenuous, recognizing that
during his tenure, nearly a dozen programs have
closed," said Kate Norton, a spokeswoman for the
Committee to Ensure Safe Patient Care, which is
the group behind Question 1.
Norton cited the closure of hospital units in
places like Leominster, and also said the claims
about current nurse staffing in Massachusetts as
compared to California are "100 percent
inaccurate."
"Hospital executives have been consolidating
power and profits for years under the watchful
eye of the Baker administration and the HPC.
This profit-driven industry and the executives
behind Question 1 continue to make decisions in
the interest of their bottom line, and not in
the interest of the patients," Norton said.
Baker's opponent, Democrat Jay Gonzalez,
supports Question 1. According to his campaign
manager, Kevin Ready, Gonzalez addressed the
initiative last year as it was in its early
stages.
"We need to ensure that there isn't cost cutting
going on that is compromising the health and
safety of patients. I do think this is a
worthwhile issue," Gonzalez said at a campaign
event last year in Pittsfield.
Both Gonzalez and Baker are former insurance
executives. The trade group that represents
insurers in Massachusetts is opposing Question
1.
In late September, the governor visited
Harrington Hospital in Southbridge where he
helped break ground on Harrington HealthCare
System's emergency department. Baker said that
Harrington, for dozens of communities in that
region of the state, is the primary, emergency,
mental health and substance abuse care provider.
"They said to me they would have a heck of time,
that they did not believe they probably could
implement the law if it were to pass as written
which sort of set off an alarm bell for me,"
Baker said.
New polling released on Wednesday showed that
support for Question 1 might be starting to
erode.
The UMass Lowell/Boston Globe poll conducted
last week found 51 percent of likely voters
opposed nurse staffing requirements as outlined
in Question 1, while 43 percent support the
measure. Past surveys have found the question to
be a toss up, or a slight advantage for the
proponents of the ballot measure.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, October 11, 2018
Prospects limitless for spending on questions
By Sean Philip Cotter
There are no contribution caps for people or
corporations giving to committees for and
against ballot questions — and it shows as
millions of dollars pour into the causes.
“There are no limits — that’s the theme,” Jason
Tait of the state Office of Campaign and
Political Finance told the Herald.
The committees for and against Question 1, which
deals with staffing levels in hospitals, have
combined to drop $20.1 million — $8 million for,
$12.1 million against — on the campaign,
according to OCPF data.
That’s largely on the back of huge donations
that are massively over what would be allowed to
go to candidates or parties. The Massachusetts
Nurses Association gave $2.1 million for the
question over the past month, doing so over five
installments, each over $150,000. The union’s
political action committee would only be able to
give $500 to a candidate or $5,000 to a party in
a calendar year. On the other side, hospitals
lined up to give hundreds of thousands of
dollars each, according to the data.
The committee for Question 3, which would keep
in place anti-discrimination protections for
transgender people, has spent $2 million, while
the committee against it has spent $333,000,
according to the data.
Question 2 focuses on campaign spending. A “yes”
vote would create a committee to look into
measures including a national constitutional
amendment to cut down on money in politics. The
committee in favor of this, though, has
dramatically outspent those opposed to
restricting money in politics: $182,000 for to
no money spent against.
Much of the money supporting restrictions came
from small donors, but Jeff Clements, the man
who runs Concord-based American Promise, the
group behind the question, has given $13,500 to
the committee for Question 2. He, has also made
non-cash “in-kind” contributions of services
such as staffing valued at dozens of thousands
of dollars, including an instance of $43,000
last month, and $15,000 in loans to the
committee. Under Massachusetts law, in-kind
contributions are treated as though they are
money and capped the same.
American Promises’ political director, Ben
Gubits, rejected the idea that the contributions
are antithetical to the organization’s purpose.
“It’s a difference from getting the big and
secret money we’re trying to fight,” Gubits
said.
The Patriot Ledger
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Statewide ballot question proposes repeal of
transgender rights
By Mary Whitfill
Question 3 asks voters if they support a 2016
law signed by Gov. Charlie Baker that prohibits
discrimination in public places on the basis of
gender identity, which was added to a list of
protected classes in the state. The list also
includes race, national origin and gender.
A question that proposes eliminating certain
rights for transgender people will appear on the
statewide ballot in Massachusetts this November.
Question 3 asks voters if they support a 2016
law signed by Gov. Charlie Baker that prohibits
discrimination in public places on the basis of
gender identity, which was added to a list of
protected classes in the state. The list also
includes race, national origin and gender.
A “yes” vote would keep the current law in place
and a “no” vote would repeal the part of the law
that prohibits discrimination based on gender
identity in public places, including public
restrooms. Question 3 does not threaten a
separate 2011 law that bans discrimination in
housing, credit, education and employment.
Opponents of the law say it provides an
opportunity for people to gain entry into
bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex.
Those who support it say there has not been a
single incident of abuse of the policy since it
was first passed.
“If you look at Boston, for example, the city
has had these protections in place for over a
decade and there have been zero issues,” Matthew
Wilder, a spokesperson for advocacy group
Freedom for All Massachusetts, said. “The
opposition is painting a picture that doesn’t
exist to scare people. If there was any evidence
that it risked people’s safety, we wouldn’t
support this either. We are about safety for
everyone, and that’s what this law does.”
A Suffolk University poll conducted this summer
showed that 37 percent of respondents supported
repealing the law, while 49 percent opposed the
repeal. The other 14 percent were undecided or
refused to answer.
The Massachusetts Family Institute heavily
supported the signature-collection petition to
get Question 3 on the ballot. Since then, it has
launched the Keep Massachusetts Safe committee
and No on Question 3 campaign to support the
law’s repeal. The committee’s website says women
and children are put at risk by the law, which
opens up opportunities for men to “use gender
confusion to gain entry into private, women’s
only, spaces.”
Representatives for Keep MA Safe did not respond
to calls or emails over the last week seeking
comment.
Freedom for All has vastly out-raised Keep
Massachusetts Safe, according to the state
Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
Between the first of the year and the Sept. 7
reporting deadline, Keep Mass. Safe raised
$106,378 and Freedom for All raised $1,837,392.
More than half of the contributions to Keep MA
Safe came from six donors who each contributed
$10,000 or more this year.
Walter Weld of the Republican Town Committee in
Dover donated $20,000, and five others each
donated $10,000: Richard Uihlein of Illinois, a
descendant of the Shlitz beer empire; David
Stubblebine of Lexington, founder of a
commercial real estate firm; John DeMatteo II of
Wellesley, whose family owns the DeMatteo
Construction Co.; Carol Breuer of Winchester,
who is married to the president of the Breuer
and Co. IT company; and Robert Bradley of
Wellesley, an investment manager at Bradley,
Foster & Sargent in Hartford, Conn.
Freedom for All’s biggest campaign contributions
came from Seth Klarman, billionaire founder of
the Boston-based hedge fund The Baupost Group,
who donated $200,000; and the American Civil
Liberties Union and Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Massachusetts, which each donated $100,000.
Wilder said the broad support comes from those
who understand that the law is “about so much
more than restrooms.”
“This is the law that makes sure people are free
from harassment in restaurants, movie theaters,
anywhere, including bathrooms, and that’s what
is really at stake here,” he said. “When people
understand that, they have a greater
appreciation for what this law really does.”
State House News Service
Friday, October 12, 2018
State finance officials frustrated over budget
bill hangup
By Colin A. Young
Comptroller Thomas Shack feels like he's the
chirping smoke detector of state government,
regularly sloughed off when he attempts to warn
of an impending problem.
"When the smoke detector starts to go off you
have two things you can do; you can either
address the smoke or you can unplug it or take
the battery out of it," Shack said Friday
morning. "Sometimes I feel like the battery is
taken out of it as opposed to dealing with the
smoke and I think that that's a fair
assessment."
In the latest instance, Shack has been trying to
warn the Legislature that its inaction on a bill
to close the books on fiscal year 2018 and spend
surplus funds is putting his ability to meet a
financial reporting deadline prescribed by the
Legislature in serious doubt. It's the same
issue he's been raising with legislative leaders
annually for four years.
Shack's office must close the books on the
fiscal year that ended June 30 and file the
annual Statutory Basis Financial Report by Oct.
31 and he said that having the Legislature pass
its final supplemental budget by Aug. 31 is an
industry best practice because it allows his
team enough time to properly prepare the
financial report, which needs to independently
audited before its filing.
"This is the fourth fiscal year that I've
operated as the commonwealth's comptroller and
this is the fourth year under my comptrollership
that we will not meet the statutory deadline,"
he said Friday at a meeting of the Comptroller
Advisory Board. "I would reiterate that such
late activity is really perilous. It's a
well-known risk within the audit world that if
you do not meet your own statutory obligations
you may well subject yourself to really, really
significant scrutiny."
Gov. Charlie Baker in July filed a spending bill
to close out unsettled accounts and spend fiscal
2018 surplus funds but months later the
Legislature has not taken action on it as most
lawmakers have cleared out of Beacon Hill for
campaign season. The supplemental budget came
after the Legislature could not agree in time on
a fiscal 2019 budget, making Massachusetts the
last state in the country to deliver its annual
spending plan for FY 2019.
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg noted that the state
is in strong financial shape and said that while
there are "all sorts of legitimate explanations
as to what's going on" with the supplemental
budget, two things are "a little bit shocking."
"One is not a real strict adherence to the
deadlines, which are critical in terms of how
the outside world looks at all of this, so sort
of getting away with this, it's sort of like
kids getting away with stuff for too long,"
Goldberg said. She said the other thing of
concern is that repeatedly missing deadlines
opens the state up to more scrutiny from rating
agencies.
"We just don't want to be giving the outside
world things to point to," she said.
In June 2017, S&P Global Ratings lowered its
rating for Massachusetts bonds to AA from AA+
and admonished the state for its approach to
stashing funds in its rainy day fund.
Potential Financial Risk
Auditor Suzanne Bump, who sits on the advisory
board, said she recently met with audit firm
KPMG to discuss potential financial risks to the
commonwealth and that KPMG raised the lateness
of the closeout budget as an issue.
"This is constantly presented, not just
internally to state government but to the rest
of the world as a problem and a potential
financial risk for the state," Bump said. She
told Shack, "I share your frustration that the
Legislature doesn't seem to comprehend the
magnitude of the ramifications of their failure
to act."
On Friday afternoon, spokespeople for
legislative leaders said that the Legislature
understands Shack's concerns and plans to get
the supplemental budget done soon. Legislative
leaders in mid-September said they were working
on the bill and hoped to get it done as soon as
possible.
"The House and Senate are in the midst of
preparing the supplemental budget. We expect the
review process will be complete in the coming
days," Collin Fedor, a spokesman for House Ways
and Means Chairman Jeffrey Sanchez said.
Sarah Blodgett, a spokeswoman for Senate
President Karen Spilka, said, "The legislature
is cognizant of the importance of this bill and
working hard with our colleagues to finalize the
matter in the coming days."
Shack said he is expecting that Massachusetts
will again be the last state in the country to
file its statutory basis financial report. He
said he's heard legislative leaders say they're
working on it, but that he doesn't think action
is imminent.
"I do not see a supplemental on the near
horizon. That's very concerning. Over the course
of the last several years, we've had on the
horizon a view of what's happening behind the
scenes that it's really, really close or that
things are happening," he said Friday. "We have
heard that we're close and things are happening,
but I have yet to see anything of any real
import that would suggest that this is going to
happen any time soon."
Shack said one of the most frustrating things
about the position he has found himself in the
last several years is that the Oct. 31 deadline
he is bound by was imposed by the Legislature.
"If you cannot meet your own laws, then why are
you establishing those laws in the first place?"
he said. "I'm loathe, as any attorney would be,
to engage in any behavior that results in laws
being broken. In this case, as I've said on
other occasions, that's exactly what I'm forced
to do and I have been forced to do."
The next possible time for the fiscal 2018
closeout supplemental budget to emerge in the
Legislature is Monday, when the House and Senate
are slated to meet in informal sessions.
Some lawmakers who might be involved in the
bill's formation are out of the country. Fifteen
legislators, including Spilka, are in the midst
of a weeklong trip to Portugal where they are
meeting with government officials to discuss
maritime security, economic development, guns
and drugs, and human trafficking. |
| |
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
▪ (781) 990-1251
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
