 |
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
44 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Friday, December 14, 2018
30-years
later, another miniscule income tax cut likely
|
The state's income tax rate could drop to 5
percent by 2020, two decades after voters passed a
referendum to roll back the rate to that level.
State revenue officials, who are crunching
numbers for next fiscal year's budget, say projections for
the coming year will likely trigger a reduction in the
personal income tax rate from 5.1 percent now to 5.05
percent beginning in January.
Revenue officials expect the rate to fall to
5 percent in January 2020.
To be sure, the income tax rate was supposed
to have fallen to that level years ago, under a ballot
question approved by voters in 2000, when the rate was 5.95
percent.
Two years after its passage, however, the
Legislature outraged supporters of the rollback by freezing
the personal income tax at 5.3 percent to plug budget
shortfalls....
Taxpayer advocates have blasted lawmakers
for defying voters.
"The fact that almost two decades later the
state is still not down to 5 percent is insulting," said
Chip Faulkner, spokesman for the fiscal watchdog group
Citizens for Limited Taxation....
Lowering to 5 percent would mean a $530
million hit to the state over the next three fiscal years,
according to the Department of Revenue.
Despite the slowly declining rate, personal
income tax collections have increased from $14.4 billion in
2015 to more than $16.2 billion this year.
Even with the expected reduction next year,
revenue officials and economists project overall tax
collections to grow by more than 4.1 percent next year.
The Salem News
Thursday, December 13, 3018
State income tax may drop to 5 percent
Jim Lyons grew up in a working-class Irish
Catholic family with a father who headed a police union and
told him never to vote Republican....
For the past eight years, the Andover
Republican, who steps down in January after four terms
representing the 18th Essex District in the state House of
Representatives, has been one of the most vocal critics of
Democratic leadership on Beacon Hill.
In a deep-blue state where registered
Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin and
control both the House and Senate, Lyons has taken on thorny
social issues that even members of his own party, including
Gov. Charlie Baker, have sought to avoid....
He has railed against state laws and
policies aimed at shielding illegal immigrants from federal
crackdowns, or providing taxpayer benefits to them.
In 2011, Lyons used a procedural vote on a
supplemental budget to force then-Gov. Deval Patrick's
administration to disclose that the state spent about $270
million a year on health benefits for people living in the
U.S. illegally.
"The people have a right to know how much of
their money is being spent on people who are not citizens of
the state," he said.
And when Democrats were debating legislation
last year to declare Massachusetts a "sanctuary state" to
shield illegal immigrants, Lyons filed a bill with other
House Republicans giving state and local police the
authority to enforce federal immigration law by detaining,
with or without a warrant, those suspected of being in the
U.S. illegally....
In debates over the state budget, Lyons
often cast the lone opposition vote to protest spending
increases and the reluctance of Democrats to approve
Medicaid reforms.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for the
fiscal watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation,
called Lyons’ departure a "tremendous loss for the state's
taxpayers."
"He was a real annoyance to the liberals and
the tax-and-spenders," he said. "He wasn't always successful
in blocking the overspending, but he was a real thorn in
their side."
The Salem News
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Rep's departure quiets Beacon Hill's most conservative voice
The Massachusetts Teachers Association is
pushing lawmakers to increase state funding for public
education by more than $1.5 billion a year by May 1, a
campaign the union's board unanimously threw its support
behind on Saturday.
"For far too long, the state has underfunded
public education," union vice president Max Page said in a
video on the MTA's Facebook page. "The Fund our Future
campaign is our chance to make sure that every student in
the commonwealth gets the public education that they
deserve."
The campaign's goal is to pass by May 1
legislation that would increase state funding for public
higher education by $500 million and public prekindergarten
through grade 12 schools by $1 billion, Page and MTA
President Merrie Najimy wrote in an email to members
Monday....
The MTA's website describes its Fund Our
Future campaign in three stages: "Raise expectations," by
talking about the public schools and colleges communities
wish to see; "Raise some hell," passing resolutions,
distributing leaflets and advocating on social media so
policymakers "feel the heat"; and "Raise revenues," by
joining local and statewide actions "to win passage of
progressive revenue measures, either in the State House or –
if necessary – on the ballot." ...
Supporters of an income surtax on wealthy
households had also hoped to raise $2 billion and earmark it
for education and transportation, but that plan for a
constitutional amendment was tossed off the ballot this
summer by the Supreme Judicial Court because it conflated
subjects.
Income surtax supporters plan to redraft and
refile their proposal, but the earliest that it could reach
the ballot in Massachusetts would be 2022.
The appetite among lawmakers for big tax
increases, the kind that could raise $1.5 billion, has not
been strong in the Legislature in recent years.
Lawmakers in 2009 raised the sales tax rate
from 5 percent to 6.25 percent, the biggest single tax hike
in recent years.
In 2013, the Legislature raised the gas tax
by 3 cents a gallon and indexed that tax to inflation,
increased the per-pack tax on cigarettes by $1, and applied
the sales tax to software services. Lawmakers that same year
reversed course and repealed the software services tax and
voters in 2014 repealed the law that had indexed the gas tax
to inflation.
State House News Service
Thursday, December 13, 2018
New teachers union campaign eyes $1.5 billion for education
State Sen. Joan Lovely set the proper tone
at the Legislature’s yearly revenue hearing earlier this
week. Whether her counterparts on Beacon Hill were paying
attention remains an open question.
Yes, the state’s economy is doing well and
has been for a while, Lovely, the vice chair of the Senate
Ways and Means Committee, told the crowd gathered for the
hearing. But all good things come to an end, and the state
needs to prepare for the possibility of slowed economic
growth, or even a downturn.
“It is crucial that we keep an eye toward
the years ahead to ensure that when times are tough we are
adequately prepared,” the Salem Democrat said.
The yearly gathering of legislators, budget
and treasury officials and think tanks is aimed at coming to
a general agreement on how much tax revenue the state will
bring in during the next fiscal year.
The consensus at Wednesday’s hearing was
that state revenue collections will grow somewhere between 2
percent and 3.4 percent. But forecasters say there’s no
guarantee that growth will continue.
We agree. That means being cautious about
new spending. It means putting more money into the state’s
so-called rainy day fund. And it means not staking too much
of the state’s financial future on newly legal marijuana....
To her credit, state Treasurer Deborah
Goldberg recognized the need to add to the fund, which now
sits at around $2 billion and should be somewhere around $4
billion.
“I would just recommend that we keep putting
money into the rainy day fund and not veer from that,” she
said.
That’s sound advice.
A Salem News editorial
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Saving for a rainy day
When lawmakers leave office, they often give
farewell speeches in the Statehouse, touching on their
accomplishments, thanking colleagues and offering advice.
Concord Democratic state Rep. Cory Atkins, a
House member since 1998, used her final turn at the
microphone Tuesday to give a searing critique of Speaker
Robert DeLeo and his tight control both of access to
leadership and on trying to control how lawmakers will vote.
In her early years on Beacon Hill, a House
member could get a meeting with the speaker within a day,
and the speaker would ask for members’ votes “rather than
expecting me to offer a pledge,” Atkins said. Today it can
take weeks to get a meeting with DeLeo or a staffer, she
said, and many lawmakers look first to see how the speaker
voted on a bill before casting their own votes.
A Salem News editorial
Thursday, December 6, 2018
A loud message to House leaders
Seven health, human services and community
development officials from across the Baker administration
went on record Monday against a proposed federal rule change
that would restrict the ability of immigrants to obtain
green cards if they receive public benefits including
Medicaid or food stamps....
The proposal was announced in September by
the Department of Homeland Security, which said it would
ensure individuals seeking to enter and stay in the country
"can support themselves financially and will not be reliant
on public benefits."
Attorney General Maura Healey also joined a
coalition of 23 state attorneys general who wrote to the
Department of Homeland Security on Monday to oppose the
recommended changes, stating that the proposed rule is
"destabilizing, discriminatory, and will cause harm to
immigrant populations and to the States."
Under the proposed rule, the government
would consider the likelihood that a person will ever
receive a series of public benefits -- including the
supplemental nutrition assistance program, Section 8 housing
choice vouchers and project-based rental assistance, public
housing, "institutionalization for long-term care at
government expense," Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, and
Medicaid.
Currently, an immigrant can be deemed a
public charge if the government is expected to be the
person's primary source of support. The attorneys general
said the proposed rule would change the standard from
someone "very likely" to become dependent on government
services to a person who "receives minimal public assistance
for a relatively short term." ...
Homeland security officials said the primary
benefit of its proposed change "would be to help ensure that
aliens who apply for admission to the United States, seek
extension of stay or change of status, or apply for
adjustment of status are self-sufficient, i.e. do not depend
on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on
their own capabilities and the resources of their family,
sponsor, and private organizations."
State House News Service
Monday, December 10, 2018
State officials detail opposition to "Public Charge" rule
change
If things are going to get better in
Massachusetts, it starts with bad ideas having a name on
them. Or, when it comes to Beacon Hill, names.
The recent push by several left-of-center
incoming state legislators for roll call votes in the
Massachusetts Legislature is a breath of fresh air, and
ought to be supported by everyone interested in reform.
That includes Republicans on Beacon Hill.
Roll call votes put all legislators in the
Senate or House of Representatives on record as having voted
yea or nay (or present, meaning neither one) on a measure
that the body votes on. It could be a bill, or a proposed
amendment to a bill.
Many legislators prefer voice votes, where
nobody’s name is attached to it. It’s a lot easier to make
your case to constituents when you don’t have to deal with
firm evidence of your actions.
Four incoming Democrats – one state
senator-elect and three state representatives-elect – took
the so-called Transparency Pledge during their campaigns. It
says: “I pledge to stand for roll calls and to advocate for
greater transparency and accountability within the
Massachusetts Legislature. Elected leaders should be on
record, supporting or opposing proposals on Beacon Hill.”
The principle should apply not just to votes
on the floor, by the way. Committee votes on amendments and
bills should be by roll call and posted online....
Candidates for the Legislature who start off
as reformers often acclimate to the prevailing system
surprisingly quickly, as committee chairmanships and salary
add-ons and favors are dangled before them. Before you know
it, Mr. Smith turns into Boss Hogg.
Democrats are most susceptible to these
overtures, since their party controls everything. But
Republicans aren’t immune. There’s at least a little
something in it for everybody who goes along....
Republicans in the Legislature sometimes
come together and vote lockstep against a bad measure pushed
by the Democratic leadership to send a message. They ought
to do that with the Transparency Pledge. Every Republican
should take the Transparency Pledge and publicize it. Not
only would it send a message about what the GOP stands for,
but it also might attract some Democrats to join in....
Roll call votes won’t fix what ails us. But
they are a necessary first step.
Once we know where everyone stands, left and
right can go back to fighting over who’s just.
For those who believe, as we do, that
religious freedom, free speech, the right to life, parents’
rights, less government, lower taxes, less regulation are
not only correct principles but also attractive, we can make
our case to the public and try to persuade them to support
candidates who agree.
For those who believe in other things, they
too can make their case.
But it starts with knowing what our elected
representatives are doing.
A New Boston Post editorial
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Republicans on Beacon Hill should take roll-call-votes
pledge,
and challenge Democrats to do the same
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In a couple of weeks the income tax rate
is expected to drop to 5.05 percent, another five
one-hundredths of one percent.
Two years ago, when CLT's successful
2000 income tax rollback ballot question last dropped it
another small tick in the right direction, I noted (Dec.
18, 2015, "The
New Year starts with a tax cut"):
In 2002 — over a
dozen years ago — the Legislature unilaterally
"froze" the voters' mandate that it be rolled
back to 5 percent, giving taxpayers another
Beacon Hill middle-finger salute. Instead of
returning the income tax rate to its historic 5
percent in 2003, as 60% of the voters had
ordered on the 2000 ballot, starting on January
1 their "freeze" will thaw another degree or two
— precisely five one-hundredths of one percent.
CLT has fought for that rollback for decades
since, collected the signatures and put it on
that 2000 ballot where the voters resoundingly
demanded it be rolled back to 5 percent.
Five one-hundredths of one percent. That equates
to 5/100ths of a penny on every dollar we pay in
state income tax. Pardon me for not popping the
champagne cork yet, but it's a better direction
than the alternative. This amounts to a savings
of about $33 for someone paying taxes on an
income of $66,000. But again, any savings is
better than more confiscation.
Remember, when the income tax was hiked in 1989
by Gov. Michael Dukakis and the Democrat
majority in the Legislature they promised it
would be only "temporary" — in fact, they
promised it would be for "only 18 months." [See
The Promise here, from our 2000 ballot
campaign]
Still, almost three decades of the broken
promises and arrogance later, so used to having
those extra billions of ill-gotten gains, some
Democrats in the Legislature still have a sense
of entitlement to our money. Senate Ways and
Means Chairwoman Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) griped
that the state has experienced a nearly $2
billion annual drop in revenue as the tax rate
ratcheted down from 5.95 percent. "It's easy to
see how we must prepare for an ever-shrinking
pot of funds," she said.
Madame Chairwoman, that "temporary" tax hike
never should have existed for you and your
cohorts to spend for the past twenty-five years.
That "nearly $2 billion annual drop in revenue"
cumulatively amounts to many, many more
billions that came out of our and your
constituents' pockets since the "temporary"
promise made by the Legislature was broken.
The only things that have changed since then is:
it's now three decades since the "temporary" tax hike,
and; "Madame Chairwoman" Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) of the
Senate Ways and Means Committee has since been elevated
to the loftier position of Senate President.
Back in 2015, the last time the income
tax rate dropped by
its miniscule five one-hundredths of one percent, from
5.15 to 5.1 percent, The Springfield Republican
reported:
"Massachusetts tax revenues are expected to grow
by between 3.8 percent and 4.2 percent in the
next fiscal year over the current year."
Then-Department
of Revenue Commissioner Mark Nunnelly predicted:
"[C]urrent fiscal year revenues will come in $69
million to $231 million above what was projected
when the budget was passed, at between $25.68
billion and $25.84 billion."
Current Revenue Commissioner Christopher
Harding earlier this month, as reported by the State House
News Service,
noted:
"November was a solid month for revenues, which were
above benchmark in all major tax categories. The
main drivers were an increase in consumer spending
on taxable goods, and continued strength in
corporate payments. Both for the month and on a
fiscal year-to-date basis, we continue to see growth
in revenues, based on solid economic fundamentals in
the state."
November collections rose $122 million, or 7 percent
higher than collections in November 2017.
For the fiscal year-to-date through November, tax
revenue collections are up 8.4 above the same
five-month period in fiscal 2018.
"Despite the slowly declining rate, personal
income tax collections have increased from $14.4
billion in 2015 to more than $16.2 billion this
year," The Salem News reported yesterday,
adding; "Even with the expected reduction next year,
revenue officials and economists project overall
tax collections to grow by more than 4.1 percent
next year."
"Lawmakers who oppose dropping the rate say the
state would take a major hit, with less money
for schools, transportation and other needs,"
the report noted.
How much would that "major hit" amount to?
The Salem News report informs us that, even if the rate next
year is finally dropped back to where it was thirty years
ago, before the 1989 "temporary" tax hike, "Lowering to 5 percent would mean a $530 million
hit to the state over the next three fiscal
years, according to the Department of Revenue."
More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never,
ever will be.
The Takers Cabal needs not worry about that
miniscule little rollback of their "temporary" tax hike.
The teachers union is racing to the rescue. The
Massachusetts Teachers Association already is scheming and
plotting to tax more, more, always more. "For the
Children" don'cha know?
"The campaign's goal is to pass by May 1
legislation that would increase state funding for public
higher education by $500 million and public prekindergarten
through grade 12 schools by $1 billion, Page and MTA
President Merrie Najimy wrote in an email to members Monday.
. . .
The MTA's website describes its
Fund Our Future
campaign in three stages: 'Raise expectations'
... 'Raise some hell' ... and 'Raise revenues' by joining
local and statewide actions 'to win passage of
progressive revenue measures, either in the
State House or – if necessary – on the ballot.'"
Saddle up taxpayers, they're coming for
you.
BTW ― For
comparison here's an excerpt from a column in the Bowling
Green Daily News written by high school teacher
Philip Russell ("When
Protests Stop: An Open Letter to Governor Bevin"):
"Kentucky teachers are paid per day for the school
year. That means that we are paid for 186 days of
work during the entire year."
Massachusetts might give that concept
some consideration before further burdening its taxpayers to
benefit the teachers union.
The New Boston Post observed:
"The recent push by several left-of-center
incoming state legislators for roll call votes in the
Massachusetts Legislature is a breath of fresh air, and
ought to be supported by everyone interested in reform. . .
. That includes Republicans on Beacon Hill."
"Candidates for the Legislature who start off
as reformers often acclimate to the prevailing system
surprisingly quickly, as committee chairmanships and salary
add-ons and favors are dangled before them. Before you know
it, Mr. Smith turns into Boss Hogg.
"Democrats are most susceptible to these
overtures, since their party controls everything. But
Republicans aren’t immune. There’s at least a little
something in it for everybody who goes along."
Dreaded roll call votes are a record that
follows each politician, for which they can and should be
held accountable. Beacon Hill pols of both parties
would prefer to treat their constituents like mushrooms:
Keep them in the dark and well fertilized. And for too
long they get away with it.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
The Salem News
Thursday, December 13, 3018
State income tax may drop to 5 percent
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
The state's income tax rate could drop to 5
percent by 2020, two decades after voters passed
a referendum to roll back the rate to that
level.
State revenue officials, who are crunching
numbers for next fiscal year's budget, say
projections for the coming year will likely
trigger a reduction in the personal income tax
rate from 5.1 percent now to 5.05 percent
beginning in January.
Revenue officials expect the rate to fall to 5
percent in January 2020.
To be sure, the income tax rate was supposed to
have fallen to that level years ago, under a
ballot question approved by voters in 2000, when
the rate was 5.95 percent.
Two years after its passage, however, the
Legislature outraged supporters of the rollback
by freezing the personal income tax at 5.3
percent to plug budget shortfalls.
Amid a backlash, lawmakers created a mechanism
to reduce the tax rate if growth in the state’s
annual revenue met certain benchmarks. So far,
tax cuts have been triggered just four times,
most recently in 2016 when the rate fell by
one-half percent to the current level.
For the past two years, Massachusetts’ personal
income tax rate remains unchanged at 5.1
percent, Revenue collections did not grow enough
in the last year, despite a robust economy and
low unemployment, to trigger a tax cut.
Taxpayer advocates have blasted lawmakers for
defying voters.
"The fact that almost two decades later the
state is still not down to 5 percent is
insulting," said Chip Faulkner, spokesman
for the fiscal watchdog group Citizens for
Limited Taxation.
Republicans have sought for several years to
lower the rate by legislation, but their
proposals are stymied in a Legislature
controlled by Democrats.
Lawmakers who oppose dropping the rate say the
state would take a major hit, with less money
for schools, transportation and other needs.
Income tax collections represent more than 58
percent of the revenue used to keep state
government running.
Lowering to 5 percent would mean a $530 million
hit to the state over the next three fiscal
years, according to the Department of Revenue.
Despite the slowly declining rate, personal
income tax collections have increased from $14.4
billion in 2015 to more than $16.2 billion this
year.
Even with the expected reduction next year,
revenue officials and economists project overall
tax collections to grow by more than 4.1 percent
next year.
Still, not everyone agrees that the state will
drop the income tax rate to 5 percent by 2020,
with overall economic growth expected to begin
slowing.
Economists such as Michael Goodman, a professor
of public policy at the University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth, warn that boom days
could be coming to an end.
"Surveys of forecasters reveal a growing
consensus that a reversal of economic fortune is
in the offing," Goodman told lawmakers at a
Statehouse hearing last week.
The Salem News
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Rep's departure quiets Beacon Hill's most
conservative voice
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Jim Lyons grew up in a working-class Irish
Catholic family with a father who headed a
police union and told him never to vote
Republican.
Lyons heeded his father's advice, for a while,
and even ran for elected office a few times as a
Democrat.
But he eventually realized that his values and
Christian faith were more in line with the
platform and politics of the Republican Party.
"For me, the election of President Ronald Reagan
really personified the ideals of
entrepreneurship, that 'shining city on the
hill,’ and the role of personal responsibility,"
Lyons said in a recent interview, reflecting on
his legislative career. "I think the Democratic
Party has become too left-leaning and socialist,
and that doesn't resonate with me any longer."
For the past eight years, the Andover
Republican, who steps down in January after four
terms representing the 18th Essex District in
the state House of Representatives, has been one
of the most vocal critics of Democratic
leadership on Beacon Hill.
In a deep-blue state where registered Democrats
outnumber Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin and
control both the House and Senate, Lyons has
taken on thorny social issues that even members
of his own party, including Gov. Charlie Baker,
have sought to avoid.
He opposes same-sex marriage and abortion, and
he hasn't been shy about expressing his
conservative views on those issues in the
Legislature. He has voted against protections
for transgender individuals, opposed a bill that
would have banned "conversion therapy" used by
religious groups to change teens’ sexual
orientation, and sought to block attempts to add
a neutral “Gender X” classification on driver's
licenses.
He has railed against state laws and policies
aimed at shielding illegal immigrants from
federal crackdowns, or providing taxpayer
benefits to them.
In 2011, Lyons used a procedural vote on a
supplemental budget to force then-Gov. Deval
Patrick's administration to disclose that the
state spent about $270 million a year on health
benefits for people living in the U.S.
illegally.
"The people have a right to know how much of
their money is being spent on people who are not
citizens of the state," he said.
And when Democrats were debating legislation
last year to declare Massachusetts a "sanctuary
state" to shield illegal immigrants, Lyons filed
a bill with other House Republicans giving state
and local police the authority to enforce
federal immigration law by detaining, with or
without a warrant, those suspected of being in
the U.S. illegally.
'A real thorn in their side'
In debates over the state budget, Lyons often
cast the lone opposition vote to protest
spending increases and the reluctance of
Democrats to approve Medicaid reforms.
Chip Faulkner, a spokesman for the fiscal
watchdog group Citizens for Limited Taxation,
called Lyons’ departure a "tremendous loss for
the state's taxpayers."
"He was a real annoyance to the liberals and the
tax-and-spenders," he said. "He wasn't always
successful in blocking the overspending, but he
was a real thorn in their side."
Lyons made his opposition to abortion a key
focus of his legislative agenda, drawing
criticism from Planned Parenthood and other
groups that support abortion rights.
"The left is totally opposed to even discussing
pro-life issues," he said. "They don't want to
bring this issue to the floor for a debate.
They're not interested in differing viewpoints."
Democrats and liberal groups targeted him in the
recent election, throwing money and resources
behind Andover Democrat Tram Nguyen's campaign
to unseat the incumbent.
Nguyen picked up endorsements from Democratic
heavyweights including former President Barack
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
and more than $250,000 was spent on the race,
making it one of the most expensive legislative
contests in Massachusetts this year.
In the Nov. 6 election, Nguyen defeated Lyons
with about 55 percent of the vote.
"When a former president gets involved a race
for state representative, it's pretty
remarkable," Lyons said. "The Democrats decided
to go all-out to beat me this time around."
Two issues where Lyons said he found common
ground with Democrats were efforts to combat
opioid addiction and divert more state aid to
cities and towns.
Staying active
Lyons, who owns a flower and ice cream shop with
his wife, Bernadette, said he plans to keep
working on conservative issues. He won't rule
out a return to politics and is weighing a run
for the chairmanship of the state's Republican
Party, which is currently up for grabs.
"I'm definitely going to stay involved and
active on issues that are important to me,
particularly the pro-life issue," he said.
Conservative groups lament Lyon's pending
departure, saying they’ll lose one of their
greatest allies on Beacon Hill.
"He was a very strong supporter of family values
and we're certainly going to miss him," said
Andrew Beckwith, president of the conservative
Massachusetts Family Institute. "I've always
thought of Jim Lyons as truly exemplifying the
concept that one man can make a difference. And
I think there were multiple occasions where he
did."
Beckwith cited Lyon's push to add a Nativity
scene — depicting the birth of Jesus Christ in
Bethlehem — at the Statehouse during the
Christmas holiday.
When the state initially rejected his request
three years ago, Lyons contacted the Thomas More
Society, a law firm that specializes in
religious freedom. It threatened to sue the
state, calling it a First Amendment issue. the
state backed down, giving Lyons a permit to put
up a temporary display.
Lyons said he plans to set up the Nativity scene
again on Dec. 20, holding one last ceremony
before he leaves office.
He hopes someone will carry on the tradition.
"We weren't trying to make a political
statement," he said. "We just wanted people to
know about the true meaning of Christmas."
State House News Service
Thursday, December 13, 2018
New teachers union campaign eyes $1.5 billion
for education
By Katie Lannan
The Massachusetts Teachers Association is
pushing lawmakers to increase state funding for
public education by more than $1.5 billion a
year by May 1, a campaign the union's board
unanimously threw its support behind on
Saturday.
"For far too long, the state has underfunded
public education," union vice president Max Page
said in a video on the MTA's Facebook page. "The
Fund our Future campaign is our chance to make
sure that every student in the commonwealth gets
the public education that they deserve."
The campaign's goal is to pass by May 1
legislation that would increase state funding
for public higher education by $500 million and
public prekindergarten through grade 12 schools
by $1 billion, Page and MTA President Merrie
Najimy wrote in an email to members Monday.
"By speaking to friends and relatives and taking
part in campaign activities, MTA members were
highly instrumental in winning the 2016 No on 2
campaign against lifting the cap on charter
schools. We can win this campaign as well if we
put the same effort and energy into showing the
state what we are for as we showed what we are
against," they wrote.
The message asks members to sign a petition,
urge their school committee or board of trustees
to pass a resolution supporting the funding
increase, and organize community forums.
The Massachusetts Business Alliance for
Education, responding to what it described as
"growing demands to increase state education
funding," on Thursday issued a statement urging
lawmakers "to resist calls to write a blank
check for education." The alliance asked that
any change to the state's education funding
formula set aside money dedicated to school
innovation "that closes achievement gaps and
increases college and career success."
"State leaders must set specific, higher
improvement targets, particularly to serve our
most disadvantaged students, and implement
reforms that close the racial and socio economic
achievement gaps and workforce skills gaps that
threaten the economic and social health of the
state," the group said in a statement.
The statement was signed onto by groups the
alliance said collectively represent more than
10,000 employers -- Associated Industries of
Massachusetts, TechNet, 1Berkshire, the
Massachusetts Competitive Partnership,
Springfield Business Leaders for Education and
13 chambers of commerce.
The MTA's website describes its Fund Our Future
campaign in three stages: "Raise expectations,"
by talking about the public schools and colleges
communities wish to see; "Raise some hell,"
passing resolutions, distributing leaflets and
advocating on social media so policymakers "feel
the heat"; and "Raise revenues," by joining
local and statewide actions "to win passage of
progressive revenue measures, either in the
State House or – if necessary – on the ballot."
The campaign comes amidst failed efforts on
Beacon Hill to both raise money for education
and pass bills designed to plug funding gaps.
A state commission in 2015 reported that the
formula used to determine the amount of state
aid a school district receives does not
adequately account for costs of health insurance
and educating low-income students, English
language learners and special education
students. The House and Senate this session
approved disparate bills attempting to plug that
gap, but a Democrat-controlled conference
committee failed to reach common ground this
summer.
The teachers association estimated that the
Senate version of the bill (S 2600) would
increase state education spending by more than
$1 billion annually, and the House version (H
4714) would increase spending by about a third
of that amount.
Supporters of an income surtax on wealthy
households had also hoped to raise $2 billion
and earmark it for education and transportation,
but that plan for a constitutional amendment was
tossed off the ballot this summer by the Supreme
Judicial Court because it conflated subjects.
Income surtax supporters plan to redraft and
refile their proposal, but the earliest that it
could reach the ballot in Massachusetts would be
2022.
The appetite among lawmakers for big tax
increases, the kind that could raise $1.5
billion, has not been strong in the Legislature
in recent years.
Lawmakers in 2009 raised the sales tax rate from
5 percent to 6.25 percent, the biggest single
tax hike in recent years.
In 2013, the Legislature raised the gas tax by 3
cents a gallon and indexed that tax to
inflation, increased the per-pack tax on
cigarettes by $1, and applied the sales tax to
software services. Lawmakers that same year
reversed course and repealed the software
services tax and voters in 2014 repealed the law
that had indexed the gas tax to inflation.
It may take a two thirds vote to enact a major
tax increase since Gov. Charlie Baker,
overwhelmingly reelected to a second term that
starts in January, has discouraged major tax
hikes and could veto any tax- bill sent to his
desk.
In November, Education Secretary James Peyser
said state officials would be "trying to do the
things in the budget and through policy that are
ensuring we're getting the biggest bang for our
buck and that, importantly, our students are
getting the outcomes they need and deserve."
Peyser said "both funding-related and
non-funding-related" issues needed to be
considered, including "ensuring that we're
spending these dollars well, because at the end
of the day, how much money we have, how much
money we spend is important, but not as
important as how well we spend it."
The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
last month recommended its fiscal 2020 budget
priorities to Peyser, saying education aid
should be funded "at the highest level possible
based on available revenues" and that special
education account funding "be at a level as
close to the maximum 75 percent reimbursement
level as state revenue permits." After the
state's contribution to foundation education aid
is met, the board recommended that any
additional aid "be directed to districts with
identified achievement gaps in student learning,
to support reforms that have evidence of
narrowing achievement gaps."
―Michael P.
Norton contributed reporting
The Salem News
Thursday, December 6, 2018
A Salem News editorial
Saving for a rainy day
State Sen. Joan Lovely set the proper tone at
the Legislature’s yearly revenue hearing earlier
this week. Whether her counterparts on Beacon
Hill were paying attention remains an open
question.
Yes, the state’s economy is doing well and has
been for a while, Lovely, the vice chair of the
Senate Ways and Means Committee, told the crowd
gathered for the hearing. But all good things
come to an end, and the state needs to prepare
for the possibility of slowed economic growth,
or even a downturn.
“It is crucial that we keep an eye toward the
years ahead to ensure that when times are tough
we are adequately prepared,” the Salem Democrat
said.
The yearly gathering of legislators, budget and
treasury officials and think tanks is aimed at
coming to a general agreement on how much tax
revenue the state will bring in during the next
fiscal year.
The consensus at Wednesday’s hearing was that
state revenue collections will grow somewhere
between 2 percent and 3.4 percent. But
forecasters say there’s no guarantee that growth
will continue.
We agree. That means being cautious about new
spending. It means putting more money into the
state’s so-called rainy day fund. And it means
not staking too much of the state’s financial
future on newly legal marijuana.
State Revenue Commissioner Christopher Harding
estimates the state will collect between $44
million and $82 million in marijuana-related
sales taxes this year, and $93 million to $172
million next year.
But even those numbers will be difficult to rely
on, as marijuana is still a developing industry.
“It remains unclear when Massachusetts will
reach a fully developed market,” Harding said.
“Therefore, these figures should be used with
caution for budgetary purposes.”
Eileen McAnneny, president of the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation, said there are already
“pre-recession warning signs” everywhere from
labor markets to the oil industry.
“By historic markers, we are on borrowed time,”
she said.
That’s why budget writers need to prioritize
adding to the state’s rainy day fund, even when
they are pressed to add new spending to a plan
that is likely to top $43 billion.
To her credit, state Treasurer Deborah Goldberg
recognized the need to add to the fund, which
now sits at around $2 billion and should be
somewhere around $4 billion.
“I would just recommend that we keep putting
money into the rainy day fund and not veer from
that,” she said.
That’s sound advice.
The Salem News
Thursday, December 6, 2018
A Salem News editorial
A loud message to House leaders
When lawmakers leave office, they often give
farewell speeches in the Statehouse, touching on
their accomplishments, thanking colleagues and
offering advice.
Concord Democratic state Rep. Cory Atkins, a
House member since 1998, used her final turn at
the microphone Tuesday to give a searing
critique of Speaker Robert DeLeo and his tight
control both of access to leadership and on
trying to control how lawmakers will vote.
In her early years on Beacon Hill, a House
member could get a meeting with the speaker
within a day, and the speaker would ask for
members’ votes “rather than expecting me to
offer a pledge,” Atkins said. Today it can take
weeks to get a meeting with DeLeo or a staffer,
she said, and many lawmakers look first to see
how the speaker voted on a bill before casting
their own votes.
She also recalled the House debate this year on
rules that would have updated procedures for
dealing with sexual harassment. That debate in
May prompted Rep. Diana DiZoglio, a Methuen
Democrat who will take over the state Senate
seat held by Kathleen O’Connor Ives, to break a
non-disclosure agreement she had signed at the
speaker’s urging.
Recalling that, Atkins said on Tuesday that her
“absolute worst moment” as a representative “was
when distinguished women leaders in this chamber
were used to try to shut down debate when one of
our members tried to tell her story of
harassment that began here, right there, in this
chamber.” DiZoglio had tried to tell of her own
experiences and speak out against the use of
non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment
cases.
On Tuesday, Atkins said, “I heard afterward that
female staff members were crying as they watched
the proceeding. Their takeaway was that if a
(House) member could not tell her story, how was
a staff member ever going to tell theirs.”
Those final shots across the speaker’s bow
probably went under the radar of most people,
given that Atkins’ speech was one of more than a
dozen from departing colleagues. But the issue
of doing away with nondisclosure agreements on
Beacon Hill, and cleaning house on the issue of
sexual harassment in the halls of government,
will not and should not go away as a new
legislative session dawns in 2019. Atkins should
take some satisfaction in knowing her farewell
sent a powerful message that the leadership
cannot ignore, if it expects to retain
credibility.
State House News Service
Monday, December 10, 2018
State officials detail opposition to "Public
Charge" rule change
By Katie Lannan and Matt Murphy
Seven health, human services and community
development officials from across the Baker
administration went on record Monday against a
proposed federal rule change that would restrict
the ability of immigrants to obtain green cards
if they receive public benefits including
Medicaid or food stamps.
Health and Human Services Secretary Marylou
Sudders, Public Health Commissioner Monica
Bharel, Assistant Secretary for MassHealth
Daniel Tsai, Massachusetts Health Connector
executive director Louis Gutierrez, Department
of Transitional Assistance Commissioner Jeff
McCue, Massachusetts Office for Refugees and
Immigrants executive director Mary Truong, and
Department of Housing and Community Development
Undersecretary Janelle Chan all asked federal
officials, in written comments Monday, to scrap
their proposed changes to the so-called "public
charge" rule.
The proposal was announced in September by the
Department of Homeland Security, which said it
would ensure individuals seeking to enter and
stay in the country "can support themselves
financially and will not be reliant on public
benefits."
Attorney General Maura Healey also joined a
coalition of 23 state attorneys general who
wrote to the Department of Homeland Security on
Monday to oppose the recommended changes,
stating that the proposed rule is
"destabilizing, discriminatory, and will cause
harm to immigrant populations and to the
States."
Under the proposed rule, the government would
consider the likelihood that a person will ever
receive a series of public benefits -- including
the supplemental nutrition assistance program,
Section 8 housing choice vouchers and
project-based rental assistance, public housing,
"institutionalization for long-term care at
government expense," Medicare Part D Low Income
Subsidy, and Medicaid.
Currently, an immigrant can be deemed a public
charge if the government is expected to be the
person's primary source of support. The
attorneys general said the proposed rule would
change the standard from someone "very likely"
to become dependent on government services to a
person who "receives minimal public assistance
for a relatively short term."
"The proposed expansion of 'public charge'
suggests that the United States is no longer a
land of opportunity that welcomes ambitious but
modest earners," the prosecutors wrote, alleging
an infringment of rights and a violation of law
and longstanding policy.
Sudders, in her testimony, outlined some of the
potential consequences concerning to
Massachusetts officials.
She said the rule could result in fewer people
receiving health care coverage, long-term harm
to public health of all residents as a result of
declines in preventive care like vaccines,
increased reliance on hospital emergency rooms,
greater uncompensated care costs for hospitals,
increased food insecurity, homelessness and
family separation among immigrant families,
higher health insurance premiums for all
Massachusetts residents, and "a real risk that
our immigrant population may begin to view all
of government with distrust as a consequence of
what will inevitably be received as punitive and
highly discretionary eligibility determinations
made under the new rule."
Tsai, who oversees the MassHealth program, said
the rule would constitute an unfunded mandate
because it would require Medicaid agencies "to
undertake significant and costly systems and
operational modifications," the scope of which
is unclear under the rule as currently written.
MassHealth would likely incur increased costs
for interpreter services and may need to raise
its customer service staffing levels, as well as
developing new trainings and policies, he wrote.
Homeland security officials said the primary
benefit of its proposed change "would be to help
ensure that aliens who apply for admission to
the United States, seek extension of stay or
change of status, or apply for adjustment of
status are self-sufficient, i.e. do not depend
on public resources to meet their needs, but
rather rely on their own capabilities and the
resources of their family, sponsor, and private
organizations."
Monday marks the last day of the public comment
period on the proposed rule. Several
Massachusetts groups have already voiced their
opposition, including Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute, Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee
Advocacy Coalition, Health Care for All, and the
Massachusetts Medical Society.
Healey signed on to the letter that came out of
the office of Virginia Attorney General Mark
Herring and New Mexico Attorney General Hector
Balderas. She has said previously she'd be
"prepared to sue" if the changes take place.
The attorneys general spent a good portion of
their letter raising concerns about how the
inclusion of Medicaid and the Children's Health
Insurance Program to the public charge
consideration would increase costs for states
and be disruptive for families. As of September,
the letter from the coalition said Massachusetts
has enrolled up to 1.6 million people in
Medicaid and CHIP, an net increase of 23.35
percent since October 2013.
The attorneys general said inclusion of Medicaid
and CHIP in the public charge determination
would "have a significant impact on states with
large non-citizen populations." "It is
well-documented that increasing access to
healthcare helps the economy because it allows
more people to work and decreases the
transmission of diseases that inhibit work and
boost hospital costs," they wrote.
The group Mass Home Care also submitted comments
Monday urging withdrawal of the proposal,
cautioning that it could create a chilling
effect leaving seniors in immigrant families
afraid to access services they need.
"This issue is particularly troubling in
Massachusetts when you consider that our state
already has the second highest economic
insecurity rate for adults 65 and older
nationwide (behind only Mississippi)," wrote
Mass Home Care executive director Lisa Gurgone.
The New Boston Post
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
A New Boston Post editorial
Republicans on Beacon Hill should take
roll-call-votes pledge,
and challenge Democrats to do the same
If things are going to get better in
Massachusetts, it starts with bad ideas having a
name on them. Or, when it comes to Beacon Hill,
names.
The recent push by several left-of-center
incoming state legislators for roll call votes
in the Massachusetts Legislature is a breath of
fresh air, and ought to be supported by everyone
interested in reform.
That includes Republicans on Beacon Hill.
Roll call votes put all legislators in the
Senate or House of Representatives on record as
having voted yea or nay (or present, meaning
neither one) on a measure that the body votes
on. It could be a bill, or a proposed amendment
to a bill.
Many legislators prefer voice votes, where
nobody’s name is attached to it. It’s a lot
easier to make your case to constituents when
you don’t have to deal with firm evidence of
your actions.
Four incoming Democrats – one state
senator-elect and three state
representatives-elect – took the so-called
Transparency Pledge during their campaigns. It
says: “I pledge to stand for roll calls and to
advocate for greater transparency and
accountability within the Massachusetts
Legislature. Elected leaders should be on
record, supporting or opposing proposals on
Beacon Hill.”
The principle should apply not just to votes on
the floor, by the way. Committee votes on
amendments and bills should be by roll call and
posted online.
Unlike many needed reforms in this state, this
one is simple and quickly doable. During the new
legislative session that begins next month, it
will take just six of the 40 senators to require
a roll call vote. If all six Republicans ally
with incoming state Senator-elect Becca Rausch
(D-Needham) (who was the first candidate to take
the pledge, in August), it will happen every
time there are enough members on the floor.
In addition, there ought to be at least a
handful of sympathetic Senate Democrats willing
to join, and perhaps a few unsympathetic ones
who might join out of shame.
The House should in theory be even easier. It
takes just 16 members of the 160, and the
Republicans will have 32. Add to that the three
incoming Democrats who have taken the
Transparency Pledge, and there ought to be a
Transparency Pledge Caucus more than twice as
numerous as what’s needed.
Ah, but it’s not as simple as that, is it?
Candidates for the Legislature who start off as
reformers often acclimate to the prevailing
system surprisingly quickly, as committee
chairmanships and salary add-ons and favors are
dangled before them. Before you know it, Mr.
Smith turns into Boss Hogg.
Democrats are most susceptible to these
overtures, since their party controls
everything. But Republicans aren’t immune.
There’s at least a little something in it for
everybody who goes along.
And that’s the problem that has to be solved. A
public pledge is a good way to do it. It draws a
line in the sand on a matter of principle. “I’m
sorry, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to be with you. You
know how much I respect and admire you. But I’m
committed to this pledge thing. I have to ask
for a roll call vote.”
Republicans in the Legislature sometimes come
together and vote lockstep against a bad measure
pushed by the Democratic leadership to send a
message. They ought to do that with the
Transparency Pledge. Every Republican should
take the Transparency Pledge and publicize it.
Not only would it send a message about what the
GOP stands for, but it also might attract some
Democrats to join in.
Several advocacy groups on the right and left
agree on this matter. (Among them are
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Massachusetts
Family Institute, and Renew Massachusetts
Coalition on the right; and Progressive
Massachusetts on the left.)
Many advocacy groups don’t endorse specific
candidates, because it would endanger their
ability to solicit tax-deductible donations. But
for the ones that do, here’s a challenge: Demand
that candidates seeking your endorsement take
the Transparency Pledge. It’s in your interests,
after all, right? You want to be able to check
on the candidates you supported.
Roll call votes won’t fix what ails us. But they
are a necessary first step.
Once we know where everyone stands, left and
right can go back to fighting over who’s just.
For those who believe, as we do, that religious
freedom, free speech, the right to life,
parents’ rights, less government, lower taxes,
less regulation are not only correct principles
but also attractive, we can make our case to the
public and try to persuade them to support
candidates who agree.
For those who believe in other things, they too
can make their case.
But it starts with knowing what our elected
representatives are doing.
|
| |
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
|
