Post Office Box 1147  ●  Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945  ●  (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”

45 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
and their Institutional Memory

Help save yourself join CLT today!


CLT introduction  and membership  application

What CLT saves you from the auto excise tax alone

Make a contribution to support CLT's work by clicking the button above

Ask your friends to join too

Visit CLT on Facebook

Barbara Anderson's Great Moments

Follow CLT on Twitter

CLT UPDATE
Monday, June 10, 2019

"Millionaires Tax" changed to Grad Tax on All?


House and Senate members meet in a Constitutional Convention [on Wednesday] to take up an amendment adding a 4 percent income surtax on household income above $1 million.

The proposed amendment needs 101 votes in two successive legislative sessions to reach the 2022 ballot. It is subject to amendment this session, but not next session should it remain alive then, as is expected.

Rep. Alice Peisch of Wellesley has filed a graduated income tax amendment (No. 2).

State House News Service
Friday, June 7, 2019
Advances - Week of June 9, 2019


Ahead of this week's planned debate on imposing an additional tax on residents who earn more than $1 million a year, legislative leaders were mum on whether they support the proposal to move Massachusetts towards a graduated income tax structure.

Though House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka would not share their own opinions, Gov. Charlie Baker said Monday that he cannot imagine his administration being supportive of a move away from the state's uniform income tax rate....

Ahead of Wednesday's debate, Reps. Alice Peisch and Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Barry Finegold have filed an amendment to allow a fully graduated income tax structure -- in which the income tax rate could be set to correspond to a person's income -- instead of just the surtax on income over $1 million....

DeLeo said he doesn't "have any idea in terms of where the support or non-support is for that particular provision," and added, "we'll obviously find out on Wednesday."

Spilka, who will preside over Wednesday's joint session, said the idea of a graduated income tax structure "will certainly be a topic for the members both in the House and in the Senate to deal with."

Spilka did not answer when asked how she, as one vote out of 200, plans to vote. DeLeo said, "If it comes up on Wednesday, you'll see then."

The voters of Massachusetts have rejected the idea of a graduated income tax structure in the past, and more than once. Most recently, a 1994 proposal for a graduated income tax failed at the ballot with about 70 percent of voters rejecting it.

The Massachusetts Republican Party reminded voters in a press release Monday afternoon that a graduated income tax has already been shot down at the ballot and whacked "the Democrats’ newest scheme to unleash a graduated income tax system on the commonwealth."

"The same party that voted to give themselves a huge pay raise wants more of your money," MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons said. "This is a blatant cash grab masquerading as class warfare."

State House News Service
Monday, June 10, 2019
DeLeo, Spilka take wait-and-see approach to Grad Tax


Even as industry leaders warned how the tax hike could erode the state's economic strength, Gov. Charlie Baker steered clear in a speech to technology leaders Monday of the millionaires tax proposal that will again be before the Legislature this week.

Baker, instead, sought the help of technology industry executives in passing education and housing legislation that he described as critical to developing and retaining a highly qualified workforce.

The governor said after his speech that raising taxes was not the "solution" to the challenges faced in Massachusetts, but he avoided stating directly whether he would oppose a tax on millionaires if it were to reach the ballot. Supporters say the tax would generate needed revenues for education and transportation....

The governor, however, did not address the proposed surtax on wealthier residents that High Tech Council President Chris Anderson said was putting the state's economic development advantages at risk.

House and Senate lawmakers will debate and vote on the proposal Wednesday to impose a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million, the first step of a four-year process to get it on the ballot in 2022.

The proposal appears to have more than enough support in the Legislature to advance, and won't face the face hurdles that caused the courts to strike a similar proposal from the ballot last summer.

Anderson preceded the governor, and warned that Massachusetts could be following in the footsteps of states like Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey, where legislators have pursued tax and fiscal policies that have driven companies to move to other states like Tennessee, Georgia and Florida where the tax burden is lower.

"We could become Connecticut in a New York minute," said MHTC Executive Director Chris Anderson, ticking off companies like Mercedes, Aetna and others that have left Connecticut....

Ahead of Wednesday's debate, Reps. Alice Peisch and Ann Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Barry Finegold have filed an amendment to allow to a fully graduated income tax instead of just the surtax on income over $1 million.

Baker had a sharper reaction to that idea than the millionaires surtax.

"I would certainly oppose that," he told reporters.

State House News Service
Monday, June 10, 2019
Baker urges tech leaders to focus on education, housing


Almost $3 billion in state revenue hasn’t been collected over the years, according to a Herald analysis of state data, while legislators prepare to vote on the “millionaires tax” in an attempt to fatten the state’s wallet.

The lapse in collections remains as lawmakers are set to meet in a June 12 Constitutional Convention, where they will debate the Fair Share Amendment, which would add a 4% surtax on household incomes that earn over $1 million.

“Lawmakers should be looking at taxes already owed before they start imposing higher taxes for everyone else,” Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney told the Herald. “This isn’t insignificant money, this is revenue that would make a dramatic difference to the state budget if they would just go and collect it.”

The vast majority of that uncollected revenue, about $2.4 billion, can be traced back to the Department of Revenue as well as its Child Support Enforcement Division, according to data from the Comptroller’s Office.

While the DOR’s debts are categorized as uncollectible in comptroller data, the department maintains that it still considers tax debts collectible until the expiration of a 10-year statute of limitations or when written off in a legal settlement. A DOR spokeswoman did not answer multiple requests over a period of weeks for a total amount that has been written off and that has expired.

“The lack of transparency surrounding these deadbeat accounts is staggering,” said Mary Connaughton, director of finance and administration and government transparency at the Pioneer Institute. “While it’s certainly appropriate to protect the private information of those involved, it’s also reasonable to expect that bad debts, settlements and write-offs of public funds should be disclosed in a manner the public understands.”

The DOR also couldn’t provide a breakdown by tax type, according to the office, because uncollectibles are an “estimate” of how much of those tax receivables might never be collected. The Child Services debt involves decades of unpaid child support, interest and penalties owed to the state.

Massachusetts collected $1.1 billion more in tax revenue than anticipated in fiscal year 2018, Minority Leader Rep. Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) pointed out, saying that the juxtaposition to a call for more money, “leaves people scratching their heads.”

“It raises a serious number of questions from a policy standpoint and a philosophical standpoint. … It’s something we should be looking at doing,” Jones said. “That’s a huge number — one would like to think at least some of it is collectible.”

Trailing behind the DOR, the three largest uncollected accounts among state agencies are in the Department of Transitional Assistance at $55.9 million, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development at $24.3 million and the Department of Public Health at $18 million, according to the Comptroller’s Office....

“There is an alarmist view of needing revenue. … If you listen to certain advocates and lawmakers, they’re desperate for more revenue because they just want to spend more money,” Craney said. “Here is a great opportunity to collect taxes that are supposed to be owed to the state. They should go collect that money before they even think about raising more taxes.”

The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Beacon Hill seeks more funds while almost $3B lies uncollected


Acknowledging he may seek a groundbreaking third term, Governor Charlie Baker is quietly putting together a robust staff of political aides, proven fund-raisers, and seasoned consultants who worked on his previous two victorious campaigns, including last year’s landslide reelection.

Baker and his advisers said they are keeping his political organization intact to allow him to consider a third consecutive four-year term in 2022 — something no Massachusetts incumbent governor has ever done — but that no decision has been made.

The 62-year-old Republican said his love of the job and his determination to complete major initiatives that will extend past this term have prompted him to consider it....

Baker also said he feels compelled to showcase the successful bipartisan politics and policy making that he and Beacon Hill’s Democratic leaders have engaged in.

“I really want to fight for this approach to governing that’s based on the idea there is such a thing as a bipartisan, pragmatic approach to governing,’’ he said. He said the bipartisan interactions at the State House “stand in distinct contrast to what is going on around the country.’’

Still, his interest in running again is highly unusual: No other Massachusetts governor in recent political history has begun a second term with such a bulked-up political organization....

Baker said he and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito will be heavy presences on the campaign trail in this year’s municipal elections across the state. They plan to back candidates, including Democrats, most of them incumbents, running for mayor.

“I am going to make sure that I and the lieutenant governor support and help incumbents this year on both sides of the partisan aisle who have helped us and we will also work for folks running for office in 2020,’’ he said.

Only one governor in state history — Michael Dukakis — served for 12 years. But his tenure was broken up by his reelection defeat in 1978, when he lost the Democratic nomination to Edward J. King. Dukakis beat King in a 1982 primary rematch and went on to serve two consecutive terms....

As he ponders another campaign, Baker faces complicated political hurdles, even within his own state party.

In January, conservatives took over the GOP state committee, rejecting Baker’s choice for party chairman in favor of a former state representative and supporter of President Trump. (Baker is a frequent critic of the president).

Now, instead of running his political operations out of the Republican State Committee headquarters on Merrimac Street, Baker’s political crew is in a $3,000-a-month office on West Street, just around the corner from his State House office....

In another sign he is staying politically active, Baker acknowledged he will again wade into the elections for the 80 members of the GOP state committee when Republican presidential primary voters go to the polls next winter. By having more of his supporters on the committee, Baker would have greater control of the party’s cash use ahead of another campaign.

He did the same in 2016 when, in a controversial move never before done by a sitting governor, Baker spent as much as $1 million to elect his supporters and defeated several conservative opponents. He has declined to identify the source of those funds, noting he is not required by law to do so.

The Boston Globe
Friday, June 7, 2019
Baker quietly puts political team together as he considers 3rd term


Chip Ford's CLT Commentary

The Takers haven't even reached a vote on the so-called "Millionaires Tax," aka "The Fair Share Amendment," before proving what we've been saying since it was first introduced by its advocates four years ago (See:  CLT Update, July 30, 2015; "Grad Tax: The parasites swarm again").  The "Millionaires Tax" is nothing more than a Trojan Horse deception to ultimately impose a full-blown, all-encompassing Graduated Income Tax on all taxpayers.

Before the House and Senate meet jointly in the Constitutional Convention on Wednesday already an amendment has been proposed to turn it into the Graduated Income Tax The Takers have long lusted for, despite being overwhelmingly defeated by the voters five separate times on the ballot over the decades (in 1962, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1994).

The amendment (Amendment #2) proposed by Democrat Reps. Peisch of Wellesley and Ferrante of Gloucester, and Sen. Finegold of Andover, proposes to amend the "Millionaires Tax" proposal for constitutional amendment by "striking out lines 1-15 of section 6 and inserting in place thereof the following:

Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution is hereby amended by striking out the words “but shall be levied at a uniform rate throughout the commonwealth upon incomes derived from the same class of property” and inserting in place thereof the words “or the same class of property".

The State House News Service today reported:

[House Speaker Robert] DeLeo said he doesn't "have any idea in terms of where the support or non-support is for that particular provision," and added, "we'll obviously find out on Wednesday."

[Senate President Karen] Spilka, who will preside over Wednesday's joint session, said the idea of a graduated income tax structure "will certainly be a topic for the members both in the House and in the Senate to deal with."

Spilka did not answer when asked how she, as one vote out of 200, plans to vote. DeLeo said, "If it comes up on Wednesday, you'll see then."

If there was any real opposition coming from the two all-powerful leaders they wouldn't be shy about it, wouldn't be reluctant to discourage a perceived revolt arising among the sheep in their flock.  Their rare display of ambivalence speaks for itself, and of their preferences.

Even Gov. Charlie Baker who has been for years dodging taking a position on the so-called "Millionaires Tax" for fear of offending somebody somewhere reacted to this new imposition, according to the State House News Service:  "I would certainly oppose that," he told reporters.


Meanwhile, The Boston Herald reported:

Almost $3 billion in state revenue hasn’t been collected over the years, according to a Herald analysis of state data, while legislators prepare to vote on the “millionaires tax” in an attempt to fatten the state’s wallet. ... The vast majority of that uncollected revenue, about $2.4 billion, can be traced back to the Department of Revenue as well as its Child Support Enforcement Division, according to data from the Comptroller’s Office.

As we keep asserting, Massachusetts DOES NOT have a revenue problem.  The biggest problem it has is profligate over-spending, but mismanagement and malfeasance is surely contributing to it.


Hey, lucky Massachusetts citizens just-reelected Gov. Charlie Baker reportedly is already gearing up to run for a historic third term as Savior of the Commonwealth.  I can't help but appreciate that though he's done little to impress me over his tenure, still he's likely better around the edges than any Democrat governor could be especially now, finally actually taking a stand on something of relevance like a detested graduated income tax.

If nothing else, the perception of another possible Baker candidacy is a smart gambit on his advisors' part.  It's a good tactic to avoid the vulnerability of being tagged "lameduck" for the remainder of this term, if it's is to be his final one voluntarily.

Chip Ford
Executive Director


 

State House News Service
Friday, June 7, 2019

Advances - Week of June 9, 2019


CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - INCOME SURTAX: House and Senate members meet in a Constitutional Convention to take up an amendment adding a 4 percent income surtax on household income above $1 million.

The proposed amendment needs 101 votes in two successive legislative sessions to reach the 2022 ballot. It is subject to amendment this session, but not next session should it remain alive then, as is expected.

Rep. Alice Peisch of Wellesley has filed a graduated income tax amendment (No. 2).

Lawmakers gave the proposal a 156-37 initial vote of approval on May 8.

Here's the full text of Rep. James O'Day's amendment (H 86):

"To provide the resources for quality public education and affordable public colleges and universities, and for the repair and maintenance of roads, bridges and public transportation, all revenues received in accordance with this paragraph shall be expended, subject to appropriation, only for these purposes. In addition to the taxes on income otherwise authorized under this Article, there shall be an additional tax of 4 percent on that portion of annual taxable income in excess of $1,000,000 (one million dollars) reported on any return related to those taxes. To ensure that this additional tax continues to apply only to the commonwealth’s highest income taxpayers, this $1,000,000 (one million dollars) income level shall be adjusted annually to reflect any increases in the cost of living by the same method used for federal income tax brackets. This paragraph shall apply to all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2023."

Convention Calendar (Wednesday, 1 p.m., House Chamber)


State House News Service
Monday, June 10, 2019

DeLeo, Spilka take wait-and-see approach to Grad Tax
By Colin A. Young


Ahead of this week's planned debate on imposing an additional tax on residents who earn more than $1 million a year, legislative leaders were mum on whether they support the proposal to move Massachusetts towards a graduated income tax structure.

Though House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Karen Spilka would not share their own opinions, Gov. Charlie Baker said Monday that he cannot imagine his administration being supportive of a move away from the state's uniform income tax rate.

"The lieutenant governor and I have said on a number of occasions we don't think we should be raising taxes on the people of Massachusetts," the governor, who has himself proposed to impose some new taxes on Massachusetts residents, said. "I can't see us supporting a graduated income tax."

Baker has for years avoided taking a direct position on the proposal to impose a 4 percent surtax on Massachusetts residents who make $1 million or more in annual income, which the House and Senate are expected to debate in a joint session Wednesday afternoon. Wednesday's vote is the first step in a process to get the surtax proposal on the ballot for voters in 2022.

Ahead of Wednesday's debate, Reps. Alice Peisch and Ann-Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Barry Finegold have filed an amendment to allow a fully graduated income tax structure -- in which the income tax rate could be set to correspond to a person's income -- instead of just the surtax on income over $1 million.

Finegold was not available to discuss or explain his amendment but issued a statement to the News Service. "With the continuing challenges of our failing transportation infrastructure, revenue must be on the table, and we need to keep all options open," he said.

DeLeo said he doesn't "have any idea in terms of where the support or non-support is for that particular provision," and added, "we'll obviously find out on Wednesday."

Spilka, who will preside over Wednesday's joint session, said the idea of a graduated income tax structure "will certainly be a topic for the members both in the House and in the Senate to deal with."

Spilka did not answer when asked how she, as one vote out of 200, plans to vote. DeLeo said, "If it comes up on Wednesday, you'll see then."

The voters of Massachusetts have rejected the idea of a graduated income tax structure in the past, and more than once. Most recently, a 1994 proposal for a graduated income tax failed at the ballot with about 70 percent of voters rejecting it.

The Massachusetts Republican Party reminded voters in a press release Monday afternoon that a graduated income tax has already been shot down at the ballot and whacked "the Democrats’ newest scheme to unleash a graduated income tax system on the commonwealth."

"The same party that voted to give themselves a huge pay raise wants more of your money," MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons said. "This is a blatant cash grab masquerading as class warfare."

Also keying off the Legislature's 2017 vote to raise the pay for most lawmakers, Rep. Alyson Sullivan has filed an amendment for debate Wednesday that would impose "an additional tax of 4 percent on that portion of annual taxable legislative income earned by a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives or Massachusetts State Senate."

Michael P. Norton contributed to this report.


State House News Service
Monday, June 10, 2019

Baker urges tech leaders to focus on education, housing
By Matt Murphy


Even as industry leaders warned how the tax hike could erode the state's economic strength, Gov. Charlie Baker steered clear in a speech to technology leaders Monday of the millionaires tax proposal that will again be before the Legislature this week.

Baker, instead, sought the help of technology industry executives in passing education and housing legislation that he described as critical to developing and retaining a highly qualified workforce.

The governor said after his speech that raising taxes was not the "solution" to the challenges faced in Massachusetts, but he avoided stating directly whether he would oppose a tax on millionaires if it were to reach the ballot. Supporters say the tax would generate needed revenues for education and transportation.

"We have along way to go on this one and obviously at some point we'll have a conversation about it but I've said many times that I don't think the solution to Massachusetts issues or problems is to raise taxes and I've said that many times. And I continue to believe it," Baker said.

The governor spoke to the Massachusetts High Technology Council at its annual meeting Monday at the Seaport Hotel. On education, Baker said his bill seeks to provide additional financial resources as well as accountability measures to help improve underperforming schools and districts.

"There is a large and lively debate going on about what this should look like," he said.

While Baker acknowledged a debate over education funding, he said the money question would "work itself out" and he expects a final bill to reach him within a year.

As for housing, Baker noted that even in his historic election in 2018, he and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito couldn't crack the 66 percent threshold that's needed in cities and towns to get around zoning rules to build new, more affordable housing. According to election results, Baker received 66.6 percent of the vote.

He encouraged business leaders to help him convince the Legislature to pass his "Housing Choices" bill that would lower that threshold to a simple majority.

The governor, however, did not address the proposed surtax on wealthier residents that High Tech Council President Chris Anderson said was putting the state's economic development advantages at risk.

House and Senate lawmakers will debate and vote on the proposal Wednesday to impose a 4 percent surtax on income over $1 million, the first step of a four-year process to get it on the ballot in 2022.

The proposal appears to have more than enough support in the Legislature to advance, and won't face the face hurdles that caused the courts to strike a similar proposal from the ballot last summer.

Anderson preceded the governor, and warned that Massachusetts could be following in the footsteps of states like Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey, where legislators have pursued tax and fiscal policies that have driven companies to move to other states like Tennessee, Georgia and Florida where the tax burden is lower.

"We could become Connecticut in a New York minute," said MHTC Executive Director Chris Anderson, ticking off companies like Mercedes, Aetna and others that have left Connecticut.

Anderson called the Massachusetts economy the "envy of the nation," but said lawmakers should be focused on improving things like transportation without raising new revenue.

The council, he said, believes that a shortage of project management personnel, not revenue, is the "most critical impediment" to improving the state's infrastructure, and that public-private partnerships must be an element of the solution.

Anderson also said that the state should be working with employers to better structure worker commutes to reduce congestion.

"This week the Massachusetts Legislature begins a renewed effort to change the state Constitution to raise personal income tax rates on different classes of taxpayers and lock those rates in the Constitution," Anderson said. "However, if we instead aim at the right target first we have a better chance of avoiding the negative fiscal and competitive consequences that we've all seen in Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and other states that have enacted policies that ended up ruining their economies."

After his remarks, Baker told reporters that some companies who have moved to Massachusetts have cited the state's relatively "steady and stable" tax burden and its competitive tax position relative to other northeast states as a strength.

"But the thing they all come back to over and over and over again is the quality of people who live here and the workforce that's available to them and the creativity and the sort of ecosystem that exists within Massachusetts, driven in many ways by our colleges and universities and by the existing business and investors that are already here," Baker said.

U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy, who followed Gov. Baker in addressing the Massachusetts High Tech Council, told reporters that despite the business strengths of Massachusetts there are also inequities in transportation and housing that government must address.

"I don't think you're doing all this without additional revenue and so I support it," Kennedy said of the millionaires tax.

He added, "I'm open if folks have other suggestions about how your going to be able to gather the revenue to meet some of these obligations, I'm certainly open to that but we have to acknowledge that as booming as Greater Boston is that doesn't reflect some of the structural challenges that affect parts, like the southern part of my district, let alone opportunities to help grow western Massachusetts or connect it better regionally throughout New England."

Ahead of Wednesday's debate, Reps. Alice Peisch and Ann Margaret Ferrante and Sen. Barry Finegold have filed an amendment to allow to a fully graduated income tax instead of just the surtax on income over $1 million.

Baker had a sharper reaction to that idea than the millionaires surtax.

"I would certainly oppose that," he told reporters.

The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation echoed the message from Anderson in an analysis released Monday where the group concluded that the millionaires tax was not "sound tax policy." The foundation also said the estimated $1.9 million in new tax revenue was "unlikely" to materialize due to the mobility of wealthy taxpayers and the volatility of capital gains taxes.

"Given the probability of changes to the economy and taxpayers predilection to avoid taxes it's extremely likely that revenue collections will fall well short of projections for these two reasons," the foundation said.

MTF also said that a surtax on income over $1 million is not the best option available to legislators, and would tie the hands of the Legislature to respond until at least 2027 if the experiment fails.

The foundation suggested a higher income tax with more personal deductions or a lower sales tax to achieve a more progressive tax policy.


The Boston Herald
Sunday, June 9, 2019

Beacon Hill seeks more funds while almost $3B lies uncollected
By Mary Markos


Almost $3 billion in state revenue hasn’t been collected over the years, according to a Herald analysis of state data, while legislators prepare to vote on the “millionaires tax” in an attempt to fatten the state’s wallet.

The lapse in collections remains as lawmakers are set to meet in a June 12 Constitutional Convention, where they will debate the Fair Share Amendment, which would add a 4% surtax on household incomes that earn over $1 million.

“Lawmakers should be looking at taxes already owed before they start imposing higher taxes for everyone else,” Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney told the Herald. “This isn’t insignificant money, this is revenue that would make a dramatic difference to the state budget if they would just go and collect it.”

The vast majority of that uncollected revenue, about $2.4 billion, can be traced back to the Department of Revenue as well as its Child Support Enforcement Division, according to data from the Comptroller’s Office.

While the DOR’s debts are categorized as uncollectible in comptroller data, the department maintains that it still considers tax debts collectible until the expiration of a 10-year statute of limitations or when written off in a legal settlement. A DOR spokeswoman did not answer multiple requests over a period of weeks for a total amount that has been written off and that has expired.

“The lack of transparency surrounding these deadbeat accounts is staggering,” said Mary Connaughton, director of finance and administration and government transparency at the Pioneer Institute. “While it’s certainly appropriate to protect the private information of those involved, it’s also reasonable to expect that bad debts, settlements and write-offs of public funds should be disclosed in a manner the public understands.”

The DOR also couldn’t provide a breakdown by tax type, according to the office, because uncollectibles are an “estimate” of how much of those tax receivables might never be collected. The Child Services debt involves decades of unpaid child support, interest and penalties owed to the state.

Massachusetts collected $1.1 billion more in tax revenue than anticipated in fiscal year 2018, Minority Leader Rep. Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) pointed out, saying that the juxtaposition to a call for more money, “leaves people scratching their heads.”

“It raises a serious number of questions from a policy standpoint and a philosophical standpoint. … It’s something we should be looking at doing,” Jones said. “That’s a huge number — one would like to think at least some of it is collectible.”

Trailing behind the DOR, the three largest uncollected accounts among state agencies are in the Department of Transitional Assistance at $55.9 million, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development at $24.3 million and the Department of Public Health at $18 million, according to the Comptroller’s Office.

Another $30.5 million that has gone uncollected in the University of Massachusetts system is composed mostly of student bills, according to spokesman Colin Murphy, but he said the university will still collect a portion of that.

“There is an alarmist view of needing revenue. … If you listen to certain advocates and lawmakers, they’re desperate for more revenue because they just want to spend more money,” Craney said. “Here is a great opportunity to collect taxes that are supposed to be owed to the state. They should go collect that money before they even think about raising more taxes.”

Catherine Williams, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, said, “The speaker has expressed his support in the past for Fair Share. We await information from the Comptroller’s Office.”


The Boston Globe
Friday, June 7, 2019

Baker quietly puts political team together as he considers 3rd term
By Frank Phillips Globe correspondent


Acknowledging he may seek a groundbreaking third term, Governor Charlie Baker is quietly putting together a robust staff of political aides, proven fund-raisers, and seasoned consultants who worked on his previous two victorious campaigns, including last year’s landslide reelection.

Baker and his advisers said they are keeping his political organization intact to allow him to consider a third consecutive four-year term in 2022 — something no Massachusetts incumbent governor has ever done — but that no decision has been made.

The 62-year-old Republican said his love of the job and his determination to complete major initiatives that will extend past this term have prompted him to consider it.

“Some of the stuff we are working on will likely take more than four years to see our way through it,’’ Baker said in a brief interview last week. He pointed to a signature housing proposal and the five-year capital plan for the MBTA. “And there’s a whole series of climate change initiatives, including expanding and investing in deep-water off-shore wind.’’

Baker also said he feels compelled to showcase the successful bipartisan politics and policy making that he and Beacon Hill’s Democratic leaders have engaged in.

“I really want to fight for this approach to governing that’s based on the idea there is such a thing as a bipartisan, pragmatic approach to governing,’’ he said. He said the bipartisan interactions at the State House “stand in distinct contrast to what is going on around the country.’’

Still, his interest in running again is highly unusual: No other Massachusetts governor in recent political history has begun a second term with such a bulked-up political organization. According to online records, Baker’s committee now has five full-time staff members, costing over $16,000 a month. The payroll includes Brian Wynne, the former executive director of the state Republican Party who managed Baker’s 2018 election.

Baker has also put on retainer two of his longtime top political consultants: Jim Conroy, a veteran GOP operative who has been paid $70,000 since late December, and Will Keyser, a Democrat who linked up with Baker in his 2014 run for governor. Keyser has collected $40,000 from the Baker Committee since the beginning of the year.

Any final decision to run again is far down the road, Baker and his staff said.

“He very much wants to continue to have all the options before him going forward,’’ said Keyser.

In the meantime, Baker and his team plan to be active in the political trenches over the next three years. His committee has spent $23,000 for a statewide poll taken in February. And, as of June 1, Baker’s campaign had more than $600,000 in the bank, much of it left over from his last race.

Baker said he and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito will be heavy presences on the campaign trail in this year’s municipal elections across the state. They plan to back candidates, including Democrats, most of them incumbents, running for mayor.

“I am going to make sure that I and the lieutenant governor support and help incumbents this year on both sides of the partisan aisle who have helped us and we will also work for folks running for office in 2020,’’ he said.

Only one governor in state history — Michael Dukakis — served for 12 years. But his tenure was broken up by his reelection defeat in 1978, when he lost the Democratic nomination to Edward J. King. Dukakis beat King in a 1982 primary rematch and went on to serve two consecutive terms.

Baker, who faced only nominal Democratic opposition last year, could encounter a tough Democratic opponent in 2022. Several major political figures who have emerged in recent years — such as Attorney General Maura Healey, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh, and US Representative Joseph P. Kennedy III — could be a major threat to any hopes for a third term.

While Baker is often cited as the most popular governor in the country, his Democratic opponents note that the tables can quickly turn on popular figures.

“If he decided to run again, he would be formidable,’’ acknowledged Philip Johnston, a longtime Democratic leader and former chairman of the state party. But, he added, Massachusetts history shows that political ground can shift suddenly for an incumbent governor.

“His political position could easily be turned around by 2022,” Johnston said.

As he ponders another campaign, Baker faces complicated political hurdles, even within his own state party.

In January, conservatives took over the GOP state committee, rejecting Baker’s choice for party chairman in favor of a former state representative and supporter of President Trump. (Baker is a frequent critic of the president).

Now, instead of running his political operations out of the Republican State Committee headquarters on Merrimac Street, Baker’s political crew is in a $3,000-a-month office on West Street, just around the corner from his State House office.

With that conservative takeover of the party, Baker has also lost the advantage of using the committee to raise donations under federal rules, which are hugely more generous than the $1,000-a-year limit imposed by state campaign finance law. Donors can give up to $10,000 a year to the party’s federal committee or $45,500 to a unique joint fund-raising agreement between the state party and Republican National Committee. This system also allowed Baker to raise several millions of dollars to boost his 2014 and 2018 races.

That arrangement, state campaign finance regulators said in a controversial 2016 decision, slips through the loopholes of a Massachusetts campaign finance law that aims to ban the use of federal funds for state political expenses.

In another sign he is staying politically active, Baker acknowledged he will again wade into the elections for the 80 members of the GOP state committee when Republican presidential primary voters go to the polls next winter. By having more of his supporters on the committee, Baker would have greater control of the party’s cash use ahead of another campaign.

He did the same in 2016 when, in a controversial move never before done by a sitting governor, Baker spent as much as $1 million to elect his supporters and defeated several conservative opponents. He has declined to identify the source of those funds, noting he is not required by law to do so.

 

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) 639-9709

BACK TO CLT HOMEPAGE