 |
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 — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Mass.
set to win dead last state budget trophy, again
|
It's only Tuesday and hopes are already
fading for a deal this week on the overdue state budget.
Breaking a two-week pattern, the House
adjourned Tuesday morning without plans to meet on
Wednesday. Since July 1, the budget's due date, both
branches have been holding near-daily sessions while they
await a report from the six lawmakers charged in early June
with coming up with the final fiscal 2020 spending plan.
A day after he expressed hope for a budget
"by the end of this week," Second Assistant Majority Leader
Paul Donato, who presided over Tuesday's session, pushed out
expectations another seven days.
"You know [conferees are] going to work the
weekend, so we might as well just let them do their thing,
come back, tell us when, and hopefully we can meet formally
one day next week and put this budget to bed," Donato told
the News Service. There's "no sense" in continuing daily
sessions when it's "kind of obvious" there will be no
imminent report, he said.
With reports that the Ohio Legislature was
advancing its budget deal Tuesday, it appears that one year
after Massachusetts was the last state in the country to
pass its budget, it will be last again this year, and the
tentative timeline for action is growing longer not
shorter....
With their closed-door meetings now in their
47th day, this is the longest state budget negotiation
without a resolution in at least a decade. Lawmakers refuse
to say what's holding up the budget and the conference
committee met publicly only once, voting immediately to
close the meetings....
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the
famous late state budget of 1999, which also featured a test
of wills among House and Senate Democrats.
Former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, former
Senate President Thomas Birmingham and their Ways and Means
chairs Rep. Paul Haley and Sen. Mark Montigny got so dug in
on budget differences that they didn't agree to a fiscal
2000 budget bill until November.
In 1999, as former Gov. Paul Cellucci
awaited the spending bill, budget negotiators scrapped over
issues ranging from early childhood education to K-12
education funding, asset maintenance, the use of the tobacco
settlement funds, MBTA funding, senior pharmacy benefits,
and economic/tax policies.
The fiscal 2000 budget totaled $20.9
billion. The spending bills currently in conference
committee authorize $42.8 billion in spending.
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
New Mass. budget timeline is next week, "hopefully"
The fiscal year 2020 budget is not the only
long-expected Beacon Hill legislation running late: after
initially suggesting a K-12 education funding bill would be
released in June, Education Committee co-chair Sen. Jason
Lewis said Tuesday that he now expects the work to be
completed "in the near future."
Lewis and his fellow chair, Rep. Alice
Peisch, did not offer specific details on the legislation
following an unrelated committee hearing Tuesday, almost
four months after members heard hours of testimony about
funding reform and exactly two months after the Senate chair
targeted June as a possible goal....
Last year, legislative leaders failed to
reach an agreement at the end of formal lawmaking sessions
in July. Activists this year are frustrated that an
education funding bill has not progressed, and the state
faces a lawsuit over the issue.
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Ed funding bill timeline now "the near future"
Anti-poverty advocates are making a major
push to expand welfare benefits as part of a campaign to
lift tens of thousands of children out of "deep poverty."
One proposal, backed by more than 80 mostly
Democratic lawmakers, would increase welfare benefits
through the state’s primary cash assistance program, known
as Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children, by
10% every year until the payments reach 50% of the federal
poverty level. That would raise the benefits for an average
family of three to $889 a month....
Lawmakers behind the proposal say $50
million more in state aid over a four-year period will only
bring families up to what is considered "deep poverty," or
half the federal poverty level. For a family of four, "deep
poverty" is considered $10,665 or less....
Combined the state spends roughly $16
million a month on the programs.
Under current law, a recipient is limited to
receiving welfare for two years in any five-year period. The
family of three in the program collects a maximum of $593
per month.
Last year, lawmakers pushed through a repeal
of state rules that denied additional benefits for children
born into families already receiving assistance from the
state.
Repealing the so-called "cap on kids" means
that a parent receiving benefits now gets an additional $100
in monthly benefits for each child, regardless of whether
the child is born before or after the parent became eligible
for benefits. Families also receive an additional $300
yearly clothing allowance per child....
Lawmakers are weighing a separate proposal,
also heard by the committee on Tuesday, to create a pilot
project extending benefits for families that reach a "cliff"
when they hit the two-year limit on receiving benefits.
Another proposal, filed by Sen. Joan Lovely,
D-Salem, asks health officials to study creating a diaper
subsidy for low-income families with children under 2 years
old....
If the plan takes shape and is approved,
Massachusetts would be the first state to provide diaper
subsidies to welfare beneficiaries.
In 2016, California lawmakers passed a bill
giving a $50 monthly diaper voucher to families on welfare
with children. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the plan, citing
its fiscal impact.
The (Gloucester) Daily Times
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Expanded welfare benefits pushed
Group says hike would lift thousands out of 'deep' poverty
After helping this year to repeal a law
preventing families on public assistance from receiving
additional benefits when they have another child, activists
now want to secure further changes through a bill (S 36 / H
102) that increases support offered through the Transitional
Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.
Rep. Marjorie Decker, who authored the House
bill, called it the "next step" for lawmakers after lifted
the so-called "cap on kids" law in April....
The legislation, which already has more than
100 sponsors across the House and Senate, would increase the
value of the aid every year until it reaches 50 percent of
the federal poverty line, the threshold marking "deep
poverty."
The welfare cap repeal drew bipartisan
support earlier this year, passing 155-1 in the House and
37-1 in the Senate before the Legislature overrode
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's veto.
During Tuesday's hearing, the new proposal
also had Republican backing: Rep. Michael Soter, the
committee's ranking minority member, said he "proudly"
supports the bill, even after taking "a lot of heat" for his
vote in favor of the cap repeal.
State House News Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Broad support for welfare cash assistance increase
Carbon emissions are soon to become the
latest portal the state uses to reach the wallets of
Massachusetts taxpayers. A bill is gaining momentum on
Beacon Hill that would place a fee on carbon emissions
produced by fossil fuels.
The carbon tax would start at $20 per ton
and increase every year by $5, allegedly until the fee
reaches $40 per ton. Thirty percent of the collected revenue
— estimated to be between $400M and $600M per year — would
be siphoned off for state and local government to embark on
renewable energy projects....
Something we know such a tax would do is
punish the people and businesses in the commonwealth.
As the Herald’s Mary Markos reported, a
Beacon Hill Institute study found that the average
Massachusetts household would see its tax bill increase by
$755 in the first year. By the fifth year, that annual tax
load would increase to $1,263. In addition, Massachusetts
would see a loss of 11,090 private sector jobs in its first
year, increasing to 18,240 by its fifth, according to the
study.
The analysis laid out in the study is stark:
“The tax would also, in the first year, reduce business
investment by $925 million, disposable income by $1,950
million, and private employment by 11,090 jobs. As time
passed and the tax rate rose, the carbon tax would produce
more substantial economic effects. By 2026, investment would
fall by $1,585 million, disposable income by $3,266 million,
and private employment by 18,240 jobs.”
Those are staggering numbers and all for
what?
To what degree will reducing the carbon
emissions in a small state with a population of under 7
million affect a globe full of 7.53 billion people?
The answer is, likely not at all....
No to the carbon tax. It’s just another tax
under a trendy name.
A Boston Herald editorial
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Carbon tax just another painful fee
Bay Staters will feel the pain
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
“When the cardinals failed to elect a pope for
more than two years after the death of Clement
IV (1265–68), the local magistrate locked the
electors in the episcopal palace, removed the
roof (subjecting the cardinals to the elements),
and allowed the cardinals nothing but bread and
water until they made their selection, Gregory X
(1271–76).”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/conclave
Maybe locking
them up, shutting off the air-conditioning, and putting
them on bread and water rations might be productive for
intransigent Massachusetts legislators who don't seem
able to agree on a budget?
Yesterday "The
Best Legislature Money Can Buy" punted again. The
"full-time" Legislature gave up the ghost of passing a
state budget until possibly next week
—
"hopefully" that is.
It appears
that Massachusetts will once again win the distinction
of the state with the last budget in the nation, as Ohio
— the other state legislature that
has yet to pass one — apparently will pass its
two-year budget later today. Note that Ohio has a
two-year budget (as does Maine, Kentucky and a dozen
other states) so will not waste time going through the
same budget circus again next year. A one-and-done
state budget per two-year election cycle, until a new
legislature is elected and sworn in.
According to
The Vindicator (Youngstown, Ohio) yesterday ("Ohio
lawmakers hashing out state budget are set to reconvene"):
. . .
Many of [GOP Gov. Mike DeWine's] spending priorities
were reflected in the chambers’ budget proposals,
though legislative leaders and the conference
committee still had to sort out hundreds of
differences, including on tax cuts.
Among the sticking points was a $250,000 business
deduction that DeWine favors keeping. GOP Senate
President Larry Obhof wanted to retain the $250,000
deduction and also raise a 3 percent limit on income
above $250,000. Republican House Speaker Larry
Householder agreed with raising that limit but
wanted to reduce the deduction to $100,000.
For personal income taxes, the Senate version would
have eliminated the bottom two tax brackets and
decreased tax rates for the others by 8% over two
years. The House proposed a 6.6 percent cut.
Today, The
Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reports ("$69B
state budget with tax cuts, health-care transparency on
way to approval"):
Ohio’s
$69 billion operating budget won approval 75-15 — 17
days after it was due — Wednesday afternoon from the
House.
The two-year spending plan now goes to the Senate,
whose anticipated OK would send the budget to Gov.
Mike DeWine, who must sign the measure and issue
line-item vetoes by the end of the day....
The key takeaway for most Ohioans is an
across-the-board state income tax cut of 4 percent,
along with elimination of the lowest two brackets.
That means workers earning less than $21,750 a year
would pay no state income taxes.
The income-tax reduction was even higher initially,
but had to be trimmed after lawmakers restored $1.2
billion in annual tax breaks for many smaller
businesses — beating back a House attempt to cut it
almost in half.
Don't abused
taxpayers wish the Massachusetts Legislature's most-holy
conclave of its six Cardinals of the Conference
Committee were hobbled by such disagreements!
The
Legislature is not doing much better with what has been
promoted as an alleged big priority: K-12
education funding bill. On Tuesday Education
Committee co-chair Sen. Jason Lewis said that he now
expects the work to be completed "in the near future."
Co-chair Rep. Alice Peisch said the senator's earlier
mention of June was "never a deadline" and, asked when a
final proposal might be released, responded, "We're
working on it."
The State
House News Service noted: "Last year, legislative
leaders failed to reach an agreement at the end of
formal lawmaking sessions in July."
This is what
happens when an alleged "full-time legislature" has far
too much time on its hands for mischief and far too many
irons in the fire.
Now that
they've overturned the so-called "Cap
on Kids" of course The Takers are back for
more, more, always more.
Rep. Marjorie
Decker, who authored the House bill (S-36 / H-102),
called it the "next step." Everything they do is
just one step toward the "next step," and the "next
step" is never enough.
If this
taxpayer handout also passes it would raise the benefits
for an average family of three to $889 a month.
Advocates estimate it will cost taxpayers $50 million
more in state aid over a four-year period
— but if that "average
family" increases to four, five, or more under repeal of
the "Cap on Kids" then expect that estimate to become
inoperative and the cost to steadily increase. I
wonder if a beneficiary must be a Massachusetts citizen
to qualify, or just a resident?
Meanwhile, "A
bill is gaining momentum on Beacon Hill that would place
a fee on carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels,"
according to The Boston Herald. The
study released by the Beacon Hill Institute projects
that "the average Massachusetts household would see its
tax bill increase by $755 in the first year. By the
fifth year, that annual tax load would increase to
$1,263. In addition, Massachusetts would see a loss of
11,090 private sector jobs in its first year, increasing
to 18,240 by its fifth."
This is above,
beyond, and on top of the schemes to tax-and-spend, or
borrow-then-tax, additional billions to fund "climate
mitigation, "climate resiliency," or whatever we're
calling it today.
Now 48 days
late, the Legislature still can't decide how to spend
$42.8 billion. Where do they think the funds for
all this additional spending is going to come
from?
Obviously this
is why the Legislature intends to take up "revenue
enhancement" in the coming months.
And why we
must all be prepared to act when the inevitable
onslaught arrives.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
New Mass. budget timeline is next week,
"hopefully"
By Sam Doran and Michael P. Norton
It's only Tuesday and hopes are already fading
for a deal this week on the overdue state
budget.
Breaking a two-week pattern, the House adjourned
Tuesday morning without plans to meet on
Wednesday. Since July 1, the budget's due date,
both branches have been holding near-daily
sessions while they await a report from the six
lawmakers charged in early June with coming up
with the final fiscal 2020 spending plan.
A day after he expressed hope for a budget "by
the end of this week," Second Assistant Majority
Leader Paul Donato, who presided over Tuesday's
session, pushed out expectations another seven
days.
"You know [conferees are] going to work the
weekend, so we might as well just let them do
their thing, come back, tell us when, and
hopefully we can meet formally one day next week
and put this budget to bed," Donato told the
News Service. There's "no sense" in continuing
daily sessions when it's "kind of obvious" there
will be no imminent report, he said.
With reports that the Ohio Legislature was
advancing its budget deal Tuesday, it appears
that one year after Massachusetts was the last
state in the country to pass its budget, it will
be last again this year, and the tentative
timeline for action is growing longer not
shorter.
Leading House and Senate Democrats have
repeatedly said talks are progressing and that
negotiators are "pretty close" to a deal, but
negotiating teams led by Rep. Aaron Michlewitz
of Boston and Sen. Michael Rodrigues of Westport
continue to bump heads on unspecified topics.
Michlewitz and Rodrigues are both new to their
posts and it's not clear how deeply their
supervisors, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and
Senate President Karen Spilka, both former Ways
and Means chairs, are involved in the talks.
Expressing concern about the situation, DeLeo
late Monday asked Gov. Charlie Baker to file
another "one-twelfth" interim budget to keep
state paychecks and services flowing without
interruption in August in case House and Senate
Democrats prolong the negotiations.
In the absence of a completed budget, the state
is paying its bills based on a $5 billion
interim budget that lawmakers quickly passed
after it was offered by Baker.
With their closed-door meetings now in their
47th day, this is the longest state budget
negotiation without a resolution in at least a
decade. Lawmakers refuse to say what's holding
up the budget and the conference committee met
publicly only once, voting immediately to close
the meetings.
Asked Tuesday if a speedbump popped up in
conference that made the optimism suddenly fade,
Donato said, "No, they're still focusing in on
the same issues that they've been dealing with
from the beginning, and that's been the
problem."
Some issues holding up the talks are
"philosophical" while some are "very technical,"
said Donato, who is not one of the six
conference committee members.
At this time last year, Spilka, then Ways and
Means chair, was closing in on a late budget
deal with former House Ways and Means Chair
Jeffrey Sanchez, a $41.9 billion agreement that
was ratified by both branches on July 18, 2018.
That negotiation was punctuated by a big markup
in expected tax revenues, a $667 million
increase over the revenue estimate that had been
used when the fiscal 2019 spending plan was
first developed. Tax revenues in fiscal 2019 are
way up, casting doubt on the fiscal 2020
estimate's accuracy.
On July 26, 2018, the same day Baker signed the
fiscal 2019 budget, the Senate elected Spilka as
its new president.
The Spilka-DeLeo era got off to an awkward start
when Spilka gaveled the Senate out for a long
summer weekend at a time when DeLeo was
expecting lawmakers to work through the weekend.
At that late point in formal sessions, lawmakers
faced a huge workload and ultimately failed to
wrap up key education and health care bills.
The Legislature rode out the last five months of
2018 in informal sessions and in the new
2019-2020 session the branches have yet to
connect on an array of big issues, from the
budget to the leftover health care and education
bills, to housing production legislation and
more.
After meeting with legislative leaders last
week, Baker was unfazed by the late budget,
saying he had "tremendous confidence" in DeLeo
and Spilka and noting they'd both chaired Ways
and Means before.
"They know what this drill is about and I have
tremendous confidence that they'll get a budget
done and we'll be able to implement it
effectively," Baker said.
Baker and Beacon Hill Democrats often hold up
their working relationships as a contrast to
their partisan bickering in Washington.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the
famous late state budget of 1999, which also
featured a test of wills among House and Senate
Democrats.
Former House Speaker Thomas Finneran, former
Senate President Thomas Birmingham and their
Ways and Means chairs Rep. Paul Haley and Sen.
Mark Montigny got so dug in on budget
differences that they didn't agree to a fiscal
2000 budget bill until November.
In 1999, as former Gov. Paul Cellucci awaited
the spending bill, budget negotiators scrapped
over issues ranging from early childhood
education to K-12 education funding, asset
maintenance, the use of the tobacco settlement
funds, MBTA funding, senior pharmacy benefits,
and economic/tax policies.
The fiscal 2000 budget totaled $20.9 billion.
The spending bills currently in conference
committee authorize $42.8 billion in spending.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Ed funding bill timeline now "the near future"
By Chris Lisinski
The fiscal year 2020 budget is not the only
long-expected Beacon Hill legislation running
late: after initially suggesting a K-12
education funding bill would be released in
June, Education Committee co-chair Sen. Jason
Lewis said Tuesday that he now expects the work
to be completed "in the near future."
Lewis and his fellow chair, Rep. Alice Peisch,
did not offer specific details on the
legislation following an unrelated committee
hearing Tuesday, almost four months after
members heard hours of testimony about funding
reform and exactly two months after the Senate
chair targeted June as a possible goal.
"Chairwoman Peisch and I and our committee
members and stakeholders have been devoting a
lot of time to working on this bill," Lewis
said. "I'm confident we'll have a bill out of
the committee in the near future."
Peisch said the senator's earlier mention of
June was "never a deadline" and, asked when a
final proposal might be released, responded,
"We're working on it."
"We've been working very hard on various aspects
of the bill," she said. "I don't think we'll be
releasing it piecemeal. When we have reached an
agreement on a comprehensive bill, it will be
released."
Last year, legislative leaders failed to reach
an agreement at the end of formal lawmaking
sessions in July. Activists this year are
frustrated that an education funding bill has
not progressed, and the state faces a lawsuit
over the issue.
The (Gloucester) Daily Times
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Expanded welfare benefits pushed
Group says hike would lift thousands out of
'deep' poverty
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Anti-poverty advocates are making a major push
to expand welfare benefits as part of a campaign
to lift tens of thousands of children out of
"deep poverty."
One proposal, backed by more than 80 mostly
Democratic lawmakers, would increase welfare
benefits through the state’s primary cash
assistance program, known as Transitional Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, by 10% every
year until the payments reach 50% of the federal
poverty level. That would raise the benefits for
an average family of three to $889 a month.
Supporters of the measure say benefits haven't
increased in nearly two decades, while the cost
of living has skyrocketed.
"It is simply unconscionable that we have
children living in deep poverty in our
commonwealth," state Sen. Sal DiDomenico,
D-Everett, the bill's primary sponsor, told
members of the Legislature's Committee on
Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities
on Tuesday. "These families need help, they are
on the edge of despair and have no where else to
turn."
Lawmakers behind the proposal say $50 million
more in state aid over a four-year period will
only bring families up to what is considered
"deep poverty," or half the federal poverty
level. For a family of four, "deep poverty" is
considered $10,665 or less.
"People are treading water, some people are even
drowning," said Rep. Marjorie Decker,
D-Cambridge, the bill's primary sponsor in the
state House of Representatives. "Bringing them
up to the deep poverty level is really about
throwing them a life-jacket and letting them
hold on and take a breath."
Overall, the number of families on the state’s
primary cash assistance program has declined by
half since the 1990s, to about 30,000 per month,
according to the state Department of
Transitional Assistance.
Combined the state spends roughly $16 million a
month on the programs.
Under current law, a recipient is limited to
receiving welfare for two years in any five-year
period. The family of three in the program
collects a maximum of $593 per month.
Last year, lawmakers pushed through a repeal of
state rules that denied additional benefits for
children born into families already receiving
assistance from the state.
Repealing the so-called "cap on kids" means that
a parent receiving benefits now gets an
additional $100 in monthly benefits for each
child, regardless of whether the child is born
before or after the parent became eligible for
benefits. Families also receive an additional
$300 yearly clothing allowance per child.
Anti-poverty advocates say overall the state's
welfare programs have failed to keep pace with
the rising cost of living, forcing families to
scrimp on basic necessities.
"Thirty years ago these grants at least lifted
families out of poverty," said Deborah Harris, a
staff attorney at the Massachusetts Law Reform
Institute, one of several anti-poverty groups
backing the proposal. "But now families can't
afford to meet their basic needs. That includes
buying food, when food stamps run out, and
paying for things like laundry and diapers."
Lawmakers are weighing a separate proposal, also
heard by the committee on Tuesday, to create a
pilot project extending benefits for families
that reach a "cliff" when they hit the two-year
limit on receiving benefits.
Another proposal, filed by Sen. Joan Lovely,
D-Salem, asks health officials to study creating
a diaper subsidy for low-income families with
children under 2 years old.
Diapers aren’t covered by federal food stamps,
known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Nor are they provided by the Women,
Infants and Children nutrition program, which
classifies them with cigarettes and alcohol as
invalid items.
Welfare assistance can be applied to anything a
family needs. But advocates say only 23 percent
of poor families with children nationally
receive benefits.
If the plan takes shape and is approved,
Massachusetts would be the first state to
provide diaper subsidies to welfare
beneficiaries.
In 2016, California lawmakers passed a bill
giving a $50 monthly diaper voucher to families
on welfare with children. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown
vetoed the plan, citing its fiscal impact.
Lovely said parents who can't afford diapers may
decide to stay home with their children and not
work, contributing to the "cycle of poverty."
"A parent who stays home with a child because
the child lacks diapers forfeits the opportunity
to hold a job, go to school or pursue job
training," she told the panel on Tuesday.
Medical professionals say families scraping by
on the federal poverty line experience negative
health and educational impacts that affect not
just the children but their parents as well.
"Lifting families out of deep poverty not only
makes it possible for parents to meet the basic
needs of food, shelter and education, it also
reduces parents' anxiety and depression that
also harms children," Dr. Ann Easterbooks, a
child psychologist and professor at Tufts
University, told the panel. "Even a small
increase in funds ... makes a difference in the
life of a family."
State House News
Service
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Broad support for welfare cash assistance
increase
By Chris Lisinski
Activists, physicians and social workers urged
lawmakers Tuesday to expand a state welfare
program helping low-income parents, arguing
existing cash grants are insufficient to meet
growing costs and leave many children stuck in
poverty.
After helping this year to repeal a law
preventing families on public assistance from
receiving additional benefits when they have
another child, activists now want to secure
further changes through a bill (S 36 / H 102)
that increases support offered through the
Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program.
Rep. Marjorie Decker, who authored the House
bill, called it the "next step" for lawmakers
after lifted the so-called "cap on kids" law in
April.
"With the grants we provide, people are really
treading, they're treading water," Decker told
the Joint Committee on Children, Families and
Persons with Disabilities. "And let's be honest:
some people aren't treading, they're drowning.
This is really just about throwing them a life
jacket and letting them hold on and take a
breath."
The grant amounts have not changed since 2000,
Decker said, and their value has declined since
1989 due to inflation. An average family of
three currently $593 a month, just a third of
the federal poverty level.
"We talk to families all the time who are
struggling to survive on this," Naomi Meyer, an
attorney at Greater Boston Legal Services who
helps lead the Lift Our Kids coalition, told the
News Service ahead of the hearing. "It is simply
not enough."
The legislation, which already has more than 100
sponsors across the House and Senate, would
increase the value of the aid every year until
it reaches 50 percent of the federal poverty
line, the threshold marking "deep poverty."
Decker said the change would cost the state
about $15 million per year, but said the
investment would also help avoid higher costs
down the line because it would ensure better
outcomes — and therefore fewer urgent services
needed — for recipients.
About 29,000 Massachusetts families, including
52,000 children, currently live in deep poverty,
a number that bill co-author Sen. Sal DiDomenico
called "staggering."
"These families need our help," he said. "These
families have nowhere else to turn. These
families are on the edge of despair. And these
children who are in these families are growing
up in a way where they have no other idea of
what living a normal life looks like."
Advocates rallied at the State House Tuesday
morning before the bill came up for a committee
hearing, where they packed the room wearing
matching Lift Our Kids vests.
Pediatricians and psychologists focused closely
on the children who would benefit from greater
state aid to low-income families. Seth Kleinman,
a Danvers school social worker, said children
who live in poverty are often "completely
unavailable" for education because of hunger,
stress and other social and emotional issues.
"Being focused on the classroom is far from
their top priority," he said. "(Poverty) really
has myriad impacts on them."
The welfare cap repeal drew bipartisan support
earlier this year, passing 155-1 in the House
and 37-1 in the Senate before the Legislature
overrode Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's veto.
During Tuesday's hearing, the new proposal also
had Republican backing: Rep. Michael Soter, the
committee's ranking minority member, said he
"proudly" supports the bill, even after taking
"a lot of heat" for his vote in favor of the cap
repeal.
"As somebody who is pro-life, bringing a child
into life, into this world, and the fact that
they would be tied down in poverty — I'd be an
absolute hypocrite to oppose this bill," Soter
said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
A Boston Herald editorial
Carbon tax just another painful fee
Bay Staters will feel the pain
Carbon emissions are soon to become the latest
portal the state uses to reach the wallets of
Massachusetts taxpayers. A bill is gaining
momentum on Beacon Hill that would place a fee
on carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels.
The carbon tax would start at $20 per ton and
increase every year by $5, allegedly until the
fee reaches $40 per ton. Thirty percent of the
collected revenue — estimated to be between
$400M and $600M per year — would be siphoned off
for state and local government to embark on
renewable energy projects.
Among other goals, advocates of the bill hope to
incentivize people to move off of fossil fuel
consumption and on to more green options, which
would be comparable in price due to the carbon
tax.
Something we know such a tax would do is punish
the people and businesses in the commonwealth.
As the Herald’s Mary Markos reported, a
Beacon Hill Institute study found that the
average Massachusetts household would see its
tax bill increase by $755 in the first year. By
the fifth year, that annual tax load would
increase to $1,263. In addition, Massachusetts
would see a loss of 11,090 private sector jobs
in its first year, increasing to 18,240 by its
fifth, according to the study.
The analysis laid out in the study is stark:
“The tax would also, in the first year, reduce
business investment by $925 million, disposable
income by $1,950 million, and private employment
by 11,090 jobs. As time passed and the tax rate
rose, the carbon tax would produce more
substantial economic effects. By 2026,
investment would fall by $1,585 million,
disposable income by $3,266 million, and private
employment by 18,240 jobs.”
Those are staggering numbers and all for what?
To what degree will reducing the carbon
emissions in a small state with a population of
under 7 million affect a globe full of 7.53
billion people?
The answer is, likely not at all. The people of
Massachusetts will be fleeced once again with
nothing to show for it, while progressives in
upscale neighborhoods pat themselves on the back
for our sacrifices. Failed green energy
businesses and initiatives will litter the land
until the next green think tank presents our
lawmakers with another feel-good project on
which to spend our hard-earned money.
The bill at hand, An Act to Promote Green
Infrastructure and Reduce Carbon Emissions,
filed by Rep. Jennifer Benson (D-Lunenburg), is
cut from the same cloth as the Green New Deal.
It is aspirational, maybe even inspirational,
but also wholly impractical.
Proponents cannot be bothered by the facts,
though. Executive Director Michael Green of
Climate XChange, a non-profit with a mission to
fight climate change, countered that the study
doesn’t include the cost of “climate inaction.”
In other words, doing a dumb thing is still
better than doing nothing and those are
absolutely our only two choices. You either want
a carbon tax, straw ban, water bottle ban and
styrofoam ban or you are a climate denier.
Furthermore, since climate change is purportedly
the new World War II, if you are not all in you
are allied with the Axis forces.
Straight out of the AOC playbook.
No to the carbon tax. It’s just another tax
under a trendy name.
|
| |
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
|
