 |
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
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Another
Mass. Democrat Party power-grab, and a new tax
|
A bill overhauling campaign finance rules
for legislative candidates passed the House on Tuesday over
the objection of Republicans and a small number of Democrats
who saw the move as a "power play" by leaders to further
limit the influence of Republicans on Beacon Hill.
While many Republicans cheered the proposed
switch to a reporting system that would require more
frequent disclosures of campaign fundraising and spending,
GOP leaders objected to changes in the way the director of
the Office of Campaign and Political Finance is chosen....
"I think taking party chairs, both Democrats
and Republicans, out of the process is depoliticizing the
process. I think it's the right thing to do," [House Speaker
Robert DeLeo] said.
Critics, however, said the reform had the
potential to silence Republicans, with no guarantee that
anyone in charge of hiring the state's top campaign finance
regulator was a member of the state's second largest
political party.
The bill passed 121-35.
"We have a system that has worked for half a
century in Massachusetts, but now, because of personality or
a potential personality problem, we need to go change it?"
asked House Minority Leader Brad Jones.
Jones appeared to be making reference to new
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, a conservative firebrand and
former member of the House who has, at times, been to the
right of and at odds with prominent members of his party,
including Gov. Charlie Baker.
Rep. Marc Lombardo, a Billerica Republican,
also suggested that changes to the hiring process at OCPF
were added because Democratic leaders "don't like" Lyons.
"The deck is already stacked," Lombardo
complained, gesturing to the voting boards as an
illustration of the imbalance of power in the House. "This
really is ridiculous." ...
[House Minority Leader Brad Jones] and other
Republicans filed amendments to either keep components of
the current system, or ensure that a Republican has a seat
on the new commission. "This can be weaponized," warned Rep.
Shawn Dooley, a Norfolk Republican.
State House News Service
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
House approves campaign $$$ reporting, OCPF changes
Office of Campaign and Political Finance
Director Michael Sullivan is just setting out on a six-year
term but confirmed to the News Service that he plans to
retire sometime this fiscal year. Under current law, Gus
Bickford and James Lyons, chairs of the state Democratic and
Republican parties, respectively, have veto power over the
appointment of Sullivan's successor.
But it appears Democrats on Beacon Hill are
worried about Lyons, so they are rewriting the appointment
statute to take both party chairs out of the appointment
equation. Their proposal to create a new, five-member
commission to find a director cleared the House this week
along partisan lines and over protests from Republicans.
Speaker Robert DeLeo on Friday afternoon
released a vociferous defense of the bill, arguing that it
would take partisanship out of the process. The statement
came after DeLeo said he was "disheartened to see the merits
of bipartisanship weaponized for political points during the
debate on Wednesday."
"The OCPF, like the State Ethics Commission,
should be devoid of partisan politics and under no
circumstances should seats on a state commission charged
with appointing a state official with enforcement powers be
specifically reserved for members of any political party,"
DeLeo said.
The House bill also moves many candidates
and officeholders into a new system where they would report
campaign finance activity more frequently. Senate leaders
have not signaled when they will take up the bill, but it
suddenly appears this is an issue that Beacon Hill Democrats
are eager to address. Sullivan has been OCPF director since
1994, so his departure alone will force new leadership at
the agency for the first time in 25 years.
State House News Service
Friday, September 27, 2019
Advances - Week of Sept. 29, 2019
Tuesday is Oct. 1, and a new tax is
scheduled to hit employees to help fund the state's paid
family and medical leave law. To fund the program that's
meant to help people navigate crises without putting their
finances and wellbeing in peril, the state will begin
collecting a 0.75 percent payroll tax.
Of the total amount that will be deducted
through the payroll tax, 82.5 percent is meant to fund
medical leave benefits and the remaining 17.5 percent will
be directed to family leave benefits. Workers can be
responsible for contributing the entirety of the family
leave funding, but can only be responsible to pay up to 40
percent of the medical leave funding with the rest coming
from employers.
The Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML)
says that for every $100 a worker earns, a maximum of 38
cents will be deducted -- up to 25 cents to cover the
worker's medical leave contribution and up to 13 cents to
cover the employee's family leave contribution. Only a
worker's first $132,900 in annual earnings will be subject
to the payroll tax, DFML said.
The new paid family and medical leave law,
part of the June 2018 "grand bargain" law, calls for up to
12 weeks of job-protected paid leave to care for a seriously
ill or injured family member, to care for a new child, or to
meet family needs arising from a family member's active-duty
military service. It also authorizes up to 20 weeks of
job-protected paid leave to recover from a worker's own
serious illness or injury, or to care for a seriously ill or
injured service member.
Benefits will become available on Jan. 1,
2021 for workers seeking time off to bond with a new child,
take care of a sick or injured service member or to tend to
a serious personal health condition. On July 1, 2021,
benefits will be made available for workers to care for a
family member with a serious health condition.
State House News Service
Friday, September 27, 2019
Advances - Week of Sept. 29, 2019
The payroll tax to support the state’s paid
family and medical leave program goes into effect Tuesday —
renewing concerns among fiscal conservatives and members of
the business community about the hit on workers’ take-home
pay.
The Department of Family and Medical Leave
program — passed as part of a “grand bargain” in 2018 that
also included raising the minimum wage to $15 — won’t kick
in until January 2021.
But its funding mechanism, a payroll tax of
0.75% on workers’ earnings up to $132,900, begins Tuesday
after a three-month delay.
“Any time you reduce discretionary income of
employees, that’s a concern because you want money in the
paycheck, you want it to be take-home pay and you want it to
be spent out in the economy,” said Jon Hurst, president of
the Retailers Association of Massachusetts....
Hurst said getting employers up to speed on
the new tax was hard enough — let alone the employees who
are about to feel its effects.
“If you believe in mandated leave benefits,
then you’re probably OK with it,” Hurst said. “If you don’t
believe in that mandate, coming out of your paycheck, being
taxed to pay for someone else’s leave, you probably don’t
like the concept.”
The Boston Herald
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Business advocates on new payroll tax for paid family,
medical leave:
‘You’re going to feel’ it
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The State
House News Service reported this week:
A bill overhauling campaign
finance rules for legislative candidates passed the
House on Tuesday over the objection of Republicans
and a small number of Democrats who saw the move as
a "power play" by leaders to further limit the
influence of Republicans on Beacon Hill....
"I think taking
party chairs, both Democrats and Republicans, out of
the process is depoliticizing the process. I think
it's the right thing to do," [House Speaker Robert
DeLeo] said.
Critics,
however, said the reform had the potential to
silence Republicans, with no guarantee that anyone
in charge of hiring the state's top campaign finance
regulator was a member of the state's second largest
political party.
The bill passed
121-35.
"We have a
system that has worked for half a century in
Massachusetts, but now, because of personality or a
potential personality problem, we need to go change
it?" asked House Minority Leader Brad Jones.
Jones appeared
to be making reference to new MassGOP Chairman Jim
Lyons, a conservative firebrand and former member of
the House who has, at times, been to the right of
and at odds with prominent members of his party,
including Gov. Charlie Baker....
Office of
Campaign and Political Finance Director Michael
Sullivan is just setting out on a six-year term but
confirmed to the News Service that he plans to
retire sometime this fiscal year. Under current law,
Gus Bickford and James Lyons, chairs of the state
Democratic and Republican parties, respectively,
have veto power over the appointment of Sullivan's
successor.
But it appears
Democrats on Beacon Hill are worried about Lyons, so
they are rewriting the appointment statute to take
both party chairs out of the appointment equation.
Their proposal to create a new, five-member
commission to find a director cleared the House this
week along partisan lines and over protests from
Republicans.
Republicans
hold only 32 seats in the 160-seat House and a mere six
in the 40-seat Senate. Still the vast Democrat
majority doesn't feel it controls enough power on Beacon
Hill. There remains an area where more can be
accumulated and exercised —
making, determining, and enforcing campaign finance laws
as they see fit.
The State
House News Service further noted:
"This
is an obvious power play to eliminate any say that
the minority party has when it comes to selecting
the next OCPF director," Lyons said Wednesday
morning before the vote.
The bill proposed to create a new, five-person
commission that includes the governor, attorney
general and secretary of state, as well as an
elected municipal and an elected county official
picked by a majority of the three statewide
officeholders.
No more than three of the five commissioners could
be members of the same party, and four votes would
be required to hire a new director. Nothing in the
bill prevents the municipal or county official from
being unenrolled or a member of a non-major party.
"We felt it was time to bring in elected officials
who were held accountable to the system and a
diverse group and we think we're increasing minority
participation on the board to two out of the five,"
said Rep. John Lawn, the co-chair of the Election
Laws Committee.
Since
established in 1973 the
respected, neutral Office of Campaign & Political
Finance through a number or directors over the
decades has been administered as an independent entity
without bias or scandal — a rarity
in Massachusetts. This has been
accomplished very much because the chairmen of both
major political parties have had input and oversight on who
that director would be and the performance of the
agency.
The Democrats
want to put an end to that. Instead, they propose
to turn those decisions over to a governor, an attorney
general, a secretary of state, and an elected municipal
and elected county official.
If this
happens, how many non-Democrats do you suppose will
comprise the New OCPF — and
what will the agency become but an extension of the
state Democrat Party monopoly?
Why do they
want to do this?
Because they
can.
The Boston
Herald today ("Business advocates on new payroll tax for
paid family, medical leave: ‘You’re going to feel’ it"):
The
payroll tax to support the state’s paid family and
medical leave program goes into effect Tuesday —
renewing concerns among fiscal conservatives and
members of the business community about the hit on
workers’ take-home pay.
The Department of Family and Medical Leave program —
passed as part of a “grand bargain” in 2018 that
also included raising the minimum wage to $15 —
won’t kick in until January 2021.
But its funding mechanism, a payroll tax of 0.75% on
workers’ earnings up to $132,900, begins Tuesday
after a three-month delay....
Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of
Massachusetts said Massachusetts’ program is
“uncharted territory.”
“The jury is out, and we’re going to learn a lot in
2021 of how much it’s used and whether it’s abused,
and how much ultimately it’s going to cost,” he
said.
On March 9,
2010, speaking before the Legislative Conference for the
National Association of Counties on the Affordable Care
Act, which would become law two weeks later on March 23
launching "ObamaCare," U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
infamously stated:
"We
have to pass the bill so that you can find out what
is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
We found out
alright, and then eight years after U.S. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi took the entire country for a ride over the
cliff, apparently the president of the Retailers
Association of Massachusetts failed to learn the lesson,
or remembered what it had delivered, when he made his
deal with the devil in June of 2018 to seal "The Grand
Bargain."
To help
refresh memories, from the State House News Service,
June 20, 2018 ("Over
grumbles, lawmakers swiftly move wage, benefits deal to
Guv's desk"):
The House passed the compromise
bill Wednesday afternoon, 126-25, that would raise
the minimum wage to $15 and increase the wage for
tipped workers to $6.75 over five years. The bill
also phases out extra pay for workers who clock in
on Sundays and holidays, develops a program for paid
family and medical leave, and mandates an annual
summer sales tax-free weekend....
The legislation was the result
of months of negotiations, and as a result the Raise
Up coalition voted to drop its paid family and
medical leave ballot proposal. Retailers, after
scoring a series of concessions in the bill, have
also agreed to drop their proposed sales tax ballot
question....
Retailers Association of
Massachusetts President Jon Hurst, who agreed to
drop his own ballot question that would have cut the
sales tax from 6.25 percent to 5 percent as a result
of the deal, said his position won't change if Raise
Up continues on to the ballot with the minimum wage
question as long as the compromise bill becomes law.
The
"compromise" — "The Grand
Bargain" as it was called — became law in
June of last year and now we're finding out "what is in
it" — or as Mr. Hurst
noted, "how much it’s used and whether it’s abused, and
how much ultimately it’s going to cost" every taxpayer
who works for a living.
The
Massachusetts Retailers Association as part of its
"compromise" pulled the association's Sales Tax Rollback
question off the ballot, a question that polls showed
had strong support. CLT members had helped MRA get
the necessary signatures to put the sales tax rollback
on the ballot.
Taxpayers have
every right to complain bitterly about being hit now
with this sneaky new payroll tax. Gov. Baker
happily signed the bill into law in a big ceremony.
The State House New Service
reported at the time:
"That
one's a done deal," Baker said at 10:36 a.m. after
his signature was on the law. The governor used
several pens to sign his name and distributed each
to the lawmakers standing behind him. The ceremonial
office was packed with reporters, cameras, aides to
the governor and staffers from various legislative
offices....
The
Republican governor, who is up for reelection this
fall, has repeatedly voiced a general opposition to
broad-based tax increases but in signing the
compromise bill Thursday he gave the green light to
a new payroll tax expected to pull in about $800
million.
The Retailers
Association knew this day would arrive when it signed
onto the "compromise."
That day is
here. Another huge new spending program.
Another $800 million deducted from working state
taxpayers' pay checks.
It's just another typical
day in "Progressive" Taxachusetts.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
House approves campaign $$$ reporting, OCPF
changes
By Matt Murphy
A bill overhauling campaign finance rules for
legislative candidates passed the House on
Tuesday over the objection of Republicans and a
small number of Democrats who saw the move as a
"power play" by leaders to further limit the
influence of Republicans on Beacon Hill.
While many Republicans cheered the proposed
switch to a reporting system that would require
more frequent disclosures of campaign
fundraising and spending, GOP leaders objected
to changes in the way the director of the Office
of Campaign and Political Finance is chosen.
The bill would create a new commission in charge
of hiring the director of OCPF that would no
longer include the chairs of the Democratic and
Republican parties.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and other supporters
said the change would prevent a situation like
the one occurring in Washington, D.C., where the
Federal Elections Commission has too few members
to conduct business.
"I think taking party chairs, both Democrats and
Republicans, out of the process is
depoliticizing the process. I think it's the
right thing to do," DeLeo said.
Critics, however, said the reform had the
potential to silence Republicans, with no
guarantee that anyone in charge of hiring the
state's top campaign finance regulator was a
member of the state's second largest political
party.
The bill passed 121-35.
"We have a system that has worked for half a
century in Massachusetts, but now, because of
personality or a potential personality problem,
we need to go change it?" asked House Minority
Leader Brad Jones.
Jones appeared to be making reference to new
MassGOP Chairman Jim Lyons, a conservative
firebrand and former member of the House who
has, at times, been to the right of and at odds
with prominent members of his party, including
Gov. Charlie Baker.
Rep. Marc Lombardo, a Billerica Republican, also
suggested that changes to the hiring process at
OCPF were added because Democratic leaders
"don't like" Lyons.
"The deck is already stacked," Lombardo
complained, gesturing to the voting boards as an
illustration of the imbalance of power in the
House. "This really is ridiculous."
The bill (H 4087) would newly require
legislators and candidates for House and Senate
seats to set up depository committees with a
bank, similar to statewide candidates. Itemized
disclosures would be filed quarterly for the
first 18 months of the two-year election cycle,
and before the primary and general elections of
an election year.
The number of reports for each candidate would
increase from five per cycle to nine, and banks
would also have to report contribution and
expenditure balances monthly.
The controversial part of the bill, however, had
to do with how the director of OCPF is hired.
OCPF Director Michael Sullivan, who has held the
job since 1994, was reappointed to new six-year
term last November, but there is rampant
speculation at the State House that he may soon
retire.
"This is an obvious power play to eliminate any
say that the minority party has when it comes to
selecting the next OCPF director," Lyons said
Wednesday morning before the vote.
The bill proposed to create a new, five-person
commission that includes the governor, attorney
general and secretary of state, as well as an
elected municipal and an elected county official
picked by a majority of the three statewide
officeholders.
No more than three of the five commissioners
could be members of the same party, and four
votes would be required to hire a new director.
Nothing in the bill prevents the municipal or
county official from being unenrolled or a
member of a non-major party.
"We felt it was time to bring in elected
officials who were held accountable to the
system and a diverse group and we think we're
increasing minority participation on the board
to two out of the five," said Rep. John Lawn,
the co-chair of the Election Laws Committee.
Jones and other Republicans filed amendments to
either keep components of the current system, or
ensure that a Republican has a seat on the new
commission. "This can be weaponized," warned
Rep. Shawn Dooley, a Norfolk Republican.
The GOP leaders, however, could only muster a
smattering of Democratic votes to their side,
mostly from conservative Democrats and members
who have been critical of DeLeo and House
leadership.
"What we're doing today will take away the
stalemate possibility," said Rep. Michael Day, a
Stoneham Democrat.
Lawn also dismissed the argument that Democrats
were trying to fix a system that isn't broken.
He pointed out that the current OCPF commission
is supposed to include a dean of a Massachusetts
law school, appointed by the governor, but
hasn't had one for close to 10 years.
"I think it's broken right away when you say we
can't get a law school dean to participate in
the commission in close to 10 years," Lawn said.
He said he didn't know why Baker or previous
governors had not made the appointment.
The bill also proposes to create a legislative
commission led by Lawn and Sen. Barry Finegold,
the co-chairs of the Election Laws Committee, to
study the feasibility of allowing candidates to
use political funds to pay for child care.
The idea has been pitched in the past as a way
to open the political system to more people,
including single parents and women who see the
cost of child care as an impediment to running
for public office.
The Boston
Herald
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Business advocates on new payroll tax for paid
family, medical leave:
‘You’re going to feel’ it
By Lisa Kashinsky
The payroll tax to support the state’s paid
family and medical leave program goes into
effect Tuesday — renewing concerns among fiscal
conservatives and members of the business
community about the hit on workers’ take-home
pay.
The Department of Family and Medical Leave
program — passed as part of a “grand bargain” in
2018 that also included raising the minimum wage
to $15 — won’t kick in until January 2021.
But its funding mechanism, a payroll tax of
0.75% on workers’ earnings up to $132,900,
begins Tuesday after a three-month delay.
“Any time you reduce discretionary income of
employees, that’s a concern because you want
money in the paycheck, you want it to be
take-home pay and you want it to be spent out in
the economy,” said Jon Hurst, president of the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts.
Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
said, “It means they’re going to get less in
their paycheck and most workers will actually
see the difference — they’ll notice it. This is
a benefit that not all workers will be able to
take advantage of. It’s a negative thing for the
state.”
Of the payroll tax, 82.5% is meant to fund
medical leave and 17.5% will be put toward
family leave. That means out of a maximum of 38
cents deducted per $100, up to 25 cents will go
toward medical leave and 13 cents to family
leave. For a worker earning $50,000 annually,
the 0.75% payroll tax amounts to $375 a year.
“You’re going to feel this tax,” Craney said.
“That’s a night out to dinner or a tank of gas.
It’s a big problem.”
Hurst said getting employers up to speed on the
new tax was hard enough — let alone the
employees who are about to feel its effects.
“If you believe in mandated leave benefits, then
you’re probably OK with it,” Hurst said. “If you
don’t believe in that mandate, coming out of
your paycheck, being taxed to pay for someone
else’s leave, you probably don’t like the
concept.”
Under the program, workers are eligible for the
following on Jan. 1, 2021:
● Up to 12 weeks of paid family leave per
year to bond with a new child.
● Up to 20 weeks of paid medical leave in
a benefit year for a serious health condition.
● Up to 26 weeks of paid family leave to
care for a family member who is a service member
with a serious health condition.
Beginning July 1, 2021, workers can also get up
to 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for a
family member with a serious health condition.
The program includes job protection — though not
for contractors — and benefits of up to $850 per
week.
The majority of New England workers, 87%, lack
access to paid family leave, and 61% lack access
to paid medical leave, according to a fact sheet
for the original legislation, which advocated
for the program to help women remain in the
workforce and increase the health of mothers,
newborns and the elderly. Massachusetts follows
other states with mandated paid family and
medical leave include California, New Jersey,
Rhode Island and New York.
Hurst said Massachusetts’ program is “uncharted
territory.”
“The jury is out, and we’re going to learn a lot
in 2021 of how much it’s used and whether it’s
abused, and how much ultimately it’s going to
cost,” he said.
Herald wire services contributed to this report.
|
| |
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
|
