 |
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, October 6, 2019
Proposition 2˝ again under
attack
|
PROP 2˝ (S-2350)
Senate 34-4, approved an amendment requiring
the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to
analyze the impact of Proposition 2˝ on the ability of
municipalities to make their required local contributions in
the short-term and long-term and recommendations to mitigate
the constraints of Proposition 2˝.
Prop 2˝ allows communities to raise property
taxes only 2.5 percent a year over the previous year’s levy.
The limit can be overridden by a majority of voters.
Amendment supporters said many cities and
towns are willing to step up and to tax themselves more to
pay for vital services but Proposition 2˝ puts a cap on
that. They said that once the levy limit is reached, towns
have no ability to raise revenue to pay for services and
have to start laying people off and cutting services.
“Since the moment I began campaigning, I
heard about the pressure that multiple municipalities in my
district are under as a result of Prop. 2˝ constraints,”
said the amendment’s sponsor Sen. Jo Comerford
(D-Northampton). “A major driver of municipal expenses has
been education. These towns want to go the distance for our
schools, and so it is only fitting that we use this
education legislation to understand the impact Prop 2˝ is
having on their ability to help fund our schools, and then
work with these communities to find an equitable way
forward.”
"Proposition 2˝ caps property tax hikes
unilaterally imposed by municipal officials at 2.5 percent,
but there is no limit to how much willing municipal
taxpayers can tax themselves through a Proposition 2˝
operational override — if a majority of the city’s or town’s
electorate is so inclined," said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation (CLT), the
group that created and put Prop 2˝ on the 1980 ballot. "If
those officials want to spend more, let them ask their
constituents for more to spend. This is precisely why CLT
proposed its property tax cap and why voters overwhelmingly
adopted it. They can 'study the impact' but a solution is in
their hands."
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 44 - Report No. 40
By Bob Katzen
September 30-October 4, 2019
EDUCATION FUNDING: Question came on ordering
S-2350 relative to educational opportunity for students
redrafted by the Ways and Means Committee to a third
reading.
COMERFORD AMENDMENT 27 - Analyze Impact of Proposition 2˝ .
. .
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 34-4, the amendment
was ADOPTED. Time was 6:24 p.m.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 3, 2019
SENATE SESSION – THURSDAY, OCT. 3, 2019
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (UBI) OF $1,000 PER
MONTH (S-84)
A bill before the Community Development and
Small Businesses Committee would establish and implement a
3-year pilot program that gives 100 individual participants
$1,000 per month to determine the individual, family and
community economic impacts and state-level cost savings of a
universal basic income. The participants would be from
economically diverse cities or towns, including rural areas.
The program would then issue a report
including the plusses and minuses of basic universal income;
how it could be used to address historic and contemporary
inequalities including institutional racism; and
recommendations on implementing a statewide UBI program.
“The UBI bill provides individuals with
financial relief and choices that are not possible with
their current financial situation,” said the bill’s sponsor
Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton). “It eliminates the
bureaucracy of government-provide benefit programs.”
Supporters say it is time to try a pilot
program of this often-discussed concept and then analyze it
and see how it worked. They say UBI could be a key to
alleviating poverty and note it would help workers impacted
by job automation and provide Americans with a safety net.
They point out that a recent study from
earlier this year on Finland’s UBI pilot program found that
recipients reported greater general well-being, less stress,
improved physical and mental health and an increase in
confidence about having a bright future.
Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew
Yang is a big supporter of UBI and it is one of the
cornerstones of his campaign.
Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation is not big on the idea, to
say the least. “Will selecting The ‘Lucky Hundred Pilots’
work out as well as the low-number license plate lottery,
where many winners are seemingly connected to how much they
contribute to whom?” asked Ford. “What an insane idea, even
for Massachusetts. We’re told the state has a ‘revenue
shortage’ and needs to raise taxes, but incredibly,
legislators now want to give away even more working stiffs’
hard-earned money on such foolishness. The breaking point is
quickly approaching, let’s speed it along.”
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 44 - Report No. 40
By Bob Katzen
September 30-October 4, 2019
With the second quarter of the state's
fiscal year set to open on Tuesday, the Massachusetts
Legislature still has not closed out the books on the budget
year that ended three months ago.
Massachusetts taxpayers delivered more than
enough revenue to run state government in fiscal 2019, but
legislators have yet to decide how to use the surplus.
Former Comptroller Thomas Shack for years
tried to remind lawmakers of the importance of taking timely
action on a so-called "closeout supp," but lawmakers in
recent years have opted to wait longer and longer to pass
that bill, taking it up in October or even November, rather
than August or September as they used to do in the late
1990s and early 2000s.
The comptroller must close the books on the
fiscal year that ends each June 30 and file the annual
Statutory Basis Financial Report by Oct. 31. To adhere to
that schedule and follow industry best practices, a final
supplemental budget should be approved by Aug. 31 each year,
Shack had argued.
State House News Service
Monday, September 30, 2019
Last year's spending choices still unresolved on Hill
With a new tax to fund the state's paid
family and medical leave program set to take effect Tuesday,
Gov. Charlie Baker rejected calls by the state's largest
public union to relieve state employees of the obligation to
pay into the system.
The National Association of Government
Employees, which has more than 22,000 members in
Massachusetts government, slammed the Baker administration
this month for not covering employees' share of the new
payroll tax as other public employers, including both the
House and Senate, reportedly did.
Baker said Monday that he disagrees with
their criticism and believes all state employees should
contribute to the program.
"Our view is that state government, like
everybody else, should comply with the law," Baker told
reporters after a groundbreaking event in Quincy. "The law
was basically the part of a bargain between advocates and
labor unions and the Legislature, and I think it's important
for state government to abide by the law that is going to
apply to everybody else. I think that's only fair."
The $800 million program — outlined in the
"grand bargain" law that Baker signed last summer to avert
several ballot questions — will allow employees to take up
to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child, tend to
an ill family member, or cope with a loved one's active
military deployment. Workers can also take up to 20 weeks to
recover from a serious illness or injury or to care for a
service member who is ill or injured.
Benefits to care for a new child or sick
service member or to manage a health issue become available
on Jan. 1, 2021, while paid leave to care for ill family
members will become available on July 1, 2021. Employees
would be capped at receiving $850 per week in pay while on
leave.
State House News Service
Monday, September 30, 2019
Baker: State employee leave contributions "only fair"
The states are also eyeing a 10-year horizon
for the program that will include a cap on emissions from
both sources of motor fuel that begins in early 2022 and
ratchets down every year through 2032, according to state
energy officials and advocates.
The Transportation Climate Initiative [TCI],
which is a multi-state coalition working to build a program
to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector,
released a draft framework of the program Tuesday....
Gov. Charlie Baker in late 2018 committed
Massachusetts to the TCI along with 11 other states and the
District of Columbia in an effort to tackle climate change
throughout the region, not just Massachusetts.
Modeled on the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative that targeted emissions from power plants, TCI
states are focused on developing a cap-and-invest program to
drive down emissions from cars and trucks and facilitate the
transition to a low-carbon transportation system.
The states currently involved are
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Virginia....
State fuel suppliers who transport fuel
across state lines will be the entities to hold and trade
emission allowances based on cap levels that still must be
set. Theoharides said there are hundreds of these suppliers
across the 13 TCI jurisdictions.
"Fuel suppliers would have to report their
emissions and their compliance would be calculated based on
how much emissions their fuel would produce when combusted,"
Theoharides said....
Where the cap is set and how fast it
declines will signal how aggressive states want to be in
reducing emissions and how much money will be generated from
the sale of allowances for states to invest in low-carbon
transportation options and how much more consumers will end
up paying for gas.
The state chapter of the National Federation
of Independent Business pointed to a study that found a
similar cap-and-trade program in California targeting
refinery emissions added 13 to 14 cents to a gallon of gas.
"Will (Massachusetts) suffer the same fate?"
the group asked on Twitter....
In legislation filed by governor in July,
Baker proposed to earmark half of the revenue Massachusetts
receives through TCI for the MBTA.
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Fuel suppliers at heart of Transpo initiative
But as senators prepared this week for a
debate over $1.5 billion in new spending on public
education, Gov. Charlie Baker thought it would be a good
time to sprinkle a few numbers on the plate to season the
discussion.
An analysis of the education funding reform
bill, produced by the Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, looked like a fairly straight forward case of
addition. Over the next seven years, the state's direct aid
to cities and towns for schools would climb by over $2.1
billion, including inflation, to make up for years of
underfunding....
The speaker, the Senate president and the
authors of the bill all struck out at the governor, accusing
him of deliberately releasing "misleading" data to muddy the
waters the day before the Senate debate.
It's complicated, they said. The governor's
numbers only paint part of the picture, they argued. You
can't predict inflation or enrollment trends, they asserted.
The bottom line was that Democratic
leadership preferred to explain the caveats to members
behind closed doors rather allow a set of district funding
figures that might be a little fluid to leave the public
with the wrong impression. They didn't have better figures
they were willing to share publicly, but they didn't like
his. . . .
Climate activists would probably ban carbon
if they could, but short of that 12 states and the District
of Columbia put out a framework of a regional pact that
would seek to drive down emissions from cars and trucks.
The states participating in the
Transportation Climate Initiative said this week they would
target motor gas and on-road diesel for a cap-and-trade
program that would put a price on carbon in the
transportation sector.
Fuel suppliers would be the ones buying and
selling carbon allowances, but some business groups warned
that it will still be drivers paying the price at the
pump....
Energy Secretary Kathleen Theoharides has
been playing a key role in wrangling the states, and she
said details on the cap will be included in a draft
memorandum of understanding to be released in December.
State House News Service
Friday, October 4, 2019
Weekly Roundup - Adding Up
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
The Legislature has 18 months every two
years to hold formal sessions and take action on major
bills. By Tuesday, the midway point in that 18-month
journey, Massachusetts lawmakers had little to show in terms
of major accomplishments, beyond laws helping public sector
unions recover costs, enabling benefits to flow to families
that have more children while receiving public assistance,
and banning conversion therapy for minors.
The slow start is par for the course for the
Legislature, which can't seem to break, or isn't interested
in breaking, its habit of leaving its most important
business to the final days and even minutes of formal
sessions every other year. . . .
State House News Service
Friday, October 4, 2019
Advances - Week of Oct. 6, 2019
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The next
assault on Proposition 2˝ was
adopted by the state Senate this week, an amendment
introduced to the Education Funding Bill that passed by
a vote of 34 in favor to only 4 opposed. There are
six Republicans in the Senate. We should have been
able to expect at a bare minimum six "no" votes. Pathetically too
typical among Massachusetts RINOs, two alleged
Republicans voted with the vast Democrat majority
to the latest stealth assault on Proposition 2˝.
I'm fed up with those
self-proclaimed "Republicans" who regularly put
go-along-to-get-along "collegiality" ahead of
positions and principles
they profess to hold when running for election and
re-election. They can be dependably counted upon
to spout flowery oratory at campaign stops,
fund-raisers, and during
floor debates, but when the votes are counted they are
just as dependably on the wrong side of their rhetoric.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce
Tarr (R-Gloucester) and Sen. Patrick O'Connor
(R-Weymouth) voted to "analyze the impact of
Proposition 2˝ on the ability of municipalities to make
their required local contributions in the short-term and
long-term and recommendations to mitigate the
constraints of Proposition 2˝."
While their two votes wouldn't have changed the outcome,
their two votes did
provide a "bipartisan" stamp of
legitimacy.
They sold out not only taxpayers
and constituents but the Republican Party brand.
The only Republicans left standing
in the Massachusetts Senate who defended Proposition 2˝
are Sen. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), Sen. Ryan Fattman
(R-Sutton), Sen. Donald Humason (R-Westfield), and Sen.
Dean Tran (R-Fitchburg).
AMENDMENT #27 / ROLL CALL VOTE #102
During the Thursday debate Sen. Eric P. Lesser
(D-Longmeadow), a supporter of Sen. Joanne M.
Comerford's (D-Northampton) amendment to weaken and
compromise Proposition 2˝, said:
“. . . As a result, some of our
lowest-income communities have higher property tax
rates than many of our wealthy communities. A
lot of our towns are willing to step up and to tax
themselves more to pay for these vital services but
Proposition 2˝ puts a cap on that.
“The real-life consequence is
once the levy limit is reached, towns have no
ability to raise revenue to pay for services.
What happens is you hit the ceiling and cannot raise
property taxes anymore and there are no more ways to
collect additional revenue and yet other costs
continue to rise. Those towns have to start
laying people off and cutting services. . . .”
This is simply not
true.
Proposition 2˝ limits
how much city or town officials can unilaterally
increase its municipality's property tax (along with any
additional new growth). Preventing past such
excesses was the very necessity
and purpose of Proposition 2˝. Municipal
officials can
now only increase its property tax levy by 2.5
percent a year —
its statutory “ceiling.” Before CLT's Prop 2˝ was
adopted, municipal officials regularly raised property
taxes on a whim, with no consideration of taxpayers'
ability to pay, or to resist and prevent. If municipal officials wanted to
increase taxes they simply just took it —
and they took
it often and regularly.
There is also
“excess capacity” to recognize, built into our law (see
the State House News Service report below) which some
municipalities have not reached, have not used all of that
available 2.5 percent increase over the years and can
use it to catch-up, so to speak.
Most importantly
—
there is no limit to how much willing municipal
taxpayers can tax themselves through a
Proposition 2˝ operational override — if a majority of
the city’s or town’s electorate is so inclined, or able
to be convinced. The only limit to how much more
is how many property taxpayers are willing to
impose a larger tax burden upon themselves and their
neighbors.
A willing (if
masochistic) majority can hike their (and their
neighbors’) tax rate to a million bucks per $1,000
assessed value if that's what a callous majority wants –
though they’ll never be able to sell their homes, or pay
their first property tax bill and will lose them to the
town. But if enough voters have a sufficient death
wish, under Proposition 2˝ they can so choose to commit
and impose mass economic seppuku.
In the CLT
Update of March 11 ("CLT
saved motorists $1.3 Billion —
just last year") the State House News Service
reported ("Property
tax override attempts in Mass. at 30-year low"):
. . . The report also looked at
a category known as "excess capacity," or the amount
of additional taxes a city or town may collect
without seeking to override Proposition 2˝, which
limits local property tax increases. At $611
million, excess capacity has nearly tripled in the
last decade. In fiscal 2018, excess capacity grew by
$48 million, or 8.5 percent, the first time since
fiscal 2010 that growth has not exceeded 10 percent.
Proposition 2˝ is all
that stands between homeowners and local government
confiscation. It is perennially under attack.
The Socialist-Democrats would love nothing more than to
repeal it and have been
trying for decades, but for now they'll settle for watering it
down if they can get away with it. They're only
proposing too "analyze the impact"
—
for now. But you know how their "analysis" will
inevitably turn
out.
And you know for a
certainty what will surely follow, to "mitigate the
constraints of Proposition 2˝."
Just when you
think things can't possibly get any crazier on Beacon Hill
along comes loony-left state Sen. Jamie Eldridge's
proposal for "Universal Basic Income" (S-84).
$1,200,000
a year for three years handed out to 100 participant "pilots" to do nothing,
$3.6 million over three years. What could possibly
go wrong with that? The Beacon Hill pols will see how that works out
then expand it.
$1,000 free
money paid every month to The Lucky Hundred to
"determine the individual, family and community economic
impacts and state-level cost savings of a universal
basic income . . . provides individuals with financial
relief and choices that are not possible with their
current financial situation.”
There's no
word on how The Lucky Hundred will be selected
— but this being
Massachusetts we can, of course, count on it to be all
"above board," right?
"They say UBI
could be a key to alleviating poverty and note it would
help workers impacted by job automation and provide
Americans with a safety net."
When everyone
in the state is collecting their monthly "universal
basic income" check who will be paying for it?
That must be
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren's favorite foil, those
despicable one-percenters, again —
a diminishing number of those remaining behind to be
further pillaged.
More likely,
expanding free cash handouts will go to the pols'
favored constituencies —
while the rest of productive taxpayers unable or
unwilling to relocate will be further burdened to fund
the vastly expensive handouts.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Thursday, October 3, 2019
SENATE SESSION – THURSDAY, OCT. 3, 2019
EDUCATION FUNDING: Question came on ordering
S-2350 relative to educational opportunity for
students redrafted by the Ways and Means
Committee to a third reading.
COMERFORD AMENDMENT 27 - Analyze Impact of
Proposition 2˝
Sen. Comerford said, thank you. What this
amendment does is it requires DESE to consider
the impact of Proposition 2˝ on local
communities and their ability to make required
local contributions.
Some of my towns and your towns are bumping up
against the Prop 2˝ ceiling, and some of my
towns have the highest tax rates in the
commonwealth. The towns want to contribute to
public education spending. They are, however,
constrained. In Prop 2˝, municipalities are
subject to two ceilings.
The first is the amount raised by a municipality
shall not exceed 2.5 percent the assessed value
of all property in it. The second is the annual
increase.
For many of our towns in the Hampden, Franklin
and Worcester District, the constraints of Prop
2˝ is making it impossible to meet the needs of
our districts. Of the top 20 highest taxpaying
municipalities in the commonwealth, seven are in
the Hampden, Franklin and Worcester District.
We're facing many challenges such as still no
broadband in any communities. This will allow us
to analyze the impact and grapple with the
impacts.
Sen. Comerford requested a roll call vote.
There was sufficient support.
Sen. Lesser said, I rise in support of
this amendment. This is an urgent need. We have
to examine our underly property tax system in
the state.
One important way to illuminate this is to show
a list of the communities in Massachusetts with
the highest property tax rates, the top 50
towns. The highlighted ones come from Worcester,
Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire or Berkshire
counties. Almost all of the highest property tax
towns are in Western Massachusetts.
In Western Mass., for a variety of reasons, we
have economic growth that is not as robust as
other parts of the state. Those forces combine
to mean overall property values in our region
are flat or going down, in some cases down
precipitously. When property values are flat or
falling you need to raise the rate just to keep
up with inflation and incremental costs that
every town faces.
As a result, some of our lowest-income
communities have higher property tax rates than
many of our wealthy communities. A lot of our
towns are willing to step up and to tax
themselves more to pay for these vital services
but Proposition 2˝ puts a cap on that.
The real-life consequence is once the levy limit
is reached, towns have no ability to raise
revenue to pay for services. What happens is you
hit the ceiling and cannot raise property taxes
anymore and there are no more ways to collect
additional revenue and yet other costs continue
to rise. Those towns have to start laying people
off and cutting services.
It's a ticking time bomb for our communities and
is an urgent municipal finance problem facing
our communities. The conversations around
Chapter 70 shows how dependent on state aid
cities and towns are.
The subject of broader municipal finance reform
is part and parcel with a real conversation
about education equities. I hope the amendment
is adopted.
BY A
ROLL CALL VOTE
OF 34-4, the amendment was
ADOPTED. Time was 6:24 p.m.
State House News
Service
Monday, September 30, 2019
Last year's spending choices still unresolved on
Hill
By Michael P. Norton
With the second quarter of the state's fiscal
year set to open on Tuesday, the Massachusetts
Legislature still has not closed out the books
on the budget year that ended three months ago.
Massachusetts taxpayers delivered more than
enough revenue to run state government in fiscal
2019, but legislators have yet to decide how to
use the surplus.
Former Comptroller Thomas Shack for years tried
to remind lawmakers of the importance of taking
timely action on a so-called "closeout supp,"
but lawmakers in recent years have opted to wait
longer and longer to pass that bill, taking it
up in October or even November, rather than
August or September as they used to do in the
late 1990s and early 2000s.
The comptroller must close the books on the
fiscal year that ends each June 30 and file the
annual Statutory Basis Financial Report by Oct.
31. To adhere to that schedule and follow
industry best practices, a final supplemental
budget should be approved by Aug. 31 each year,
Shack had argued.
"This is the fourth fiscal year that I've
operated as the commonwealth's comptroller and
this is the fourth year under my comptrollership
that we will not meet the statutory deadline,"
Shack said last October. "I would reiterate that
such late activity is really perilous. It's a
well-known risk within the audit world that if
you do not meet your own statutory obligations
you may well subject yourself to really, really
significant scrutiny."
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg last October echoed
Shack's concerns, citing rating agency scrutiny
and "not a real strict adherence to the
deadlines, which are critical in terms of how
the outside world looks at all of this, so sort
of getting away with this, it's sort of like
kids getting away with stuff for too long."
On Monday, new Comptroller Andrew Maylor took a
less critical view of the situation, telling the
News Service he'd like to see action on a
closeout fiscal 2019 budget "the sooner the
better."
"We're waiting patiently," he said. "We
recognize that the Legislature has a lot to do.
We continue to work with the Legislature and the
governor's office."
A growing economy and conservative tax revenue
estimates have left state government in
Massachusetts swimming in excess revenue,
helping budget writers to make a larger than
usual contribution this year to K-12 education
and to build the state's rainy day fund account
up to more than $3 billion.
Gov. Charlie Baker filed his $648 million
closeout budget on Sept. 6, recommending $100
million in new education investments and funding
to address fentanyl trafficking, drinking water
contaminants, and local roads and bridges.
Under the governor's bill (H 4067), the income
tax exemption for dependents would also rise
from $1,000 to $2,000, benefiting taxpayers who
have children or care for dependent relatives
who are elderly or have a disability.
The governor's bill poses a tax relief question
for lawmakers who are planning a debate on tax
and revenue increases to pay for transportation
investments.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Karen Spilka have declined to stake out
positions on the tax relief proposal.
The governor's appropriations bill is pending
before the House Ways and Means Committee,
chaired by Rep. Aaron Michlewitz. A committee
spokesman said the panel continues to work on it
and hopes to take it up "sometime in the near
future."
State House News
Service
Monday, September 30, 2019
Baker: State employee leave contributions "only
fair"
By Chris Lisinski
With a new tax to fund the state's paid family
and medical leave program set to take effect
Tuesday, Gov. Charlie Baker rejected calls by
the state's largest public union to relieve
state employees of the obligation to pay into
the system.
The National Association of Government
Employees, which has more than 22,000 members in
Massachusetts government, slammed the Baker
administration this month for not covering
employees' share of the new payroll tax as other
public employers, including both the House and
Senate, reportedly did.
Baker said Monday that he disagrees with their
criticism and believes all state employees
should contribute to the program.
"Our view is that state government, like
everybody else, should comply with the law,"
Baker told reporters after a groundbreaking
event in Quincy. "The law was basically the part
of a bargain between advocates and labor unions
and the Legislature, and I think it's important
for state government to abide by the law that is
going to apply to everybody else. I think that's
only fair."
The $800 million program — outlined in the
"grand bargain" law that Baker signed last
summer to avert several ballot questions — will
allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of paid
leave to care for a new child, tend to an ill
family member, or cope with a loved one's active
military deployment. Workers can also take up to
20 weeks to recover from a serious illness or
injury or to care for a service member who is
ill or injured.
Benefits to care for a new child or sick service
member or to manage a health issue become
available on Jan. 1, 2021, while paid leave to
care for ill family members will become
available on July 1, 2021. Employees would be
capped at receiving $850 per week in pay while
on leave.
The job-protected benefits will be funded by a
new 0.75 percent payroll tax that goes into
effect Tuesday. Specific deductions will vary by
employers, but they can require workers to
contribute up to 40 percent of their total
medical leave contribution and up to 100 percent
of their total family leave contribution.
State officials say affected employees will see
a maximum of 38 cents taken out of every $100
earned.
NAGE sparred with the Baker administration this
month as it and other unions negotiated over
what rates employees and public employers will
pay.
In a Sept. 19 press release, the union said that
Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Auditor Suzanne
Bump, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, Senate
President Karen Spilka and county sheriffs had
all agreed to use state resources to cover the
entirety of their staffs' PFMLA assessment
costs.
NAGE criticized the administration — which
covers the entire executive branch and has far
more employees — for not agreeing to similar
terms.
"When you look at what the Constitutional
officers, the Speaker, and the Senate President
have decided to do versus what the Governor is
doing, the difference is stark. Their actions
speak volumes about them not only as leaders but
even more importantly, as employers," NAGE
National President David Holway said in the
release. "Now they continue to walk the walk by
setting an example for employers around the
state. It's too bad that Governor Baker
continues to be so consumed by the scandals in
his administration that he has completely failed
to do the right thing for his employees."
State House News
Service
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Fuel suppliers at heart of Transpo initiative
By Matt Murphy
The coalition of eastern states developing a
program to drive down carbon emissions from
transportation has decided to focus on motor
gasoline and on-road diesel, two sources of
pollution that account for over 80 percent of
carbon emissions in the region.
The states are also eyeing a 10-year horizon for
the program that will include a cap on emissions
from both sources of motor fuel that begins in
early 2022 and ratchets down every year through
2032, according to state energy officials and
advocates.
The Transportation Climate Initiative, which is
a multi-state coalition working to build a
program to reduce carbon pollution from the
transportation sector, released a draft
framework of the program Tuesday.
The framework is the first in a series of steps
that the coalition has mapped out in hopes of
getting states to sign on to an agreement by
spring 2020. An emissions cap is still being
negotiated, making it too soon to estimate how
much revenue the state will take in and how much
more consumers could expect to pay at the pump.
Gov. Charlie Baker in late 2018 committed
Massachusetts to the TCI along with 11 other
states and the District of Columbia in an effort
to tackle climate change throughout the region,
not just Massachusetts.
Modeled on the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative that targeted emissions from power
plants, TCI states are focused on developing a
cap-and-invest program to drive down emissions
from cars and trucks and facilitate the
transition to a low-carbon transportation
system.
The states currently involved are Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary
Kathleen Theoharides, who has been helping to
lead the work of the 12 states, said the
framework covers all fuel that's on the roads,
but not jet fuel or boat fuel.
State fuel suppliers who transport fuel across
state lines will be the entities to hold and
trade emission allowances based on cap levels
that still must be set. Theoharides said there
are hundreds of these suppliers across the 13
TCI jurisdictions.
"Fuel suppliers would have to report their
emissions and their compliance would be
calculated based on how much emissions their
fuel would produce when combusted," Theoharides
said.
While states are still studying and negotiating
where to set the emission cap, the secretary
said the intention of the states is for the cap
to decline every year. The proposed cap will be
announced as part of a draft memorandum of
understanding in December.
Where the cap is set and how fast it declines
will signal how aggressive states want to be in
reducing emissions and how much money will be
generated from the sale of allowances for states
to invest in low-carbon transportation options
and how much more consumers will end up paying
for gas.
The state chapter of the National Federation of
Independent Business pointed to a study that
found a similar cap-and-trade program in
California targeting refinery emissions added 13
to 14 cents to a gallon of gas.
"Will (Massachusetts) suffer the same fate?" the
group asked on Twitter.
Theoharides said that the difference between TCI
and a gas tax is point of regulation and the
market element of the program, which will allow
carbon allowances to be auctioned and traded by
suppliers.
The Baker administration has estimated that the
sale of allowances could generate between $150
million to $500 million a year for
Massachusetts.
"One of the two most significant remaining
questions is what is that cap level and will it
really be aligned with the climate crisis we're
facing because we are running out of time to
take significant action," said Jordan Stutt,
carbon programs director at the Acadia Center.
"We don't have any more time for baby steps."
Stutt said the framework moves the TCI states in
a "very positive direction." "It's not easy to
get such a broad group of states with unique
transportation challenges and unique politics to
agree," he said.
The coalition plans to seek feedback over the
coming months on the framework as it finalizes a
draft MOU to be released in December, which will
also include more details on state-based
programs to spend TCI funds.
There will be additional time for public input
before a final MOU is produced by spring for
states to sign, and states that need legislative
approval to participate can pursue that as the
formal rulemaking process begins.
The start date for the program would be early
2022.
Asked if the Legislature in Massachusetts would
need to sign off on the state's final
participation, Theoharides said the
administration was still looking into it.
"We believe we have significant authority under
the Global Warming Solutions Act," she said,
referring to a 2008 state law.
The framework, according to Theohardies, also
highlights a recognition among the states that
equity and community engagement is vital to the
success of the program, and states must invest
in transportation options and other programming
in communities that have been disproportionately
impacted by poor air quality or lack of transit
options.
"It's really important that this is a regional
effort because the scale of climate change is
bigger than any one state, but it's also
important that TCI works for individual
communities," Theroharides said.
Transportation for Massachusetts Director Chris
Dempsey called the framework "an important
milestone" in the process that keeps the state
on track for an agreement that will deliver
needed revenue for investments in clean, public
transportation.
"We want to make sure this is a strong robust
and equitable program," Dempsey said.
Environmental League of Massachusetts Vice
President Nancy Goodman also said she was
"heartened" by the draft framework, and would be
looking for the states to set an aggressive
emissions cap.
"This regional effort to price carbon has great
promise for addressing emissions from
transportation. Collectively, the states have
been working hard to meet the year-end deadline
to develop a program. This is a positive step
along that path. We look forward to the next
public announcement and urge the states to be
bold to match the urgency of the climate
crisis," Goodman said.
Associated Industries of Massachusetts, one of
the state's largest business groups, also said
it supports the regional approach "as outlined"
as an effective way to reduce greenhous gas
emissions.
"We intend to work with the administration on
state-specific initiatives and investments that
maximize potential benefits to the residents of
Massachusetts while at the same time reducing
greenhouse gases in the most cost-effective
manner possible," said Bob Rio, AIM's senior
vice president of government affairs.
In legislation filed by governor in July, Baker
proposed to earmark half of the revenue
Massachusetts receives through TCI for the MBTA.
State House News
Service
Friday, October 4, 2019
Weekly Roundup - Adding Up
Recap and analysis of the week in state
government
By Matt Murphy
Nobody said there would be math on the test.
But as senators prepared this week for a debate
over $1.5 billion in new spending on public
education, Gov. Charlie Baker thought it would
be a good time to sprinkle a few numbers on the
plate to season the discussion.
An analysis of the education funding reform
bill, produced by the Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, looked like a fairly
straight forward case of addition. Over the next
seven years, the state's direct aid to cities
and towns for schools would climb by over $2.1
billion, including inflation, to make up for
years of underfunding.
The new formula would ensure that districts with
larger populations of low-income students and
English language learners would get a bigger
share of the increase. But everyone would get at
least a sliver of the pie, said Sen. Jason
Lewis, the Education Committee co-chair.
Legislative leaders didn't see it that way.
The speaker, the Senate president and the
authors of the bill all struck out at the
governor, accusing him of deliberately releasing
"misleading" data to muddy the waters the day
before the Senate debate.
It's complicated, they said. The governor's
numbers only paint part of the picture, they
argued. You can't predict inflation or
enrollment trends, they asserted.
The bottom line was that Democratic leadership
preferred to explain the caveats to members
behind closed doors rather allow a set of
district funding figures that might be a little
fluid to leave the public with the wrong
impression. They didn't have better figures they
were willing to share publicly, but they didn't
like his.
Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr made a brief
fuss on the floor over the fact that senators
were being asked to vote on a bill - they
ultimately all voted in favor - without a full
set of district funding projections, but didn't
use powers afforded to him under Senate rules to
postpone the debate.
And so it moved on, to the unanimous vote in
support of the biggest school funding overhaul
since 1993....
The biggest beneficiaries from the bill, based
on DESE's disputed analysis, would seem to
include Brockton, Revere, Lynn, Everett and
Lawrence - the five cities with the highest
percent increase in state funding over the life
of the bill. The smallest percentage growth in
Chapter 70 aid goes to Clarksburg....
Climate activists would probably ban carbon if
they could, but short of that 12 states and the
District of Columbia put out a framework of a
regional pact that would seek to drive down
emissions from cars and trucks.
The states participating in the Transportation
Climate Initiative said this week they would
target motor gas and on-road diesel for a
cap-and-trade program that would put a price on
carbon in the transportation sector.
Fuel suppliers would be the ones buying and
selling carbon allowances, but some business
groups warned that it will still be drivers
paying the price at the pump.
Vehicles account for over 80 percent of carbon
pollution in the region, according to the
coalition, making the transportation sector
integral to the climate change fight. It remains
to be seen, however, where the states will set
their emission cap and how quickly they'll drive
it down over the 10-year life of the program.
Energy Secretary Kathleen Theoharides has been
playing a key role in wrangling the states, and
she said details on the cap will be included in
a draft memorandum of understanding to be
released in December.
The ultimate goal of the TCI coalition is to
have a final MOU ready for states to sign by the
spring, and for the program to begin in 2022.
State House News
Service
Friday, October 4, 2019
Advances - Week of Oct. 6, 2019
The Legislature has 18 months every two years to
hold formal sessions and take action on major
bills. By Tuesday, the midway point in that
18-month journey, Massachusetts lawmakers had
little to show in terms of major
accomplishments, beyond laws helping public
sector unions recover costs, enabling benefits
to flow to families that have more children
while receiving public assistance, and banning
conversion therapy for minors.
The slow start is par for the course for the
Legislature, which can't seem to break, or isn't
interested in breaking, its habit of leaving its
most important business to the final days and
even minutes of formal sessions every other
year. But there are signs of autumnal activity
on Beacon Hill beyond the hundreds of obligatory
public hearings that legislative committees are
holding on the thousands of bills that are filed
and ultimately quietly die each session, even
though neither the House nor Senate have formal
sessions scheduled next week.
The Senate on Thursday night left the House a
freshly approved bill committing the state to
appropriating $1.5 billion in new revenues
toward the K-12 public education system over the
next seven years. The bill was pre-negotiated
with House leaders, and the House plans to
approve its version sometime before
mid-November. It's unclear whether House and
Senate Democrats will try to get a bill to Gov.
Charlie Baker by Thanksgiving.
The alternative - getting a bill into a
House-Senate conference committee by the holiday
break - could again push the whole education
debate behind closed doors and postpone final
action on the bill, which has really been in
development for years, into the 2020 election
year. The Senate is also waiting for the House
to get the ball rolling on a bill allocating the
sizeable fiscal 2019 budget surplus, and
everyone's waiting for the House to unveil and
debate a bill identifying new revenue sources
for transportation.
The House has also been quietly stacking up its
priorities on the doorstep of Senate President
Karen Spilka. In July, the House sent the Senate
a proposal (H 3997) to spend more than $1
billion over the next ten years helping
communities adapt to climate change and making
resiliency-minded energy grid improvements, as
well as a children's health care bill (H 4012).
Since coming back from summer break, the House
last week approved a bill (H 4087) overhauling
campaign finance reporting and the method used
to choose the director of the Office of Campaign
and Political Finance. This week, the House sent
the Senate legislation (H 4099) requiring higher
education institutions to comply with a new
regulatory regime in order to safeguard students
and families in an era of campus consolidation
that's being forced by a shrinking of the
college-age population and other factors.
Going the other way, the Senate is awaiting
House action on bills banning child marriage (S
2294), prohibiting flame retardants in certain
consumer products (S 2338), and creating a
non-binary "gender X" designation available on
state identifications (S 2213).
The week ahead also brings some important public
hearings, including gatherings to vet Gov.
Baker's $18 billion transportation bond bill, a
proposal to make people serving life sentences
for murder eligible for parole consideration,
and altering the landscape for charter schools.
For reasons unknown, House Speaker Robert DeLeo
is more optimistic than he was a week ago about
the closed-door conference committee work on a
stalled distracted-driving bill, though it's
still anyone's guess when and if legislative
Democrats will reach an agreement on that bill.
|
| |
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
|
