 |
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
Saturday, October 12, 2019
The
taxing frenzy is upon us
|
Massachusetts and 11 other Northeastern and
mid-Atlantic states released a framework agreement Tuesday
for a “cap-and-invest” system to curb transportation
emissions, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases.
The plan, which includes Washington, D.C.,
seeks to cap vehicle emissions from Maine to Virginia and
would require hundreds of fuel distributors in participating
states to buy pollution permits for the carbon dioxide they
produce. That cap would decline over time, mirroring a
similar compact that has reduced power plant emissions in
the Northeast.
The current proposal does not include
crucial, potentially controversial details, such as how much
pollution would be allowed, how much the permits would cost,
and how quickly the caps would decline. That information is
slated to be released later this year.
But state officials hailed the agreement as
a milestone that would curb emissions of more than 45
million registered vehicles and said they hoped many of the
states would sign a more detailed agreement next spring. The
transportation sector is responsible for 28 percent of US
greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of the region’s
emissions....
Groups that represent fossil fuel interests
and businesses have expressed skepticism about the plan,
concerned it will increase transportation costs.
“For small businesses, increasing the price
of fuel is the sort of thing they don’t need to see,” said
Chris Carlozzi, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the
National Federation of Independent Businesses. “We’re going
to be monitoring this. Any competitive disadvantage is
something we don’t want.”
Theoharides said the states are still
negotiating over whether to place requirements on how the
proceeds from the pollution permits, also known as
allowances, could be used. The goal is to invest the money
in a range of transportation-related projects, such as
public transit, carpooling, and subsidies to accelerate the
adoption of electric vehicles, she said.
Massachusetts has already pledged to devote
half of the proceeds to the Commonwealth Transportation
Fund, where it would be used to reduce emissions and shore
up the state’s transportation system against rising sea
levels and other consequences of climate change, she said.
In addition to Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia are
participating in discussions. North Carolina is also
considering joining....
In some states, joining the coalition may
require legislative approval.
“We leave this up to the states to interpret
their authority and decide how best to work with their
legislators,” said Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the
Georgetown Climate Center, which helped facilitate the
agreement.
In Massachusetts, state officials said they
likely have authority under the 2008 Global Warming
Solutions Act to implement the agreement without such a
vote.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
States unveil plan to curb transportation emissions
Policymakers in Massachusetts are trying to
tame carbon emissions from the transportation sector at a
time when gas prices are relatively low....
Massachusetts and other northeast and
mid-Atlantic states are developing a 10-year program that
will include a cap on emissions from motor gasoline and
on-road diesel, pollution sources that account for over 80
percent of carbon emissions in the region. Suppliers who
transport fuel across state lines would hold trade emission
allowances under the cap-and-invest program which is
expected to generate revenues for the states, and likely
higher costs for drivers.
House lawmakers at some point over the six
weeks remaining for formal sessions this year plan to debate
potential new sources of revenue for investments in public
transportation, the gas tax among them. Every penny added to
the state's 24-cent gas tax could produce $35 million to $40
million.
State House News Service
Monday, October 7, 2019
Gas prices fall as policymakers eye taxes, emissions
Massachusetts governors file borrowing bills
every few years outlining spending priorities on large-scale
issues such as housing and the environment, but with several
sections aimed at new revenues and policy changes, Gov.
Charlie Baker's $18 billion transportation bond bill is, in
the words of a committee chair, "more than a typical"
version.
The bill (H 4002) would authorize a range of
projects to receive funding over roughly the next five
years, including a total of $5.7 billion on the MBTA. It
also calls for reforms to contract and procurement practices
to speed up projects, aims at reducing congestion through
local programs and tax credits, and outlines a new revenue
source that could direct tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars every year to public transit.
"In some ways, we have enviable problems:
our economy is growing, our population is growing, and the
economic activity that dominates our commonwealth is
constrained by the limits of our current system," Baker said
at a Tuesday committee hearing, adding that the bill will
"allow us to create the transportation infrastructure we
need to continue to grow and serve our people." ...
Baker told the committee that funding is
"the easiest of the critical paths we face" and that the
bigger issue is completing projects, but as the House
prepares this fall to debate additional revenue options,
committee chairs disagreed.
Rep. William Straus and Sen. Joseph Boncore,
the committee's two chairs, told reporters after the hearing
that they believe the state needs to bring in new money to
pay for its wide-ranging infrastructure needs.
"This committee has an awesome
responsibility to not do what previous governors and
Legislatures have done in ensuring we're just borrowing
against our future," Boncore said. "Our responsibility is to
ensure we have the revenue to pay for that. It's an issue
that our concern is this bond bill doesn't address
adequately."
The one major revenue proposal in the bond
bill — which traditionally has been a vehicle for borrowing
and not for new taxes or fees — comes from the
still-in-development Transportation Climate Initiative, a
multi-state partnership to impose a cap on motor fuel
emissions set to begin in 2022.
Under Baker's bond bill, half of the revenue
Massachusetts collects from that effort would be earmarked
for public transportation.
There is no clear indication yet of how much
more drivers will pay at the pump, though Baker said Tuesday
they will face higher prices once TCI goes into effect, and
the emissions caps will be proposed in December. The revenue
potential remains unclear, too, with previous Baker
administration estimates ranging from $150 million to $500
million.
Lawmakers are cautious about what they can
expect, and Straus told reporters after the hearing he
believes 100 percent of revenue generated from the
transportation initiative should go to transportation needs,
not the 50 percent Baker suggested.
Another wrinkle with the TCI plan is that,
as several lawmakers and speakers pointed out, the amount of
money brought in would likely decrease over the years if the
program succeeds — if fossil fuel use decreases as is the
goal, so, too, would revenue from a fossil fuel cap.
Straus, who after the hearing declined to
offer details about how the House's revenue debate might
unfold, asked Baker if he had a suggestion for "replacement
revenue" if money from TCI dwindles.
State House News Service
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Revenue debate lingers over Baker's $18 Bill transpo bill
The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance is imploring Republican Gov. Charlie Baker to seek
the approval of legislative Democrats to enter the state
into a regional compact to limit carbon emissions from cars
and trucks.
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary
Kathleen Theoharides said last week that the administration
is still researching whether the House and Senate would have
to vote to enter Massachusetts into the Transportation
Climate Initiative....
While the market would set allowance prices
and drivers would not bear the direct cost of the program,
the Fiscal Alliance said the program is equivalent to a gas
tax increase, and therefore must receive legislative
approval starting with the House.
"Make no mistake: this is a very slippery
slope for Massachusetts," MassFiscal legislative director
Laurie Belsito wrote in a letter to Baker.
"Although this is still in the early stages,
lawmakers from other states in the TCI agreement are seeking
legislative approval. Your administration, whether legally
required or not, should also act in good faith and seek the
same. There must be an open and transparent legislative
process on the details of the agreement," Belsito wrote.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Tax-like emissions pact deserves legislative vote, Alliance
says
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is calling
on Governor Charlie Baker to get approval from the state
Legislature before implementing a climate-change program
that could lead to higher gasoline prices.
Baker administration officials say the
Transportation and Climate Initiative program isn’t a gas
tax but rather a “cap-and-invest” program, meaning that the
state would cap allowable emissions and use the money
garnered from fuel providers to invest in transportation
approaches designed to reduce pollution that state officials
say is leading to global warming.
One difference between a gas tax and the
“cap-and-invest” program is that consumers wouldn’t be
assessed the cost increase directly at the pump, since the
assessment would hit suppliers first. Another, say
supporters, is that the state government can use the money
it gets from the program to provide ways for consumers to
avoid the price increases, such as better public
transportation or financial incentives to obtain electric
cars.
Baker administration officials say they may
already have authority to implement the program under an
anti-global-warming state law passed in 2008....
Kathleen Theoharides, the Massachusetts
secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said this
week that state officials are still researching whether they
need the approval of legislators in order to implement the
“cap-and-invest” program recommended by the Transportation
and Climate Initiative, according to State House News
Service.
“We believe we have significant authority
under the Global Warming Solutions Act,” Theoharides said
earlier this month, according to WBUR radio.
The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions
Act, signed by then-Governor Deval Patrick in August 2008,
gives the secretary of energy and environmental affairs
authority to address climate change through what the law
calls “market-based compliance mechanisms” . . .
The New Boston Post
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Governor Shouldn’t Plunge Into Gas-Tax-Like Climate Change
Initiative,
Taxpayer Advocate Says
Tall Deval and his minions call it a T.C.I.,
but what it really is a T.A.X. – a gasoline tax.
And what’s even worse — the payroll patriots
are claiming that they can impose this new T.A.X. increase
without even legislative approval, let alone giving the
voters a shot at repealing it, the way we did as recently as
2014.
If you haven’t heard about this latest
daylight robbery by the hackerama, there’s a very good
reason — they’re trying to ram it through before anyone,
including maybe even a lot of the Legislature, understands
the brazen grift these greed-crazed hacks are plotting.
This “Transportation and Climate Initiative”
(TCI) isn’t exactly a secret, but it’s being pushed out in
dribs and drabs under headlines designed to minimize
readership:
“States unveil plan to curb transportation
emissions.”
But the word started getting out last week,
when the RINO governor, Charlie “Tall Deval” Baker, appeared
at a State House hearing on a transportation bonding bill.
The tax-fattened hacks bragged that they’d pay for the
$18-billion bonding partially with a “fee” from the TCI.
The TCI is a so-called agreement by a bunch
of failing blue Northeastern states to impose higher gas
taxes, I mean fees, to, as one of the greedy grabbers put
it, “reflect the urgency of the climate crisis.”
The only crisis is that, in their view, you
have too much money, and they, the hacks, want to steal some
of it — some more of it, that is. It’s very “urgent” to cut
your pay, so they can have more money to squander on
themselves and their obscene pensions....
“Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack
admitted the carbon fee will be passed along to drivers in
the form of higher gasoline prices, but she made clear that
she believes the prices on carbon is not a broad-based tax
of the type the governor generally opposes. ‘It is not a gas
tax,’ she said. ‘It is a cap-and-invest program.’”
So it’s not a “broad-based tax?” Because it
will only be on gasoline, which so few people use, or rely
on, right? ...
This is so outrageous, and likely
unconstitutional, that even some Democrats are balking at
the cynical play. See, the game plan is for all the failing
blue states to simultaneously hike their gas taxes and then
claim they’re just trying to save the planet.
As Rep. William Straus, the House
transportation chairman said, “All states raise their gas
tax the same amount at the same time and agree not to call
it a gas tax, but I think the public is smarter than that.”
...
This may be the first time you’ve heard of
the new T.A.X., I mean T.C.I., but I guarantee you it won’t
be the last. Forewarned is forearmed.
As Tall Deval said — there are “critical
paths.”
As an overburdened Massachusetts taxpayer, I
increasingly care about only one critical path — I-95 south.
Toward Florida.
The Boston Herald
Friday, October 11, 2019
TCI spy with my little eye a new tax
By Howie Carr
If you weren't paying attention, and maybe
even if you were, you might have missed the start of the
Great Revenue Debate of 2019.
Let's hope the rest of the season isn't as
dull as a pilot episode....
The governor showed up to testify Tuesday in
front of the Joint Committee on Transportation for his $18
billion bond bill that would authorize his administration to
borrow and spend heavily on transportation infrastructure
over the next five years, including $5.7 billion for the
MBTA.
Bond bills feed the state's capital spending
flow, and are renewed by governors with the Legislature
every three to five years or so. This bill, however,
proposes more than just the standard borrowing
authorizations.
The governor also wants to offer tax breaks
for companies that allow their employees to work from home
as a strategy to reduce traffic congestion. And he wants to
earmark for the MBTA half the revenue from a regional
cap-and-trade program that would set limits on emissions
from cars and trucks.
The Transportation Climate Initiative is
still in the development phase, but it holds the potential
for hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenues that the
state could spend on low-carbon transportation options, like
electric vehicle rebates and charging stations.
State House News Service
Friday, October 11, 2019
Weekly Roundup - A Silent Starting Gun
By Matt Murphy
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The surprise
attack on CLT's Proposition 2˝
took most of my attention and
commentary in last Sunday's CLT Update to explain
and warn of this imminent threat, a little-noticed
amendment that was adopted by the state Senate on
October 3 as part of its "education funding reform"
bill. That Senate bill is now in the House Ways &
Means Committee and can be referred to the full House of
Representatives at any moment. This week CLT
delivered a memo to all 32 Republican members of the
House exposing and highlighting this stealth assault and
seeking their support in defense of Proposition 2˝.
Last Sunday's
CLT Update also included an October 1 State House News
Service news report ("Fuel
suppliers at heart of Transpo initiative") revealing
a new scheme by the Baker administration to impose a
backdoor gas tax increase. In part, it noted:
. . . 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....
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.
A lot more
news, insight, and controversy has erupted since that
first report was circulated, and none of it is good for
taxpayers.
Note how more
is being done or attempted more frequently in darkness
and secrecy, circumventing and bypassing legitimate
channels, means, and methods.
The last time
a (three cents/gallon) gas tax hike was imposed the
Legislature tied it to future automatic increases,
insuring no legislator would ever be held responsible
for any future gas tax increases, ducking any
accountability.
In his column
of June 30, 2013 ("Gas
tax on cruise control") Howie Carr captured that
Beacon Hill scheme of 2013 as Howie does so well:
The
Legislature did an amazing thing this week. It
overwhelmingly decided to never, ever vote to raise
gas taxes again.
That
doesn’t mean gas taxes aren’t going to keep going up
and up and up. It just means the General Court will
never have to go on record as raising them. Because
from now on the state gas taxes are going to
increase ... automatically!
Who
says the hackerama at the State House is incapable
of innovations? When new ways are needed to pick the
taxpayers’ pockets, Beacon Hill will invent them.
Instead
of having actual roll-call votes on whether to
increase the gas tax — votes that might be used
against the hacks in the next election — from now on
they’re going to use a formula based on the Consumer
Price Index.
You
know, the same CPI that overestimates inflation so
much that even Barack Obama has been complaining
about it.
The
hacks at the State House used to vote on their own
pay raises, which proved to be an extremely
hazardous roll call. Afterwards, in the next
election, a few of the feebler solons would always
be culled from the herd. So the hacks now determine
their inevitable pay raises with this marvelous new
CPI dodge, which has proven so successful that
they’ve decided to use it on gas taxes.
But
look on the bright side. You won’t have to read any
more headlines about the gas tax going up. Because
it’ll just be going up automatically.
Now Gov.
Charlie Baker has invented an even better dodge for his
cohorts in the Legislature, an even more shady cover for
them. "It is not a gas tax," his transportation
secretary, Stephanie Pollack, asserted. "It is a
cap-and-invest program."
Even Democrat
House transportation chairman Rep. William Straus
couldn't swallow that lame rationale: "All states
raise their gas tax the same amount at the same time and
agree not to call it a gas tax, but I think the public
is smarter than that."
These allied
states may not call it a gas tax —
but it sure smells of collusion.
The voters
repealed the "automatic gas tax increase" on the 2014
ballot by a vote of 53%-47%.
We voters
could — because the tax
hike was passed as legitimate legislation by the
Legislature, as is routine in democracies which respect
separation of powers and constitutional order.
Governor Baker
intends to seize that power unilaterally, without
legislative approval, through his so-called
Transportation Climate Initiative. "We believe we
have significant authority under the Global Warming
Solutions Act,” asserted Baker's secretary of energy and
environmental affairs, Kathleen Theoharides.
Imagine,
if this new governing paradigm is somehow
accepted and institutionalized. If it can be
imposed by a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing alleged
Republican governor —
what will be done to taxpayers (and motorists) when an
avowed progressive Democrat is next elected to the
commonwealth's highest office?
On the other
hand, maybe there's no difference.
If the
governor can succeed in seizing the power to tax
unilaterally, then why would Massachusetts need an
emasculated legislature? Baker and future
governors and their retinue can simply rule by royal
decree.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston
Globe
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
States unveil plan to curb transportation
emissions
By David Abel
Massachusetts and 11 other Northeastern and
mid-Atlantic states released a framework
agreement Tuesday for a “cap-and-invest” system
to curb transportation emissions, the nation’s
largest source of greenhouse gases.
The plan, which includes Washington, D.C., seeks
to cap vehicle emissions from Maine to Virginia
and would require hundreds of fuel distributors
in participating states to buy pollution permits
for the carbon dioxide they produce. That cap
would decline over time, mirroring a similar
compact that has reduced power plant emissions
in the Northeast.
The current proposal does not include crucial,
potentially controversial details, such as how
much pollution would be allowed, how much the
permits would cost, and how quickly the caps
would decline. That information is slated to be
released later this year.
But state officials hailed the agreement as a
milestone that would curb emissions of more than
45 million registered vehicles and said they
hoped many of the states would sign a more
detailed agreement next spring. The
transportation sector is responsible for 28
percent of US greenhouse gas emissions and 40
percent of the region’s emissions.
“This entire project aims to reduce emissions,
improve public transportation, equity, mobility,
and engagement,” said Kathleen Theoharides,
secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office
of Energy and Environmental Affairs, who has
chaired the effort known as the Transportation
and Climate Initiative.
One of her priorities has been to ensure the
agreement serves the interests of lower-income
populations, as well as rural communities where
there are fewer transportation options, she
said.
“The communities most impacted by climate change
are often the least able to respond,” she said.
If approved, the pact would be modeled after the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state
regional cap-and-invest system for power plant
emissions. Widely seen as a national model, the
mandatory market-based program has helped reduce
power plant emissions from Maryland to Maine by
about 40 percent below 2005 levels without
raising average electricity prices, according to
the initiative.
In a cap-and-invest program, companies would be
required to pay for the pollution they emit. The
price would probably rise as the amount that
each company is allowed to produce would decline
over time. The program would begin as early as
2022 and reach a target emissions level in 2032,
according to the agreement.
Groups that represent fossil fuel interests and
businesses have expressed skepticism about the
plan, concerned it will increase transportation
costs.
“For small businesses, increasing the price of
fuel is the sort of thing they don’t need to
see,” said Chris Carlozzi, director of the
Massachusetts chapter of the National Federation
of Independent Businesses. “We’re going to be
monitoring this. Any competitive disadvantage is
something we don’t want.”
Theoharides said the states are still
negotiating over whether to place requirements
on how the proceeds from the pollution permits,
also known as allowances, could be used. The
goal is to invest the money in a range of
transportation-related projects, such as public
transit, carpooling, and subsidies to accelerate
the adoption of electric vehicles, she said.
Massachusetts has already pledged to devote half
of the proceeds to the Commonwealth
Transportation Fund, where it would be used to
reduce emissions and shore up the state’s
transportation system against rising sea levels
and other consequences of climate change, she
said.
In addition to Massachusetts, Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia are participating in
discussions. North Carolina is also considering
joining.
If all the states join the coalition, it would
constitute more than one-fifth of the nation’s
population and a quarter of the country’s
economic output. If the states formed a single
country, they would rival Japan as the world’s
third-largest economy.
One group that has long called for a regional
agreement on transportation emissions estimated
it could raise more than $5.5 billion over a
decade and generate more than 50,000 jobs in
Massachusetts.
“The framework agreement is a major achievement
for this bipartisan group of states,” said
Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director for the
Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group
in Boston.
Stutt and others cautioned that its
effectiveness will depend on the details.
“The TCI program will be a success if this
framework is paired with an emissions cap that
reflects the urgency of the climate crisis,” he
said. “We’ve run out of time for anything less
than that.”
Chris Dempsey, director of Transportation for
Massachusetts, urged the states to take action
soon.
“Massachusetts residents deserve a robust and
equitable regional agreement that will clean up
our air and enable new investments in our
transportation system statewide,” he said.
In some states, joining the coalition may
require legislative approval.
“We leave this up to the states to interpret
their authority and decide how best to work with
their legislators,” said Vicki Arroyo, executive
director of the Georgetown Climate Center, which
helped facilitate the agreement.
In Massachusetts, state officials said they
likely have authority under the 2008 Global
Warming Solutions Act to implement the agreement
without such a vote.
State House News
Service
Monday, October 7, 2019
Gas prices fall as policymakers eye taxes,
emissions
By Michael P. Norton
Policymakers in Massachusetts are trying to tame
carbon emissions from the transportation sector
at a time when gas prices are relatively low.
AAA Northeast reported Monday that a gallon of
unleaded gas averaged $2.52 in its latest
survey, down 3 cents from last week. A year ago,
gas prices here were averaging $2.84 a gallon.
"Most motorists around the country are seeing
gas prices stabilize or decline," AAA's Mary
Maguire said in a statement. "On the whole, we
are seeing gasoline demand pushing lower amid
healthy supply levels, ultimately keeping prices
stable or cheaper for most motorists."
Massachusetts and other northeast and
mid-Atlantic states are developing a 10-year
program that will include a cap on emissions
from motor gasoline and on-road diesel,
pollution sources that account for over 80
percent of carbon emissions in the region.
Suppliers who transport fuel across state lines
would hold trade emission allowances under the
cap-and-invest program which is expected to
generate revenues for the states, and likely
higher costs for drivers.
House lawmakers at some point over the six weeks
remaining for formal sessions this year plan to
debate potential new sources of revenue for
investments in public transportation, the gas
tax among them. Every penny added to the state's
24-cent gas tax could produce $35 million to $40
million.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Revenue debate lingers over Baker's $18 Bill
transpo bill
By Chris Lisinski
Massachusetts governors file borrowing bills
every few years outlining spending priorities on
large-scale issues such as housing and the
environment, but with several sections aimed at
new revenues and policy changes, Gov. Charlie
Baker's $18 billion transportation bond bill is,
in the words of a committee chair, "more than a
typical" version.
The bill (H 4002) would authorize a range of
projects to receive funding over roughly the
next five years, including a total of $5.7
billion on the MBTA. It also calls for reforms
to contract and procurement practices to speed
up projects, aims at reducing congestion through
local programs and tax credits, and outlines a
new revenue source that could direct tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars every year to
public transit.
"In some ways, we have enviable problems: our
economy is growing, our population is growing,
and the economic activity that dominates our
commonwealth is constrained by the limits of our
current system," Baker said at a Tuesday
committee hearing, adding that the bill will
"allow us to create the transportation
infrastructure we need to continue to grow and
serve our people."
The Transportation Committee hearing, which came
about two and a half months after Baker unveiled
the bill, underscored tensions between lawmakers
and the administration over how to pay for
investments in public transit and roadway
repairs.
Baker told the committee that funding is "the
easiest of the critical paths we face" and that
the bigger issue is completing projects, but as
the House prepares this fall to debate
additional revenue options, committee chairs
disagreed.
Rep. William Straus and Sen. Joseph Boncore, the
committee's two chairs, told reporters after the
hearing that they believe the state needs to
bring in new money to pay for its wide-ranging
infrastructure needs.
"This committee has an awesome responsibility to
not do what previous governors and Legislatures
have done in ensuring we're just borrowing
against our future," Boncore said. "Our
responsibility is to ensure we have the revenue
to pay for that. It's an issue that our concern
is this bond bill doesn't address adequately."
The one major revenue proposal in the bond bill
— which traditionally has been a vehicle for
borrowing and not for new taxes or fees — comes
from the still-in-development Transportation
Climate Initiative, a multi-state partnership to
impose a cap on motor fuel emissions set to
begin in 2022.
Under Baker's bond bill, half of the revenue
Massachusetts collects from that effort would be
earmarked for public transportation.
There is no clear indication yet of how much
more drivers will pay at the pump, though Baker
said Tuesday they will face higher prices once
TCI goes into effect, and the emissions caps
will be proposed in December. The revenue
potential remains unclear, too, with previous
Baker administration estimates ranging from $150
million to $500 million.
Lawmakers are cautious about what they can
expect, and Straus told reporters after the
hearing he believes 100 percent of revenue
generated from the transportation initiative
should go to transportation needs, not the 50
percent Baker suggested.
Another wrinkle with the TCI plan is that, as
several lawmakers and speakers pointed out, the
amount of money brought in would likely decrease
over the years if the program succeeds — if
fossil fuel use decreases as is the goal, so,
too, would revenue from a fossil fuel cap.
Straus, who after the hearing declined to offer
details about how the House's revenue debate
might unfold, asked Baker if he had a suggestion
for "replacement revenue" if money from TCI
dwindles.
"Do you mind if I do a little bit of modeling on
that one and get back to you?" Baker told
Straus.
Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack said
the state needs additional forms of capital
funding, and the bill calls for additional use
of grant anticipation notes. But on the
operating end, where the MBTA faces a $53
million mid-year deficit that's about $16
million higher than projected after years of
running structural deficits, she does not see a
need for new revenue.
Pollack said in December 2015 that the T was
projected to run a $427 million operating
deficit in fiscal year 2020, but after reforms
by the Fiscal and Management Control Board, the
mid-year estimate is now $53 million. That
amount, she said, "is well within the size of
deficit problems that have come and gone over
the last four years and have been handled within
the T's existing operating sources."
Baker's bill drew opposition from the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which claimed
that there was not enough focus on "how we spend
the money" and addressing the state bureaucracy.
The bond bill, which is the first filed for
transportation since former Gov. Deval Patrick
signed a $14 billion version five years ago,
would authorize a range of projects to receive
funding.
About $10.3 billion included would go toward
roads and bridges, according to a Massachusetts
Taxpayer Foundation analysis, including a $1.25
billion reauthorization for a "next-generation"
bridge maintenance fund.
The MBTA would receive about $5.7 billion,
according to the MTF, with several
already-under-construction projects such as the
Green Line Extension and South Coast Rail
included.
Baker's bill also includes $250 million that
could go toward a large-scale reimagining of the
commuter rail system. A commission is studying
several substantial options, including
increasing service to every 15 or 30 minutes or
electrifying the system, and while it remains
unclear which option they will select, the
MBTA's oversight board will take up the topic in
the coming months.
Pollack said the money would start the process
of investing in one of those plans with
procurement and early design work. She stressed,
though, that a public-private partnership —
which the bill aims to promote by abolishing an
existing commission overseeing the process and
shifting the duties to the MassDOT and MBTA
boards — will be necessary for any of the
potential multibillion-dollar projects.
Announced two weeks before the administration
published a study of roadway congestion, the
bill includes several components aimed at
reducing traffic. One suggestion is a $50
million local bottleneck fund, which would pay
for infrastructure improvements on locally owned
roads where specific choke points slow cars
down.
"There are a number of places around
Massachusetts, not just in Boston but in other
parts of the commonwealth, where by doing some
relatively modest work on some of the worst
bottlenecks we have, we've actually been able to
free up traffic," Baker said.
The bill would create a $50 million new tax
credit program, offering employers $2,000 per
employee permitted to work from home. Baker said
Massachusetts and the Boston area lag behind
similar areas in telecommuting rates, and by
getting cars off the road, he hopes to see a
reduction in congestion.
However, several transportation advocacy groups
criticized the idea during Tuesday's hearing.
"This investment could be better spent improving
our transportation system," said Chris Dempsey,
director of Transportation for Massachusetts.
"The credit as proposed would provide a higher
per trip subsidy than is provided to the MBTA."
State House News
Service
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Tax-like emissions pact deserves legislative
vote, Alliance says
By Matt Murphy
The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
is imploring Republican Gov. Charlie Baker to
seek the approval of legislative Democrats to
enter the state into a regional compact to limit
carbon emissions from cars and trucks.
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary
Kathleen Theoharides said last week that the
administration is still researching whether the
House and Senate would have to vote to enter
Massachusetts into the Transportation Climate
Initiative.
The 12-state cap-and-trade program being
developed by East Coast governors would put a
declining cap on emissions from motor and diesel
fuels, and generate money for clean energy
programs by requiring fuel suppliers that exceed
the cap to buy and trade carbon allowances.
While the market would set allowance prices and
drivers would not bear the direct cost of the
program, the Fiscal Alliance said the program is
equivalent to a gas tax increase, and therefore
must receive legislative approval starting with
the House.
"Make no mistake: this is a very slippery slope
for Massachusetts," MassFiscal legislative
director Laurie Belsito wrote in a letter to
Baker.
"Although this is still in the early stages,
lawmakers from other states in the TCI agreement
are seeking legislative approval. Your
administration, whether legally required or not,
should also act in good faith and seek the same.
There must be an open and transparent
legislative process on the details of the
agreement," Belsito wrote.
Theoharides said the administration has broad
powers under the 2008 Global Warming Solutions
Act to pursue strategies like TCI to meet the
state's carbon emission reduction goals, and is
uncertain whether it needs legislative approval.
The New Boston
Post
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Governor Shouldn’t Plunge Into Gas-Tax-Like
Climate Change Initiative,
Taxpayer Advocate Says
By Matt McDonald
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is calling on
Governor Charlie Baker to get approval from the
state Legislature before implementing a
climate-change program that could lead to higher
gasoline prices.
Baker administration officials say the
Transportation and Climate Initiative program
isn’t a gas tax but rather a “cap-and-invest”
program, meaning that the state would cap
allowable emissions and use the money garnered
from fuel providers to invest in transportation
approaches designed to reduce pollution that
state officials say is leading to global
warming.
One difference between a gas tax and the
“cap-and-invest” program is that consumers
wouldn’t be assessed the cost increase directly
at the pump, since the assessment would hit
suppliers first. Another, say supporters, is
that the state government can use the money it
gets from the program to provide ways for
consumers to avoid the price increases, such as
better public transportation or financial
incentives to obtain electric cars.
Baker administration officials say they may
already have authority to implement the program
under an anti-global-warming state law passed in
2008.
“This raises the concern that such a
far-reaching tax could be implemented without
the legislative approval process,” wrote Laurie
Belsito, legislative director of the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, in a letter to
Baker dated Thursday, October 10. “Make no
mistake: this is a very slippery slope for
Massachusetts. Although this is still in the
early stages, lawmakers from other states in the
TCI agreement are seeking legislative approval.
Your administration, whether legally required or
not, should also act in good faith and seek the
same. There must be an open and transparent
legislative process on the details of the
agreement.”
A comparable program in California (called
“cap-and-trade” there) adds about 13 to 14 cents
per gallon in the cost of gasoline to consumers,
according to a study published in July 2018 by
Stillwater Associates, a transportation fuels
consultant.
Gasoline and diesel prices affect not just
people who drive cars but also tend to lead to
increases in prices of goods, since many of the
things consumers buy are transported by trucks
that use oil-based fuel.
But supporters of the approach say it’s needed
in order to lower emissions from fuel-burning
motors, which they say are leading to climate
change, which they say is harmful.
Here’s how the Union of Concerned Scientists,
which supports “cap-and-invest” programs,
describes the approach:
A cap-and-trade program establishes a limit
on emissions of global warming pollution,
lowers that limit over time, and uses the
power of the market to reduce emissions at
the lowest cost. Owners of facilities such
as electric power plants and oil refineries
must buy a carbon “allowance” for every ton
of pollution they emit. If companies find
ways to reduce their pollution at a lower
cost than the allowances, they can sell any
surplus allowances to companies that cannot.
The resulting market creates an incentive to
implement cost-effective cuts in global
warming emissions, and encourages
investments in new low-carbon technologies.
The 2018 Stillwater Associates
study assumes that all of the cost of the
so-called “carbon allowance” would be passed on
to consumers, although the study acknowledges
that it’s possible a portion won’t be because of
market efficiencies in complying with the
emissions standards.
Kathleen Theoharides, the Massachusetts
secretary of energy and environmental affairs,
said this week that state officials are still
researching whether they need the approval of
legislators in order to implement the
“cap-and-invest” program recommended by the
Transportation and Climate Initiative, according
to State House News Service.
“We believe we have significant authority under
the Global Warming Solutions Act,” Theoharides
said earlier this month, according to WBUR
radio.
The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act,
signed by then-Governor Deval Patrick in August
2008, gives the secretary of energy and
environmental affairs authority to address
climate change through what the law calls
“market-based compliance mechanisms”:
Section 7. (a) The secretary, in
consultation with the executive office of
administration and finance, may consider the
use of market-based compliance mechanisms to
address climate change concerns; provided,
however, that prior to the use of any
market-based compliance mechanism, to the
extent feasible and in furtherance of
achieving the statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit, the secretary shall: (1)
consider the potential for direct, indirect
and cumulative emission impacts from these
mechanisms, including localized impacts in
communities that are already adversely
impacted by air pollution; (2) design any
market-based compliance mechanism to prevent
any increase in the emissions of toxic air
contaminants or criteria air pollutants,
with particular attention paid to emissions
of nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and
mercury; and (3) maximize additional
environmental and economic benefits for the
commonwealth, as appropriate.
The Transportation and Climate
Initiative is recommending in its draft regional
policy proposal that the 12 states that belong
to it (from Maine to Virginia) implement the
“cap-and-invest” programs by the spring of 2020.
The Transportation and Climate Initiative is a
regional collaboration that includes Washington
D.C. and the states of Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Virginia.
The organization is accepting public input on
its proposal through an online portal until
Tuesday, November 5.
The Boston
Herald
Friday, October 11, 2019
TCI spy with my little eye a new tax
By Howie Carr
Tall Deval and his minions call it a T.C.I., but
what it really is a T.A.X. – a gasoline tax.
And what’s even worse — the payroll patriots are
claiming that they can impose this new T.A.X.
increase without even legislative approval, let
alone giving the voters a shot at repealing it,
the way we did as recently as 2014.
If you haven’t heard about this latest daylight
robbery by the hackerama, there’s a very good
reason — they’re trying to ram it through before
anyone, including maybe even a lot of the
Legislature, understands the brazen grift these
greed-crazed hacks are plotting.
This “Transportation and Climate Initiative”
(TCI) isn’t exactly a secret, but it’s being
pushed out in dribs and drabs under headlines
designed to minimize readership:
“States unveil plan to curb transportation
emissions.”
But the word started getting out last week, when
the RINO governor, Charlie “Tall Deval” Baker,
appeared at a State House hearing on a
transportation bonding bill. The tax-fattened
hacks bragged that they’d pay for the
$18-billion bonding partially with a “fee” from
the TCI.
The TCI is a so-called agreement by a bunch of
failing blue Northeastern states to impose
higher gas taxes, I mean fees, to, as one of the
greedy grabbers put it, “reflect the urgency of
the climate crisis.”
The only crisis is that, in their view, you have
too much money, and they, the hacks, want to
steal some of it — some more of it, that is.
It’s very “urgent” to cut your pay, so they can
have more money to squander on themselves and
their obscene pensions.
This is an account of last week’s hearing from
Commonwealth Magazine:
“Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack
admitted the carbon fee will be passed along to
drivers in the form of higher gasoline prices,
but she made clear that she believes the prices
on carbon is not a broad-based tax of the type
the governor generally opposes. ‘It is not a gas
tax,’ she said. ‘It is a cap-and-invest
program.’”
So it’s not a “broad-based tax?” Because it will
only be on gasoline, which so few people use, or
rely on, right?
How much more tone-deaf can Tall Deval’s
administration get? They propose a
multibillion-dollar tax increase, and to promote
it they send out Stephanie Pollack, whose
agencies include the very well-managed MBTA and
the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
At the hearing, Tall Deval made it clear he has
zero problems with imposing a “fee” on people
who work for a living for the benefit of those
who don’t.
“I know this is counterintuitive to argue at a
bond bill hearing,” he said, “but funding is
actually the easiest part of the critical paths
we face.”
When he was running for governor in 2014, Tall
Deval at least nominally supported the working
people who were successfully battling to halt
the automatic gas tax increases the Legislature
had voted for. Now his administration is
claiming they don’t even need a roll call vote
in the Legislature to jack up gas taxes by
calling it a fee.
The Globe reported that “state officials said
they likely have authority under the 2008 Global
Warming Solutions Act to implement the agreement
without such a vote.”
This is so outrageous, and likely
unconstitutional, that even some Democrats are
balking at the cynical play. See, the game plan
is for all the failing blue states to
simultaneously hike their gas taxes and then
claim they’re just trying to save the planet.
As Rep. William Straus, the House transportation
chairman said, “All states raise their gas tax
the same amount at the same time and agree not
to call it a gas tax, but I think the public is
smarter than that.”
Let’s hope so. The productive citizenry just
suffered a one percent pay cut under the scam of
a new family-medical leave program, and nobody
seems to have noticed. The hacks called it a
“grand bargain,” maybe because it’s going to
cost everybody with a job a thousand bucks a
year – a grand.
The hacks have also doubled the deeds-transfer
tax — again, crickets. The payroll patriots are
moving to ram through a “millionaires’ tax,”
which within a few years will make everybody in
Massachusetts with a job a millionaire — at
least for the purposes of paying state income
taxes.
The hacks haven’t even come up with the
“formula” for their gasoline “fees.” They’re
saving that for December — Merry Christmas, in
other words.
This may be the first time you’ve heard of the
new T.A.X., I mean T.C.I., but I guarantee you
it won’t be the last. Forewarned is forearmed.
As Tall Deval said — there are “critical paths.”
As an overburdened Massachusetts taxpayer, I
increasingly care about only one critical path —
I-95 south. Toward Florida.
(Check out Howie’s latest podcasts at
dirtyratspodcast.com.)
State House News
Service
Friday, October 11, 2019
Weekly Roundup - A Silent Starting Gun
Recap and analysis of the week in state
government
By Matt Murphy
If you weren't paying attention, and maybe even
if you were, you might have missed the start of
the Great Revenue Debate of 2019.
Let's hope the rest of the season isn't as dull
as a pilot episode.
For the second week in a row, Gov. Charlie Baker
did not meet with legislative leaders on Monday.
Instead, he used that time slot to remind House
and Senate Democrats that he has put forward a
plan to deal with marijuana impaired driving
that ought be considered before the state
experiments with pot cafes.
But he also got his face time with lawmakers
this week another way.
The governor showed up to testify Tuesday in
front of the Joint Committee on Transportation
for his $18 billion bond bill that would
authorize his administration to borrow and spend
heavily on transportation infrastructure over
the next five years, including $5.7 billion for
the MBTA.
Bond bills feed the state's capital spending
flow, and are renewed by governors with the
Legislature every three to five years or so.
This bill, however, proposes more than just the
standard borrowing authorizations.
The governor also wants to offer tax breaks for
companies that allow their employees to work
from home as a strategy to reduce traffic
congestion. And he wants to earmark for the MBTA
half the revenue from a regional cap-and-trade
program that would set limits on emissions from
cars and trucks.
The Transportation Climate Initiative is still
in the development phase, but it holds the
potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in
new revenues that the state could spend on
low-carbon transportation options, like electric
vehicle rebates and charging stations.
Mayors like Boston's Marty Walsh also have
plenty of ideas, showing up at an MBTA meeting
to pitch improved and more frequent commuter
rail service, which would cost money ... money
that the agency doesn't really have at the
moment.
Rep. William Straus, co-chair of the
Transportation Committee, told Commonwealth
Magazine that in some ways he considered the
hearing on Baker's bond bill to be the start of
the transportation revenue debate that House
leaders have promised this fall. He even went so
far as to ask Baker during the hearing what he
would do for money if TCI revenues didn't
materialize as expected.
Baker said he would need more time to answer
that question, but called funding "the easiest
of the critical paths we face," which was
interesting since the governor has made clear he
doesn't think additional revenues are
necessarily needed.
The governor might just be confident that the
strength of the economy will carry the state
through.
The state's economic growth actually slowed in
the second quarter according to state
economists, but "remains solid." Whether that
holds over time remains to be seen, with a labor
shortage, trade tensions and the impeachment
inquiry in Washington all weighing heavily on
investment and business confidence....
STORY OF THE WEEK: The economy and what's going
to kill it.
|
| |
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
|
