 |
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
Friday, December 13, 2019
Will
this craziness never end?
|
Supporters of
increasing fees on ride-hailing trips, expanding highway
tolls, and charging drivers for every mile they travel made
their cases to lawmakers Thursday, each pitching their
respective proposal as a necessary source of revenue to
address the state's growing transportation needs.
Several key House
members have hinted that they are likely to include an
increase in the state's 24-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax in
a transportation revenue bill that Speaker Robert DeLeo is
eyeing for release next month, but other ideas put on the
table during a Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday
could supplement that revenue stream.
Rep. Thomas
Stanley warned his colleagues that over the long term the
gas tax will be insufficient to meet roadway and public
transit needs. Rising fuel efficiency in vehicles, he said,
means that even the same frequency of driving will result in
motorists purchasing less gas, generating less revenue for
the state.
Instead, Stanley
suggested Massachusetts embrace legislation (H 3010) he
co-filed with Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier to create a pilot
program to test fees based on the miles people travel rather
than the amount of gas used.
That system, often
referred to as vehicle miles traveled or VMT, would help
ensure that Massachusetts has the funding available to make
upgrades to its aging public transit systems and roads and
bridges that require maintenance or overhauls, Stanley
said....
The hearing took
place against a backdrop of warnings from the Baker
administration that traffic has reached a "tipping point,"
concerns from businesses about the economic impact of
transportation challenges for their employees, and
widespread frustration over public transit disruptions from
commuters....
Two proposals,
both filed by Lynn Democratic Sen. Brendan Crighton, would
look at overhauling the state's toll system and expand those
charges to many more drivers than currently face them.
The first bill (S
2060) would instruct the Department of Transportation to
report on the feasibility of implementing all-electronic
tolling on state and interstate highways "not currently
subject to a toll," taking a look in particular at tolls
along the state's borders.
The second (S
2062) would expand tolls to stretches of Interstate 93,
Interstate 95 and Route 2 in an attempt to apply equal
charges to drivers across the greater Boston region. That
bill also calls for implementation of dynamic "peak pricing"
where the toll varies based on roadway conditions.
Crighton told the
committee that the new systems could help reduce congestion,
encourage shared rides and bring in funding for transit
infrastructure....
Transportation
Committee Co-Chair Rep. William Straus told reporters after
the hearing that he would not rule out any revenue ideas —
including all of those that were on Thursday's agenda — from
the House's plans, save for a legislative increase to MBTA
fares.
State House News Service
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Alternatives To Gas Tax Pitched For Transpo Revenue
Voters in seven of
the states participating in a nascent program to reduce
transportation emissions, including Massachusetts, largely
support the effort, according to a new poll.
A MassINC poll published Wednesday found that a majority of
registered voters in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland,
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia strongly or
somewhat support their home state's participation in the
Transportation and Climate Initiative.
In Massachusetts, 68 percent of the 629 respondents said
they support the program, compared to 21 percent who oppose
it and 11 percent who are unsure, according to the poll,
which was sponsored by the Barr Foundation.
Only New York voters, with 71 percent support and 19 percent
opposition, were more in favor among those polled....
Bay State voters were the most enthusiastic among those
surveyed about using that new funding to improve existing
public transit: 86 percent strongly supported that use, a
higher rate than any of the other six states, according to
the poll....
"This is a complex policy, and so we took the time to
explain the basics of how it would work and how states might
use the funds generated by it," MassINC Polling Group
President Steve Koczela said in a press release. "Support
was broad, stretching across demographic and party lines and
throughout the region." ...
Although the final TCI terms are still in development, it is
likely that consumer costs at the gas pump will increase.
The poll's question did not reference the potential of
higher costs on motorists when asking about their support
for the program.
State House News Service
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Poll: Voters Back Compact to Reduce Transpo Emissions
Massachusetts is
one of a dozen states working on a new cap-and-trade program
to reduce vehicle emissions, but critics say the plan could
be a boon for New Hampshire and other border states that
don't go along with it.
The Transportation
Climate Initiative, put together by a dozen Northeast and
Mid-Atlantic states working on reducing pollution, is
focusing on gasoline and diesel which account for more than
80% of regional carbon emissions. It could lead to a new
wholesale tax on fossil fuel suppliers to pay for regional
transportation projects.
Under the plan,
suppliers who transport fuel across state lines would be
required to pay a tax on excess carbon emissions based on
caps that still must be set.
Still, it's not
clear if New Hampshire and Vermont, where skeptical
Republican governors have expressed concerns about the
plans, will buy into the initiative. If they don't, critics
say Massachusetts' motorists could be saddled with higher
prices at the pumps than neighboring states, as wholesalers
pass along costs to consumers.
"It would give
people yet another reason to take their business across the
border to New Hampshire, which puts the state and my
district at a competitive disadvantage," said Rep. Lenny
Mirra, R-West Newbury, who opposes the regional plan. "But
more importantly, this would be a regressive tax that would
hurt working people who drive to work." ...
Christopher
Carlozzi, Massachusetts state director of the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, said the plan will
hurt businesses and others who can't afford higher gas
prices.
"It's a gas tax by
another name," he told reporters at briefing Wednesday. "TCI
will unfairly tax every small business, commuter and working
family in Massachusetts."
Gov. Charlie
Baker, a Republican, committed the state to joining the
program last year as part of an effort to reduce traffic
congestion and tackle climate change....
Lawmakers are also
considering proposals to increase the state's 24-cent
per-gallon gas tax, which was last hiked in 2013, amid a
renewed push by transit advocates.
Baker opposes an
increase in the gas tax, arguing the move is unnecessary and
would unfairly burden low-income families and small business
owners.
Transportation
Secretary Stephanie Pollack has acknowledged that TCI will
probably lead to higher gas prices, but pushed back against
those who are calling it a tax.
"It is not a gas
tax," she told lawmakers during an October hearing before
the Legislature's Joint Transportation Committee. "It is a
cap-and-invest program." ...
Nancy Kyle,
president and CEO of the New Hampshire Retail Association,
welcomes the idea of more Massachusetts consumers flocking
to the Granite State to shop and fill up the tank.
"They're already
coming up here to shop because of the lack of a sales tax,"
she said. "So maybe while they're here, they'll stop at a
gas station to fill up before heading home." ...
Meanwhile, a new
poll by MassINC Polling found at least 66% of respondents in
Massachusetts and seven other states supported the regional
approach to addressing climate change.
But the survey of
nearly 7,000 voters didn't ask if they supported new taxes
and fees to implement the program, and critics pounced on
the omission.
"People may be in
favor of TCI but do they know the costs?" Carlozzi said
Wednesday. "The poll didn't explain that the costs would be
passed along to consumers at the gas pumps."
The Salem News
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Climate program could be boon for border states
Gov. Charlie Baker
says he wants to reduce carbon emissions — that’s the reason
for the Transportation Climate Initiative’s planned fee
rollout, which would charge fuel companies for the carbon
emissions associated with the gas and diesel they sell.
As the Boston
Herald’s Mary Markos reported, Baker stumped for the plan at
the Transportation and Climate Initiative Business Summit in
Boston Wednesday. The TCI wll do great things to battle
climate change, according to Baker, adding that the
transportation sector is the “next big space” to move away
from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy, since it now
represents 40% of all emissions....
The essence of the
plan: Consumers pay higher gas prices, and half of the money
raised through the fees go toward Baker’s $18 billion
transportation bond bill, which includes major investments
in the MBTA. Pay more for gas so public transportation
improves, carbon emissions are lowered, happiness reigns.
But if this were
really just about getting people to drive less and drive
down emissions, why not use the same incentives and breaks
the state provides to entice people to switch to solar
energy? ...
“It’s a back door
way of trying to pass a gas tax,” said Republican strategist
Holly Robichaud.
“This is just
another angle to justify sticking it to the drivers instead
of trying to actually reform the way business is done at the
MBTA,” U.S. Senate candidate Geoff Diehl said.
Higher gas prices
are not going to lessen the distance commuters need to
cover, nor move them to neighborhoods accessible by the T.
They won’t make cars more fuel-efficient, and if drivers do
decide to switch vehicles in order to save on gas, won’t
help them cover the cost of a new car....
What is especially
galling is Baker’s indication that he would exercise his
power to implement TCI through an executive order. The
people would pay, but we’d have no say. Rep. David DeCoste,
R-Norwell, said he plans to file a bill that would require
legislative approval before the governor could enter
Massachusetts into any similar compacts.
Climate change
needs to be tackled and carbon footprints reduced. There are
just better ways of doing it without soaking the taxpayer.
A Boston Herald editorial
Friday, December 13, 2019
Better ways for Baker to cut carbon emissions
House and Senate
leaders broke a weeks-long impasse over a more than $1
billion surplus spending bill on Wednesday night, cutting a
deal that dropped a controversial corporate tax change that
would have financially benefited Massachusetts businesses
and set aside $32 million for repairs on the MBTA, which is
less than the $50 million sought by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The vote on the
compromise budget bill to close the books on the fiscal year
that ended back in June capped a tumultuous day during which
Comptroller Andrew Maylor backed off a threat to sweep the
entire surplus into reserves by mid-afternoon if the
Legislature couldn't resolve its differences.
And before the
deal was finalized, House counsel Jim Kennedy got involved
in a back-and-forth with Maylor over the breadth of his
legal authority, with Kennedy challenging Maylor's assertion
of power to sweep the surplus and leave deficits in certain
accounts, including MassHealth.
The total spending
in the final version of the budget clocked in at $541
million, which was significantly less than previous
iterations of the bill that ranged from $723 million to $853
million. Instead of spending more of the surplus, the budget
bill proposed to deposit $587 million into the state's
"rainy day" fund, pushing the balance of the reserve account
to $3.45 billion.
State House News Service
Thursday, December 12, 2019
House, Senate Pass $541 Mil Spending Bill
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
All week I've
been trying to get to rebuilding my computer system.
All week the interruptions of my critical plan have
continued. I've made very little if any progress
with my big project.
There was a
time (actually until this year) when the Legislature
stopped pestering us citizens, when we all could take a
much needed reprieve from self-defensive politics at
least for a month, at least with the Christmas,
Chanukah, and New Year holidays upon us.
There was a period of time, however short, when Beacon
Hill recessed, left the State House and went home, wasn't threatening
taxpayers for a while; when there was a predictable lull in the need
for our perpetual vigilance — a
temporary ceasefire, a time of peace.
That reliable
tradition this year has been abolished.
My essential
computer rebuild project has had to be and remains on
hold. I don't know what will happen if this
harassment doesn't end in 2019 and the new year and new
session roll in without a pause. At some point I'm
going to need to just shut down and take care of the
computer problems, before the system dies without
permission or warning.
But today I
threw up my hands and threw in the towel for this week.
Maybe I can get back to it over the weekend or later
next week.
The odds on
that happening look no better than this past week's experience.
But there
is a note of long-overdue good news at the
end of my commentary, below —
a cause for celebration!
This week CLT
joined a coalition of citizens and taxpayers
organizations and free-market business associations
representing the thirteen Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic
states now contemplating joining the Transportation and
Climate Initiative (TCI). We will be issuing a
coordinated joint news release in our respective states
on Tuesday announcing our joint opposition to this
nascent backdoor gas tax hike scheme.
This comes
after the release of a poll conducted by MassINC that
purports to show alleged great support for TCI.
The poll is apparently intended to shape rather than
reflect public opinion —
what's commonly called a "push poll"
— asking questions in a
calculated way that returns the desired response.
The State
House News Service reported on Wednesday ("Poll: Voters
Back Compact to Reduce Transpo Emissions"):
Although the final TCI terms are still in
development, it is likely that consumer costs at the
gas pump will increase. The poll's question did not
reference the potential of higher costs on motorists
when asking about their support for the program.
The Salem News
reported yesterday ("Climate program could be boon for
border states"):
Meanwhile, a new poll by
MassINC Polling found at least 66% of respondents in
Massachusetts and seven other states supported the
regional approach to addressing climate change.
But the survey of nearly 7,000
voters didn't ask if they supported new taxes and
fees to implement the program, and critics pounced
on the omission.
"People may be in favor of TCI
but do they know the costs?" Carlozzi said
Wednesday. "The poll didn't explain that the costs
would be passed along to consumers at the gas
pumps."
Any credible
pollster would have included that critical piece of
information in any legitimate poll if it expected an
honest result, don't you think?
More to follow
on this in the week ahead.
The
Legislature finally got around to closing out Fiscal
Year 2018 — which ended on
June 30. The statutory deadline for closing out
the fiscal year was October 31 — but
as we all know, statutes and
laws apparently don't apply to the Legislature, like
everything else.
The State
House News Service reported yesterday ("House, Senate
Pass $541 Mil Spending Bill"):
The
total spending in the final version of the budget
clocked in at $541 million, which was significantly
less than previous iterations of the bill that
ranged from $723 million to $853 million. Instead of
spending more of the surplus, the budget bill
proposed to deposit $587 million into the state's
"rainy day" fund, pushing the balance of the reserve
account to $3.45 billion....
"It is
our hope that the Fiscal Year 2019 closeout process
was a true anomaly and that the opinion of House
Counsel does not foreshadow the reaction to future
fiscal year closes, and the associated net surplus
transfers which the Comptroller has already stated
will happen no later than the statutory deadline,"
[Comptroller Andrew Maylor] said.
What is
wrong with this Legislature —
how can it possibly continue to get away with
this much gross dysfunction? It was the latest in
the nation to pass its Fiscal Year 2020 budget,
late into the night of July 22. All the huge,
comprehensive legislation that was worked on over the
year wasn't completed until the final "official" day of
this session,
in the wee hours of November 20-21 with no little if
any time for rank-and-file legislators to do anything
but rubber-stamp passage of everything the leadership dropped in front
of them only hours if that before the vote.
Here's a bit
of perspective.
In Kentucky,
its General Assembly (House and Senate) convenes in
regular session on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in January for 60 days in even-numbered
years and for 30 days in odd-numbered years. It
convenes in special sessions at the call of the
governor. The Kentucky Constitution mandates that a
regular session be completed no later than April 15
in even-numbered years and March 30 in
odd-numbered years.
The
Commonwealth of Kentucky (one of four states so
designated, along with Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia) has a two-year budget. That's why
legislative sessions in even-numbered years are expanded
to 60 days — an additional
30 days to produce its
two-year budget.
By the way:
Kentucky legislators are paid for each legislative
day while actually in session in Frankfort, the
state capital, a salary of $188.22 per day. For each
legislative day of that 30 or 60 days (depending on even
or odd years) that the General Assembly is actually
in session, each legislator receives a per diem
payment of
$154 per day.
"The Kentucky
Constitution mandates that a regular session be
completed no later than April 15 in even-numbered years
and March 30 in odd-numbered years."
After that
they go back home until the next January and leave the
state's citizens alone.
There is very
little state political news in Kentucky after those
constitutional deadlines. Kentuckians are not
pestered by the General Assembly after early spring.
Oh yeah,
here's another comparative insight: There are no
state gun laws whatsoever
in Kentucky. None. Only convicted felons are
barred from owning a firearm.
THE GOOD NEWS:
The Boston
Herald
Friday, December 13, 2019
Massachusetts income tax drops to 5% flat rate — 20
years after passage
More on this
tomorrow, but in an interview with The Boston Globe's
Matt Stout today I told him:
CLT and taxpayers have been
expecting this; it was announced as more than likely
months ago
— almost impossible to avoid. But it’s
always worth having it confirmed. With
Massachusetts government, don’t believe it until you
see it, hold it in your hands.
Remember, the Dukakis
“temporary” income tax hike of 1989
was promised to last “only 18-months” when it
was being sold as necessary for the “fiscal crisis”
following the “Massachusetts Miracle” that Dukakis
ran on when he was the Democrat’s presidential
candidate.
It’s a shame that Barbara
Anderson isn’t around to celebrate, after all the
time and effort she put into keeping the
Legislature's promise
and rolling back the ‘temporary’ income tax,
including two statewide petition drives and the
exhausting 2000 ballot campaign she led. She died
three years ago, and Chip Faulkner, CLT’s associate
director who coordinated the petition drives, passed
away this year.”
But considering that almost
two generations have passed since “the promise”
was made and kept broken, there are a legion of
former-taxpaying souls who are also no longer with us to
celebrate as well. There are a multitude of
taxpayers today for whom this will be the first time
they’ll ever have paid a 5% income tax in their
lifetimes — higher is all they’ve
ever known!
I pointed out
to Matt Stout that the final five one-hundredths of one
percent reduction isn’t much, but consider how many
billions taxpayers have over-paid during the past
thirty years, how many multiple billions of that illicit additional
revenue the state has raked in over those decades.
—
MORE TO FOLLOW TOMORROW —
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Alternatives To Gas Tax Pitched For Transpo
Revenue
By Chris Lisinski
Supporters of increasing fees on ride-hailing
trips, expanding highway tolls, and charging
drivers for every mile they travel made their
cases to lawmakers Thursday, each pitching their
respective proposal as a necessary source of
revenue to address the state's growing
transportation needs.
Several key House members have hinted that they
are likely to include an increase in the state's
24-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax in a
transportation revenue bill that Speaker Robert
DeLeo is eyeing for release next month, but
other ideas put on the table during a
Transportation Committee hearing on Thursday
could supplement that revenue stream.
Rep. Thomas Stanley warned his colleagues that
over the long term the gas tax will be
insufficient to meet roadway and public transit
needs. Rising fuel efficiency in vehicles, he
said, means that even the same frequency of
driving will result in motorists purchasing less
gas, generating less revenue for the state.
Instead, Stanley suggested Massachusetts embrace
legislation (H 3010) he co-filed with Rep.
Tricia Farley-Bouvier to create a pilot program
to test fees based on the miles people travel
rather than the amount of gas used.
That system, often referred to as vehicle miles
traveled or VMT, would help ensure that
Massachusetts has the funding available to make
upgrades to its aging public transit systems and
roads and bridges that require maintenance or
overhauls, Stanley said.
"Without a reliable long-term revenue source,
the state will fall further behind properly
maintaining our transportation infrastructure,"
he said.
The hearing took place against a backdrop of
warnings from the Baker administration that
traffic has reached a "tipping point," concerns
from businesses about the economic impact of
transportation challenges for their employees,
and widespread frustration over public transit
disruptions from commuters.
"The system is not working today for
constituents in any of your districts around the
state," Transportation for Massachusetts
Executive Director Chris Dempsey told the
committee. "There's different reasons in
different parts of the state, but the system is
not working. Your body is really needed, an
action from your body is needed soon to try to
dig us out of that hole we're in."
Two proposals, both filed by Lynn Democratic
Sen. Brendan Crighton, would look at overhauling
the state's toll system and expand those charges
to many more drivers than currently face them.
The first bill (S 2060) would instruct the
Department of Transportation to report on the
feasibility of implementing all-electronic
tolling on state and interstate highways "not
currently subject to a toll," taking a look in
particular at tolls along the state's borders.
The second (S 2062) would expand tolls to
stretches of Interstate 93, Interstate 95 and
Route 2 in an attempt to apply equal charges to
drivers across the greater Boston region. That
bill also calls for implementation of dynamic
"peak pricing" where the toll varies based on
roadway conditions.
Crighton told the committee that the new systems
could help reduce congestion, encourage shared
rides and bring in funding for transit
infrastructure.
"With traffic at a standstill, residents are not
able to reliably get to work," Crighton said.
"Our strained transportation system poses
serious challenges for our business community
and the continued economic growth of our state."
Lynn Mayor Thomas McGee, who previously held
Crighton's Senate seat and co-chaired the
Transportation Committee, endorsed his
predecessor's bill to create an expanded
"Metropolitan Transportation Network." McGee
said he filed a similar version when he was in
the Legislature.
"When you get those dollars and make that
investment, it improves transportation for the
whole region," he said.
Another Crighton bill would increase the fees on
ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft.
The state currently assesses a flat 20-cent fee
on each ride through those services, regardless
of length. The legislation (S 2063) would change
that to a scaled percentage of the overall fare.
Under the proposal, the fees would be 4.25
percent of the total fare paid for shared rides
and 6.25 percent of the fare for a single
passenger trip.
Lizzi Weyant, government affairs director for
the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, told
lawmakers Thursday that Massachusetts has lower
fees on transportation network companies or TNCs
than many other areas and does not do enough to
incentivize shared rides. She said the state
also does not collect enough data from the
trips, which Gov. Charlie Baker targeted in a
bill he filed in July.
Lyft spokesman Campbell Matthews said in a
statement that the company believes higher fees
will not make a significant impact on
congestion.
"MassDOT's own report shows that people driving
alone in personal cars is the biggest
contributing factor to congestion," she said.
"This is why proposing to increase fees on
rideshare alone will never solve the
Massachusetts' traffic problems, and will only
hurt those who rely on rideshare."
An MAPC report in July said the MBTA missed out
on more than $20 million in foregone fare
revenue from passengers who jumped ship onto
TNCs.
Weyant said the MAPC also supports many other
ideas, including exploration of mileage-based
vehicle fees, additional tolling opportunities
and better regional transit authority funding,
but has not endorsed specific bills before the
committee.
"It feels a little bit like Groundhog Day,
sitting in this chair, talking about a
transportation crisis, urging financing
mechanisms that are needed to meet our statewide
needs," Weyant told the committee.
House leaders initially said they wanted to
debate and vote on a transportation revenue
package this fall, but with only a week
remaining for formal sessions in 2019 DeLeo
decided last month to push it back until
January.
Transportation Committee Co-Chair Rep. William
Straus told reporters after the hearing that he
would not rule out any revenue ideas — including
all of those that were on Thursday's agenda —
from the House's plans, save for a legislative
increase to MBTA fares.
The committee's Senate chair, Joseph Boncore,
said his chamber would likely wait to take up
the topic until after an informal Senate working
group examining transportation wraps up its
work. He declined to put a date on that, but
said it would be "as soon as the work's done."
State House News
Service
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Poll: Voters Back Compact to Reduce Transpo
Emissions
By Chris Lisinski
Voters
in seven of the states participating in a
nascent program to reduce transportation
emissions, including Massachusetts, largely
support the effort, according to a new poll.
A MassINC poll published Wednesday found that a
majority of registered voters in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and Virginia strongly or somewhat
support their home state's participation in the
Transportation and Climate Initiative.
In Massachusetts, 68 percent of the 629
respondents said they support the program,
compared to 21 percent who oppose it and 11
percent who are unsure, according to the poll,
which was sponsored by the Barr Foundation.
Only New York voters, with 71 percent support
and 19 percent opposition, were more in favor
among those polled.
Pollsters reached nearly 6,400 voters across the
states. Every state saw at least 30 percent net
approval for the program, often referred to as
TCI, when pollsters asked if voters would
support requiring gasoline and diesel companies
to pay for the pollution they create and using
the proceeds to improve transportation.
"This is a complex policy, and so we took the
time to explain the basics of how it would work
and how states might use the funds generated by
it," MassINC Polling Group President Steve
Koczela said in a press release. "Support was
broad, stretching across demographic and party
lines and throughout the region."
Twelve states — the seven targeted in the poll
plus Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island and Vermont — and the District of
Columbia are negotiating the framework for TCI,
which will be a mandatory cap-and-invest system
similar to the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative.
Once implemented, fuel suppliers will need to
purchase carbon allowances to account for the
emissions created by their products. Early
estimates indicate the caps could generate $150
million to $500 million in revenue for
Massachusetts, which could then be directed
toward transportation projects.
Bay State voters were the most enthusiastic
among those surveyed about using that new
funding to improve existing public transit: 86
percent strongly supported that use, a higher
rate than any of the other six states, according
to the poll.
The second-most popular spending plan among
Massachusetts voters was a tie, with 82 percent
strongly supporting both protecting existing
infrastructure from the effects of climate
change and making public transit more affordable
to encourage greater ridership.
State leaders plan to unveil proposed emissions
caps for TCI by the end of the month.
Although the final TCI terms are still in
development, it is likely that consumer costs at
the gas pump will increase. The poll's question
did not reference the potential of higher costs
on motorists when asking about their support for
the program.
Gov. Charlie Baker, Transportation Secretary
Stephanie Pollack and Energy and Environmental
Affairs Secretary Katie Theoharides plan to
discuss TCI at a Wednesday event hosted by
environmental and business groups.
The National Federation of Independent Business
and the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, the
latter of which has previously criticized the
process for drafting TCI, are also planning a
Wednesday press conference to announce their
opposition to the multi-state initiative. Both
groups said state lawmakers would join them.
NFIB argues the costs of the caps will
"ultimately be passed on to small businesses,
consumers and commuters at the gas pump as a
hidden fuel tax."
"Small businesses require fuel to transport
goods and provide services. Many have fleets and
employees use vehicles to get to job sites or a
client’s location," the organization wrote.
"This new tax will impact more than just small
businesses and their workforce. It also means
when operating costs for businesses increase,
the prices of goods and services will go up for
every Massachusetts consumer."
The Salem News
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Climate program could be boon for border states
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Massachusetts is one of a dozen states working
on a new cap-and-trade program to reduce vehicle
emissions, but critics say the plan could be a
boon for New Hampshire and other border states
that don't go along with it.
The Transportation Climate Initiative, put
together by a dozen Northeast and Mid-Atlantic
states working on reducing pollution, is
focusing on gasoline and diesel which account
for more than 80% of regional carbon emissions.
It could lead to a new wholesale tax on fossil
fuel suppliers to pay for regional
transportation projects.
Under the plan, suppliers who transport fuel
across state lines would be required to pay a
tax on excess carbon emissions based on caps
that still must be set.
Still, it's not clear if New Hampshire and
Vermont, where skeptical Republican governors
have expressed concerns about the plans, will
buy into the initiative. If they don't, critics
say Massachusetts' motorists could be saddled
with higher prices at the pumps than neighboring
states, as wholesalers pass along costs to
consumers.
"It would give people yet another reason to take
their business across the border to New
Hampshire, which puts the state and my district
at a competitive disadvantage," said Rep. Lenny
Mirra, R-West Newbury, who opposes the regional
plan. "But more importantly, this would be a
regressive tax that would hurt working people
who drive to work."
Christopher Carlozzi, Massachusetts state
director of the National Federation of
Independent Businesses, said the plan will hurt
businesses and others who can't afford higher
gas prices.
"It's a gas tax by another name," he told
reporters at briefing Wednesday. "TCI will
unfairly tax every small business, commuter and
working family in Massachusetts."
Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, committed the
state to joining the program last year as part
of an effort to reduce traffic congestion and
tackle climate change.
Modeled on the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, which seeks to reduce emissions from
power plants, TCI states are working on a
cap-and-invest program to drive down emissions
from cars and trucks. Details are still being
worked out, but a plan is expected to be
unveiled by the end of the year.
The cap-and-trade program would to get underway
in 2022.
Speaking to a gathering of business and
environmental leaders in Boston on Wednesday,
Baker didn't address concerns about who will pay
for the initiative but stressed the importance
of regional cooperation.
He said the regional cap-and-trade program on
power plants has reduced emissions and generated
revenue for other climate change initiatives.
"The bottom line is that this is probably one of
the best ways to get an extraordinary large
number of people rowing in the same direction on
a program model that has proven to be
effective," Baker said.
While TCI states haven't decided on a regional
cap, proponents say the overall goal is to
ratchet down vehicle emissions each year.
The Baker administration says Massachusetts
could reel in up to $500 million a year for
clean transportation programs from the sale of
carbon allowances through the program.
"It's a sin tax that would punish ordinary
people for doing a task the government believes
is wrong by artificially increasing the cost,"
said Paul Craney, a spokesman for the the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which also
opposes the plan. "It's bad economics and
morally wrong."
Lawmakers are also considering proposals to
increase the state's 24-cent per-gallon gas tax,
which was last hiked in 2013, amid a renewed
push by transit advocates.
Baker opposes an increase in the gas tax,
arguing the move is unnecessary and would
unfairly burden low-income families and small
business owners.
Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack has
acknowledged that TCI will probably lead to
higher gas prices, but pushed back against those
who are calling it a tax.
"It is not a gas tax," she told lawmakers during
an October hearing before the Legislature's
Joint Transportation Committee. "It is a
cap-and-invest program."
Massachusetts drivers pay a total of 44.9 cents
per gallon in gasoline taxes, including state
and federal taxes and other fees, according to
the American Petroleum Institute.
In New Hampshire, which has a 22.2 cent state
gas tax, drivers pay 42.23 cents per gallon in
total taxes and fees, according to API. In
Vermont, the total is 49.34 cents.
Nancy Kyle, president and CEO of the New
Hampshire Retail Association, welcomes the idea
of more Massachusetts consumers flocking to the
Granite State to shop and fill up the tank.
"They're already coming up here to shop because
of the lack of a sales tax," she said. "So maybe
while they're here, they'll stop at a gas
station to fill up before heading home."
Environmental groups and transit advocates say
the TCI initiative is key for the state to meet
its dual goals of reducing emissions and
alleviating congestion.
Proponents expect higher prices at the pumps
will lead people to use their vehicles less
frequently or rely on public transit to get to
work.
Meanwhile, a new poll by MassINC Polling found
at least 66% of respondents in Massachusetts and
seven other states supported the regional
approach to addressing climate change.
But the survey of nearly 7,000 voters didn't ask
if they supported new taxes and fees to
implement the program, and critics pounced on
the omission.
"People may be in favor of TCI but do they know
the costs?" Carlozzi said Wednesday. "The poll
didn't explain that the costs would be passed
along to consumers at the gas pumps."
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts
Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s
newspapers and websites.
The Boston Herald
Friday, December 13, 2019
A Boston Herald editorial
Better ways for Baker to cut carbon emissions
Gov.
Charlie Baker says he wants to reduce carbon
emissions — that’s the reason for the
Transportation Climate Initiative’s planned fee
rollout, which would charge fuel companies for
the carbon emissions associated with the gas and
diesel they sell.
As the Boston Herald’s Mary Markos reported,
Baker stumped for the plan at the Transportation
and Climate Initiative Business Summit in Boston
Wednesday. The TCI wll do great things to battle
climate change, according to Baker, adding that
the transportation sector is the “next big
space” to move away from fossil fuels and toward
renewable energy, since it now represents 40% of
all emissions.
“This gives us the ability to create a framework
where the resources that are raised as a result
of this initiative go into things that are
believed to be tools that can be used to
continue to reduce emissions,” Baker said. “I
believe this will be one of the most important
regional initiatives in reducing carbon
emissions anywhere in the U.S.”
The essence of the plan: Consumers pay higher
gas prices, and half of the money raised through
the fees go toward Baker’s $18 billion
transportation bond bill, which includes major
investments in the MBTA. Pay more for gas so
public transportation improves, carbon emissions
are lowered, happiness reigns.
But if this were really just about getting
people to drive less and drive down emissions,
why not use the same incentives and breaks the
state provides to entice people to switch to
solar energy?
We have a residential renewable energy income
tax credit, solar tax exemptions and even a Mass
Solar Loan program. Why not give tax credits to
people who commute by T, provide tax exemptions
to people who switch to more fuel-efficient cars
and help with loans for people who want to buy
electric cars or hybrids?
Drivers would have choices, and incentives to
scale down their carbon footprint.
Of course, incentivizing moves towards fuel
efficiency and reducing carbon emissions doesn’t
put money in the state’s coffers, and critics
charge that the TCI plan is a just cash grab, in
eco-warrior clothing.
“It’s a back door way of trying to pass a gas
tax,” said Republican strategist Holly Robichaud.
“This is just another angle to justify sticking
it to the drivers instead of trying to actually
reform the way business is done at the MBTA,”
U.S. Senate candidate Geoff Diehl said.
Higher gas prices are not going to lessen the
distance commuters need to cover, nor move them
to neighborhoods accessible by the T. They won’t
make cars more fuel-efficient, and if drivers do
decide to switch vehicles in order to save on
gas, won’t help them cover the cost of a new
car.
There are transit authorities around the state,
but not as widespread as Greater Boston’s subway
and bus system, A trip from Hopkinton to Natick
Center, for example, can take an hour and 45
minutes, with a switch from the MBTA to commuter
rail. You can drive the 11 miles in 20 minutes.
Higher gas prices will do nothing to make life
in the suburbs less car-dependent.
What is especially galling is Baker’s indication
that he would exercise his power to implement
TCI through an executive order. The people would
pay, but we’d have no say. Rep. David DeCoste,
R-Norwell, said he plans to file a bill that
would require legislative approval before the
governor could enter Massachusetts into any
similar compacts.
Climate change needs to be tackled and carbon
footprints reduced. There are just better ways
of doing it without soaking the taxpayer.
State House News
Service
Thursday, December 12, 2019
House, Senate Pass $541 Mil Spending Bill
By Matt Murphy
House
and Senate leaders broke a weeks-long impasse
over a more than $1 billion surplus spending
bill on Wednesday night, cutting a deal that
dropped a controversial corporate tax change
that would have financially benefited
Massachusetts businesses and set aside $32
million for repairs on the MBTA, which is less
than the $50 million sought by Gov. Charlie
Baker.
The vote on the compromise budget bill to close
the books on the fiscal year that ended back in
June capped a tumultuous day during which
Comptroller Andrew Maylor backed off a threat to
sweep the entire surplus into reserves by
mid-afternoon if the Legislature couldn't
resolve its differences.
And before the deal was finalized, House counsel
Jim Kennedy got involved in a back-and-forth
with Maylor over the breadth of his legal
authority, with Kennedy challenging Maylor's
assertion of power to sweep the surplus and
leave deficits in certain accounts, including
MassHealth.
The total spending in the final version of the
budget clocked in at $541 million, which was
significantly less than previous iterations of
the bill that ranged from $723 million to $853
million. Instead of spending more of the
surplus, the budget bill proposed to deposit
$587 million into the state's "rainy day" fund,
pushing the balance of the reserve account to
$3.45 billion.
House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz
said the compromise reflected a increased level
of caution that leaders felt was appropriate
after passing a major $1.5 billion, seven-year
education funding overhaul and hearing last week
from economists about the risk of an economic
slowdown in 2020 and beyond.
"Those two factors weighed heavily," Michlewitz
said.
The corporate tax provision was widely viewed by
those trying to read into the negotiations
between the branches over the past several weeks
as a major sticking point, and the decision by
the House to drop it completely from the
compromise came after some liberal Democrats
were threatening to hold up any deal that
included it.
The provision would have decoupled Massachusetts
from the federal tax code, and allowed
businesses to avoid paying about $37 million in
new taxes as a result of the 2018 Republican tax
reform law signed by President Donald Trump that
capped the amount of interest a corporation
could deduct on debt built up in order to invest
in the company. While proponents saw it as a way
to foster job growth and capital investment,
critics slammed it as an unnecessary corporate
tax giveaway.
"To get the budget done, we tried to find
appropriate areas of compromise to make sure we
got this done," Michlewitz said, about the
decision to drop it.
Senate President Karen Spilka, who spoke to
reporters just after midnight, sounded a similar
note when asked about the corporate tax outcome,
which reflected the Senate's preference. "All
bills have compromise," she said.
On Twitter, progressive Democrat Rep. Mike
Connolly declared victory, thanking his
colleagues Reps. Lindsay Sabadosa, Maria
Robinson and Tami Gouveia for speaking out
against the provision. "It's not everyday that
we defeat the big corporate lobby on Beacon
Hill...," Connolly tweeted.
Spilka said there was "some disappointment" that
all of the priorities legislators would have
liked to spend surplus money on were not
ultimately funded, but described those decisions
as part of the "give and take of negotiations"
and "a tension" between wanting to build up the
"rainy day" fund and spend the money.
"There was a lot within this budget. A few years
back we had to cut almost a billion. This year
we had a billion. It doesn't always make it that
much easier," Spilka said.
One area where conference committee negotiators
cut was in funding for the MBTA, which was
reduced from $50 million to $32 million to help
pay for Gov. Baker accelerated repair program.
The reduction came just days after an outside
panel hired by the Baker administration to
review the MBTA system identified significant
gaps in safety.
"With the House focused on an upcoming
transportation revenue debate, we provided $32
million to the MBTA for an immediate infusion of
funds. The appropriation will help the T address
its interim needs while we await clearer and
more consistent information on the
Administration’s spending plans," House Speaker
Robert DeLeo said in a statement.
DeLeo said the administration had initially told
him it needed the funding for a "flex force" to
work on both the capital and operating side of
the MBTA operation and enable the agency more
quickly deliver infrastructure improvements.
He interpreted the governor's comments this week
that the money was needed for enhanced safety as
a shift in that reasoning, though at the time
Baker made the request in June he did also say
the money would allow the MBTA to increase the
frequency of its train inspections and
preventive maintenance.
"While we seek more precise information on the
needs of the T, the House recommits itself to a
transportation revenue debate in the coming
months," DeLeo said.
Spilka did not elaborate on the decision to
scale back the appropriation for the MBTA, or
say whether she shares the speaker's uncertainty
with how Baker plans to spend the money.
"I believe that the T needs some funding and
that's something that we're talking about.
Again, through the give and take of
negotiations, that's where we ended up," she
said.
House and Senate negotiators also eliminated the
targeted assistance funding sought by Gov. Baker
for grants to improve the performance in
underperforming school districts. Baker had
initially requested $50 million, but cut that
ask down to $30 million last week.
The completion of the budget came more than a
month after Comptroller Maylor's statutory Oct.
31 deadline to close the books on fiscal 2019
and publish an annual financial report. While
the fiscal year ended on June 30, Baker did not
file the original closeout budget until Sept. 9
and the Democrat-controlled legislature has been
at odds ever since over how to spend the
surplus.
The bill does establish and fund a period of
early voting ahead of the March 3 presidential
primaries, but it does not create an early
voting window as recommended by the Senate
before the 2020 state primary, which the bill
scheduled for Sept. 1. The final version also
omits language that would have allowed farmers
to use agricultural conservation land for hemp
cultivation, even though both the House and
Senate have now passed versions of that
provision in separate bills.
Wednesday began with a 3 p.m. deadline set by
the comptroller hanging over the activities at
the State House, but as it became clear that
legislative negotiators were going to blow
through that deadline, Maylor said he would
temporarily back off his threat to sweep the
funds into the state's "rainy day" account
because he had learned of "substantial progress"
in negotiations between the House and Senate.
Maylor said that if the Legislature did not make
"clear progress toward final enactment" on
Wednesday, he would be ready to transfer the
funds on Thursday morning, but he did not set
another firm deadline.
But even as those talks continued, House counsel
Jim Kennedy wrote a two-page letter to the
comptroller's office challenging Maylor's legal
standing to transfer the surplus without
direction from the Legislature.
The letter seemed to escalate the stakes of the
negotiations and raised questions about whether
the Legislature and the comptroller could be on
a legal collision course that would have to be
cleaned up by the courts.
Kennedy, in his note to General Counsel and
Assistant Comptroller Amy Nable, said that
Maylor would be acting "ultra vires," or beyond
one's legal authority, by unilaterally
transferring the surplus. The House's top lawyer
took issue with the sections of general law
cited by Maylor as giving him the authority to
act, and suggested that doing so would be
"repugnant to the Constitution," which requires
a balanced budget.
Kennedy also said that if Maylor transfers the
entire surplus into the stabilization fund while
some funds are deficient, he will be causing a
deficit in certain accounts, violating his
governing statute.
Maylor responded by saying that while he didn't
want to "litigate this issue in the press" he
continued to disagree with Kennedy's legal
interpretation, and gave a warning about what
might happen next year if the closeout budget is
late again.
"It is our hope that the Fiscal Year 2019
closeout process was a true anomaly and that the
opinion of House Counsel does not foreshadow the
reaction to future fiscal year closes, and the
associated net surplus transfers which the
Comptroller has already stated will happen no
later than the statutory deadline," Maylor said.
Maylor cited as supporting evidence for his
authority to transfer the money on his own the
fact that the chairs of the House and Senate
Ways and Means Committees called him ""directly"
on Wednesday and made a "personal request" that
he give them more time. House officials disputed
this account, and said it was Maylor who reached
out to them first. When Michlewitz called him
back, the comptroller was given only an update
on the status of talks between the branches,
according to the officials.
"We made no such request," one House official
said, requesting anonymity to share details of a
private conversation.
While Baker must still sign the budget accord,
House Minority Leader Brad Jones said prior to
the announcement of an agreement that "there
should be little or no cause for celebration or
congratulations or adulation that this has been
resolved."
"It's not the way it should work. The thing we
can't have happen has become the new normal,"
Jones said, comparing a closeout budget accord
so long after the Oct. 31 deadline to "turning a
term paper in long after a semester is over."
While bipartisan cooperation is often touted on
Beacon Hill as favorable compared to the climate
in Washington D.C., Jones worries that the
inability of House and Senate Democrats to agree
on issues may bleed into next year, making
progress on other key issues more difficult.
"I don't think it sends a real good message
about state governnment," he said. "Instead of
asking DC to emulate us, we're close to
emulating DC."
—Michael P.
Norton and Katie Lannan contributed reporting
|
| |
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
|
