 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Call your
State Rep & Senator or start packing
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
On January 23rd 2020, the
Massachusetts Senate came out with a Climate Change package
that would drastically increase regulations on how you live
your daily life. The senate is seeking to tax you on
necessities such as driving your car and heating your home,
and simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This package includes
three separate bills and is going to be taken up by the
Senate on THURSDAY ...
Please
contact your legislators and tell them this extreme
nanny-state legislation is insulting to taxpayers and
reaches far beyond what is appropriate.
MassFiscal
California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!
For a Republican governor,
Charlie Baker is all in on fighting climate change, and now
it’s up to his Environmental Secretary Katie Theoharides to
do the fighting.
Already she’s facing
headwinds on the Transportation and Climate Initiative, as
other New England governors cast doubt, or, in the case of
New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, have become outright
hostile toward the proposal.
But no one should
underestimate Theoharides and Baker’s resolve to get buy-in
on the ambitious, multistate program that aims to cap fossil
fuel use by vehicles and in the process increase the cost of
filling up at the gas pump by as much as 17 cents per
gallon.
“She has great analytical and
political skills,” said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union
of Concerned Scientists, the Cambridge environmental
advocacy group. “If anyone can pull it off, I think she can,
especially since she is getting huge help from her boss, the
governor.”
Even with Baker’s unequivocal
support, Theoharides knew getting others on board would be
hard. She faces a spring deadline to get states in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region to agree on meaningful
limits on emissions.
“States are going to be in
somewhat different places politically,” acknowledged
Theoharides, who also serves as chair of the coalition of a
dozen states looking at implementing TCI. “People hate any
time we are looking at things that affect the price of gas.”
...
While a recent MassINC poll
indicates broad support for TCI among voters in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, the politics are difficult even
in Massachusetts. Senate President Karen Spilka supports
TCI, but Speaker Bob DeLeo is actively mapping out other
ways to raise additional money to fix the state’s crumbling
transportation infrastructure.
Raising the gas tax, for
example, could complicate the state’s pursuit of TCI.
“It would be very difficult
to get both approved at the same time,” said Theoharides. “I
worry if we try to do both at the same time we don’t get
TCI.” ...
Theoharides said she has made
TCI her top priority, taking up nearly a third of her time.
She has dug deep because Baker has too. Last week during his
State of the Commonwealth address he committed the state
toward net-zero emissions by 2050.
“Net-zero hinges on us doing
something large-scale like TCI,” said Theoharides.
The Boston Globe
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Her assignment from Baker: Save the environment
One group of lawmakers
suggested tolls at the state’s border. Others want a
dedicated revenue stream for regional transit hubs. Some
simply asked that their towns not be forgotten.
As Massachusetts House
leaders shape the details of a long-awaited transportation
financing bill, they have spent weeks systematically meeting
behind closed doors with the caucuses and delegations that
make up the chamber’s membership, asking for input on a bill
that could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes or
fees.
The approach is an unusual
and painstaking one that, legislative leaders hope, will
solicit ideas and help build consensus for a bill that would
separate residents from more of their money — no small task
in an election year. It’s also made something else clear:
Lawmakers’ wish list for any new money is a lengthy one.
“Everyone needs to see that
their constituency is in the bill,” said state
Representative Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat who
sits on House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s leadership team and
met with the bill’s architects as part of Boston’s
delegation. “It’s always complicated when you have bills
like that. And it’s always expensive.”
The exercise — led by
Representative Aaron Michlewitz, the House budget chairman,
and Representative William M. Straus, chairman of the
transportation committee — underscores the difficult task
facing the Legislature....
DeLeo said Monday that any
overarching price tag on the bill still “varies," and Moran,
who serves as a second assistant majority leader under the
Winthrop Democrat, said House leadership has yet to present
members with definitive language. But Moran said his
“instinct” is the bill will ultimately total roughly $700
million in revenue, which he acknowledged may not satisfy
everyone.
“But the last big tax vote I
took was repealed,” Moran said, referencing a 2013 law that,
in part, tied the state’s gas tax to inflation. Voters the
next year struck down the provision at the ballot box, a
development that still colors some lawmakers’ thinking this
time.
“Everyone is [saying] just,
‘Raise revenue,’” Moran said. “That’s great. We did that —
and then the voters said, ‘No thank you.’”
The Boston Globe
Monday, January 27, 2019
‘I’ve never participated in a meeting like that’:
Inside the House’s great transportation debate
Leaders walk tightrope as they consider huge increase in
taxes or fees.
A poll of Massachusetts
voters taken this month showed support for Massachusetts
joining a regional effort to cut emissions in the
transportation sector, but opposition to a
17-cent-per-gallon increase in gas prices that the compact
could cause.
The poll of 712 likely
voters, conducted for the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, asked
respondents about Massachusetts joining the Transportation
Climate Initiative, describing it as a regional
collaboration of 11 states "that seek to improve
transportation and reduce carbon emissions from the
transportation sector by increasing the costs of gasoline
and diesel fuel." More than 46 percent of respondents
expressed support, with 41 percent against and 12.5 percent
undecided.
The compact's architects say
it could lead to gas price increases of between 5 cents a
gallon and 17 cents per gallon.
Pollsters asked respondents
about Massachusetts joining TCI if it meant paying an
additional tax or fee on gas and diesel vehicle fuel of up
to 17 cents per gallon in the first year, and increasing
annually. More than 60 percent of respondents expressed
opposition to that scenario, with just over 31 percent in
support and 8.7 percent with no opinion.
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Poll: Gas Price Considerations Influence TCI Support
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
On top of the
controversial Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI)
that, if imposed, intends to add up to 17 cents to the
cost of a gallon of gas for a start, with future
increases as determined by some unaccountable
bureaucracy from out-of-state without a vote of our
representatives, the state Senate has proposed three
additional "climate change" related bills that would
cripple Massachusetts residents:
S-2476,
S-2477, and
S-2478. If adopted, they would cost
every resident of Massachusetts a small fortune, even a
large one for some.
As our ally in
the multi-state anti-TCI coalition, Mass. Fiscal
Alliance, warned in its release below, "The Senate is
seeking to tax you on necessities such as driving your
car and heating your home, and simply raise prices on
EVERYTHING!"
The
Legislature has gone wild, using this threat of "climate
change" as a cudgel to batter taxpayers into submission,
to price every productive resident into poverty, drive
them out of Massachusetts if they are to survive.
As you must be
aware, CLT is you and all its members. When CLT
has won tax cut ballot campaigns it was because you and
other members collected the signatures to put the
question on the ballot, supported our efforts and ballot
campaigns. CLT represents your interests and keeps
you informed
—
but you must stand up as a citizen and make
your voice heard. Legislators must hear from
you personally —
their constituent
—
if they are to be held accountable, or feel they will
be. They are certainly hearing from those fanatics
who want to price you into oblivion as mere collateral
damage in their holy crusade. If legislators don't
hear countering voices, who do you suppose they will
listen to? What do you suppose legislators will
do?
Please contact
your state senator and state representative and urge
them to abandon the plans to bankrupt you, or drive you
out of Massachusetts for your and your family's
financial survival.
FIND YOUR STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE HERE
Back on
December 11 the State House News Service
reported the results of a MassINC poll on support of
TCI. It reported:
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....
...The poll's question did not
reference the potential of higher costs on motorists
when asking about their support for the program.
That
important detail of "higher costs on motorists" was not
included, strangely.
Well it's been
included in a
new poll recently released by Fiscal Alliance
Foundation and when asked, support fell dramatically,
the State House News Service reported, in fact it almost
inverted:
Pollsters asked respondents about Massachusetts
joining TCI if it meant paying an additional tax or
fee on gas and diesel vehicle fuel of up to 17 cents
per gallon in the first year, and increasing
annually. More than 60 percent of respondents
expressed opposition to that scenario, with just
over 31 percent in support and 8.7 percent with no
opinion.
S-2476 — An Act to Accelerate
the Transition of Cars, Trucks, and Buses to Carbon-Free
Power
S-2477 — An Act Setting Next-Generation Climate
Policy
S-2478 — An Act Relative to Energy Savings
Efficiency (Energy Save)
How do you suppose those above
three Senate bills — in addition to an ever-growing
burden imposed by TCI
—
will poll when and if their
additional crushing costs are ever exposed?
Please call your state
representative and state senator immediately
— or forever hold your peace, and
start packing up for the move out of Massachusetts.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
MassFiscal
California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!
On January 23rd 2020, the Massachusetts Senate
came out with a Climate Change package that
would drastically increase regulations on how
you live your daily life. The senate is
seeking to tax you on necessities such as
driving your car and heating your home, and
simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This
package includes three separate bills and is
going to be taken up by the Senate on THURSDAY:
(S
2476) continues taxpayer-funded subsidies
for electric vehicles (EV’s,) increases the
requirement for EV charging stations in parking
lots with more than 10 spaces as well as all
commercial and residential lots. It will
also require all taxpayer-funded state vehicles
to change to expensive zero emissions vehicles
by certain dates.
(S
2477) is a straight Carbon Tax that will
increase the cost of living exponentially.
It establishes net-neutral greenhouse gas
emissions standards by 2050. It
accomplishes this by adopting sector-based
statewide greenhouse gas emissions sub-limits
including, but not limited to, electric power,
transportation, commercial and industrial
heating and cooling, residential heating and
cooling, industrial processes, solid waste,
agriculture and natural gas distribution and
service. This simply means you will pay
more for electricity, gas, heat in the winter
and air conditioning in the summer, trash
disposal, food, and any other goods and services
that uses any of these things to be made for you
or to get to you.
(S
2478) Substantially expands the
Massachusetts Appliance Efficiency Standards Act
to include higher standards for a wider variety
of consumer and commercial products. What will
it do?
• It requires cooking appliances, air
ventilation systems, and lamps to meet federal
Energy Star guidelines;
• It adopts California energy regulations for
computers and computer monitors;
• It establishes specific flow volumes required
for plumbing fixtures, including shower heads,
faucets, toilets, and urinals;
• It sets an effective date of January 1, 2022,
after which products covered in this act must
meet their new regulations in order to be sold
or installed in Massachusetts;
• Maintains existing federal water and energy
efficiency requirements in Massachusetts in the
event they are withdrawn or repealed.
Please contact your legislators and tell them
this extreme nanny-state legislation is
insulting to taxpayers and reaches far beyond
what is appropriate.
https://www.votervoice.net/MASSFISCAL/Campaigns/70606/Respond
The Boston
Globe
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Her assignment from Baker: Save the environment
By Shirley Leung
For a Republican governor, Charlie Baker is all
in on fighting climate change, and now it’s up
to his Environmental Secretary Katie Theoharides
to do the fighting.
Already she’s facing headwinds on the
Transportation and Climate Initiative, as other
New England governors cast doubt, or, in the
case of New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu,
have become outright hostile toward the
proposal.
But no one should underestimate Theoharides and
Baker’s resolve to get buy-in on the ambitious,
multistate program that aims to cap fossil fuel
use by vehicles and in the process increase the
cost of filling up at the gas pump by as much as
17 cents per gallon.
“She has great analytical and political skills,”
said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of
Concerned Scientists, the Cambridge
environmental advocacy group. “If anyone can
pull it off, I think she can, especially since
she is getting huge help from her boss, the
governor.”
Even with Baker’s unequivocal support,
Theoharides knew getting others on board would
be hard. She faces a spring deadline to get
states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region
to agree on meaningful limits on emissions.
“States are going to be in somewhat different
places politically,” acknowledged Theoharides,
who also serves as chair of the coalition of a
dozen states looking at implementing TCI.
“People hate any time we are looking at things
that affect the price of gas.”
For those keeping score in New England, only
Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo is publicly
enthusiastic, with her office reiterating this
week that she is “fully committed” to the goals
of TCI and an “aggressive approach” to lowering
carbon emissions.
Theoharides is hesitant to say how many states
need to commit before the program begins in
2022, but obviously the more the better. “Really
our goal now is to get as many as we can,” she
said.
TCI aims to reduce vehicle emissions, which
account for 40 percent of climate-changing
greenhouse gas pollution. Under TCI, fuel
distributors in participating states would need
to buy pollution permits for the carbon dioxide
they produce.
States could then take the money generated from
the permits — estimated to be in the billions of
dollars — and invest them in public transit and
an alternative fuel infrastructure that would,
for example, motivate consumers to switch to
electric vehicles.
Gas prices are likely to rise because it is
widely expected that fuel distributors will pass
their additional costs onto consumers.
While TCI may seem like it came out of nowhere,
Massachusetts officials across different
administrations have been working with other
states for a decade on reducing transportation
emissions. States began to coalesce around a TCI
concept in 2017, and that’s when Theoharides got
involved in her prior role as the state’s
director of climate and global warming
solutions. Baker promoted 37-year-old
Theoharides, who is trained as a field
biologist, to the top environmental job in May
when Matthew Beaton left for the private sector.
If Theoharides seems unfazed by the resistance
to TCI, it’s because environmentalists pushing
for transformative change have been here before.
TCI is modeled off the Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative, a multistate, cap-and-invest system
that is viewed as a national model for sharply
reducing power plant emissions without raising
electricity rates.
But it was far from sure thing in 2003, when
governors from nine states in the Northeast
began deliberating RGGI. The proposed compact
had its share of naysayers and critics: Would it
increase the price of electricity? Could it hurt
the reliability of power? Would a cap-and-invest
program even work?
When it came time to sign RGGI’s first
memorandum of understanding in 2005, the
Republican governors of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island at the time (Mitt Romney and Donald
Carcieri) got cold feet and refused to
participate.
Two years later, Carcieri had a change of heart
and Rhode Island joined RGGI, as did
Massachusetts under then Governor Deval Patrick.
Maryland also signed up at the time.
Martin Suuberg, commissioner of the
Massachusetts Department for Environmental
Protection and the current chairman of RGGI,
said TCI advocates are also drawing lessons on
how to reach consensus, such as having a
transparent process and collaborating closely
with counterparts in other states.
“A lot of the states that are in TCI also did
RGGI. It was an important template. We tried to
incorporate a lot of the elements,” said Suuberg,
while “recognizing that everyone would bring
their own perspective.”
While a recent MassINC poll indicates broad
support for TCI among voters in the Northeast
and Mid-Atlantic, the politics are difficult
even in Massachusetts. Senate President Karen
Spilka supports TCI, but Speaker Bob DeLeo is
actively mapping out other ways to raise
additional money to fix the state’s crumbling
transportation infrastructure.
Raising the gas tax, for example, could
complicate the state’s pursuit of TCI.
“It would be very difficult to get both approved
at the same time,” said Theoharides. “I worry if
we try to do both at the same time we don’t get
TCI.”
It’s hard to see a scenario in which Beacon Hill
signs off on what would be a double-whammy at
the gas pump. But here’s the case for TCI:
Designed right, the program can break us out of
our dependence on fossil fuels. A gas tax is
just a gas tax. If you believe climate change is
an urgent problem, you get behind TCI, which
across multiple states affects the habits of 70
million people and 52 million vehicles.
Theoharides said she has made TCI her top
priority, taking up nearly a third of her time.
She has dug deep because Baker has too. Last
week during his State of the Commonwealth
address he committed the state toward net-zero
emissions by 2050.
“Net-zero hinges on us doing something
large-scale like TCI,” said Theoharides.
Of Baker’s big bet on TCI, Theoharides added:
“It’s not an easy thing for him to lead on ...
He is personally sticking his neck out on this.
I feel a real obligation to keep as many states
in as we can and to make it a success."
The Boston
Globe
Monday, January 27, 2019
‘I’ve never participated in a meeting like
that’:
Inside the House’s great transportation debate
Leaders walk tightrope as they consider huge
increase in taxes or fees.
By Matt Stout
One group of lawmakers suggested tolls at the
state’s border. Others want a dedicated revenue
stream for regional transit hubs. Some simply
asked that their towns not be forgotten.
As Massachusetts House leaders shape the details
of a long-awaited transportation financing bill,
they have spent weeks systematically meeting
behind closed doors with the caucuses and
delegations that make up the chamber’s
membership, asking for input on a bill that
could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in
taxes or fees.
The approach is an unusual and painstaking one
that, legislative leaders hope, will solicit
ideas and help build consensus for a bill that
would separate residents from more of their
money — no small task in an election year. It’s
also made something else clear: Lawmakers’ wish
list for any new money is a lengthy one.
“Everyone needs to see that their constituency
is in the bill,” said state Representative
Michael J. Moran, a Brighton Democrat who sits
on House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo’s leadership
team and met with the bill’s architects as part
of Boston’s delegation. “It’s always complicated
when you have bills like that. And it’s always
expensive.”
The exercise — led by Representative Aaron
Michlewitz, the House budget chairman, and
Representative William M. Straus, chairman of
the transportation committee — underscores the
difficult task facing the Legislature.
Just about everyone inside and outside the State
House agrees the state’s transportation networks
have lurched into crisis, with jam-packed
highways, deteriorating roads, and
problem-plagued trains providing a daily
reminder of the state’s transit troubles. But
the amount of new money needed, and where to
best funnel it, is an open debate, as is perhaps
the stickier question: How should lawmakers
actually raise it?
Nearly a year ago, DeLeo publicly asked for
input from business leaders, who want action but
did not overwhelmingly coalesce around how to
raise revenue. Various advocates have pressed
their case, fanning out polls and reports with
recommendations. Reams of bills offer no
shortage of ideas.
Some have appeared to gain traction. Straus has
long said generating enough money in the bill
would be difficult without raising the state’s
24-cents-a-gallon gas tax. And DeLeo said last
week that hiking the fees applied to Uber or
Lyft rides was “actively being considered” after
Governor Charlie Baker included the idea in his
budget proposal.
But even now, lawmakers say the legislation’s
full scope, as well as its exact timing this
winter, remains a work-in-progress. So after
DeLeo opted to push into 2020 a debate he
originally targeted for last fall, Michlewitz
and Straus began January by huddling with groups
of lawmakers who share geography or ideology to
gather feedback.
It set off a relatively unorthodox process in a
chamber that can often lean on siloed committees
to produce legislation and the speaker’s office
for direction.
“I’ve never participated in a meeting like that
in my time in the building,” said Representative
Carolyn C. Dykema, a Holliston Democrat who
joined the House in 2009 and chairs the
Legislature’s MetroWest caucus.
The meetings, held in Michlewitz’s second-floor
office, can last for an hour, if not more.
There’s been roughly 10 so far, with more
scheduled for this week, and have featured
groups ranging from the chamber’s nearly
60-person Progressive Caucus to the
Massachusetts Black and Latino Caucus to
lawmakers who represent so-called Gateway
Cities.
“When we set out, there are caucuses among
colleagues that I wasn’t even aware of,” Straus
said. “I think it’s been an education for
everyone.”
It’s also produced ideas aplenty. Members of the
MetroWest caucus, whose towns use the commuter
rail as a vital link to the city, laid out
concerns over unreliable trains and the impact
of major construction projects, including the
expansive viaduct project in Allston.
But Dykema said members also view the bill as a
chance to expand tolling beyond the
Massachusetts Turnpike, on which many of their
constituents also rely to get to and from work.
“I think the vast majority of us [in the caucus]
would welcome tolls at the border or tolled
lanes on additional roadways,” she said.
The House Progressive Caucus, meanwhile, said a
focus should also be on generating economic
development in low-income communities or the
“decarbonization of all modes of transportation”
— with the brunt of any tax increases falling on
businesses.
“We believe that the greater part of new
transportation-related revenue should be
collected through corporate taxes,”
Representatives Tricia Farley-Bouvier and Jack
Patrick Lewis, the caucus co-chairs, said in a
statement.
The Legislature’s Regional Transit Authority
Caucus, a collection of lawmakers who represent
towns and cities served by the 15 RTA’s that
provide local bus service, pressed for a
dedicated state funding source for those
agencies outside any annual budget allocation.
At the moment, only the MBTA has one, an
automatic portion of the state’s sales tax
receipts. Any type of new revenue stream for the
RTA’s can help pay for night or weekend service
in places they don’t have it, lawmakers argued.
“That was the ask,” said Representative Sarah K.
Peake, a Provincetown Democrat who co-chairs the
caucus and sits on DeLeo’s leadership team.
“Everything is on the table and as long as we
get our fair share, we’re going to feel OK about
it.”
Representative Paul W. Mark, a Peru Democrat who
co-chairs the Rural Caucus, said its meeting
delved into discussion about closing corporate
tax loopholes to help offset any potential
increase to the gas tax that could pinch places,
like his 850-person town 12 miles east of
Pittsfield, that don’t have public transit
options.
“When we talk about transportation funding, it
all ends up going to the MBTA, or it all ends up
going to the Boston area,” Mark said. “If we’re
going to do this thing, we want to make sure
that rural towns, regardless of location, aren’t
forgotten."
DeLeo said Monday that any overarching price tag
on the bill still “varies," and Moran, who
serves as a second assistant majority leader
under the Winthrop Democrat, said House
leadership has yet to present members with
definitive language. But Moran said his
“instinct” is the bill will ultimately total
roughly $700 million in revenue, which he
acknowledged may not satisfy everyone.
“But the last big tax vote I took was repealed,”
Moran said, referencing a 2013 law that, in
part, tied the state’s gas tax to inflation.
Voters the next year struck down the provision
at the ballot box, a development that still
colors some lawmakers’ thinking this time.
“Everyone is [saying] just, ‘Raise revenue,’ ”
Moran said. “That’s great. We did that — and
then the voters said, ‘No thank you.’”
State House
News Service
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Poll: Gas Price Considerations Influence TCI
Support
By Michael P. Norton
A poll of Massachusetts voters taken this month
showed support for Massachusetts joining a
regional effort to cut emissions in the
transportation sector, but opposition to a
17-cent-per-gallon increase in gas prices that
the compact could cause.
The poll of 712 likely voters, conducted for the
Fiscal Alliance Foundation, asked respondents
about Massachusetts joining the Transportation
Climate Initiative, describing it as a regional
collaboration of 11 states "that seek to improve
transportation and reduce carbon emissions from
the transportation sector by increasing the
costs of gasoline and diesel fuel." More than 46
percent of respondents expressed support, with
41 percent against and 12.5 percent undecided.
The compact's architects say it could lead to
gas price increases of between 5 cents a gallon
and 17 cents per gallon.
Pollsters asked respondents about Massachusetts
joining TCI if it meant paying an additional tax
or fee on gas and diesel vehicle fuel of up to
17 cents per gallon in the first year, and
increasing annually. More than 60 percent of
respondents expressed opposition to that
scenario, with just over 31 percent in support
and 8.7 percent with no opinion.
Officials in neighboring New England States have
expressed reservations about joining the
compact, and poll respondents by a 61 percent to
27 percent margin opposed Massachusetts joining
TCI if neighboring states were not
participating.
The poll, conducted by Jim Eltringham of
Advantage Inc., featured a margin of error of
plus or minus 3.7 percent.
Online: Full Poll Results
|
| |
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
|
