 |
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
Sunday, February 9, 2020
State Tax
Revenue Continues Breaking Records
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Tax
revenues poured into state coffers in January, totaling
nearly $3 billion and representing a 6.2 percent increase
over January 2019 collections.
Tax
receipts over the first seven months of fiscal 2020 are up
4.9 percent, or $794 million over the same period in fiscal
2019, a year that produced a more than $1 billion budget
surplus....
January collections of $2.959 billion missed the monthly
benchmark by $35 million, but were $172 million higher than
in January 2019, with withholding tax collections rising
$119 million over last January.
"On
a fiscal year-to-date basis, we continue to see steady,
moderate growth above both prior year and benchmark," Acting
Revenue Commissioner Kevin Brown said in a statement....
With five months left in fiscal 2020, the state could be
trending toward another surplus, although state finance
officials say there's a 1 percent variance between spending
and revenues - Baker administration officials have declined
to say whether the variance is to the positive or negative.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
January Tax Collections Shoot Up 6.2 Percent
Housing advocates want to carve out a new source of money to
help cities and towns cover the cost of new affordable
units, but fiscal watchdogs say the move will add to the
burden on property owners.
A
proposal by Rep. Jay Livingstone, D-Boston, and Sen. William
Brownsberger, D-Belmont [HD.4850
/
SD.2785], would allow communities to add a transfer fee
up to 2% onto property tax bills.
Local governing boards would have to approve the new fee by
a two-thirds vote and also get approval from a majority of
the community’s voters in a local referendum.
Livingstone said a dearth of federal and state funding means
many cities and towns don't have the money for affordable
housing projects.
"This bill would provide municipalities with another source
of potential funding to help pay for initiatives such as
building new housing or expanding rental vouchers," he
said....
But
fiscal watchdogs say the proposal creates more taxes that
would unfairly burden property owners.
"They just can't keep adding to the taxpayers' burden," said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation. "The Legislature has got to stop
scheming for ways to take more money from productive
taxpayers, or they're going to see an exodus of people
leaving the state. It's the law of diminishing returns."
The Salem News
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
New 2% fee may fund affordable housing
Fiscal watchdogs say the proposal creates more taxes
PAY FINE FOR
NOT VOTING (H 653) – Requires eligible voters to cast a
ballot in every November General Election or face a fine of
$15 that would be added to the non-voter’s state tax
liability for each election missed. The measure also
clarifies that the voter does not have to actually vote for
anyone and is allowed to leave the ballot blank.
"This
proposed further imposition by Rep. Fernandes would
require 'all eligible voters in the commonwealth . . . to cast a
ballot' under threat of legal penalty,"
said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation.
"The
First Amendment protects freedom of speech, which
includes freedom from participating in speech. Voting is a right of
citizenship, exercised — or not — freely. This bill exemplifies
Massachusetts' political penchant for encroaching political
overreach, where everything not prohibited by law
must be made mandatory."
Beacon Hill Roll Call
Volume 45 - Report No. 6
Week of February 3-7, 2020
By Bob Katzen
H.653:
An Act making voting obligatory and increasing turnout in
elections
In
a business-like fashion, the Senate passed a sweeping
package of climate change legislation on Thursday night that
sets a net-zero target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,
creates an independent commission to watchdog that effort,
and requires the MBTA to start buying all-electric buses by
2028 and go all-electric by 2040.
Even though the issue of climate change is full of political
minefields, there were few serious policy disputes over the
course of the day. More than 150 amendments were filed to
the three bills, but many of them were withdrawn by members
who went along with appeals from leadership to stay focused
on the task at hand. Votes were lopsided, with the three
bills passing by votes of 36-2, 35-2, and 35-2.
“There was a very high harmony quotient with that debate,”
said the architect of the package, Sen. Michael Barrett of
Lexington.
Commonwealth Magazine
Friday, January 31, 2020
7 takes on Senate climate change debate
Lots of harmony, plus some political intrigue
On
Thursday, radical Senate Democrats scrambled to pass extreme
and authoritarian climate legislation that seeks to
drastically change how hard-working Massachusetts taxpayers
live, work, and commute.
Here’s what’s in store if this trio of bills is approved by
the House: California-style regulations will become the
norm, meaning mandatory low-flow showerheads, in addition to
slapping new taxes and fees on any and all uses of natural
gas and oil.
Per
Democratic Lexington Sen. Michael Barrett:
“We
follow California.”
Meanwhile, Californians are fleeing their home state at
record numbers.
MassGOP
Monday, February 3, 2020
News Release
Radical Democrats' newest obsession? Turning Massachusetts
into California
We’ve stated previously the gas-tax increase that’s part of
the regional emissions reduction compact backed by Gov.
Charlie Baker appears nothing more than a vehicle to raise
funds for the state’s many transportation needs.
Recently the governor seemed to agree with that assessment —
if that hike isn’t bundled with incentives for automakers
and fuel suppliers to invest in clean vehicles, charging
stations and alternative fuels. Otherwise, this tax increase
will just be passed on to consumers.
The
11-state Transportation Climate Initiative could cause gas
prices to rise by 5 to 17 cents per gallon....
The
gas-tax proposal already has created some cracks in the TCI;
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu said his state won’t support
it.
Meanwhile, our state Legislature, particularly the House,
has been weighing the possibility of inserting a
gasoline-tax increase in its transportation revenue bill.
According to the State House News Service, some lawmakers
likely feel uncomfortable about raising the gas tax during
an election year, while governors of those TCI states have
reservations about its impact on gas prices.
Whether on an intrastate or interstate level, a gas-tax
increase alone has become an increasingly harder sell.
A
Boston Herald editorial
Friday, February 7, 2020
Hard to find fans of gas-tax increase
The
MassInc Polling Group's survey of 2,318 Massachusetts
residents was conducted between Oct. 10 and Nov. 8, 2019 and
released Monday, four days after the state Senate passed
climate legislation that included deadlines for the state to
impose carbon-pricing mechanisms in the transportation
sector, homes and commercial buildings.
Seventy-nine percent of respondents said climate change will
be a serious problem for Massachusetts if it is left
unaddressed, and 56 percent said officials here should act
ahead of other states to address it. Another 22 percent said
Massachusetts should act at the same time as other states,
while 4 percent favored waiting for others to go first and
12 percent said the state should take no action.
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Katie Theoharides
said local and state officials are "stepping up" in response
to residents' desire for climate leadership.
"I
think where the rubber hits the road in terms of when this
becomes to get more challenging is what the solutions are
and how do we deploy them, and also the sense that probably
on climate change, none of the things that we're going to do
are going to be free," Theoharides said at an event MassINC
hosted Monday morning at the UMass Club in downtown Boston.
Theoharides pitched Gov. Charlie Baker's bill (S 10) that
would raise the state's real estate transfer tax to help
cities and towns cope with climate change impacts. She said
the tax increase would provide a "sustained and ongoing"
revenue source for these efforts....
MassINC's poll was conducted before the coalition announced
their cost estimates, and it did not ask respondents
questions about paying for any policy changes. It was also
conducted before Baker, Senate President Karen Spilka and
House Speaker Robert DeLeo all said they want the state to
achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and before the
details of the Senate's climate legislation had been made
public.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Poll Tested Public Opinion on Climate Change
Survey Conducted Before Wave of Recent Action
On
Beacon Hill, it'll feel like it arrives a lot faster.
That's what Gov. Charlie Baker suggested in an address
before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Tuesday,
snapping his fingers to indicate how quickly time will pass
between now and the last day of formal legislative business
for the two-year term.
"It's going to go by like this, and a lot of distractions
are going to be there, with the national scene and all the
rest, but here at home we have a whole bunch of really
important things to get done," he said.
Baker used his speech to highlight the priorities he wants
to see lawmakers act on over the next nearly six months,
singling out his health care, housing and transportation
legislation....
"One of the things that usually happens with a lot of the
big, complicated bond bills is they don't get passed until
the very end of session," he said. "Sometimes they get
passed 15 minutes after the end of session, which is always
interesting. It would be really great if that could get
passed sooner, so that we could actually start using some of
the tools and the resources that are available under that
bond bill for this construction season, which starts in the
spring." ...
Baker didn't touch on the potential for a gas tax increase
in his speech. Separately from whatever transportation
investment plan lawmakers might take up, Baker is also
working with other states in hopes of creating a regional
cap-and-invest program for carbon emissions from
transportation, which could ultimately increase gas prices
between 5 and 17 cents per gallon at the pump.
The
Boston Chamber supports a 15-cent gas tax increase over
three years.
[James Rooney, president and CEO of the Greater Boston of
Chamber of Commerce] said he views gas tax increases and the
transportation climate initiative as separate issues, in
part because it will be at least a few years before TCI
generates any revenue.
"So
we separate it and say, the now moment is the gas tax,"
Rooney said. "That can be done Monday, and it's very easy to
implement, and we need funds for our transportation systems
and we need to incent behavior of drivers."
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Transpo Challenges Testing Baker’s Patience
Rooney: "The Now Moment is The Gas Tax"
Ten
days after a House chairman signaled he was ready to advance
Gov. Charlie Baker's $18 billion transportation bond bill,
his Senate counterpart called it his "number one priority"
-- but it appears a vote has still not been scheduled.
"I
have every intention in moving it too," Senate
Transportation Committee Co-chairman Joseph Boncore told the
News Service on Monday after presiding over the Senate's
session....
Joint committees over the years have moved away from holding
public executive sessions to cast votes on bills and toward
the use of polls, which do not come with any public notice
and the results of which are often not publicized by
committees. Under the rules of the committee, the two chairs
must be in agreement before an executive session can be
scheduled.
Joint committees on Beacon Hill face a Wednesday deadline to
make decisions on bills reviewed during 2019.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Method May be Holding up Vote on $18 Bil Transpo Bond Bill
A
wave of extension orders adopted this week is cutting into
the intended impact of a rules reform adopted in early 2017
that was designed to improve the flow of bills ahead of the
busy stretch run of formal sessions in election years.
On
one big topic after another, House and Senate lawmakers this
week agreed that rather than make a decision ahead of
Wednesday's biennial bill-reporting deadline, they'll give
themselves more time to review bills by folding them into
orders that feature new deadlines in March, April, May and
even June.
Legislation addressing some of the most high-profile topics
on Beacon Hill, from abortion to drug use to immigration
enforcement, largely received extension orders by
Wednesday's deadline rather than recommendations that those
bills should or should not advance.
One
notable exception was in the Transportation Committee where
an $18 billion long-term infrastructure borrowing bill (H
4002) and a bill (S 2061) to make driver's licenses
available to undocumented immigrants were reported out
favorably ahead of the deadline.
With less than six months for formal sessions remaining this
year, extensions shrink the window for bill supporters to
try to steer their proposals through the Beacon Hill
legislative maze, which still features any number of trap
doors where bills can slip off the public agenda.
A
rule change that the House and Senate agreed to in 2017
moved up the biennial bill-reporting deadline for joint
committees from mid-March to early February. The change was
pushed by the Senate, where legislators complained that too
many key bills were being held up for too long by
House-controlled committees.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
On Deadline Day, Committees Put Off Many of the Biggest
Decisions
Joint Rule 10 was made to be broken, or at least danced
around.
The
biennial deadline for almost all legislative committees to
make recommendations on the hundreds of bills put in their
tender care arrived on Wednesday, a wonk-a-palooza for
Beacon Hill Kremlinologists giddy at the prospect of trying
to read the tea leaves and suss out the agenda for the next
six months.
As
rules go, this committee reporting deadline has been one
less susceptible to being suspended, or worse, ignored. But
that doesn't mean it's hard and fast.
So
while former Gov. Mitt Romney was making history on the
Senate floor in Washington, becoming a trivia question
answer as the only senator to ever vote to remove a
president of his own party, Democratic committee chairs at
his former work address were busy preparing extension
orders.
Committees that needed or wanted more time to make a
decision on bills simply asked for it. But they had to be
specific....
But
while the clerks were busy processing extension orders, some
committees did render verdicts. Hundreds, if not thousands,
of bills were referred for further study, effectively
killing them off until the next two-year session when they
must be refiled and the process starts again....
The
Transportation Committee also recommended a bill that would
allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a standard state
driver's license, provided they can show certain
documentation to prove their identity. Intended as a public
safety measure, it's the first time it has ever advanced
from committee, but Baker said he still can't support it,
holding to his position from the 2014 campaign and one he
has repeated over the years.
State House News Service
Friday, February 7, 2020
Weekly Roundup - The Dog Ate Their Homework
By Matt Murphy
Supporters of legislation that would create a pathway for
undocumented immigrants to get Massachusetts driver's
licenses plan to launch a hunger strike outside the State
House on Monday morning.
The
10:30 a.m. event comes two days ahead of a deadline for
joint legislative committees to report on bills. Committees
can give bills favorable or unfavorable reports, send them
to study, or request extensions for more time to consider
them.
The
activists are calling on House Speaker Robert DeLeo, House
Transportation Committee Chairman William Straus and other
members of the Transportation Committee to endorse and
advance the driver's licenses bill (H 3012, S 2061), known
as the Work and Family Mobility Act. Faith leaders will
bless the hunger strikers during the event, according to a
press release from Moviemento Cosecha.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Activists Launch Hunger Strike for License Bill
The
Transportation Committee has given a favorable
recommendation to legislation that would enable undocumented
immigrants to access standard driver's licenses in
Massachusetts.
Bill sponsor Rep. Christine Barber of Somerville joined
activists in Nurses Hall late Wednesday to celebrate the
vote.
"Si
se puede," activists, who have been rallying for the bill
all week, chanted.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Immigrant Driver’s License Bill Gets Committee Nod
A
key legislative committee of the Massachusetts Legislature
is recommending a bill that would allow illegal immigrants
to get driver’s licenses.
“Si se puede,” chanted celebrating pro-illegal-immigrant
activists late Wednesday afternoon in Nurses Hall at the
Massachusetts State House in Boston, according to State
House News Service.
The
Spanish phrase means “Yes you can” in English – not far from
former President Barack Obama’s slogan “Yes we can.” ...
Current state law does not allow foreign nationals in the
country illegally to get a driver’s license.
“No
license of any type may be issued to any person who does not
have lawful presence in the United States,” states the
statute (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90, Section 8).
The
bill would strike that language and replace it with:
“Persons who are unable to provide proof of lawful presence,
or who are ineligible for a social security number, may
apply for a Massachusetts license if they meet all other
qualifications for licensure and provide satisfactory proof
to the registrar of identity, date of birth and
Massachusetts residency.”
The New Boston Post
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Aliens, Massachusetts
Legislative Committee Says
Renewed efforts to turn Massachusetts into a haven for
illegal immigrants took center stage on Beacon Hill
recently....
So,
it’s easy to see why most illegals have little to fear from
federal, state or local authorities, But we shouldn’t
endorse the sorry state of our immigration enforcement
system by codifying it with a legislative seal of approval.
A
Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Don’t dilute state’s already lax immigration enforcement
A
top Homeland Security Department official said a law in New
York that allows illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses
could put residents' lives in danger.
Ken
Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of Homeland
Security, defended the department’s decision to block New
York from participating in several Trusted Traveler
Programs, including Global Entry enrollment, citing the
state's Green Light Law in its justification for doing so.
During a call with reporters, Cuccinelli said a “main
problem” that occurred in the events leading up to the
terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, was that the attackers
used Virginia licenses to book the flights. “It was
embarrassing to us in Virginia that the majority of 9/11
terrorists used Virginia driver's licenses to help
accomplish their evil mission, and we set about to fix that.
And we did fix that," Cuccinelli explained.
He
added, “Here, we have one of the other targets of 9/11, who
are walking backwards quite intentionally in the other
direction to bar the sharing of law enforcement relevant
information like vehicle registration, matching driver's
licenses to identifications, and, critically, criminal
records which are kept up to date and DMV databases.”
The Washington Examiner
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Top DHS official:
New York IDs for illegal immigrants bring back 'main
problem' that 'allowed 9/11'
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf
sent a letter to New York State Wednesday informing
officials that New Yorkers would not be eligible for DHS’s
Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) because of the state’s law
allowing illegal-immigrants to receive state driver’s
licenses.
The
“Green Light” law, which went into effect in December, also
blocks federal agencies like ICE and CBP from accessing the
state’s DMV records without a court order....
“They can’t enroll or reenroll in these Trusted Traveler
Programs that Customs and Border Protection offers because
we no longer have access to make sure that they meet those
program requirements,” [Wolf] explained.
National Review
Thursday, February 6, 2020
DHS Bans New Yorkers from Trusted Traveler Programs over
Sanctuary Law Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Receive Driver
Licenses
Penalties for evading fares on the MBTA would be lowered and
drivers could be cited for using bus lanes under changes
Gov. Charlie Baker proposed in a spending bill filed
Friday....
Under the bill, police would be explicitly banned from
arresting individuals who board or attempt to board the MBTA
without paying, which they can do now if the individual
fails to provide identification, according to the T.
Authorities will still issue non-criminal citations for
evasion, but the fine structure would change from a
statutory mandate to one set by MBTA regulations. The bill
calls for lowering the fines from the current minimum of $50
and maximum of $500 to a new minimum of $10 and maximum of
$250.
State law allows for the Registry of Motor Vehicles to
decline renewing a driver's license if a single fare evasion
citation is unresolved, but Baker's bill would only permit
that step if a motorist has two or more outstanding
citations.
The
bill also strips out existing language that would require
new drivers who received a fare evasion citation when they
were 17 or younger to pay the outstanding fine before
acquiring a license.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Baker Bill Eases Penalties for Fare Evasion
Guv Offers New Penalties for Bus Lane Interference
More than one in every five MBTA pensioners retired before
age 50 as the state increasingly has to pick up the tab on
the T’s troubled pension fund that’s running big deficits
even in the current strong market, a Herald analysis shows.
“It’s a few retirees who are being subsidized by the
Massachusetts taxpayers,” said Mark Williams, a Boston
University finance professor who tracks the MBTA Retirement
Fund. “They’re eating two bites at the apple, plus they get
to work at another job.”
That’s referring to the situation caused by the T’s
longstanding “23-and-out” policy, which didn’t put a
retirement age on its workers — it just required 23 years of
service, at which point they could grab the pension,
eventually become eligible for Social Security, and pick up
another gig at the same time.
That’s what led to 22% of the 5,626 people receiving T
pensions having cashed out under age 50, according to a
review of MBTA Retirement Fund data. The average T pensioner
is 55.8 years old.
The
retirement fund has floundered deeper into fiscal danger,
last year reporting $2.91 billion in liabilities versus
$1.45 billion in assets. The fund said no new data is
available about that breakdown at this point. It falls on
the state to fill the annual shortfall, which resulted in
the MBTA budgeting $118.2 million to keep the retirement
fund afloat for the current fiscal year. That’s up from
$102.9 million in fiscal year 2019 and $93.8 million the
previous year. That’s now more than half of the total yearly
payout, which is upward of $201 million, per the data....
“A
couple bad markets, and boom — the pension is gone … At the
current outflow rate, by 2030, the pension’s done — kaput,”
[Mark Williams, a Boston University finance professor who
tracks the MBTA Retirement Fund] told the Herald, saying
that his analyses point toward a $150 million-plus required
MBTA contribution to float the fund in the next few years.
“Those pensioners are left with nothing, and those employees
are left with nothing.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 4. 2020
One in 5 MBTA pensioners is younger than 50 as fund
struggles
‘A couple bad markets, and boom — the pension is gone’
He’s described as both a deliberate consensus builder and a
power-collecting micro-manager. A humble everyman and a
shrewd political operator. To some, he’s a Tom Menino-like
figure; others say they’re reminded of Donald Trump.
The
portrait of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo is a muddled one,
fueled by a vacuum — self-created to a degree — filled with
contrasts, conjecture, and above all else, time.
As
of Saturday, the Winthrop Democrat has served 4,029 days as
leader of the House of Representatives, the longest tenure
in state history and a record previously held by a
19th-century Federalist. That sustained longevity makes
DeLeo both an oddity in a chamber oft-defined by its
turnover and, in political circles, a constant source of
speculation about his next move.
DeLeo says that’s to the ballot box.
The
69-year-old (he turns 70 next month) said in October that
he’s running for reelection to his seat this fall, which
would all but ensure he captures a seventh term as speaker
in January.
After he and his deputies successfully pushed to revoke the
office’s eight-year term limit in 2015, abolishing a measure
DeLeo himself had earlier championed, there’s little that
would stop his record-setting run atop the chamber he
controls.
The
Boston Globe
Saturday, February 8, 2020
Robert DeLeo is longest-serving House speaker in
Massachusetts history
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The State House
News Service reported on Wednesday:
Tax revenues poured into state
coffers in January, totaling nearly $3 billion and
representing a 6.2 percent increase over January
2019 collections.
Tax receipts over the first
seven months of fiscal 2020 are up 4.9 percent, or
$794 million over the same period in fiscal 2019,
a year that produced a more than $1 billion
budget surplus.
Record-breaking tax collections continue to pour into
the state treasury, but still on Beacon Hill massive tax hike schemes are being thrown around like
confetti. As we have asserted for decades and
continue to assert, Massachusetts DOES NOT have a
revenue problem — it has
a SPENDING PROBLEM. Add to that, limitless
crazy schemes abound that impose on industrious taxpayers an always increasing
heavier burden. It's frightening that this is
getting only worse — even
more alarming is it happens without consequences at the ballot
box, with incumbents gliding through to re-election
without breaking a sweat, often even without opposition.
Remember when
The Takers imposed the
Community Preservation Act in 2000? Its intent
was sold as enabling communities to raise funds to
create a local dedicated fund for open space
preservation, preservation of historic resources,
acquiring and developing outdoor recreation facilities
— and developing
affordable housing. At least it required a
majority vote by ballot of local residents for adoption.
Twenty years
later the insatiable agents of income redistribution are
back for a second dip into taxpayers' pockets, by allowing communities to add a
"transfer fee" up to 2% onto property tax bills.
(In early January
we alerted you that this could be on the horizon.) This latest assault on property owners intends to
"provide municipalities with another source of
potential funding to help pay for initiatives such as
building new housing or expanding rental vouchers."
Instead of a vote by the potential victims
— the affected residents
—
to tax themselves, it would require only local governing
boards to approve the new fee by a two-thirds vote of
town selectmen or city councilors.
When I was
asked about this by Christian Wade of the Salem News
last week, he reported:
"They just can't keep adding to the taxpayers' burden," said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation. "The Legislature has got to stop
scheming for ways to take more money from productive
taxpayers, or they're going to see an exodus of people
leaving the state. It's the law of diminishing returns."
Voters are no
longer trusted to vote "the right way." Remember
the attempt in late-2018 to impose "Community
Benefit Districts," which we ultimately defeated?
This is more of the same heavy-handed oppression
attempting to circumvent CLT's Proposition 2½.
If you ever
doubted that More Is Never Enough (MINE) and never will
be, wake up and open your eyes.
Rep. Dylan A.
Fernandes (D-Falmouth) has filed the bill
H.653, "An Act making voting obligatory and
increasing turnout in elections." It states:
"[A]ll eligible voters in the commonwealth shall be
required to cast a ballot in the November general
election. A fee of $15 shall be added to the
voter’s state tax liability for each November general
election that voter did not mail in or drop off a ballot
on time. . . .The department of revenue in consultation
with the secretary of state’s office shall develop a
system to assess the fee." Congratulations to Rep.
Fernandes! Nobody on Beacon Hill has thought of or
dared attempting to tax citizens' unalienable rights
yet, unless it's the Second Amendment.
My response to
it
in this week's Beacon Hill Roll Call:
"This
proposed further imposition by Rep. Fernandes would
require 'all eligible voters in the commonwealth . .
. to cast a ballot' under threat of legal penalty,"
said
Chip Ford, executive director of Citizens for
Limited Taxation.
"The
First Amendment protects freedom of speech, which
includes freedom from participating in speech. Voting is a right of
citizenship, exercised — or not — freely," "This bill exemplifies
Massachusetts' political penchant for encroaching political
overreach, where everything not prohibited by law
must be made mandatory."
If you are a current CLT
member-in-good-standing,
having contributed anything over the past two years,
you have just
received CLT's annual membership renewal mailing for
2020 in your mailbox at home.
If you didn't receive it, then you are
not a
member-in-good-standing; you're a long-lapsed
member for at least two years, still receiving these
Updates. You can change that status by renewing your
membership immediately by sending your check to the
address below, and at the top and bottom of this and all CLT Updates, or by making your contribution by credit
card
here and now.
CLT
PO Box 1147
Marblehead, MA 01945-5147
The response
to this mailing will soon decide whether CLT will continue on in 2020, and for how long. We
hope you will support keeping it informing and fighting
for you and for all taxpayers. That's entirely your
choice now.
Without your
support and that of many others there would never have
been a Citizens for Limited Taxation. Without your
support there can't be for much longer.
The new
governing paradigm is to fleece residents without leaving
fingerprints, dodging any accountability. The
Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) is an opening
gambit for The Takers: creating hidden,
unaccountable, indirect
taxation that becomes irresistible by citizens, unable to be
challenged. Passage last week of the state
Senate's
"'Net-Zero' Climate Change" bills is widening the
entry of this new strategy. Nobody in the Senate
had even the slightest idea of how much it will cost
Massachusetts residents, but still it was blindly rammed through
with a vote of 36-2. The radical costs imposed on
residents will just be blamed on others.
Nonetheless,
MassINC has produced a new poll, the results supporting
"Net-Zero."
Seventy-nine percent of respondents said climate
change will be a serious problem for Massachusetts
if it is left unaddressed, and 56 percent said
officials here should act ahead of other states to
address it. Another 22 percent said Massachusetts
should act at the same time as other states, while 4
percent favored waiting for others to go first and
12 percent said the state should take no action.
Another disingenuous MassINC poll that doesn't include the
costs when pollsters survey respondents. This is
the second recent such MassINC poll using this clearly deceptive method
(See
Poll: Voters Back Compact to Reduce Transpo Emissions
from back in December). The State House News
Service further reported:
MassINC's
poll was conducted before the coalition announced their
cost estimates, and it did not ask respondents questions
about paying for any policy changes. It was also
conducted before Baker, Senate President Karen Spilka
and House Speaker Robert DeLeo all said they want the
state to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and
before the details of the Senate's climate legislation
had been made public.
When Mass
Fiscal did its own recent poll The Boston Herald
reported a converse result: "Poll
shows Massachusetts majority oppose cost of TCI."
Imagine that! Commenting on the results, the
pollster noted:
“Every
data set tells a story and it really does tell a
story,” [Jim Eltringham of Advantage Inc, a
D.C.-based polling company] said. “When people are
asked if they support a measure to help environment
that has this price tag from their own wallet,
that’s when you start seeing the dip.”
At this time
Gov. Charlie Baker's Transportation Climate Initiative
(TCI) seems to be slowing its momentum.
During our weekly
conference call among the dozen state Anti-TCI
coalition, on Monday reports from the other state citizen-advocate
groups involved indicate no groundswell of consensus in
their respective state capitals. It appears that
individual states each have their parochial preferences,
or their own ongoing revenue targets to fund their
respective state
transportation needs. TCI certainly remains a threat, but is
by no means an inevitable fait accompli for the moment.
This can still change in the days ahead. Count on
Massachusetts to keep its pressure to comply on those other
reluctant states within the multi-state compact it has
assembled.
Fulltime state
legislatures everywhere have far too much idle time on their hands.
This provides those legislators with limitless opportunity to come up with
asinine schemes they lust to impose on the citizenry.
This obvious danger is why only ten states in the nation have
full-time legislatures.
Most states recognize the
danger and intentionally send their legislators home after a few
months at most of necessary governing.
But this
full-time, year-round Legislature gets nothing done but
political posturing, procrastination and intrigue until the
eleventh-hour on the closing day of each session.
That's when a forklift drops a hundred pound bill on desks
of rank-and-file members of the House and Senate, who
are expected to vote on it right now, without a clue
what it contains until exposed weeks and months later.
But committee
hearings? They do have time for committee
hearings to advance legislation they support. (Not
so much for legislation they don't want out in the
public, like the secret "Net-Zero" legislation that
whisked through the Senate last week without a single
public hearing or even a cost estimate.) The big
hearing this week was to provide driver's licenses to
illegal aliens. "Si se puede!" echoed
through the State House corridors; translation:
“Yes you can!”
The big
problem with this farce is that the Trump administration
has begun cracking down on the illegal practice.
Last week it banned New York state residents from
airport amenities such as participating in several
Trusted Traveler Programs, including Global Entry
enrollment, since New York recently began issuing
drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, Massachusetts is defying federal immigration
laws by pushing to become a sanctuary state and issuing
drivers licenses to illegal aliens
— which if adopted will create problems, costs, risks,
and inconveniences for its citizens and legal immigrant
population.
The Boston
Herald reported this week:
More than one in every five
MBTA pensioners retired before age 50 as the state
increasingly has to pick up the tab on the T’s
troubled pension fund that’s running big deficits
even in the current strong market, a Herald analysis
shows. . . .
The retirement fund has
floundered deeper into fiscal danger, last year
reporting $2.91 billion in liabilities versus $1.45
billion in assets.... It falls on the state to
fill the annual shortfall, which resulted in the
MBTA budgeting $118.2 million to keep the retirement
fund afloat for the current fiscal year. That’s up
from $102.9 million in fiscal year 2019 and $93.8
million the previous year. That’s now more than half
of the total yearly payout, which is upward of $201
million, per the data.
Apparently
Gov. Charlie Baker has all sorts of plans for how to fix
the "T" — has had them
since he was elected. We won't ask here how those
plans are going; we know they're telling us that it'll
take billions more.
But how is
this any part of any solution? The State House
News Service reported this week:
Penalties for evading fares on
the MBTA would be lowered and drivers could be cited
for using bus lanes under changes Gov. Charlie Baker
proposed in a spending bill filed Friday.
Baker's $52.6 million fiscal
year 2020 supplemental budget bill (H 4354) calls
for reforms to how those who do not pay for rides
are punished and greater protections on passenger
data as the T prepares a new fare collection model.
. . .
Under the bill, police would be
explicitly banned from arresting individuals who
board or attempt to board the MBTA without paying,
which they can do now if the individual fails to
provide identification, according to the T.
Authorities will still issue
non-criminal citations for evasion, but the fine
structure would change from a statutory mandate to
one set by MBTA regulations. The bill calls for
lowering the fines from the current minimum of $50
and maximum of $500 to a new minimum of $10 and
maximum of $250.
Yesterday we
celebrated an historic milestone in the storied history
of Massachusetts. The Boston Globe reported:
As of Saturday, the Winthrop
Democrat has served 4,029 days as leader of the
House of Representatives, the longest tenure in
state history and a record previously held by a
19th-century Federalist. That sustained
longevity makes DeLeo both an oddity in a chamber
oft-defined by its turnover and, in political
circles, a constant source of speculation about his
next move.
DeLeo says that’s to the ballot
box.
The 69-year-old (he turns 70
next month) said in October that he’s running for
reelection to his seat this fall, which would all
but ensure he captures a seventh term as speaker in
January.
After he and his deputies
successfully pushed to revoke the office’s
eight-year term limit in 2015, abolishing a measure
DeLeo himself had earlier championed, there’s little
that would stop his record-setting run atop the
chamber he controls.
Break out the
champagne all you lucky citizens!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Salem News
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
New 2% fee may fund affordable
housing
Fiscal watchdogs say the proposal creates more
taxes
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
Housing advocates want to carve out a new source
of money to help cities and towns cover the cost
of new affordable units, but fiscal watchdogs
say the move will add to the burden on property
owners.
A proposal by Rep. Jay Livingstone, D-Boston,
and Sen. William Brownsberger, D-Belmont [HD.4850
/
SD.2785], would allow communities to add a
transfer fee up to 2% onto property tax bills.
Local governing boards would have to approve the
new fee by a two-thirds vote and also get
approval from a majority of the community’s
voters in a local referendum.
Livingstone said a dearth of federal and state
funding means many cities and towns don't have
the money for affordable housing projects.
"This bill would provide municipalities with
another source of potential funding to help pay
for initiatives such as building new housing or
expanding rental vouchers," he said.
The proposal includes exemptions for low-income
and elderly property owners, and cities and
towns could tack on provisions to lessen the
fiscal impact on the community.
Andrew DeFranza, executive director of
Beverly-based Harborlight Community Partners,
said the fee would draw in much needed revenue
to build housing.
"There's not enough capital in the system to
create affordable housing anywhere near the
demand," he said. "Anything to create more
capital to create more units is a good thing."
But fiscal watchdogs say the proposal creates
more taxes that would unfairly burden property
owners.
"They just can't keep adding to the taxpayers'
burden," said Chip Ford, executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
"The Legislature has got to stop scheming for
ways to take more money from productive
taxpayers, or they're going to see an exodus of
people leaving the state. It's the law of
diminishing returns."
Few dispute the need for more low-cost housing
in Massachusetts, which has some of the highest
housing costs and rents in the country.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council estimates
the Greater Boston area needs at least 435,000
new affordable housing units by 2040 to keep
pace with demand.
DeFranza said many communities impose
restrictive zoning, such as requiring two- and
three-acre lots, to block affordable housing
from being built.
"Zoning is the dominant problem in
Massachusetts," he said. "Cities and towns have
fabricated a land shortage in the state by
restricting its use though zoning."
Several years ago, lawmakers pitched a proposal
to allow cities and towns to adopt "inclusionary
zoning," which requires developers to designate
units for affordable housing in exchange for
local concessions on density and other
requirements. Under the plan cities and towns
would designate areas where "cluster
developments" are allowed. But the Legislature
rejected the proposal.
Gov. Charlie Baker has filed legislation aimed
at boosting the state's housing stock as part of
an ambitious plan to add at least 135,000 new
homes over the next five to seven years. His
plan would allow town governing bodies to change
zoning rules with a simple majority vote,
removing a current requirement of a two-thirds
vote.
Housing is deemed "affordable" when a tenant or
homeowner spends no more than 30% of their
income on housing costs, according to state
housing officials.
To qualify for affordable housing, tenants
generally must make less than 80% of the median
income, adjusted to the size of their family, in
the city or town where they want to live.
A state law approved nearly 50 years ago shifted
the burden onto cities and towns to ensure at
least 10% of local housing is affordable.
The Chapter 40B law aimed to encourage
affordable development by reducing zoning
roadblocks, but housing advocates say it has
done little to solve the problem, as towns have
found a way around it.
Many communities fall short of the minimum,
according to the state Department of Housing and
Community Development. Statewide, only about 70
have reached the 10% threshold.
Marblehead, for example, boasts some of the
highest incomes on the North Shore, with a
median of $115,511 per household, according to
the 2010 U.S. Census. But less than 4% of its
8,528 housing units are deemed affordable.
In Hamilton, with a median of $108,558 per
household, only 3% of the 2,783 affordable
housing units are considered affordable.
Some communities have created affordable housing
trusts to cover the cost for new projects, while
others have conducted a top-to-bottom reviews of
local zoning laws.
"Building the housing we need isn't just good
public policy, it's an economic necessity for
the state," said Marc Draisen, executive
director of the regional planning council. "We
must tackle this problem."
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts
Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s
newspapers and websites.
Bill H.653
An Act making voting obligatory and increasing
turnout in elections
Sponsor: Rep. Dylan A. Fernandes
(D-Falmouth)
SECTION 1. Chapter 51 of the General Laws is
hereby amended by striking out section 34 and
inserting in place thereof the following
section:-
Section 34. There shall be no deadline for
registering to vote for any election in
Massachusetts.
SECTION 2. Chapter 54 of the General Laws is
hereby amended by inserting after section 25A
the following section:-
Section 25A½. Notwithstanding any general or
special law to the contrary, all eligible voters
in the commonwealth
shall
be required to cast a ballot in the
November general election.
A fee
of $15 shall be added to the voter’s state tax
liability for each November general election
that voter did not mail in or drop off a ballot
on time. Nothing shall impede a
voter’s right to complete and return a ballot
that does not include any actual votes for
candidates.
The
department of revenue in consultation with the
secretary of state’s office shall develop a
system to assess the fee.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
January Tax Collections Shoot
Up 6.2 Percent
By Michael P. Norton
Tax revenues poured into state coffers in
January, totaling nearly $3 billion and
representing a 6.2 percent increase over January
2019 collections.
Tax receipts over the first seven months of
fiscal 2020 are up 4.9 percent, or $794 million
over the same period in fiscal 2019, a year that
produced a more than $1 billion budget surplus.
Collections are running $107 million above
benchmarks. The Baker administration in January
raised the fiscal 2020 tax revenue estimate from
$30.099 billion to $30.289 billion, an
adjustment that is reflected in the January
reporting.
January collections of $2.959 billion missed the
monthly benchmark by $35 million, but were $172
million higher than in January 2019, with
withholding tax collections rising $119 million
over last January.
"On a fiscal year-to-date basis, we continue to
see steady, moderate growth above both prior
year and benchmark," Acting Revenue Commissioner
Kevin Brown said in a statement. "The monthly
results for January show estimated payments
coming in somewhat below expectations, partly
offset by the surplus in withholding and the
'All Other' tax category. With respect to
non-withheld income tax or income estimated
payments, it appears taxpayers are adjusting to
2017 federal tax law changes, making the timing
of non-withheld payments less predictable. This
timing uncertainty is expected to be resolved in
the filing season and we do not expect it to
have any net impact on revenues for the fiscal
year as a whole at this time."
With five months left in fiscal 2020, the state
could be trending toward another surplus,
although state finance officials say there's a 1
percent variance between spending and revenues -
Baker administration officials have declined to
say whether the variance is to the positive or
negative.
Commonwealth Magazine
Friday, January 31, 2020
7 takes on Senate climate
change debate
Lots of harmony, plus some political intrigue
By Bruce Mohl
In a business-like fashion, the Senate passed a
sweeping package of climate change legislation
on Thursday night that sets a net-zero target
for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, creates an
independent commission to watchdog that effort,
and requires the MBTA to start buying
all-electric buses by 2028 and go all-electric
by 2040.
Even though the issue of climate change is full
of political minefields, there were few serious
policy disputes over the course of the day. More
than 150 amendments were filed to the three
bills, but many of them were withdrawn by
members who went along with appeals from
leadership to stay focused on the task at hand.
Votes were lopsided, with the three bills
passing by votes of 36-2, 35-2, and 35-2.
“There was a very high harmony quotient with
that debate,” said the architect of the package,
Sen. Michael Barrett of Lexington.
Here are seven observations:
Climate Change Commission – Senate Minority
Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester is close with
the Baker administration, so it’s fair to assume
that where he had problems with the legislation
the governor does as well. Tarr walked a fine
line, praising the goals of the climate change
legislation but raising concerns about specific
elements of the bill. One of his biggest
concerns was the creation of an independent
commission to watchdog how the state is doing on
meeting its greenhouse gas emission goals. He
portrayed the commission as a redundant
bureaucracy costing the state as much as $5
million a year. He suggested the same watchdog
role could be filled by the existing Clean
Energy Commission, whose board is dominated by
cabinet members appointed by Gov. Charlie Baker.
Barrett thinks an independent watchdog is
essential. He has raised concerns with the Baker
administration about the current three-year lag
in emissions data, which in practical terms
means officials won’t know if Massachusetts met
its greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020
until 2023. Barrett’s legislation requires that
timetable to be cut to 18 months, but he says
that type of pressure for action is what an
independent commission will bring to the table.
“We need an independent, authoritative, expert,
and credible source of perspective on whether
all of us are doing our jobs,” Barrett said.
Carbon sequestration – The net-zero emissions
goal means some greenhouse gas emissions could
be offset by carbon being sucked up by trees and
other plant life. Tarr won passage of an
amendment that would require state officials to
develop a baseline figure for the carbon
sequestered in forests and the natural landscape
and goals for increasing that amount. Some
environmentalists privately worry the
sequestration goals could conflict with clean
energy goals – if, for exampl4e, solar farms
were blocked because they would result in trees
being cut down.
Natural gas — Many senators filed amendments
dealing with the safety of natural gas and its
infrastructure, but then withdrew them after
receiving assurances from Senate President Karen
Spilka that a separate bill on this issue would
be taken up later this year.
Renewables – Several senators were eager to
speed adoption of renewable forms of energy,
specifically offshore wind, hydro-electricity,
and solar. Sen. Julian Cyr of Truro proposed an
amendment authorizing an additional 1,600
megawatts of offshore wind; other senators
wanted to eliminate any restrictions on offshore
wind development entirely. The push evaporated
when Cyr withdrew his amendment, much to the
chagrin of the Sierra Club, which called for a
commitment to 100 percent clean energy.
It’s unclear why the push for more renewables
fizzled, but sources said there were no
guarantees about bringing the issue back in a
future bill this session. Some senators said the
Baker administration pushed back against more
offshore wind procurements, in part because of
ongoing concerns about Trump administration
resistance to offshore wind.
Low-income residents – The climate change
legislation calls for putting a price on the
carbon contained in automobile and heating
fuels, which is likely to mean higher prices.
The original bill had a number of protections
for low-income residents, but additional ones
were added via amendment. Two amendments were
adopted making it easier for low-income
residents to take advantage of solar power. One
amendment added “equity” to the list of future
priorities for the Department of Public
Utilities. Another amendment required state
officials to draft regulations to meet emission
reduction targets “in a manner that mitigates
the effects of increased energy and
transportation costs on low-income and
moderate-income households, improves their
economic condition, where feasible, and creates
additional employment and economic development
of the commonwealth.”
Thermal energy – An amendment authorized natural
gas utilities to launch pilots testing the
delivery of thermal energy to homes and
businesses and allowing the companies to bill
ratepayers for the cost.
Politics – With the departures of Sens. Vinny
deMacedo of Plymouth and Donald Humason of
Westfield, the Senate GOP is starting to look as
badly split as the party statewide. There are
currently only four Republicans in the Senate,
split between moderates (Tarr and Patrick
O’Connor of Weymouth) and conservatives (Ryan
Fattman of Sutton and Dean Tran of Fitchburg).
Fattman and Tran were the only two senators to
vote against the climate change legislation.
MassGOP
Monday, February 3, 2020
News Release
Radical Democrats' newest obsession? Turning
Massachusetts into California
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Evan Lips, communications director
617-523-5005 ext. 245
WOBURN -- On Thursday, radical Senate Democrats
scrambled to pass extreme and authoritarian
climate legislation that seeks to drastically
change how hard-working Massachusetts taxpayers
live, work, and commute.
Here’s what’s in store if this trio of bills is
approved by the House: California-style
regulations will become the norm, meaning
mandatory low-flow showerheads, in addition to
slapping new taxes and fees on any and all uses
of natural gas and oil.
Per Democratic Lexington Sen. Michael Barrett:
“We follow California.”
Meanwhile, Californians
are fleeing their home
state at record numbers.
The rhetoric from radical Senate Democrats on
display Thursday was “absolutely insane,” said
Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim
Lyons.
Taunton Democratic Sen. Marc Pacheco, another
major backer of this legislation, equated
non-passage of the bill to garage-induced
suicide.
“Would you drive into your garage with your
engine running with the exhaust coming out your
tailpipe and close the door and dare to stay
inside that garage?” Pacheco said from the
Senate floor. “We are inside a big garage. The
world is in a big garage.”
Massachusetts currently contributes 1.2 percent
of the United States’ carbon emissions, and 0.12
percent of global carbon emissions.
Meanwhile, Winchester Democratic Senator Jason
Lewis later said what every other Democrat was
thinking:
“In recent years we have ceded that standard to
places like California,” Lewis said. “Hopefully
we can regain our leadership by passing this.”
Lyons said the Democrats’ obsession with
California is dangerous yet predictable.
“Virtue-signaling was obviously in high-demand
on Thursday,” Lyons said. “And here’s the dirty
little secret about these radical new standards
they’re after -- these lawmakers, with their big
pay raises, won’t be affected.
“It will be the hard-working Massachusetts
taxpayer that will get stiffed again, all so
these Democrats can to brag to each other
they’re saving the world at their next cocktail
party.”
Efforts by Republican Minority Leader Bruce Tarr
to provide transparency to ratepayers, and
provide them with estimates on various costs,
was predictably stymied by Senate Democrats.
Democrats also dismissed another amendment
submitted by Tarr that called for at least one
ratepayer to serve on the new $5 million Climate
Policy Commission.
“There are a whole lot of people on this
commission, but what it also ought to be is a
couple of folks of people who stand in the shoes
of people who are paying the bills,” Tarr said.
Said Lyons:
“The last thing any of these Democrats want is
to have members of the public involved and aware
of their newest bureaucracy.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, February 7, 2020
A Boston Herald editorial
Hard to find fans of gas-tax increase
We’ve stated previously the gas-tax increase
that’s part of the regional emissions reduction
compact backed by Gov. Charlie Baker appears
nothing more than a vehicle to raise funds for
the state’s many transportation needs.
Recently the governor seemed to agree with that
assessment — if that hike isn’t bundled with
incentives for automakers and fuel suppliers to
invest in clean vehicles, charging stations and
alternative fuels. Otherwise, this tax increase
will just be passed on to consumers.
The 11-state Transportation Climate Initiative
could cause gas prices to rise by 5 to 17 cents
per gallon.
“Putting a tax on something is not the same as
creating a cap and invest program,” Baker said
during his “Ask the Governor” segment on WGBH
radio last week.
Pressed on whether he’d veto a gas-tax increase
without any clean-energy incentives, Baker
replied, “If that’s all it was, yeah.”
The gas-tax proposal already has created some
cracks in the TCI; New Hampshire Gov. Chris
Sununu said his state won’t support it.
Meanwhile, our state Legislature, particularly
the House, has been weighing the possibility of
inserting a gasoline-tax increase in its
transportation revenue bill.
According to the State House News Service, some
lawmakers likely feel uncomfortable about
raising the gas tax during an election year,
while governors of those TCI states have
reservations about its impact on gas prices.
Whether on an intrastate or interstate level, a
gas-tax increase alone has become an
increasingly harder sell.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Poll Tested Public Opinion on
Climate Change
Survey Conducted Before Wave of Recent Action
By Katie Lannan
A majority of Massachusetts residents anticipate
a need for "major" state and federal policy
changes to stop climate change, and 70 percent
think they'll need to make at least moderate
changes to how they live, according to new poll
results.
The MassInc Polling Group's survey of 2,318
Massachusetts residents was conducted between
Oct. 10 and Nov. 8, 2019 and released Monday,
four days after the state Senate passed climate
legislation that included deadlines for the
state to impose carbon-pricing mechanisms in the
transportation sector, homes and commercial
buildings.
Seventy-nine percent of respondents said climate
change will be a serious problem for
Massachusetts if it is left unaddressed, and 56
percent said officials here should act ahead of
other states to address it. Another 22 percent
said Massachusetts should act at the same time
as other states, while 4 percent favored waiting
for others to go first and 12 percent said the
state should take no action.
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Katie
Theoharides said local and state officials are
"stepping up" in response to residents' desire
for climate leadership.
"I think where the rubber hits the road in terms
of when this becomes to get more challenging is
what the solutions are and how do we deploy
them, and also the sense that probably on
climate change, none of the things that we're
going to do are going to be free," Theoharides
said at an event MassINC hosted Monday morning
at the UMass Club in downtown Boston.
Theoharides pitched Gov. Charlie Baker's bill (S
10) that would raise the state's real estate
transfer tax to help cities and towns cope with
climate change impacts. She said the tax
increase would provide a "sustained and ongoing"
revenue source for these efforts.
"The fee here is small, but again, it's asking
people to pay for something, which is never
easy," Theoharides said. "If you're looking at a
housing cost, on a $400,000 house, it's about a
$900 increase, so, moderate. The reason it's put
on property is because property is at risk from
climate change and so these investments in
critical infrastructure will help property
values."
Theoharides also discussed the Transportation
Climate Initiative, a compact Baker is pursuing
with other eastern states that would create a
regional cap-and-invest program on greenhouse
gas emissions from the transportation sector.
The states in the TCI coalition, which
Theoharides chairs, are exploring three
emissions-reduction scenarios that could
increase gas prices at the pump by somewhere
from 5 to 17 cents per gallon.
MassINC's poll was conducted before the
coalition announced their cost estimates, and it
did not ask respondents questions about paying
for any policy changes. It was also conducted
before Baker, Senate President Karen Spilka and
House Speaker Robert DeLeo all said they want
the state to achieve net-zero carbon emissions
by 2050, and before the details of the Senate's
climate legislation had been made public.
Asked about different policy proposals, 66
percent said they either strongly or somewhat
supported charging companies that bring gasoline
into the region a fee and investing the funds in
cleaner transportation; 77 percent supported
providing state funds to cities and towns for
specific climate change projects; 86 percent
supported improving the public transportation
network to reduce car travel; 77 percent
supported moving the state toward offshore wind
power; 84 percent supported restoring wetlands
to serve as buffers against flooding; and 75
percent supported changing zoning laws to
encourage developments near public transit.
Forty-six percent said major changes will be
needed in state government policy to address
climate change, and 23 percent said moderate
changes are needed. At the federal level, 59
percent saw a need for major changes and 21
percent for moderate changes.
Respondents also saw a need for changes in
people's everyday lives. To stop climate change,
45 percent said there would need to be a "major
change to how we live," and 35 percent said
there would need to be "moderate changes to how
we live." Three percent said no changes would be
needed and 5 percent said climate change can't
be stopped by how we live.
Marcos Marrero, Holyoke's director of planning
and economic development, said he believes there
is an interest at the local level in "being
bold" on climate change.
"I think there's less of an interest if that is
a synonym for sacrifice," he said. "I'm not
saying we all shouldn't sacrifice, but we're
facing a time of incredible inequity in our
society, and so asking for equal sacrifice from
folks who have sacrificed so much or haven't
benefited from the gains, I think that's where
you're going to see a lot of pushback."
Marrero said if people are being asked to make
sacrifices, the request shouldn't come in the
context of a broad goal like improving the world
but of tangible benefits. He gave the example of
asking Hampden County residents to pay more for
gas, and said that if that ask is made in the
context of reducing the area's high asthma rates
and pollution levels, "then I think people would
gladly pay more for their gas."
"But if it's just 'Pay more gas so that the T
gets an upgrade,' pitchforks come out," he said.
State House News Service
Tuesday, February 4, 2020
Transpo Challenges Testing
Baker’s Patience
Rooney: "The Now Moment is The Gas Tax"
By Katie Lannan
On Beacon Hill, it'll feel like it arrives a lot
faster.
That's what Gov. Charlie Baker suggested in an
address before the Greater Boston Chamber of
Commerce Tuesday, snapping his fingers to
indicate how quickly time will pass between now
and the last day of formal legislative business
for the two-year term.
"It's going to go by like this, and a lot of
distractions are going to be there, with the
national scene and all the rest, but here at
home we have a whole bunch of really important
things to get done," he said.
Baker used his speech to highlight the
priorities he wants to see lawmakers act on over
the next nearly six months, singling out his
health care, housing and transportation
legislation.
An $18 billion transportation bond bill Baker
filed last summer remains before the
Transportation Committee, whose co-chairs Rep.
William Straus and Sen. Joseph Boncore have
indicated an interest in advancing a version of
it.
The Republican governor encouraged people who
attended the breakfast at the Marriott Copley
Place to talk to their legislators about the
borrowing bill (H 4002), which proposes to
direct $11 billion into road and bridge work and
$7 billion towards transit.
"One of the things that usually happens with a
lot of the big, complicated bond bills is they
don't get passed until the very end of session,"
he said. "Sometimes they get passed 15 minutes
after the end of session, which is always
interesting. It would be really great if that
could get passed sooner, so that we could
actually start using some of the tools and the
resources that are available under that bond
bill for this construction season, which starts
in the spring."
Baker discussed ongoing efforts to upgrade
public transportation in Massachusetts. He said
the state has begun playing catch-up after
decades of underinvestment in transit
infrastructure.
Expect "a lot more bus lanes," Baker said,
describing rapid bus service as having had
"profound and positive" effects on traffic "in
every place we've tried it."
He mentioned plans to bring new subway cars and
bi-level commuter rail coaches online, a series
of weekend MBTA service shutdowns for crews to
conduct improvement work, and projects that will
bring commuter rail service to the South Coast
and extend the MBTA's Green Line into
Somerville.
In a few years, Baker said, the transit system
should be in "far better shape than it is
today."
"But it will be disruptive and it will require a
certain amount of patience," he said. "I don't
have any patience for this. I would like it to
all be here by tomorrow. But I've also learned
to understand, when you're working on an
operating system, it's a little more
complicated."
James Rooney, the president and CEO of the
Greater Boston of Chamber of Commerce, said
after the speech that he's thinking long-term
when it comes to transportation and development,
with an eye toward connecting different regions
of the state and toward Boston-area projects
like Suffolk Downs, Boston Landing and UMass
Boston's Bayside site.
"We know that all of what the governor had to
say today needs to be done, and more," Rooney
told the News Service. "More in the short-term
and more in the long-term."
Rooney said there needs to be "a financial plan
that stands the scrutiny test for the next 25
years."
"How are we going to get this done and give
people confidence that, OK, we're dealing with
some difficult situations now, but I know
something's going to get better?" he said. "We
have to rebuild that trust and confidence that
indeed there's going to be light at the end of
the tunnel."
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has said he plans to
bring a transportation revenue package to the
floor sometime before April, and he said last
month that the legislation will be "more
expansive than a straight gas tax" increase.
Baker has voiced opposition to the idea of
raising the gas tax and said in a January radio
interview that he would veto a gas tax hike "if
that's all it was."
Baker didn't touch on the potential for a gas
tax increase in his speech. Separately from
whatever transportation investment plan
lawmakers might take up, Baker is also working
with other states in hopes of creating a
regional cap-and-invest program for carbon
emissions from transportation, which could
ultimately increase gas prices between 5 and 17
cents per gallon at the pump.
The Boston Chamber supports a 15-cent gas tax
increase over three years.
Rooney said he views gas tax increases and the
transportation climate initiative as separate
issues, in part because it will be at least a
few years before TCI generates any revenue.
"So we separate it and say, the now moment is
the gas tax," Rooney said. "That can be done
Monday, and it's very easy to implement, and we
need funds for our transportation systems and we
need to incent behavior of drivers."
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Method May be Holding up Vote
on $18 Bil Transpo Bond Bill
By Michael P. Norton
Ten days after a House chairman signaled he was
ready to advance Gov. Charlie Baker's $18
billion transportation bond bill, his Senate
counterpart called it his "number one priority"
-- but it appears a vote has still not been
scheduled.
"I have every intention in moving it too,"
Senate Transportation Committee Co-chairman
Joseph Boncore told the News Service on Monday
after presiding over the Senate's session.
House Chair William Straus suggested last month
that the committee hold a public executive
session to vote on the bill, but Boncore on
Monday suggested an email poll of members might
be the method of voting.
"This kind of bond bill is a little different in
terms of how the membership looks at it, so I
thought there are likely House members of the
committee and Senate members of the committee
who would like to express some views and input,"
Straus said last month.
Joint committees over the years have moved away
from holding public executive sessions to cast
votes on bills and toward the use of polls,
which do not come with any public notice and the
results of which are often not publicized by
committees. Under the rules of the committee,
the two chairs must be in agreement before an
executive session can be scheduled.
Joint committees on Beacon Hill face a Wednesday
deadline to make decisions on bills reviewed
during 2019.
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
On Deadline Day, Committees
Put Off Many of the Biggest Decisions
Abortion and Immigration Bills Among Those
Extended
By Michael P. Norton
A wave of extension orders adopted this week is
cutting into the intended impact of a rules
reform adopted in early 2017 that was designed
to improve the flow of bills ahead of the busy
stretch run of formal sessions in election
years.
On one big topic after another, House and Senate
lawmakers this week agreed that rather than make
a decision ahead of Wednesday's biennial
bill-reporting deadline, they'll give themselves
more time to review bills by folding them into
orders that feature new deadlines in March,
April, May and even June.
Legislation addressing some of the most
high-profile topics on Beacon Hill, from
abortion to drug use to immigration enforcement,
largely received extension orders by Wednesday's
deadline rather than recommendations that those
bills should or should not advance.
One notable exception was in the Transportation
Committee where an $18 billion long-term
infrastructure borrowing bill (H 4002) and a
bill (S 2061) to make driver's licenses
available to undocumented immigrants were
reported out favorably ahead of the deadline.
With less than six months for formal sessions
remaining this year, extensions shrink the
window for bill supporters to try to steer their
proposals through the Beacon Hill legislative
maze, which still features any number of trap
doors where bills can slip off the public
agenda.
A rule change that the House and Senate agreed
to in 2017 moved up the biennial bill-reporting
deadline for joint committees from mid-March to
early February. The change was pushed by the
Senate, where legislators complained that too
many key bills were being held up for too long
by House-controlled committees.
The Judiciary Committee heard hours of testimony
in June on a bill, referred to as the ROE Act (H
3320 / S 1209), that would remove parental
consent requirements for teenagers to seek
abortions and would allow abortions after 24
weeks in some cases to protect patient health.
Eight months after that hearing, the committee
decided it still needs more time and gave itself
until May 12 to decide the fate of an issue that
drew massive crowds of both supporters and
opponents to testify at the summer hearing.
Both chairs of the Joint Committee on Mental
Health, Substance Use and Recovery personally
support legislation that would pilot sites for
drug use under medical supervision, but they
were not ready to poll members on the
controversial idea -- which has drawn threats of
federal enforcement from U.S. Attorney Andrew
Lelling -- and extended the deadline until April
15.
The Senate agreed to push the deadline back to
June 5 on bills favored by low-income workers
who say they are too often the victims of "wage
theft" by their employers. That's a bill the
Senate has favored in recent sessions but which
has become bottled up in the House over the
years.
Legislation limiting local law enforcements
involvement in federal immigration enforcement
also has a new deadline - May 1 - under a Public
Safety Commitee extension order that also
applies to bills dealing with preventing
workplace violence in health care facilities and
providing protections for inmates in segregated
confinement.
Eva Millona, executive director of the
Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy
Coalition, said the large turnout at a January
hearing for the immigration enforcement bill,
known as "Safe Communities," gives her high
hopes that the legislation will pass this
session, but similarly large crowds in previous
sessions have not translated to success.
Other extensions included legislation reforming
public higher education funding, which was
pushed to March 20; allowing prospective voters
to register and cast ballots in one trip to the
polls, which has a new deadline of April 30; and
proposals to revive local options for rent
control, which will remain in committee until
March 31.
The House has adopted nearly two dozen extension
orders in recent days while the Senate has
passed about a half dozen. Others have been
filed with clerks and remain pending.
For bill supporters, extensions are preferable
to negative recommendations from committees or
votes to dump bills into dead-end study orders.
Scores of bills were included by committees into
study orders on Wednesday that typically mark
the end of the legislative path for the session,
including some that had been filed and
championed by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The Judiciary Committee ordered further study on
Baker's bills on penalties for repeat child
rapists (S 2227) and on the sharing of sexually
explicit images (H 76), and the Education
Committee put into a study order a Baker bill (H
3632) that would allow school districts to
create new zones to encourage innovation or
address underperformance by struggling schools.
— Chris Lisinski,
Katie Lannan, Chris Van Buskirk and Matt Murphy
contributed reporting
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Activists Launch Hunger Strike
for License Bill
By Katie Lannan
Supporters of legislation that would create a
pathway for undocumented immigrants to get
Massachusetts driver's licenses plan to launch a
hunger strike outside the State House on Monday
morning.
The 10:30 a.m. event comes two days ahead of a
deadline for joint legislative committees to
report on bills. Committees can give bills
favorable or unfavorable reports, send them to
study, or request extensions for more time to
consider them.
The activists are calling on House Speaker
Robert DeLeo, House Transportation Committee
Chairman William Straus and other members of the
Transportation Committee to endorse and advance
the driver's licenses bill (H 3012, S 2061),
known as the Work and Family Mobility Act. Faith
leaders will bless the hunger strikers during
the event, according to a press release from
Moviemento Cosecha.
Organizers say two immigrant leaders of the
group were detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement earlier this month in incidents that
"would have been prevented if undocumented
immigrants in Massachusetts had access to
drivers' licenses."
State House News Service
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Immigrant Driver’s License
Bill Gets Committee Nod
By Michael P. Norton
The Transportation Committee has given a
favorable recommendation to legislation that
would enable undocumented immigrants to access
standard driver's licenses in Massachusetts.
Bill sponsor Rep. Christine Barber of Somerville
joined activists in Nurses Hall late Wednesday
to celebrate the vote.
"Si se puede," activists, who have been rallying
for the bill all week, chanted.
Barber told the News Service the bill has been
reported favorably to the Senate. The committee
said it recommended a redrafted version of a
bill (S 2061) filed by Sen. Brendan Crighton
with Barber's bill attached.
Barber said she was "thrilled" about the vote
and said she did not believe the bill had
previously received a favorable vote in
committee.
"Folks have been amazing to work with," Barber
said, citing efforts by a coalition to advance
the bill and the support of law enforcement for
the legislation.
Last year, Senate President Karen Spilka,
speaking to the bill's merits, said, "I believe
that for public safety reasons, even just if you
look at it alone, we should pass it ... There's
like 14 other states that have done this and the
sky hasn't fallen."
The New Boston Post
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Driver’s Licenses For Illegal
Aliens, Massachusetts Legislative Committee Says
By NBP Staff
A key legislative committee of the Massachusetts
Legislature is recommending a bill that would
allow illegal immigrants to get driver’s
licenses.
“Si se puede,” chanted celebrating
pro-illegal-immigrant activists late Wednesday
afternoon in Nurses Hall at the Massachusetts
State House in Boston, according to State House
News Service.
The Spanish phrase means “Yes you can” in
English – not far from former President Barack
Obama’s slogan “Yes we can.”
The Joint Committee on Transportation of the
Massachusetts Legislature voted Wednesday,
February 5 to recommend a redrafted version of
the measure (Massachusetts Senate Bill 2061), a
sponsor of the bill, state Representative
Christine Barber (D-Somerville), told State
House News Service.
Current state law does not allow foreign
nationals in the country illegally to get a
driver’s license.
“No license of any type may be issued to any
person who does not have lawful presence in the
United States,” states the statute
(Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90, Section
8).
The bill would strike that language and replace
it with:
“Persons who are unable to provide proof of
lawful presence, or who are ineligible for a
social security number, may apply for a
Massachusetts license if they meet all other
qualifications for licensure and provide
satisfactory proof to the registrar of identity,
date of birth and Massachusetts residency.”
Supporters say illegal immigrants need to drive
to work and other places, and that they deserve
to do so lawfully.
Opponents say issuing a driver’s license to
people not in the country legally would
encourage more illegal immigration and imperil
safety, since the presence of illegal immigrants
is largely undocumented.
Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), president of the
Massachusetts Senate, supports the bill,
according to State House News Service.
Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, opposes
it. Baker said on September 4, 2019 – the date
of the bill’s hearing before the Joint Committee
on Transportation — that he would not support
the bill, according to State House News Service.
If the full state Senate passes the bill, it
would still need approval by the Massachusetts
House of Representatives. If it passes both
chambers, it would need the governor’s signature
unless both chamber’s override a veto by
two-thirds majorities.
The Washington Examiner
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Top DHS official: New York IDs
for illegal immigrants bring back 'main problem'
that 'allowed 9/11'
by Madison Dibble
A top Homeland Security Department official said
a law in New York that allows illegal immigrants
to get driver’s licenses could put residents'
lives in danger.
Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of
Homeland Security, defended the department’s
decision to block New York from participating in
several Trusted Traveler Programs, including
Global Entry enrollment, citing the state's
Green Light Law in its justification for doing
so.
During a call with reporters, Cuccinelli said a
“main problem” that occurred in the events
leading up to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11,
2001, was that the attackers used Virginia
licenses to book the flights. “It was
embarrassing to us in Virginia that the majority
of 9/11 terrorists used Virginia driver's
licenses to help accomplish their evil mission,
and we set about to fix that. And we did fix
that," Cuccinelli explained.
He added, “Here, we have one of the other
targets of 9/11, who are walking backwards quite
intentionally in the other direction to bar the
sharing of law enforcement relevant information
like vehicle registration, matching driver's
licenses to identifications, and, critically,
criminal records which are kept up to date and
DMV databases.”
The Green Light Law allowed the Department of
Motor Vehicles to grant driver's licenses to
illegal immigrants and also prevents the
department from sharing information about the
legal status of those who apply for the licenses
with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The
Trusted Traveler Programs, such as TSA PreCheck,
from which New York is blocked allow states to
verify the identities of travelers to fast-track
security at airports. After the change from DHS,
New York residents will not be able to renew
their enrollment in several of the programs.
Cuccinelli said 80,000 New Yorkers who were
applying for status in the Trusted Travelers
Programs were immediately denied when the
department's announcement took effect. He
estimated that an additional 175,000 would be
rejected moving forward.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman
Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat,
condemned the Trump administration’s decision to
block New York’s participation, claiming the
move had little to do with safety.
“The Trump administration’s ban on all New
Yorkers applying for Global Entry and other
Trusted Traveler programs is a purely punitive
move that has nothing to do with security. It is
clearly a blatant attempt by the White House to
score political points and perpetuate a partisan
fight with New York elected officials," he said.
Rep. Tom Reed, a New York Republican, supported
the decision, saying, "This is yet another
result of one-party extremist in Albany control
hurting New Yorkers, and we warned of this
impending outcome two weeks ago. As someone who
lived through 9/11, I am astonished how Gov.
Cuomo could disregard the words of the 9/11
Commission, where they noted, ‘For terrorists,
travel documents are as important as weapons.’”
On the first day that driver’s licenses became
available to illegal immigrants, DMV offices
were flooded with hundreds of individuals
applying for the new identification cards.
Cuccinelli, 51, is also the principal deputy
director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services agency in addition to his role as
acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security. He
was previously attorney general of Virginia and
ran unsuccessfully for governor of the state in
2013.
National Review
Thursday, February 6, 2020
DHS Bans New Yorkers from Trusted Traveler
Programs
over Sanctuary Law Allowing Illegal Immigrants
to Receive Driver Licenses
By Tobias Hoonhout
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Chad Wolf sent a letter to New York State
Wednesday informing officials that New Yorkers
would not be eligible for DHS’s Trusted Traveler
Programs (TTP) because of the state’s law
allowing illegal-immigrants to receive state
driver’s licenses.
The “Green Light” law, which went into effect in
December, also blocks federal agencies like ICE
and CBP from accessing the state’s DMV records
without a court order.
“Although DHS would prefer to continue our
long-standing cooperative relationship with New
York on a variety of these critical homeland
security initiatives, this Act and the
corresponding lack of security cooperation from
the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate
action to ensure DHS’s efforts to protect the
Homeland are not compromised,” the letter reads.
Wolf, speaking with Tucker Carlson Wednesday
night, called the law “disappointing.”
“They can’t enroll or reenroll in these Trusted
Traveler Programs that Customs and Border
Protection offers because we no longer have
access to make sure that they meet those program
requirements,” he explained.
In response, a senior adviser to New York
Governor Andrew Cuomo told the Associated Press
that the move amounted to “political
retaliation.”
“This is obviously political retaliation by the
federal government, and we’re going to review
our legal options,” said Rich Azzopardi.
While the letter specifies that the
international travel programs under the TTP will
be curtailed, it is unclear whether the move
will affect Transportation Security
Administration’s pre-check program, which also
falls under TTP.
President Trump singled out sanctuary-city
policies during his State of the Union address
on Tuesday, stating that “my administration is
restoring the rule of law and reasserting the
culture of American freedom.”
“Tragically, there are many cities in America
where radical politicians have chosen to provide
sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens. In
sanctuary cities, local officials order police
to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey
upon the public, instead of handing them over to
ICE to be safely removed,” he said.
State House News Service
Monday, February 3, 2020
Baker Bill Eases Penalties for
Fare Evasion
Guv Offers New Penalties for Bus Lane
Interference
By Chris Lisinski
Penalties for evading fares on
the MBTA would be lowered and drivers could be
cited for using bus lanes under changes Gov.
Charlie Baker proposed in a spending bill filed
Friday.
Baker's $52.6 million fiscal year 2020
supplemental budget bill (H 4354) calls for
reforms to how those who do not pay for rides
are punished and greater protections on
passenger data as the T prepares a new fare
collection model.
The bill would create new penalties banning
private motor vehicle operators from driving,
standing or parking in designated bus lanes.
Motorists would receive a fine of up to $200 for
violations between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on a
weekday and up to $100 for violations at any
other time.
"The need for stricter enforcement of bus only
infrastructure has been elevated as more and
more cities and towns implement bus priority
infrastructure," LivableStreets Alliance
Executive Director Stacy Thompson said in an
email. "While we are supportive of better bus
lane enforcement we hope the State will also
explore camera enforcement which is utilized in
New York City."
The bulk of the transit-related changes in the
bill aim at MBTA fare collection and evasion.
Under the bill, police would be explicitly
banned from arresting individuals who board or
attempt to board the MBTA without paying, which
they can do now if the individual fails to
provide identification, according to the T.
Authorities will still issue non-criminal
citations for evasion, but the fine structure
would change from a statutory mandate to one set
by MBTA regulations. The bill calls for lowering
the fines from the current minimum of $50 and
maximum of $500 to a new minimum of $10 and
maximum of $250.
State law allows for the Registry of Motor
Vehicles to decline renewing a driver's license
if a single fare evasion citation is unresolved,
but Baker's bill would only permit that step if
a motorist has two or more outstanding
citations.
The bill also strips out existing language that
would require new drivers who received a fare
evasion citation when they were 17 or younger to
pay the outstanding fine before acquiring a
license.
Jarred Johnson, chief operating officer of the
advocacy group TransitMatters, said in a
statement that decriminalizing fare evasion
should accompany a low-income fare structure.
"Fair penalties consistent with the low-gravity
nature of the infraction ought to be adopted as
the Commonwealth moves away from today's onerous
approach," he said.
Baker's legislation calls for the MBTA to begin
filing annual reports two years after passage
detailing fare evasion warnings and citations
issued by the agency. Commuter rail conductors
could issue citations under the new language,
and the MBTA would also be allowed to hire new
civilian staff to handle the task rather than
use transit police.
Keolis, which operates the commuter rail, in
2016 estimated losing about $35 million annually
in uncollected fare revenue. At the same time, T
officials said fare evasion on the Green Line
and on buses — where passengers can often board
through rear doors without stopping at the fare
box — costs between $2.3 million and $6.9
million per year.
The company plans to install fare gates at North
Station, South Station and Back Bay starting
this year as part of a push to recoup
uncollected revenue.
Baker's proposal comes less than two months
after the MBTA reset its planned rollout of an
automated fare collection 2.0 system.
The new system, set to be implemented in stages
over the next four years, will allow riders to
use a website and mobile app to track their fare
balances. Larger changes such as all-door
boarding on buses or tapping of a credit card —
rather than a ticket or CharlieCard — at a fare
gate are now three or four years away from
implementation.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, February 4. 2020
One in 5 MBTA pensioners is
younger than 50 as fund struggles
‘A couple bad markets, and boom — the pension is
gone’
By Sean Philip Cotter
More than one in every five MBTA
pensioners retired before age 50 as the state
increasingly has to pick up the tab on the T’s
troubled pension fund that’s running big
deficits even in the current strong market, a
Herald analysis shows.
“It’s a few retirees who are being subsidized by
the Massachusetts taxpayers,” said Mark
Williams, a Boston University finance professor
who tracks the MBTA Retirement Fund. “They’re
eating two bites at the apple, plus they get to
work at another job.”
That’s referring to the situation caused by the
T’s longstanding “23-and-out” policy, which
didn’t put a retirement age on its workers — it
just required 23 years of service, at which
point they could grab the pension, eventually
become eligible for Social Security, and pick up
another gig at the same time.
That’s what led to 22% of the 5,626 people
receiving T pensions having cashed out under age
50, according to a review of MBTA Retirement
Fund data. The average T pensioner is 55.8 years
old.
The retirement fund has floundered deeper into
fiscal danger, last year reporting $2.91 billion
in liabilities versus $1.45 billion in assets.
The fund said no new data is available about
that breakdown at this point. It falls on the
state to fill the annual shortfall, which
resulted in the MBTA budgeting $118.2 million to
keep the retirement fund afloat for the current
fiscal year. That’s up from $102.9 million in
fiscal year 2019 and $93.8 million the previous
year. That’s now more than half of the total
yearly payout, which is upward of $201 million,
per the data.
The T didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Asked about the pension fund’s solvency, a
spokesman noted that the returns were
particularly strong last year at more than 17%.
Williams said the inevitable economic downturn
carries a huge risk for T employees and
pensioners.
“A couple bad markets, and boom — the pension is
gone … At the current outflow rate, by 2030, the
pension’s done — kaput,” Williams told the
Herald, saying that his analyses point toward a
$150 million-plus required MBTA contribution to
float the fund in the next few years. “Those
pensioners are left with nothing, and those
employees are left with nothing.”
The number of youthful retirees has dropped in
recent years. In 2019, 13 of 141 retirees were
under 50. In 2018, it was 24 of 201, and the
year before it was 25 of 303. Back in the 2000s,
there were at times upward of 60 or 70 people
retiring each year who were under 50.
The state Legislature ended the 23-and-out
policy in 2009 — but pension-based changes are
only for future employees, so it’s only people
hired since then for whom the new policies
apply, which require 25 years and sets a
retirement age at 55.
But Pioneer Institute transportation watcher
Charlie Chieppo said, “The change is around the
margins … what you have is a widening gap every
year.”
Chieppo added, “The fix ultimately is to move
the MBTA employees onto the state pension plan,
but getting there is going to be very hard.”
The Boston Globe
Saturday, February 8, 2020
Robert DeLeo is longest-serving House speaker in
Massachusetts history
By Matt Stout
He’s described as both a
deliberate consensus builder and a
power-collecting micro-manager. A humble
everyman and a shrewd political operator. To
some, he’s a Tom Menino-like figure; others say
they’re reminded of Donald Trump.
The portrait of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo is
a muddled one, fueled by a vacuum — self-created
to a degree — filled with contrasts, conjecture,
and above all else, time.
As of Saturday, the Winthrop Democrat has served
4,029 days as leader of the House of
Representatives, the longest tenure in state
history and a record previously held by a
19th-century Federalist. That sustained
longevity makes DeLeo both an oddity in a
chamber oft-defined by its turnover and, in
political circles, a constant source of
speculation about his next move.
DeLeo says that’s to the ballot box.
The 69-year-old (he turns 70 next month) said in
October that he’s running for reelection to his
seat this fall, which would all but ensure he
captures a seventh term as speaker in January.
After he and his deputies successfully pushed to
revoke the office’s eight-year term limit in
2015, abolishing a measure DeLeo himself had
earlier championed, there’s little that would
stop his record-setting run atop the chamber he
controls.
Several close allies say they’ve never heard
DeLeo talk succession plans, even if privately
some lawmakers believe majority leader Ronald
Mariano or Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad
would have the inside track should DeLeo step
away. Whether DeLeo’s next term — his 16th in
the House — would be his last is also unclear.
“There’s speculation that it will be,” said
Representative Paul Donato, a Medford Democrat
and a longtime member of DeLeo’s leadership
team. “Among the leadership, there are those who
have aspirations to be speaker. But I think that
[discussion] will come after the speaker’s
reelection in January and he makes a decision if
that’s his last term. And that’s his decision to
make.”
DeLeo declined an interview request for this
story, and often skips opportunities to discuss
his approach and tenure. Asked by reporters
Wednesday about surpassing Timothy Bigelow as
longest-serving speaker, a claim Bigelow held
after presiding for roughly 11 years between
1805 and 1820, DeLeo said having the support to
get there is “quite a nice feeling” but that
he’s more focused on the issues in front of him.
It left others to hash out what has been a
complicated reign. DeLeo took the gavel in 2009
vowing to steady a House upended by the
resignation of then-speaker Salvatore DiMasi,
who would become the third straight speaker
convicted of a federal crime.
That included installing term limits, which were
later undone, and pledging to “restore public
confidence in the government.” DeLeo’s name came
up repeatedly in the state probation department
corruption trial in 2014, though he was never
charged in the matter and lashed out at federal
prosecutors who labeled him an unindicted
co-conspirator.
(An appellate court ultimately overturned the
convictions of three probation officials in the
case, ruling in 2016 that while their actions
were distasteful, they did not violate state
law.)
In the years before and since, DeLeo’s
fingerprints have been on nearly every major
piece of legislation. A hotly debated 2013
transportation revenue package, multiple laws
targeting the state’s opioid crisis, and last
year’s celebrated overhaul of the state’s school
funding formula all advanced with his guidance.
The state also legalized casino gambling under
DeLeo — DiMasi had opposed it — and early in his
first term as speaker, raised the state sales
tax for the first time in decades.
He helped propel a 2014 measure designed to
toughen domestic violence laws to the governor’s
desk, and that same a year, drove a gun control
bill into law that John Rosenthal, a developer
and founder of Stop Handgun Violence, said made
Massachusetts “the national leader on gun
violence prevention.”
“And in Massachusetts, it’s Speaker DeLeo,”
Rosenthal said Thursday. “His leadership team
abandoned him [on that bill]. And he
single-handedly made it happen.”
Along the way, DeLeo remolded how the House
functions. He rarely moves bills to the chamber
floor without clear signs of passage, preferring
to lean on backroom discussions with lawmakers
to build broad support. It’s an approach that’s
compressed floor discussions, compared to those
of his predecessors, turning what was a weeklong
debate of the budget, for example, into a two-
or three-day affair.
Representative David P. Linsky said that’s
allowed DeLeo to “negotiate a lot of landmines
and a changing membership." And as a centrist
Democrat working alongside a moderate Republican
governor in Charlie Baker, DeLeo’s sway over the
State House has seemingly only grown stronger in
recent years.
“Oftentimes, he’s set the pace of the building,”
said Thomas Finneran, a former House speaker
whose own push to eliminate term limits during
his eight-year tenure earned him the title of
Speaker for Life. It’s a label Finneran, now a
lobbyist, both laughs at and calls unfair, for
him or DeLeo.
“[The House] is probably the only place in the
world where experience is discounted as a
negative," he said. “I think the duration and
the durability of the speaker is something to
almost — this might not be the word for it — but
I’m almost in awe."
To critics, however, the style has at times
meant slow movement, and more often, quashed
debate, allowing little dissent to spill into
public view. And when it has, they say,
retribution isn’t far behind. Former state
representative Jay Kaufman’s public claims last
year that DeLeo threatened him with losing his
chairmanship if he didn’t support a 2013 tax
package drew a swift rebuke from the speaker,
who called him a “liar.”
After DeLeo’s budget chairman, Brian Dempsey,
widely considered to be DeLeo’s heir apparent,
announced in 2017 he was resigning,
Representative Russell Holmes called on various
caucuses “to be strong and united in our
selection of the next speaker.” Days later,
DeLeo, showing no signs of leaving his
speakership, shuffled Holmes from his post as a
committee vice chairman.
Holmes, a Mattapan Democrat who has been
unafraid to air his criticisms of DeLeo, said
that in building his record tenure, the speaker
is “very reminiscent to me of the president of
the United States," with a team molded, he said,
through “fear and intimidation.”
“We, as a House, have become complacent,” Holmes
said. “Essentially, we all have kind of bowed.”
Former representative Cory Atkins, who left the
Legislature last year after serving as a
committee chairwoman under DeLeo, also likened
him and his lieutenants to those in the White
House. “Not as verbose as Trump,” she said, “but
they’re just as revengeful.” Atkins was among
those who voted to lift term limits in 2015 but
described it as a “calculated survival
decision," adding: “I just thought it was going
to be for one term.”
“DeLeo did not start out this way,” the Concord
Democrat said. "He put in more reforms than had
been passed in the previous 25 years. He put
more women in chairmanships. He restored term
limits for the speaker. He passed pension
reform.
“I don’t know what happened when, but he turned
a corner. And he’s not the speaker that I signed
on to elect.”
It’s a description DeLeo’s supporters roundly
deny. Donato, one of his second assistant
majority leaders, said DeLeo has never turned
down ideas from lawmakers. “He tells us,” he
said of DeLeo’s leadership team, “that the most
important thing is to get input from the members
and bring that information back to him.”
Plus, former lawmakers say, blow-back to any
long-term leadership style may be unavoidable.
“Somebody has to make the hard decisions and
lead in a certain direction,” said Dempsey,
DeLeo’s former budget chairman and now a
lobbyist. “It’s very difficult to lead an
institution for as long as he has, with new
members, new issues, controversies. He’s been a
steady hand during some difficult times."
DeLeo, a former budget chairman himself who was
popular among members in his rise to speaker,
often does things quietly, his allies say. He
rarely seeks out media coverage, and in
one-on-one conversations, is prone to dote on
his grandchildren and prognosticate on the Red
Sox’s World Series chances.
Rick Sullivan, a onetime chief of staff to
former governor Deval Patrick, said even in
times his boss was locked in tense disagreements
with DeLeo, the speaker would leave notes of
appreciation at the corner office. “Dropping off
a cigar and saying thanks for what you do,”
Sullivan recalled.
DeLeo may be the most powerful person on Beacon
Hill, but political ambition, his friends say,
isn’t what drives him.
“The closest person I can draw similarities to
is Tom Menino,” Representative Michael Moran, a
Brighton Democrat, said of Boston’s late and
longest-serving mayor who never sought higher
office.
“He’s still Bob DeLeo for Winthrop. He was a
selectmen and a baseball player on the [Boston]
Latin School team,” Moran said. “There’s always
the other side that will tell you what a bad
person he is and members who are not happy. But
if you know him, he’s a very humble guy.”
On Thursday, DeLeo spent part of the morning in
a fourth-floor conference room speaking to the
League of Women Voters. He spouted off an array
of laws the Legislature has passed to elevate
women — a pay equity law and one to protect
pregnant women from abuse in the workplace —
before addressing what drew them all there: The
League, too, was celebrating a historic
milestone, in its case, a 100th anniversary.
“Everyone — everyone — in this room should be
proud of this amazing accomplishment,” he said.
And with that and a photo op, DeLeo was off to a
meeting. As he was ushered from the room, an
aide told a waiting reporter that DeLeo didn’t
have time to talk.
Material from the State House News Service
was used in this report.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
