 |
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
Monday, March 9, 2020
Proven: More Is Never Enough
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
“Massachusetts
consistently squanders over 300 percent more than the
national average for its annual highway maintenance, most
dramatically in administrative costs,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“Over the past few years the state has been raking in
billions in revenue surpluses, aka over-taxation, and when
the Millionaire’s Tax is approved as expected it will add
two billion more a year to that. But the standard
assertion is that more, more, always more is needed for
transportation. Spending review, reform and
cost-cutting is rare at best in Massachusetts,” he added,
“but imposition of ever higher taxes is just as reliably
perpetual.”
Beacon Hill
Roll Call
Volume 45 - Report No. 10
March 2-6, 2020
By Bob Katzen
Estimated $522 to $600 million tax hike
for transportation (H-4508)
Bay State
lawmakers, poised to stick drivers with a 5 cent gas tax
hike while jacking up fees on ride app companies like
Uber and Lyft, are still cruising to the State House on
the taxpayers’ dime thanks to an unregulated expense
account of up to $21,664 per legislator....
If approved,
the new charges will push the commonwealth’s hand deeper
into the pockets of Massachusetts motorists who have to
pay for their own ride to and from work. State
legislators, however, are able to tap into a
taxpayer-funded annual stipend of $16,248 to pay for
their commute if they live within 50 miles of the State
House and $21,664 if they live farther away....
The stipend
dates back to 2017, when legislators eliminated
so-called travel per diems as part of a pay raise
package. But in classic Beacon Hill fashion, the
elimination of the controversial and embarrassing per
diems was quickly and quietly addressed by an increase
to the already existing $7,200 office expense account.
Lawmakers who live 50 miles or closer from the State
House were boosted to $15,000 a year, and those who live
more than 50 miles from the State House got $20,000. The
compensation is adjusted every two years based on
changes in wages and salaries as reported by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
While
legislators crowed about the elimination of per-diems in
2017, they are now raking in even more to cover
expenses, according to a Herald review of state treasury
records....
Supporters of
the House’s transportation bill argue that the state has
one of the lowest gas tax rates in the nation, even with
the proposed increase, and the fees are necessary to
address the state’s ongoing transportation crisis.
Gov. Charlie
Baker said he plans to veto the legislation (while
backing the multistate Transportation and Climate
Initiative that could raise gas taxes 17 cents the first
year), while Senate President Karen Spilka hasn’t said
when or if she plans on taking up the measure.
But lawmakers
facing re-election in November might want to consider
the impact on their constituents, who aren’t paid to
commute to work.
The Boston
Herald
Sunday, March 8, 2020
Gas tax for thee, per diem* for me
*but state lawmakers don’t call their commuting payback
that anymore
By Hillary Chabot
“These
legislators didn’t pay attention in their economics
courses,” Beacon Hill Institute President David Tuerck
told the Herald. “Gasoline is a main ingredient of
economic activity. If you make gasoline more expensive,
you shrink economic activity across the board.”
The gas tax
increase is part of a larger legislative proposal to pay
for transportation infrastructure, put forth last week
by House Speaker Robert DeLeo and his top deputies. The
bill calls for a 5-cent gas tax increase, bringing the
tax up to 29 cents per gallon, and a 9-cent increase on
diesel fuel to 33 cents per gallon.
But the tax
will destroy more than 3,000 jobs and $93 million in
business investment in the first year of implementation
alone, according to Tuerck. Residents will be hit with
an $843 million loss in disposable income and the
overall state economy will lose $207 million in
production. Tuerck said that the Legislature has “never”
considered the economic consequences of their tax
policies in the 20-plus years he’s worked on Beacon
Hill.
“While the
proposed tax on motor fuels will provide more revenue to
the state, it will also inflict serious damage on the
Massachusetts economy,” Tuerck said. “The legislature
seems to never look at the cost side of an issue,
including this one, and on this one, the cost is
substantial.” ...
“The state
economy will now be less able to meet the needs of state
residents,” Tuerck said. “The state will be impoverished
— or made poorer — because of that tax.”
The Boston
Herald
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Gas tax will do ‘serious damage’ to
state economy, think tank leader says
No politician
wants to raise the gas tax — and it’s an even tougher
vote during an election year. So House Speaker Robert
DeLeo deserves significant credit for getting behind a
5-cents-per-gallon hike to the tax, and a 9-cent boost
in the diesel tax, the key part of a $600 million
proposal to fix the state’s roads and transit systems
that was unveiled at the State House last week. The
plan, and an accompanying transportation bond bill, is
expected to come up for a vote in the full House as soon
as Wednesday.
While there
are some nits to pick with the proposal, at its core the
House plan recognizes reality: If Massachusetts wants a
transportation system that unclogs the roads,
strengthens communities, and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, it’ll have to pay for it. The Baker
administration, which has in the past been skeptical of
the need for new revenue, and the Senate, which has yet
to produce a plan of its own, should take heed.
The state’s
transportation system, after all, is at a crisis
point....
Lawmakers have
filed dozens of amendments, and the Senate is working on
its own plan. Hopefully, what emerges goes bigger on
congestion pricing and restores the contracting reforms
the governor requested. But the House bill gets the big
picture right: The state needs more revenue to fix its
aging infrastructure and invest in cleaner
transportation, and it needs it now.
A Boston
Globe editorial
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
House makes right move on
transportation
A bill to raise the gas tax will yield critical revenue
for public transit and lower carbon emissions.
Are cars the
new cigarettes? One might get that impression from
Massachusetts lawmakers’ eagerness to slap more taxes on
gasoline.
Right now, the
state excise tax on a pack of cigarettes is $3.51. Most
of the bountiful tax revenue goes to the state’s general
fund, with some apportioned to Commonwealth Care Trust
Fund. Taxing a vice pays well.
And in these
environmentally conscious times, carbon emissions are
the new secular sin. “Flight shaming” takes tourists to
task for wasting fuel for the frivolity of vacation, or
otherwise stamping their big carbon footprints on the
landscape.
In
Massachusetts, autos are seen by lawmakers as the
vehicle to a greener future. Or at least one with
improved public transportation and more money in state
coffers....
Legislators
could get the tax hike bill, with or without amendments,
passed — but voters will have the last word when
re-elections roll around.
A Boston
Herald editorial
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Lawmakers’ gas tax plans should take
a hike
Gov. Charlie
Baker vowed to veto the gas tax hike if the bill passed
by the Massachusetts House of Representatives makes it
to his desk.
“First of all
we have a long way to go in this process,” Baker said
Thursday. “I don’t really like to speculate about that
stuff, but I said before that we don’t support a gas tax
and if one were to come through we would veto it.”
The governor
said an increase in the tax would put Massachusetts in
an “anti-competitive position with folks on the other
side of the border,” after the House passed a major tax
bill Wednesday night to generate more than half a
billion dollars in revenue for transportation
infrastructure.
The Boston
Herald
Friday, March 6, 2020
Baker vows to veto gas tax
A day after
voting to raise taxes and fees by as much as $600
million per year, the Massachusetts House on Thursday
overwhelmingly approved a roughly $18 billion bill
authorizing spending on transportation projects and
infrastructure over 10 years.
Before passing
the bill on a 150-1 vote, the House without discussion
or debate adopted a $2.4 billion mega-amendment,
followed by a second $1.36 billion amendment. Both
amendments stemmed from lengthy private talks, with the
larger amendment authorizing, among other things, $350
million for improving roadway approaches to the two Cape
Cod Canal bridges, which are both in need of either
extensive repairs or replacement.
The larger
amendment included more than 14 pages, single-spaced, of
language earmarking spending to projects all over the
state, with those earmarks subject to restrictions on
annual state borrowing. The amendment also expanded the
size of a rail improvement line item from $80 million to
$400 million.
The House
bulked up the bill's bottom line to reflect the
projected revenues approved on Wednesday, even though
those taxes and fees face an uncertain future in the
Senate and Gov. Charlie Baker opposes the House's
planned increases in gas and corporate taxes....
A huge chunk
of the underlying bill, $5.6 billion, is for federal
highway system projects, with $1.75 billion more carved
out for the design, construction and repair of
non-federally-aided roadway and bridge projects, and
another $1.25 billion for construction, resurfacing, and
improvements of bridges and approaches....
The House bond
bill (H 4506) boosts Chapter 90 reimbursements to cities
and towns for road repairs to $300 million, exceeding
the governor's bill by $100 million and fulfilling a
request that municipal leaders have been making of the
Legislature for years....
[Transportation Committee Co-chairman Rep. William
Straus] called Baker's proposal to expand the use of
grant anticipation notes, or borrowing against future
federal grants, "dangerous" and one the House has
rejected in its bill. The House proposal also excludes
Baker's ask for authorization to borrow against revenues
that could come from the Transportation and Climate
Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade program for
emissions that the governor is still negotiating with
other states.
"It's a
program that may have its day, we don't know. But we
can't rely on it," Straus said....
Senate Ways
and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues said Thursday he
hoped the Senate would take up its version of the House
bill before Senate budget debate, which usually occurs
the week before Memorial Day weekend.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 5, 2020
House Approves $18 Bil in
Transportation Outlays
Borrowing Bill Approved After Tax Votes on Wednesday
House Speaker
Robert DeLeo has set about building a "bridge" to the
"millionaires tax" that he hopes to help put on the
ballot in 2022. That bridge rests on a foundation of
gas, diesel, and corporate tax hikes, as well as
increased Uber and Lyft fees.
The
long-awaited tax bill hit the floor Wednesday, and
leadership rebuffed Republican attempts to make the
bridge a temporary one, proposing to sunset the gas and
other tax hikes if and when the surtax on household
income above $1 million becomes law.
That didn't
happen, but what did was a veto-proof vote in the House
in an election year for a tax package worth as much as
$612 million....
The revenue
bill made it palatable a day later for House leadership
to let members pad a $14.5 billion, 10-year
transportation borrowing bill with close to $3.8 billion
in additional spending...
State House
News Service
Friday, March 6, 2020
Weekly Roundup
Critics are
calling proposed tax hikes a “money grab” by the
Legislature during a year when the state raked in
millions of dollars in surplus revenue and boasts a
record-level rainy day fund.
“It’s
frustrating that we’re doing this kind of money grab at
this time,” Minority Leader Brad Jones told the Herald.
Jones has filed numerous amendments to soften the
economic blow of the major tax bill, all of which were
rejected. The bill now goes to the Senate after it
passed in the House Wednesday, the same day the
Department of Revenue released a report showing that
state revenues are currently $176 million over the
year-to-date benchmark.
“We are
experiencing one of the strongest economies in
Massachusetts history; one that led to $1 billion in
excess revenue last year. The economy is booming because
of the tax cuts led by President Trump,” state Rep. Marc
Lombardo, R-Billerica, said. “Only Massachusetts would
see the success of tax cuts and then take an alternative
job-killing path of increasing taxes on hard-working
families and businesses in Massachusetts. We are once
again Taxachusetts.”
Additionally,
Gov. Charlie Baker included a $310 million increase to
the Stabilization Fund in his budget proposal earlier
this year to bring it to $4.3 billion, which the
administration boasts is at an all-time high balance.
The legislation also comes as a special working group in
the Senate considers revamping the tax code and as
lawmakers look to put the millionaire’s tax, a proposed
surtax on income greater than $1 million, on the 2020
ballot....
The language
does not designate many immediate spending requirements,
which critics say is purposeful.
“The fact that
the House left the spending requirements up in the air
shows that this legislation was much more about raising
money than about improving transportation
infrastructure,” Beacon Hill Institute President David
Tuerck told the Herald. “In fact, we can assume that the
legislation was so named just to get it through the
House.”
“Speaker
(Robert) DeLeo’s regressive gasoline and diesel tax
increases are nothing more than another way to collect
higher taxes in order to satisfy legislative leader’s
desire to spend more,” Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance
spokesman Paul Craney said. “They keep the rules
ambiguous so they can have the most flexibility to spend
the money on whatever pet projects that interest them.
Unfortunately for drivers and taxpayers, the road and
transportation conditions will not be improved in any
meaningful way.”
The Boston
Herald
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Tax hikes a ‘money grab’ from
lawmakers, critics say |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
“Massachusetts
consistently squanders over 300 percent more than the
national average for its annual highway maintenance, most
dramatically in administrative costs,” said Chip Ford,
executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“Over the past few years the state has been raking in
billions in revenue surpluses, aka over-taxation, and when
the Millionaire’s Tax is approved as expected it will add
two billion more a year to that. But the standard
assertion is that more, more, always more is needed for
transportation. Spending review, reform and
cost-cutting is rare at best in Massachusetts,” he added,
“but imposition of ever higher taxes is just as reliably
perpetual.”
Beacon Hill
Roll Call
March 2-6, 2020
Estimated $522 to $600 million tax hike for transportation
(H-4508)
The State House
News Service reported last Wednesday ("Major
Tax Bill To Raise $$$ For Transpo Clears House"):
Every Republican
member of the House voted against the proposed tax increases, as
did independent Rep. Susannah Whipps and eight Democrats: Reps.
Brian Ashe of Longmeadow, Michelle DuBois of Brockton, Colleen
Garry of Dracut, Patrick Kearney of Scituate, John Rogers of
Norwood, John Velis of Westfield, and Jonathan Zlotnik of
Gardner.
The House shot down amendments from the
GOP that would have scrapped or blunted several of the tax
and fee hikes. One amendment filed by Minority Leader Brad
Jones would have repealed the gas, corporate and vehicle
sales tax sections of the bill if and when a surtax on
household income above $1 million takes effect.
DeLeo's team has referred to the
current bill as a "bridge" to the 4 percent surtax,
sometimes referred to as the "Fair Share Amendment" or
"Millionaires Tax," that is on track to appear before voters
on the 2022 ballot. Supporters say that hike could generate
up to $2 billion per year for education and transportation
needs.
"Are we going to be true to our word if
the millionaires tax increases and really spend it on
transpo, or is this all part of the grand shell game?" Jones
said. "If we're going to take in $2 billion, which is
supposed to be for one of two reasons, education and
transportation — if that's really what the millionaires tax
is all about, then we should be willing to sunset these
taxes if that in fact passes."
There's that
infamous "Beacon Hill False Promise" again, pols saying anything
they need to get everything they want — then abandoning it
later as disposable. Remember also, as reported in
CommonWealth and elsewhere:
House
Transportation chair William Straus said lawmakers are
uninterested in “double taxation,” and the bill recommends an
offset, so if TCI goes into effect, the first five cents of its
cost would be covered by the gas tax increase.
"Recommends" an
offset. The gas tax hike bill "recommends" — not requires.
This is nothing more than a legislative CYA sleight-of-hand
talking point; Bait-and-Switch 2.0. We all remember the 1989
income tax hike being
"only temporary, for just 18 months" — or
should remember — and how much that promise was
worth. Thirty years later — even despite CLT's successful
2000 ballot question to roll it back twenty years ago — just
this year it was finally restored to 5 percent.
Once they grab and have
your money, it will never be given back without at best a long,
protracted battle over decades. You can take that to the bank.
Safe in the certainty that
any veto will be easily overridden, Gov. Charlie Baker has again
vowed to veto the gas tax hike if the bill passed by the
Massachusetts House of Representatives makes it to his desk. This
has become so typical of Baker, reprising Shakespeare's Macbeth:
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Meanwhile, Charlie and
his administration strive on to impose his Transportation Climate
Initiative (TCI) boondoggle with its 17 cents a gallon gas tax hike
— to start with, to be increased on a whim later.
The Boston Herald reported
on Saturday ("Tax hikes a ‘money grab’ from lawmakers, critics
say"):
Critics are calling proposed tax hikes
a “money grab” by the Legislature during a year when the
state raked in millions of dollars in surplus revenue and
boasts a record-level rainy day fund.
“It’s frustrating that we’re doing this
kind of money grab at this time,” Minority Leader Brad Jones
told the Herald. Jones has filed numerous amendments to
soften the economic blow of the major tax bill, all of which
were rejected. The bill now goes to the Senate after it
passed in the House Wednesday, the same day the Department
of Revenue released a report showing that state revenues are
currently $176 million over the year-to-date benchmark.
“We are experiencing one of the
strongest economies in Massachusetts history; one that led
to $1 billion in excess revenue last year. The economy is
booming because of the tax cuts led by President Trump,”
state Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica, said. “Only
Massachusetts would see the success of tax cuts and then
take an alternative job-killing path of increasing taxes on
hard-working families and businesses in Massachusetts. We
are once again Taxachusetts.”...
The language does not designate many
immediate spending requirements, which critics say is
purposeful.
“The fact that the House left the
spending requirements up in the air shows that this
legislation was much more about raising money than about
improving transportation infrastructure,” Beacon Hill
Institute President David Tuerck told the Herald. “In fact,
we can assume that the legislation was so named just to get
it through the House.”
Perpetually grabbing
taxpayers' money by any means or excuse necessary is what the
Massachusetts Legislature and its governors of both parties do
best — next to spending every cent on all the latest liberal
causes and schemes then borrowing more to squander. How else can
the state budget of $44.6 Billion proposed by Gov. Baker in
January be explained, when compared with the $27 Billion budget
of just a decade ago — an increase of $17.6 Billion in a mere
ten years? If all their current schemes to take more from
productive citizens succeed the state will rake in many
additional billions in the coming years.
And still it will not be
enough.
Last Wednesday the
Massachusetts Department of Revenue reported ("Monthly
collections up $115 million vs. February 2019 actual"):
Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR)
Acting Commissioner Kevin Brown today announced that
preliminary revenue collections for February totaled $1.535
billion, which is $69 million or 4.7% more than benchmark,
and $115 million or 8.1% more than the actual collections in
February 2019.
For the fiscal year-to-date through
February, revenue collections totaled $18.428 billion, $909
million or 5.2% more than the same fiscal year-to-date
period in 2019, and $176 million or 1.0% more than the
year-to-date benchmark.
With four months
remaining in this fiscal year already the state has hauled in
almost a billion dollars more than it did last fiscal year, with
last year's two billion dollar surplus!
Even as surpluses pile up
faster than even they can spend the riches, with the state's rainy day fund
coffers overflowing at an all-time record of almost $4 Billion, and
revenue continuing to pour in beyond any expectation — more is never
enough and never will be. Not as long as they are allowed
to get away scot-free with perpetual theft.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
Beacon Hill Roll
Call
Volume 45 - Report No. 10
March 2-6, 2020
By Bob Katzen
Estimated $522 to $600 million tax hike for
transportation (H-4508)
House 113-40, approved and
sent to the Senate an estimated $522 million to $600 million tax hike
package to fund improvements to the state’s transportation system. Hikes
include a 5 cents-per-gallon increase in the motor vehicle gas excise
tax; a 9 cents-per-gallon increase in the diesel fuel tax; an increase
in the aviation fuel tax from 5 percent of the average price per gallon
to 7.5 percent of the average price per gallon; elimination of the sales
tax exemption on vehicle purchases for traditional rental car companies;
replacing the current flat $456 minimum corporate excise tax with a
nine-tiered sliding scale ranging from $456 if the corporation’s total
sales are less than $1 million to $150,000 if the corporation’s sales
total $1 billion; and increasing the 20 cents-per-trip flat fee to $1.20
for each non-shared Uber and Lyft ride and $2.20 for every luxury ride.
The bill includes language aimed at preventing Uber and Lyft from
passing those hikes directly onto riders.
“We applaud the House for recognizing the importance of providing much
needed transportation resources for the state,” said John Pourbaix,
Executive Director of the Construction Industries of Massachusetts.
“With the passage of the Transportation Revenue Bill, the House has
acted in a way to better position Massachusetts to undertake the
much-needed improvements in our substandard roads and bridges, our
underperforming transit system, our overcrowded interchanges and choke
points, and our critical local infrastructure.”
“Massachusetts consistently squanders over 300 percent more than the
national average for its annual highway maintenance, most dramatically
in administrative costs,” said Chip Ford, executive director of
Citizens for Limited Taxation. “Over the past few years the state
has been raking in billions in revenue surpluses, aka over-taxation, and
when the Millionaire’s Tax is approved as expected it will add two
billion more a year to that. But the standard assertion is that more,
more, always more is needed for transportation. Spending review, reform
and cost-cutting is rare at best in Massachusetts,” he added, “but
imposition of ever higher taxes is just as reliably perpetual.”
“The legislation passed by the House today puts Massachusetts on the
road to both a better statewide transportation system, and a more
equitable approach to transportation funding,” said Andrew Farnitano,
spokesman for Raise Up Massachusetts. “Corporate taxes are an essential
part of this revenue package, and we are glad the House rejected
pressure from corporate lobbyists to remove the tiered corporate minimum
tax from the bill. Large corporations make massive profits by using our
transportation infrastructure to move their goods and customers and they
must pay their share to help fund transportation improvements.”
“Regressive tax schemes, like Speaker DeLeo’s tax hike to the state’s
gasoline and diesel tax, hit the middle class and the working poor the
hardest,” said Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney. “The
gas tax hike will come out of the earnings of the hard-working taxpayers
who rely on their vehicle to get to work, run errands and operate a
business. Instead of looking at how to spend taxpayer’s money more
wisely, Speaker DeLeo added an additional cost onto the backs of the
state’s already very generous taxpayers.”
“It has become clearer by the day that the need for more transportation
revenue is real and it is immediate,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, chair
of the House Ways and Means Committee, during the floor debate. “Whether
your constituents come from a district that is considered urban or rural
or anything in between, it is undeniable that our transportation system
is not meeting the needs that our citizens expect and deserve.”
“I listen to the people,” said Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica). “I can
tell you no one is calling my office saying pass the gas tax. The
opposite is true. I am hearing from families who don’t want their
budgets stretched. I am hearing from soccer moms who bring their
children to activities. I am hearing from seniors who live on a fixed
income. Like me, they believe that Beacon Hill needs to reform spending,
not increase taxes.”
The Boston Herald
Sunday, March 8, 2020
Gas tax for thee, per diem* for me
*but state lawmakers don’t call their commuting payback that anymore
By Hillary Chabot
Bay State lawmakers, poised to
stick drivers with a 5 cent gas tax hike while jacking up fees on ride
app companies like Uber and Lyft, are still cruising to the State House
on the taxpayers’ dime thanks to an unregulated expense account of up to
$21,664 per legislator.
The transportation bill, already approved by the House, seeks to raise
roughly $600 million with a 5 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax
and a 9 cent hike on diesel. It would also charge Uber and Lyft $1.20
for each nonshared ride, up from the current charge of 20 cents.
If approved, the new charges will push the commonwealth’s hand deeper
into the pockets of Massachusetts motorists who have to pay for their
own ride to and from work. State legislators, however, are able to tap
into a taxpayer-funded annual stipend of $16,248 to pay for their
commute if they live within 50 miles of the State House and $21,664 if
they live farther away.
In a brief conversation with the Herald, Sen. Harriet Chandler,
D-Worcester, defended using the expense account for her travel to the
State House.
“I go back and forth every single day and I drive around my district for
my job,” said Chandler, who pointed out that she is taxed for her
$21,664 stipend. She collects the highest stipend, even though at least
one driving route is less than 50 miles to the State House, as her
hometown paper the Worcester Telegram and Gazette noted.
Chandler suggested that legislators are really doing us a favor, saying
they could be earning more money in the private sector.
“We probably get paid less than other people do who work at higher
paying jobs,” said Chandler, who earns more than $160,000 a year.
“It’s an inclusive stipend,” she said.
The stipend dates back to 2017, when legislators eliminated so-called
travel per diems as part of a pay raise package. But in classic Beacon
Hill fashion, the elimination of the controversial and embarrassing per
diems was quickly and quietly addressed by an increase to the already
existing $7,200 office expense account. Lawmakers who live 50 miles or
closer from the State House were boosted to $15,000 a year, and those
who live more than 50 miles from the State House got $20,000. The
compensation is adjusted every two years based on changes in wages and
salaries as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
While legislators crowed about the elimination of per-diems in 2017,
they are now raking in even more to cover expenses, according to a
Herald review of state treasury records.
Massachusetts’ House and Senate lawmakers requested less than half a
million dollars annually in per diems several years before they were
eliminated. The state paid roughly $460,000 in per diems in 2012,
$464,000 in 2013, $366,000 in 2014, $410,000 in 2015 and $337,000 in
2016, according to state records. Combined with $1.44 million in office
expenses, legislative expenses totaled $1.78 million in 2016. That cost
jumped to $3.14 million in 2017, according to state records. Lawmaker
expenses were $3.05 million in 2018 and $3.51 million in 2019.
Supporters of the House’s transportation bill argue that the state has
one of the lowest gas tax rates in the nation, even with the proposed
increase, and the fees are necessary to address the state’s ongoing
transportation crisis.
Gov. Charlie Baker said he plans to veto the legislation (while backing
the multistate Transportation and Climate Initiative that could raise
gas taxes 17 cents the first year), while Senate President Karen Spilka
hasn’t said when or if she plans on taking up the measure.
But lawmakers facing re-election in November might want to consider the
impact on their constituents, who aren’t paid to commute to work.
The Boston Herald
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Gas tax will do ‘serious damage’ to state economy, think tank leader
says
By Mary Markos
A proposed gas tax hike, being
taken up for debate Wednesday by the House of Representatives, would do
“serious damage” to the state’s economy, according to a local think
tank.
“These legislators didn’t pay attention in their economics courses,”
Beacon Hill Institute President David Tuerck told the Herald. “Gasoline
is a main ingredient of economic activity. If you make gasoline more
expensive, you shrink economic activity across the board.”
The gas tax increase is part of a larger legislative proposal to pay for
transportation infrastructure, put forth last week by House Speaker
Robert DeLeo and his top deputies. The bill calls for a 5-cent gas tax
increase, bringing the tax up to 29 cents per gallon, and a 9-cent
increase on diesel fuel to 33 cents per gallon.
But the tax will destroy more than 3,000 jobs and $93 million in
business investment in the first year of implementation alone, according
to Tuerck. Residents will be hit with an $843 million loss in disposable
income and the overall state economy will lose $207 million in
production. Tuerck said that the Legislature has “never” considered the
economic consequences of their tax policies in the 20-plus years he’s
worked on Beacon Hill.
“While the proposed tax on motor fuels will provide more revenue to the
state, it will also inflict serious damage on the Massachusetts
economy,” Tuerck said. “The legislature seems to never look at the cost
side of an issue, including this one, and on this one, the cost is
substantial.”
The state’s transportation needs should be met, Tuerck said, and may in
fact require added sources of revenue, but he stressed the need to
consider the ripple effect policies such as a tax increase would have.
“The state economy will now be less able to meet the needs of state
residents,” Tuerck said. “The state will be impoverished — or made
poorer — because of that tax.”
In dozens of amendments filed over the past week, rank-and-file
Democrats called for expanding the gasoline and diesel tax increases
proposed by leaders, expanding road tolls to the state’s borders and
funding free public transportation. Republicans will seek to scrap tax
hikes or at least sunset them once a potential income surtax takes
effect.
The House will begin the process by taking up a multipronged tax bill on
Wednesday. The legislation seeks to raise $522 million to $612 million
per year through gas tax increases, a tiered increase to the corporate
minimum excise tax, higher fees on ride-hailing services and application
of the state sales tax to vehicle purchases by rental car companies.
DeLeo declined to comment through a spokeswoman.
A Boston Globe editorial
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
House makes right move on transportation
A bill to raise the gas tax will yield critical revenue
for public transit and lower carbon emissions.
No politician wants to raise
the gas tax — and it’s an even tougher vote during an election year. So
House Speaker Robert DeLeo deserves significant credit for getting
behind a 5-cents-per-gallon hike to the tax, and a 9-cent boost in the
diesel tax, the key part of a $600 million proposal to fix the state’s
roads and transit systems that was unveiled at the State House last
week. The plan, and an accompanying transportation bond bill, is
expected to come up for a vote in the full House as soon as Wednesday.
While there are some nits to pick with the proposal, at its core the
House plan recognizes reality: If Massachusetts wants a transportation
system that unclogs the roads, strengthens communities, and reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, it’ll have to pay for it. The Baker
administration, which has in the past been skeptical of the need for new
revenue, and the Senate, which has yet to produce a plan of its own,
should take heed.
The state’s transportation system, after all, is at a crisis point. In
Greater Boston, the T is unreliable, and according to a scathing outside
report released in December, has suffered as budgetary belt-tightening
has distracted from safety. Meanwhile, transportation is the largest
single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts.
Baker has focused on the proposed Transportation and Climate Initiative,
a plan to charge extra for gas as a way to combat climate change, which
this board also supports. But Baker’s plan and a gas tax hike aren’t
mutually exclusive — and, as the House points out, the gas tax would
start producing revenue faster, since TCI won’t go into effect until
2022 at the earliest. The House would link the two so that once TCI’s
fees kick in, they would be offset by commensurate decreases in the gas
tax.
The proposed increase would hardly be radical: The gas tax, which under
the state constitution can be used only for roads and transit, currently
stands at 24 cents a gallon; total state-imposed charges add up to 26.54
cents a gallon. According to the American Petroleum Institute, that
total is lower than Connecticut (40.13), Rhode Island (35 cents), and
Vermont (30.81 cents). In California, state gas taxes total 60.6 cents a
gallon.
Gas taxes can be regressive, since poorer people tend to spend more of
their income on gas and may have no alternative to driving. The House
proposal attempts to spread the burden by also raising the fee on
ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft, boosting the corporate tax
minimum, and subjecting rental car companies to the state’s auto excise
tax.
So about those nits. First, the House bond bill doesn’t contain language
that Governor Baker requested that would reform contracting on
transportation projects; the administration says that if it had that
authority it would be able to deliver improvements faster. The House
also tries to have it both ways on Uber and Lyft. The proposal would
create a tiered fee structure to encourage riders to use shared rides
like UberPool, thus cutting congestion and pollution — but also prevents
the companies from passing along those fees to riders. It’s hard to see
how the fees can change users’ behavior if they don’t actually see the
charge. The House bill also punts on road pricing — that is, charging
variable tolls that rise during rush hour to spread out traffic — by
creating a commission to study the idea.
Lawmakers have filed dozens of amendments, and the Senate is working on
its own plan. Hopefully, what emerges goes bigger on congestion pricing
and restores the contracting reforms the governor requested. But the
House bill gets the big picture right: The state needs more revenue to
fix its aging infrastructure and invest in cleaner transportation, and
it needs it now.
A Boston Herald editorial
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Lawmakers’ gas tax plans should take a hike
Are cars the new cigarettes?
One might get that impression from Massachusetts lawmakers’ eagerness to
slap more taxes on gasoline.
Right now, the state excise tax on a pack of cigarettes is $3.51. Most
of the bountiful tax revenue goes to the state’s general fund, with some
apportioned to Commonwealth Care Trust Fund. Taxing a vice pays well.
And in these environmentally conscious times, carbon emissions are the
new secular sin. “Flight shaming” takes tourists to task for wasting
fuel for the frivolity of vacation, or otherwise stamping their big
carbon footprints on the landscape.
In Massachusetts, autos are seen by lawmakers as the vehicle to a
greener future. Or at least one with improved public transportation and
more money in state coffers.
Last week, House Speaker Robert DeLeo unveiled a legislative package
that called for a 5 cent gas tax increase, bringing it up to 29 cents
per gallon, and a 9 cent increase on diesel fuel to 33 cents per gallon.
State officials estimate that the gas tax increase will raise between
$150 million and $175 million while the diesel tax bump will bring in
$32 million.
DeLeo has plans for that tax money. “When it comes to our transportation
system, revenue can’t wait,” DeLeo said. “Our residents, our communities
and our economy are dependent on an immediate source of revenue.”
Rank-and-file Democrats upped the ante, called for even more gasoline
and diesel tax increases in dozens of amendments. One, filed by
Brookline Democratic Rep.Tommy Vitolo, increases both the gas tax and
diesel tax another 5 cents in 2022 and a third 5-cent increase in 2024
until they reach 39 cents per gallon and 43 cents per gallon,
respectively.
Other amendments would subject Suffolk and Middlesex counties to a
“higher tier” — without specifying numbers — of gas taxes, or would
allow cities and towns to impose an additional 3-cent excise tax on fuel
sales to retail dealers.
The House takes up the bill Wednesday. Republican lawmakers are ready to
challenge the hikes.
One of the most stunning takeaways is that these lawmakers seem unable
to read the room. Bay State residents don’t want a gas tax hike, and
have said so.
“It was just six years ago that the people of Massachusetts spoke out
clearly that they didn’t feel that Beacon Hill was looking out for their
best interests in raising the gas tax,” former state representative and
U.S. Senate candidate Geoff Diehl told the Herald. Diehl successfully
fought to repeal a gas tax hike in 2014.
“The people spoke clearly on gas tax hikes,” said Holly Robichaud, a
Republican strategist who worked with Diehl to defeat the gas tax in
2014.
They haven’t warmed up to the idea since.
And if it’s revenue for the transit system they’re after, Gov. Charlie
Baker’s been working on it.
“I don’t think we need to raise taxes to fund the plan that we filed,
which is actually a bigger plan than the one that is going to be debated
by the House next week,” Baker told reporters Thursday, referencing his
$18 billion transportation borrowing bill filed last year.
Baker’s bill would fund projects including $5.7 billion for the MBTA and
about $11 billion on roads and bridges, as well as reduce greenhouse
gases and mitigate traffic problems.
Legislators could get the tax hike bill, with or without amendments,
passed — but voters will have the last word when re-elections roll
around.
The Boston Herald
Friday, March 6, 2020
Baker vows to veto gas tax
By Mary Markos
Gov. Charlie Baker vowed to
veto the gas tax hike if the bill passed by the Massachusetts House of
Representatives makes it to his desk.
“First of all we have a long way to go in this process,” Baker said
Thursday. “I don’t really like to speculate about that stuff, but I said
before that we don’t support a gas tax and if one were to come through
we would veto it.”
The governor said an increase in the tax would put Massachusetts in an
“anti-competitive position with folks on the other side of the border,”
after the House passed a major tax bill Wednesday night to generate more
than half a billion dollars in revenue for transportation
infrastructure.
The final bill passed by a vote of 113-40 and now goes to the Senate,
which will take up the legislation before the budget debate in May,
according to Senate President Karen Spilka’s office.
Unveiled by House Speaker Robert DeLeo and his top deputies last week,
the legislation is estimated to rake in up to $612 million from
taxpayers. It calls for a 5-cent hike in the state gas tax, bringing it
up to 29 cents per gallon, and a 9-cent increase on diesel fuel to 33
cents per gallon.
“It doesn’t do much for climate,” Baker said. “We have an $18 million
bond bill that’s currently before the Legislature. That will give us the
dry powder to do a ton of work on local roads, state roads and public
transportation. And I hope that something like that bill emerges from
this process before the end of the session.”
The bills also lay out a nine-tiered system to raise the corporate tax
minimum, based on annual sales, from the current $456 to up to $150,000
and eliminates a rental car sales tax exemption worth $110 million.
Baker has said publicly that he opposes the corporate tax increase but
declined to say whether or not he would veto that measure as well
through his office.
The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance is denouncing what they call a
“regressive” fuel tax hike.
“Regressive tax schemes, like Speaker Robert DeLeo’s tax hike to the
state’s gasoline and diesel tax, hit the middle class and the working
poor the hardest,” Spokesman Paul Craney said. “Speaker DeLeo’s gas tax
hike will come out of the earnings of the hard-working taxpayers who
rely on their vehicle to get to work, run errands, and operate a
business. Instead of looking at how to spend taxpayer’s money more
wisely, Speaker DeLeo added an additional cost onto the backs of the
state’s already very generous taxpayers.”
State House News Service
Thursday, March 5, 2020
House Approves $18 Bil in Transportation Outlays
Borrowing Bill Approved After Tax Votes on Wednesday
By Michael P. Norton, Matt Murphy and Chris Lisinski
A day after voting to raise
taxes and fees by as much as $600 million per year, the Massachusetts
House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a roughly $18 billion bill
authorizing spending on transportation projects and infrastructure over
10 years.
Before passing the bill on a 150-1 vote, the House without discussion or
debate adopted a $2.4 billion mega-amendment, followed by a second $1.36
billion amendment. Both amendments stemmed from lengthy private talks,
with the larger amendment authorizing, among other things, $350 million
for improving roadway approaches to the two Cape Cod Canal bridges,
which are both in need of either extensive repairs or replacement.
The larger amendment included more than 14 pages, single-spaced, of
language earmarking spending to projects all over the state, with those
earmarks subject to restrictions on annual state borrowing. The
amendment also expanded the size of a rail improvement line item from
$80 million to $400 million.
The House bulked up the bill's bottom line to reflect the projected
revenues approved on Wednesday, even though those taxes and fees face an
uncertain future in the Senate and Gov. Charlie Baker opposes the
House's planned increases in gas and corporate taxes.
Baker has insisted that the state can afford his own $18 billion bond
bill without new taxes, and that the House had left critical needs
underfunded with its bill. House leaders reject the governor's thinking,
and say their spending is affordable only due to their passage of new
revenues.
"The responsible and financially prudent thing is what the House is
doing," Transportation Committee Co-chairman Rep. William Straus said.
Straus confirmed late Thursday that the amended bill calls for $18.28
billion in capital spending.
A huge chunk of the underlying bill, $5.6 billion, is for federal
highway system projects, with $1.75 billion more carved out for the
design, construction and repair of non-federally-aided roadway and
bridge projects, and another $1.25 billion for construction,
resurfacing, and improvements of bridges and approaches.
A $2.3 billion train system modernization initiative in the bill
includes language requiring funds to be spent on implementing
improvements tied to the Blue Line extension to Charles/MGH station, and
for the design and construction of a commuter rail station at Wonderland
Park on the Newburyport and Rockport line in Revere.
Other items in the bill authorize $825 million in spending in connection
with expanding commuter rail service to the South Coast, $695 million
toward the ongoing Green Line Extension project just north of Boston,
and $400 million for South Station commuter rail improvements.
The House bond bill (H 4506) boosts Chapter 90 reimbursements to cities
and towns for road repairs to $300 million, exceeding the governor's
bill by $100 million and fulfilling a request that municipal leaders
have been making of the Legislature for years.
During a visit to the State House, North Adams Mayor Tom Bernard and
Mount Washington Selectboard member Jim Lovejoy applauded the 50 percent
increase in Chapter 90 funding but said they still need more financial
support and a multi-year authorization.
Bernard said at the current funding levels, it would take 73 years to
repave every road in North Adams. Mount Washington, according to
Lovejoy, receives about $70,000 per year, according to the reimbursement
formula, but faces costs of up to $1 million to repave a single mile of
roadway.
"For most communities, it's a lifeblood of funding for their municipal
roads," Lovejoy said.
Straus called Baker's proposal to expand the use of grant anticipation
notes, or borrowing against future federal grants, "dangerous" and one
the House has rejected in its bill. The House proposal also excludes
Baker's ask for authorization to borrow against revenues that could come
from the Transportation and Climate Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade
program for emissions that the governor is still negotiating with other
states.
"It's a program that may have its day, we don't know. But we can't rely
on it," Straus said.
Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli was one of the few representatives who
took the mic during Thursday's recess-filled session, where most
amendments were dispensed with following private talks. Pignatelli
proposed revisiting the Chapter 90 funding formula, saying it needs to
be made more equitable for small communities like his in the Berkshires.
Before withdrawing his amendment without a vote on it, Pignatelli
suggested the House should reject the more than $4 billion in earmark
spending amendments, boost Chapter 90 to $400 million and change the
funding formula rather than continue to "beg, borrow and steal" to
convince the governor to release money that will be authorized by the
bond bill.
"Earmarks and bond bills are monopoly money until the governor says it's
real money," Pignatelli said.
The House also rejected a Rep. Brad Hill amendment calling for a
per-employee tax credit for companies that allow workers to telecommute,
an idea that Baker touted in his bill.
A Rep. Carolyn Dykema amendment establishing MBTA office of transit
parking and access survived scrutiny in the House and was adopted. The
office would be charged with assessing parking capacity and demand near
transit station, developing a plan to fund parking opportunities in
areas of highest current and projected transit demand, and developing
programs, which may include incentives, for private property owners to
offer parking near high-demand stations.
The House also adopted a Rep. Shawn Dooley amendment requiring the MBTA
to conduct a financial impact study on the feasibility of all platforms
on commuter rail stops converting to fully raised platforms with
handicap access at every train door. The study would be due by Dec. 31.
A $175 million item in the House bill authorizes spending on planning,
design, permitting and engineering in connection with Springfield to
Worcester rail service, Boston to Cape Cod service and Pittsfield to New
York City service.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues said Thursday he hoped
the Senate would take up its version of the House bill before Senate
budget debate, which usually occurs the week before Memorial Day
weekend.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 6, 2020
Weekly Roundup - Let’s Not Shake On It
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
House Speaker Robert DeLeo has
set about building a "bridge" to the "millionaires tax" that he hopes to
help put on the ballot in 2022. That bridge rests on a foundation of
gas, diesel, and corporate tax hikes, as well as increased Uber and Lyft
fees.
The long-awaited tax bill hit the floor Wednesday, and leadership
rebuffed Republican attempts to make the bridge a temporary one,
proposing to sunset the gas and other tax hikes if and when the surtax
on household income above $1 million becomes law.
That didn't happen, but what did was a veto-proof vote in the House in
an election year for a tax package worth as much as $612 million. The
money, lawmakers like Rep. Aaron Michlewitz said, was not a luxury but a
necessity to deliver the type of transportation system residents expect.
The revenue bill made it palatable a day later for House leadership to
let members pad a $14.5 billion, 10-year transportation borrowing bill
with close to $3.8 billion in additional spending, including some items
Gov. Charlie Baker had criticized the House for leaving out of its
original bill.
Baker has repeatedly insisted that his $18 billion bond bill was
affordable without new taxes, and produced a four-page presentation,
shared with the News Service, that the administration said proved it.
But the House wasn't buying.
"The responsible and financially prudent thing is what the House is
doing," said Rep. William Straus, the House chairman of the
Transportation Committee.
He told his colleagues on Thursday that because of the "difficult" vote
many of them took the night before, the state could afford to spend at
the levels Baker wanted, but only because of the new revenue.
So both bills move to the Senate where Senate Ways and Means Chairman
Michael Rodrigues said the Senate hopes to act before its budget debate
in May, and intends to take a more policy-focused approach to
transportation, whatever that means....
STORY OF THE WEEK: Leery of a taking a tax vote, House Democrats get
cover from Super Tuesday fallout and a global pandemic picking up speed.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Tax hikes a ‘money grab’ from lawmakers, critics say
By Mary Markos
Critics are calling proposed
tax hikes a “money grab” by the Legislature during a year when the state
raked in millions of dollars in surplus revenue and boasts a
record-level rainy day fund.
“It’s frustrating that we’re doing this kind of money grab at this
time,” Minority Leader Brad Jones told the Herald. Jones has filed
numerous amendments to soften the economic blow of the major tax bill,
all of which were rejected. The bill now goes to the Senate after it
passed in the House Wednesday, the same day the Department of Revenue
released a report showing that state revenues are currently $176 million
over the year-to-date benchmark.
“We are experiencing one of the strongest economies in Massachusetts
history; one that led to $1 billion in excess revenue last year. The
economy is booming because of the tax cuts led by President Trump,”
state Rep. Marc Lombardo, R-Billerica, said. “Only Massachusetts would
see the success of tax cuts and then take an alternative job-killing
path of increasing taxes on hard-working families and businesses in
Massachusetts. We are once again Taxachusetts.”
Additionally, Gov. Charlie Baker included a $310 million increase to the
Stabilization Fund in his budget proposal earlier this year to bring it
to $4.3 billion, which the administration boasts is at an all-time high
balance. The legislation also comes as a special working group in the
Senate considers revamping the tax code and as lawmakers look to put the
millionaire’s tax, a proposed surtax on income greater than $1 million,
on the 2020 ballot.
The bill, estimated to rake in up to $612 million from taxpayers to pay
for transportation infrastructure, calls for a 5-cent hike in the state
gas tax, bringing it up to 29 cents per gallon, and a 9-cent increase on
diesel fuel to 33 cents per gallon. The legislation also lays out a
nine-tiered system to raise the corporate tax minimum, based on annual
sales, from the current $456 to up to $150,000, and eliminates a rental
car sales tax exemption worth $110 million.
The language does not designate many immediate spending requirements,
which critics say is purposeful.
“The fact that the House left the spending requirements up in the air
shows that this legislation was much more about raising money than about
improving transportation infrastructure,” Beacon Hill Institute
President David Tuerck told the Herald. “In fact, we can assume that the
legislation was so named just to get it through the House.”
“Speaker (Robert) DeLeo’s regressive gasoline and diesel tax increases
are nothing more than another way to collect higher taxes in order to
satisfy legislative leader’s desire to spend more,” Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said. “They keep the rules ambiguous so
they can have the most flexibility to spend the money on whatever pet
projects that interest them. Unfortunately for drivers and taxpayers,
the road and transportation conditions will not be improved in any
meaningful way.”
|
| |
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
|
