 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
47 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Sunday, January 17, 2021
State so flush a senator wants to
give more away
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Should illegal
immigrants receive coronavirus stimulus checks?
If a bill proposed
by Massachusetts state Senator James Eldridge (D-Acton)
passes, that will be the case.
Supporters say
it’s necessary and just. Opponents say it’s crazy and
harmful.
On Wednesday,
January 13, Eldridge proposed “An Act to provide equal
stimulus checks to immigrant taxpayers” (SD.126). The bill
would give a refundable state income tax credit to people
who filed a Massachusetts income tax return in 2019 using an
Individual Taxpayer Identification number, if they were
ineligible for the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act stimulus payment. About 6 million
illegal immigrants in the United States file state and
federal income tax every year, according to the
Congressional Budget Office; most of those are people who
overstayed visa programs.
In Massachusetts
the Eldridge bill would give illegal immigrants much of that
tax payment money back. Illegal immigrants who filed an
income tax in Massachusetts in 2019 could be eligible for an
$1,800 check for an individual or $3,600 for a couple. They
could also get $1,100 per qualifying child. That’s the case
for individuals who made less than $75,000, heads of
households who made less than $112,500, and joint returns
below $150,000.
Eldridge, who in
April 2020 unsuccessfully sought to get state stimulus
checks sent to illegal immigrants, says people here
illegally who pay taxes deserve the sort of coronavirus
relief that American citizens are getting.
“Hard-working,
tax-paying immigrants who contribute to our communities in
so many ways, especially during the pandemic, also play a
crucial role in Massachusetts’s economy. We need to ensure
that undocumented immigrants and their families receive the
same financial support as other taxpayers have through the
federal CARES Act. At a time of a pandemic, more than ever,
we need to take serious action and provide financial help to
all vulnerable populations,” Eldridge said in a written
statement emailed to New Boston Post by a communications
staff member on Thursday. “While the federal government did
not provide direct financial relief to tens of thousands of
Massachusetts immigrants families, the Legislature,
reflecting Massachusetts values, has the potential to do
so.” ...
Chip Ford,
executive director for Citizens for Limited Taxation,
told New Boston Post that it would not be fair if the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a benefit for just one
kind of taxpayer — illegal immigrants — but not everyone
else.
“The unbounded
generosity of the Massachusetts Legislature with state
revenue would be admirable, if it wasn’t taken from other
taxpayers who pay the cost of the generosity,” Ford said by
email. “There is a reason the U.S. Congress and federal
government precluded benefits to non-citizens in its CARES
acts: lacking Social Security numbers they are not
recognized as citizens.
“The CARES acts
(2020 and 2021) provide federal money to U.S. citizens who
pay taxes to the IRS, or had before the pandemic response
eliminated their jobs,” Ford added. “If the commonwealth
wants to create its own state CARES fund — though I wouldn’t
recommend it in light of lost revenues due to the economic
lockdown — it shouldn’t be discriminatory, applying only to
one class and not to all state taxpayers.”
The New Boston
Post
Friday, January 15, 2021
Coronavirus Checks For Illegal Immigrants?
Massachusetts State Senator Says Yes
Massachusetts
voters support a 4 percent income surtax on household income
above $1 million, an idea that could be on the 2022 ballot,
but oppose increases in the state income, sales or gas
taxes, according to new poll results.
The income surtax,
a constitutional amendment that requires a second favorable
vote from the Legislature this session to reach the ballot,
was favored in the MassINC poll of registered voters by 72
percent of respondents and opposed by 20 percent, with 7
percent unsure.
Raising the 5
percent income tax was opposed by 71 percent of respondents.
Seventy-two percent of the poll's more than 1,500
respondents opposed the idea of increasing the 6.25 percent
sales tax. Raising the gas tax was opposed by 66 percent,
with 28 percent in favor.
The poll shows
voters are more divided over the idea of giving cities and
regions of the state more power to raise their own taxes, a
measure that House and Senate Democrats last week dropped
from a transportation bill. Thirty percent of respondents
support the idea with 53 percent opposed and 17 percent
unsure....
The poll was
conducted between Dec. 8 and Dec. 20, and sponsored by The
Boston Foundation, The Hyams Foundation, King Boston,
Amplify Latinx, BECMA, the Mass Budget and Policy Center,
The Bridgewater State University Foundation, the
Massachusetts Municipal Association, and individual
contributors.
State House News
Service
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Poll Results Shows Mixed Views on Tax Increases
Black and Latino
residents of Massachusetts are more likely than white
residents to support a stronger government intervention in
society, according to a poll released Wednesday by the
MassINC Polling Group.
The polling group,
which is partly owned by the parent company of CommonWealth,
asked voters what priorities of government they ranked as
important in the long term, ranging from education to
housing to health care. On every priority, more black and
Latino voters characterized the topic as “very or somewhat
important” than white voters.
“When you think
about what the agenda is that the voters are telling us they
want from government, black and Latino voters have a bigger
to-do list,” said Rich Parr, research director for MassINC
Polling Group....
Parr said there
may be some dynamic of people wanting things but opposing
taxes they themselves have to pay.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Poll finds racial tilt on government priorities
Massachusetts has
at least nine billion reasons to be happy about the latest
federal COVID-19 relief and economic stimulus law.
In response to a
News Service request for information, Gov. Charlie Baker's
administration estimated that Massachusetts is positioned to
receive at least $9 billion under the law assembled by
Congress in December and signed late last month by President
Donald Trump. The measure was passed after months of
partisan wrangling.
And the state's
estimate does not include its share of the largest single
program in the new law: $284 billion in small business
assistance arriving in the form of forgivable Paycheck
Protection Program loans.
The bulk of the
massive cash infusion will going to unemployment assistance
($3.2 billion) and one-time economic impact payments to
individuals ($3 billion). The new law calls for payments of
up to $600 per individual plus another $600 per child, with
eligibility set $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for
joint filers....
The more than $2
trillion federal CARES Act approved in March delivered $2.46
billion in state and local government aid to Massachusetts.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Mass. Getting $9 Bil Jolt From Latest Stimulus Bill
The state is
trying to recoup nearly $190 million in "overpayments" from
jobless workers who received unemployment benefits during
the pandemic.
The overpayments
were made to those receiving traditional state benefits as
well as self-employed, gig economy workers and others
getting weekly payments under the federal Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance program.
As of Sept. 30,
there were 78,337 cases of overpayments totaling
$188,283,829, according to the latest data from the state
Department of Unemployment Assistance. That's about $2,400
per worker.
Jobless workers
who received the extra benefits have been finding out about
the overpayments through notices sent out by the state
agency in recent weeks....
The state has paid
out more than $5.3 billion in benefits so far, and tens of
thousands of workers are still idle amid ongoing economic
fallout of the COVID-19 outbreak.
The Baker
administration has been forced to borrow more than $2.2
billion from the federal government to continue paying
claims. And employers are facing increases in unemployment
insurance taxes of up to 60% this year to help replenish the
fund that covers benefits claims.
Greg Sullivan, a
senior analyst with the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based
think tank, said the state needs to recoup as much of the
money as possible.
"The unemployment
trust fund could be $5 billion in the hole by next year," he
said. "So it's incumbent on the state to do whatever it can
to recover those funds."
The Salem News
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Jobless workers 'overpaid' for benefits
State trying recoup $190 million from the unemployed
State budget
writers have agreed to build fiscal 2022 spending plans on
the assumption that state tax revenues will grow by 3.5
percent over upgraded projections for the current fiscal
year, signaling that the damage done to the state's finances
by the COVID-19 pandemic may not be as severe as once
thought.
The estimate of
$30.12 billion in state revenue for the budget year that
starts July 1 amounts to about $1.03 billion more in revenue
than the updated projection for the current fiscal year,
roughly 3.5 percent growth. But the forecast announced on
Friday is still $1.03 billion less than the $31.15 billion
pre-pandemic estimate the same group of officials made for
fiscal year 2021 revenue a year ago.
The so-called
"consensus revenue estimate" for fiscal 2022 was announced
by Administration and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan,
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues and House
Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz.
"After a
tumultuous budget cycle over the last few months, this
consensus revenue agreement for Fiscal Year 2022 is a modest
and responsible forecast that will allow the Commonwealth to
continue to provide the services our constituents deserve,
while at the same time preserving our fiscal health,"
Michlewitz said. "Despite the pandemic, our revenue intake
continues to be better than anticipated, proving the
continued resiliency of the Commonwealth's economy."
In conjunction
with the FY22 revenue accord announcement, Heffernan on
Friday revised the fiscal 2021 revenue estimate upward by
$700 million after revenues over the first half of the
fiscal year increased by $372 million or 2.7 percent from
what was collected during the first six months of fiscal
2020 that were entirely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
When combined with
a $459 million markup the administration announced Dec. 11,
the Baker administration in the last month has boosted its
estimate of available revenues this fiscal year by $1.16
billion. The administration is now projecting total fiscal
2021 revenue of $29.09 billion.
Gov. Charlie Baker
on Jan. 27 is expected to file his annual budget proposal
for fiscal 2022 based on the new revenue estimate of $30.12
billion. The House and Senate will redraft Baker's spending
blueprint and debate their own versions, likely in April and
May. Fiscal year 2022 begins on July 1....
After a total of
$5.628 billion in transfers, the maximum amount of tax
revenue available for the fiscal 2022 budget will be $24.327
billion, the officials agreed. The state budget, which
totals $45.9 billion for fiscal 2021, is supplemented by
substantial federal revenues along with non-tax revenues
like fees....
Massachusetts will
also see billions in federal funds this fiscal year -- at
least $9 billion from the pandemic relief and economic
stimulus package Congress passed late last month, according
to an estimate from Baker's budget office. President-elect
Joe Biden has signaled an interest in additional relief
packages. On Thursday night, Biden unveiled a $1.9 trillion
package that would include $350 billion in aid to state and
local governments, which could further benefit
Massachusetts.
State House News
Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
State Writing 3.5 Percent Tax Growth Into Spending Bills
Fiscal 2021 Estimate Raised Again, by $700 Million
When the
Massachusetts House sets its rules for the new two-year
session, a group of advocates and lawmakers will renew their
attempts to introduce more transparency into frequently
opaque House processes.
The rules debate
will be among the first tests of how newly elected House
Speaker Ron Mariano will relate to the progressive wing of
the Democratic Party – some of whose members have been
hesitant about backing him.
So far, 16 state
representatives have publicly backed a “transparency is
power” campaign run by the progressive advocacy group Act on
Mass. The representatives are generally progressive
Democrats who have previously largely been locked out of
House leadership positions. Several are House newcomers.
The campaign is
demanding three changes to House rules. First, it wants all
committee votes made public on the Legislature’s website.
Today, Senate committee votes are posted on a bill’s
webpage, but joint Senate and House committee votes may or
may not be made public, depending on the committee chair,
and they are released only upon request.
Second, Act on
Mass wants members and the public to have 72 hours between
the time a bill is released from a committee and the time it
is voted on, with a mechanism to suspend the rules with a
roll call vote. Currently, House rules require 24 hours
notice, and lawmakers often suspend the rule on a voice
vote. (Senate rules already require 72 hours notice for any
bills emerging from the Senate Ways and Means Committee.)
The third change
would reduce the number of members needed to call for a roll
call vote from 16 to eight. That would make it easier for a
small group of members to request a recorded vote on a bill.
(The Senate sets the threshold at the number of members in
the minority party, which is currently three.) ...
The House on
Thursday appointed a temporary rules committee, a logistical
requirement for holding a formal rules debate. Mariano has
not announced when the rules debate will happen, though some
members expect it could be in late January or early
February.
Mariano, asked
about potential transparency proposals a day before he was
elected speaker, said he is open to considering proposals,
and any changes will be determined by the members.
“Certainly, we’ll take a look at any transparency proposal
that makes some sense,” Mariano said.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Friday, January 15, 2021
Reform advocates will press for changes in House rules
The risks were
known, or should have been.
The longer the
Legislature waited to finalize its negotiations over major
climate, jobs and infrastructure bills, the more power they
relinquished to Gov. Charlie Baker. Discussions had been
ongoing since the summer, and now all legislators could do
was wait.
What would he
sign? What wouldn't he?
Knowing they had
no recourse either way, legislators held their breath this
week as they waited for Baker to render his verdicts on
scores of bills that landed on his desk in the final days
and hours of the last legislative session. And those
verdicts came in bunches....
But the climate
legislation was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition for the
governor, and by Tuesday the chatter coming from people with
feelers into the administration suggested Baker was ready to
leave it.
House Speaker Ron
Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka tried to call
Baker's bluff. Go ahead, they said. Veto the bill, and we'll
send it right back to you in a matter of days.
The two Democratic
leaders issued a joint statement saying as much, hoping the
governor and the stakeholders whispering in his ear would
see that resistance was futile. It was a rare public flexing
of power for legislative Democrats who typically prefer to
maintain the veneer of cooperation with the executive
branch.
The only problem
was there apparently wasn't enough bipartisan cooperation in
drafting the bill, and Baker wasn't bluffing. In fact, the
governor said he found the Legislature's willingness to get
right back to work on climate legislation encouraging. And
so on Thursday, the formal veto arrived....
Baker is now being
cast by activists and Democrats in the role of
anti-environment Republican who caved to immediate business
interests at the expense of future generations. Some groups,
however, privately commiserate with the administration's
frustration that it was actually the Democrats who control
the Legislature who waited until so late in the session to
get him a bill that he couldn't seek to amend.
"If he doesn't
sign this, the Legislature owns part of this failure," one
environmental advocate said earlier in the week.
But if Democrats
are as serious as Mariano and Spilka say they are, this bill
still could be law by the end of the month with or without
Baker. In fact, it could be on his desk again by the time
you are reading this column next Friday....
Michlewitz said he
came to the conclusion that he can best serve the city
perched atop the House budget-writing Ways and Means
Committee, where he hopes to and likely will remain under
Speaker Mariano. Possible future speaker, it turns out, had
a nicer ring to it than mayoral hopeful.
The North End
Democrat will soon have to get to work on building a new
state budget, and the Legislature agreed with the
administration on Friday to an estimate of revenues in
fiscal year 2022 of $30.12 billion, a 3.5 percent increase
from what officials expect to collect this year.
The budgeting
exercise will also be made a little easier by the more than
$9 billion Massachusetts expects to receive from the most
recent federal stimulus package, though two-thirds of that
will be doled out in the form of unemployment assistance and
direct cash payments to taxpayers.
State House News
Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Double Smog Dare
Fees on
ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft will not
increase in Massachusetts after Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed a
new proposed fee structure while signing a $16.5 billion
transportation bond bill on Friday.
Baker gave his
approval to almost all of the multi-year spending
authorizations, but rejected several major transportation
policy proposals that the Legislature packed into the
wide-ranging bill....
Lawmakers approved
the bill (H 5248) in the dying hours of the 2019-2020
lawmaking session -- after private Democrat-led negotiations
on it lasted for more than five months -- and in doing so
left themselves no room to attempt to override Baker's
now-final vetoes....
One section he
rejected would have required all proceeds from the
Transportation and Climate Initiative, a multi-state compact
to reduce carbon emissions, to be deposited into the
Commonwealth Transportation Fund. Baker said he wanted some
of the funding instead to go toward "flexible emissions
reductions and equity investments."
State House News
Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
Baker Carves Up $16.5 Bil Transportation Bill With Vetoes
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
On Thursday I did a wide-ranging interview
for almost an hour with Barry Richard of New Bedford's WBSM AM-1420.
The initial topic he invited me on his program to discuss was the latest
greedy pay grab by the Legislature. I reminded him that the voters
did this to themselves in 1998 when — against
CLT's vigorous opposition campaign — they approved a
constitutional amendment granting automatic pay raises to Beacon Hill
pols, sold by the Legislature as preventing them from ever again voting
on pay raises for themselves. The pols pushing that constitutional
amendment buried the fact that they'd never need to. I
pointed out in response to almost every topic Barry introduced during
our discussion that until voters wake up, educate themselves better or
at least a little, and start voting differently they are going to keep
getting more of the same and worse. Who can blame greedy
politicians for taking advantage of ignorant citizens so long as there
are no consequences and they keep being re-elected regardless of
performance — they are giving their
constituents exactly what they voted for, and giving it to
them hard. The majority of voters have only themselves to
blame, sort of like the beaten wife syndrome.
The New Boston Post reported on Friday )"Coronavirus Checks
For Illegal Immigrants? Massachusetts State Senator Says Yes"):
Should illegal immigrants receive
coronavirus stimulus checks?
If a bill proposed by Massachusetts
state Senator James Eldridge (D-Acton) passes, that will
be the case.
Supporters say it’s necessary and
just. Opponents say it’s crazy and harmful.
On Wednesday, January 13, Eldridge
proposed “An Act to provide equal stimulus checks to
immigrant taxpayers” (SD.126). The bill would give a
refundable state income tax credit to people who filed a
Massachusetts income tax return in 2019 using an
Individual Taxpayer Identification number, if they were
ineligible for the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act stimulus payment. About 6 million
illegal immigrants in the United States file state and
federal income tax every year, according to the
Congressional Budget Office; most of those are people
who overstayed visa programs.
In Massachusetts the Eldridge bill
would give illegal immigrants much of that tax payment
money back. Illegal immigrants who filed an income tax
in Massachusetts in 2019 could be eligible for an $1,800
check for an individual or $3,600 for a couple. They
could also get $1,100 per qualifying child. That’s the
case for individuals who made less than $75,000, heads
of households who made less than $112,500, and joint
returns below $150,000.
Eldridge, who in April 2020
unsuccessfully sought to get state stimulus checks sent
to illegal immigrants, says people here illegally who
pay taxes deserve the sort of coronavirus relief that
American citizens are getting....
Immigration-reductionist groups and
fiscally conservatives organizations say Eldridge’s bill
is a bad idea....
Chip Ford, executive
director for Citizens for Limited Taxation, told
New Boston Post that it would not be fair if the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a benefit for just
one kind of taxpayer — illegal immigrants — but not
everyone else.
“The unbounded generosity of the
Massachusetts Legislature with state revenue would be
admirable, if it wasn’t taken from other taxpayers who
pay the cost of the generosity,” Ford said by email.
“There is a reason the U.S. Congress and federal
government precluded benefits to non-citizens in its
CARES acts: lacking Social Security numbers they are not
recognized as citizens.
“The CARES acts (2020 and 2021)
provide federal money to U.S. citizens who pay taxes to
the IRS, or had before the pandemic response eliminated
their jobs,” Ford added. “If the commonwealth wants to
create its own state CARES fund — though I wouldn’t
recommend it in light of lost revenues due to the
economic lockdown — it shouldn’t be discriminatory,
applying only to one class and not to all state
taxpayers.”
The State House
News Service reported on Wednesday ("Poll Results Shows
Mixed Views on Tax Increases")
Massachusetts voters support a 4 percent income surtax on household
income above $1 million, an idea that could be on the 2022 ballot,
but oppose increases in the state income, sales or gas taxes,
according to new poll results.
The
income surtax, a constitutional amendment that requires a second
favorable vote from the Legislature this session to reach the
ballot, was favored in the MassINC poll of registered voters by 72
percent of respondents and opposed by 20 percent, with 7 percent
unsure.
Raising the 5 percent income tax was opposed by 71 percent of
respondents. Seventy-two percent of the poll's more than 1,500
respondents opposed the idea of increasing the 6.25 percent sales
tax. Raising the gas tax was opposed by 66 percent, with 28 percent
in favor.
The
poll shows voters are more divided over the idea of giving cities
and regions of the state more power to raise their own taxes, a
measure that House and Senate Democrats last week dropped from a
transportation bill. Thirty percent of respondents support the idea
with 53 percent opposed and 17 percent unsure....
The
poll was conducted between Dec. 8 and Dec. 20, and sponsored by The
Boston Foundation, The Hyams Foundation, King Boston, Amplify Latinx,
BECMA, the Mass Budget and Policy Center, The Bridgewater State
University Foundation, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and
individual contributors.
CommonWealth Magazine also
reported on this poll on Wednesday ("Poll finds racial tilt
on government priorities"):
Black
and Latino residents of Massachusetts are more likely than white
residents to support a stronger government intervention in society,
according to a poll released Wednesday by the MassINC Polling Group.
The
polling group, which is partly owned by the parent company of
CommonWealth, asked voters what priorities of government they ranked
as important in the long term, ranging from education to housing to
health care. On every priority, more black and Latino voters
characterized the topic as “very or somewhat important” than white
voters.
“When
you think about what the agenda is that the voters are telling us
they want from government, black and Latino voters have a bigger
to-do list,” said Rich Parr, research director for MassINC Polling
Group....
Parr
said there may be some dynamic of people wanting things but opposing
taxes they themselves have to pay.
"Parr
said there may be some dynamic of people wanting things but opposing
taxes they themselves have to pay."
You think?
A list of the organizations funding this
poll can be found below in the full news reports.
The
State House News Service reported on Tuesday ("Mass. Getting
$9 Bil Jolt From Latest Stimulus Bill")
Massachusetts has at least nine billion reasons to be happy about
the latest federal COVID-19 relief and economic stimulus law.
In
response to a News Service request for information, Gov. Charlie
Baker's administration estimated that Massachusetts is positioned to
receive at least $9 billion under the law assembled by Congress in
December and signed late last month by President Donald Trump. The
measure was passed after months of partisan wrangling.
And
the state's estimate does not include its share of the largest
single program in the new law: $284 billion in small business
assistance arriving in the form of forgivable Paycheck Protection
Program loans.
The
bulk of the massive cash infusion will going to unemployment
assistance ($3.2 billion) and one-time economic impact payments to
individuals ($3 billion). The new law calls for payments of up to
$600 per individual plus another $600 per child, with eligibility
set $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers....
The
more than $2 trillion federal CARES Act approved in March delivered
$2.46 billion in state and local government aid to Massachusetts.
On Friday the News Service further noted ("State Writing 3.5
Percent Tax Growth Into Spending Bills; Fiscal 2021 Estimate
Raised Again, by $700 Million"):
State budget writers have agreed to
build fiscal 2022 spending plans on the assumption that
state tax revenues will grow by 3.5 percent over
upgraded projections for the current fiscal year,
signaling that the damage done to the state's finances
by the COVID-19 pandemic may not be as severe as once
thought.
The estimate of $30.12 billion in
state revenue for the budget year that starts July 1
amounts to about $1.03 billion more in revenue than the
updated projection for the current fiscal year, roughly
3.5 percent growth. But the forecast announced on Friday
is still $1.03 billion less than the $31.15 billion
pre-pandemic estimate the same group of officials made
for fiscal year 2021 revenue a year ago.
The so-called "consensus revenue
estimate" for fiscal 2022 was announced by
Administration and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan,
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues and
House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz.
"After a tumultuous budget cycle
over the last few months, this consensus revenue
agreement for Fiscal Year 2022 is a modest and
responsible forecast that will allow the Commonwealth to
continue to provide the services our constituents
deserve, while at the same time preserving our fiscal
health," Michlewitz said. "Despite the pandemic, our
revenue intake continues to be better than anticipated,
proving the continued resiliency of the Commonwealth's
economy."
In conjunction with the FY22
revenue accord announcement, Heffernan on Friday revised
the fiscal 2021 revenue estimate upward by $700 million
after revenues over the first half of the fiscal year
increased by $372 million or 2.7 percent from what was
collected during the first six months of fiscal 2020
that were entirely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
When combined with a $459 million
markup the administration announced Dec. 11, the Baker
administration in the last month has boosted its
estimate of available revenues this fiscal year by $1.16
billion. The administration is now projecting total
fiscal 2021 revenue of $29.09 billion.
Gov. Charlie Baker on Jan. 27 is
expected to file his annual budget proposal for fiscal
2022 based on the new revenue estimate of $30.12
billion. The House and Senate will redraft Baker's
spending blueprint and debate their own versions, likely
in April and May. Fiscal year 2022 begins on July 1....
After a total of $5.628 billion in
transfers, the maximum amount of tax revenue available
for the fiscal 2022 budget will be $24.327 billion, the
officials agreed. The state budget, which totals $45.9
billion for fiscal 2021, is supplemented by substantial
federal revenues along with non-tax revenues like
fees....
Massachusetts will also see
billions in federal funds this fiscal year -- at least
$9 billion from the pandemic relief and economic
stimulus package Congress passed late last month,
according to an estimate from Baker's budget office.
President-elect Joe Biden has signaled an interest in
additional relief packages. On Thursday night, Biden
unveiled a $1.9 trillion package that would include $350
billion in aid to state and local governments, which
could further benefit Massachusetts.
It's looking like
the China Virus pandemic is turning into quite a windfall
for the Commonwealth's government —
if not its repressed, un- or under-employed citizens, and
all the struggling if not destroyed small businesses.
And not one politician, bureaucrat, or state employee has
missed so much as a single pay check.
Remember "We're all in this
together"?
Did you get your federal $600
"stimulus" federal check yet for your months of lockdown and isolation?
Legislators and the elected who purport to represent their constituents
got a 6.5% pay raise and a hefty jump in their taxpayer-funded
"stipends" for working their remote jobs representing constituents from
their living room couches. Of course they get the federal
"stimulus" checks too.
Repeat after me
—
"We're all in this together."
Massachusetts coffers
apparently are so overflowing with piles of excess cash that state Sen.
James Eldridge (D-Acton) wants to give in-state illegal immigrants what
the federal government wouldn't: "an $1,800 check for an
individual or $3,600 for a couple. They could also get $1,100 per
qualifying child."
The Salem News reported on Wednesday ("Jobless workers
'overpaid' for benefits; State trying recoup $190 million from the
unemployed"):
The state is trying to recoup
nearly $190 million in "overpayments" from jobless
workers who received unemployment benefits during the
pandemic.
The overpayments were made to those
receiving traditional state benefits as well as
self-employed, gig economy workers and others getting
weekly payments under the federal Pandemic Unemployment
Assistance program.
As of Sept. 30, there were 78,337
cases of overpayments totaling $188,283,829, according
to the latest data from the state Department of
Unemployment Assistance. That's about $2,400 per
worker....
The Baker administration has been
forced to borrow more than $2.2 billion from the federal
government to continue paying claims. And employers are
facing increases in unemployment insurance taxes of up
to 60% this year to help replenish the fund that covers
benefits claims.
Greg Sullivan, a senior analyst
with the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank,
said the state needs to recoup as much of the money as
possible.
"The unemployment trust fund could
be $5 billion in the hole by next year," he said. "So
it's incumbent on the state to do whatever it can to
recover those funds."
"Trying to recoup . . .
$188,283,829"
by the same bureaucracy that sent out the overpayments to
78,337
desperately unemployed is akin to squeezing blood from a stone.
Good luck with clawing that back.
CommonWealth Magazine on Friday reported ("Reform advocates
will press for changes in House rules"):
When the Massachusetts House sets
its rules for the new two-year session, a group of
advocates and lawmakers will renew their attempts to
introduce more transparency into frequently opaque House
processes.
The rules debate will be among the
first tests of how newly elected House Speaker Ron
Mariano will relate to the progressive wing of the
Democratic Party – some of whose members have been
hesitant about backing him.
So far, 16 state representatives
have publicly backed a “transparency is power” campaign
run by the progressive advocacy group Act on Mass. The
representatives are generally progressive Democrats who
have previously largely been locked out of House
leadership positions. Several are House newcomers.
The campaign is demanding three
changes to House rules....
The House on Thursday appointed a
temporary rules committee, a logistical requirement for
holding a formal rules debate. Mariano has not announced
when the rules debate will happen, though some members
expect it could be in late January or early February.
Mariano, asked about potential
transparency proposals a day before he was elected
speaker, said he is open to considering proposals, and
any changes will be determined by the members.
“Certainly, we’ll take a look at any transparency
proposal that makes some sense,” Mariano said.
The operative
phrases in that report are "will renew their attempts
to introduce more transparency into frequently opaque House
processes," and "open to considering proposals."
"The more things change the
more they remain the same." To repeat myself, good luck reformers
with that too.
Governor Baker is not happy
with the transportation bond bill (which fortunately dropped the sneak
attack on our Proposition 2½). The governor
sent it back with vetoes of certain sections he didn't like. The
State House News Service reported on Friday ("Baker
Carves Up $16.5 Bil Transportation Bill With Vetoes"):
Fees on ride-hailing services such
as Uber and Lyft will not increase in Massachusetts
after Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed a new proposed fee
structure while signing a $16.5 billion transportation
bond bill on Friday.
Baker gave his approval to almost
all of the multi-year spending authorizations, but
rejected several major transportation policy proposals
that the Legislature packed into the wide-ranging
bill....
Lawmakers approved the bill (H
5248) in the dying hours of the 2019-2020 lawmaking
session -- after private Democrat-led negotiations on it
lasted for more than five months -- and in doing so left
themselves no room to attempt to override Baker's
now-final vetoes....
One section he rejected would have
required all proceeds from the Transportation and
Climate Initiative, a multi-state compact to reduce
carbon emissions, to be deposited into the Commonwealth
Transportation Fund. Baker said he wanted some of the
funding instead to go toward "flexible emissions
reductions and equity investments."
Gov. Baker got his unilateral
power to join Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) included in
the bill but that isn't enough to satisfy him. Now he's
complaining about who determines how the anticipated revenue bonanza
will be doled out, demands the power to decide how it will be spent as
well.
There's just no making some
people happy — especially those drunk on
uncontested power.
It's unclear where this goes
from here. Given that the bill was passed in
the dead of night on the final legal day of the legislative session
(accurately, four hours after the legal deadline) — my understanding is
that the governor can sign it into law; let it die in ten days
without his signature by "pocket veto," or; outright veto the bill
in its entirety. The Legislature left no time on the clock for
amendments by the governor; a take-it-or-leave-it situation. I
don't know if Gov. Baker can line-item veto parts but not the whole
bill. Either way, there's nothing the Legislature can do about it.
This chaotic situation was
entirely avoidable. The "full-time" Massachusetts Legislature
failed at doing its job. It waited five months while this major
bill (and others) sat idle in conference committee(s). Then with
mere hours remaining in the legislative session the traditional Beacon
Hill ploy was launched with no time to spare, or think. Just push
something out and pass it quick. Another massive bill was rushed
to a vote before anyone could possibly know what was in it, what they
were voting on, with no time after it was passed for corrections,
amendments, or veto overrides.
Legislators were probably too
distracted by their upcoming big pay hikes to bother focusing on their
jobs.
But what do they care?
This is Massachusetts so they'll likely all be re-elected anyway,
whatever they do or don't do — unless
enough voters awaken from their comas, vote for a restraining order from
the abuse.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
The New Boston
Post
Friday, January 15, 2021
Coronavirus Checks For Illegal Immigrants? Massachusetts
State Senator Says Yes
By Tom Joyce
Should illegal immigrants receive coronavirus stimulus
checks?
If a bill proposed by Massachusetts state Senator James
Eldridge (D-Acton) passes, that will be the case.
Supporters say it’s necessary and just. Opponents say it’s
crazy and harmful.
On Wednesday, January 13, Eldridge proposed “An Act to
provide equal stimulus checks to immigrant taxpayers”
(SD.126). The bill would give a refundable state income tax
credit to people who filed a Massachusetts income tax return
in 2019 using an Individual Taxpayer Identification number,
if they were ineligible for the federal Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act stimulus payment. About 6
million illegal immigrants in the United States file state
and federal income tax every year, according to the
Congressional Budget Office; most of those are people who
overstayed visa programs.
In Massachusetts the Eldridge bill would give illegal
immigrants much of that tax payment money back. Illegal
immigrants who filed an income tax in Massachusetts in 2019
could be eligible for an $1,800 check for an individual or
$3,600 for a couple. They could also get $1,100 per
qualifying child. That’s the case for individuals who made
less than $75,000, heads of households who made less than
$112,500, and joint returns below $150,000.
Eldridge, who in April 2020 unsuccessfully sought to get
state stimulus checks sent to illegal immigrants, says
people here illegally who pay taxes deserve the sort of
coronavirus relief that American citizens are getting.
“Hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who contribute to our
communities in so many ways, especially during the pandemic,
also play a crucial role in Massachusetts’s economy. We need
to ensure that undocumented immigrants and their families
receive the same financial support as other taxpayers have
through the federal CARES Act. At a time of a pandemic, more
than ever, we need to take serious action and provide
financial help to all vulnerable populations,” Eldridge said
in a written statement emailed to New Boston Post by a
communications staff member on Thursday. “While the federal
government did not provide direct financial relief to tens
of thousands of Massachusetts immigrants families, the
Legislature, reflecting Massachusetts values, has the
potential to do so.”
On average, a United States citizen pays more than $5,000
each year in state and local taxes, according to USA Today.
Conversely, illegal immigrants nationwide paid $11.7 billion
in state and local taxes in 2014, according to the Institute
on Taxation and Economic Policy. There are somewhere between
11 million and 22 million illegal immigrants in the country
— estimates vary wildly, depending on the source. That means
that they would pay around $1,000 to $2,000 in state and
local taxes each year, if even just half the immigrant
population were adults.
Advocates for illegal immigrants have made it a priority to
get coronavirus relief checks to those in the country
illegally.
In late December the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee
Advocacy Coalition applauded Congress for passing a
coronavirus aid package that included what the coalition
calls “mixed status families” — meaning a mix of U.S.
citizens and at least one illegal immigrant in the same
family.
But more is needed, the organization says. The checks
approved by Congress late last month amount to “survival
assistance” that “does not even come close to adequately
addressing the severe needs of our communities,” the
organization said.
“The package also leaves out nearly 3 million U.S. citizen
children whose parents filed taxes using ITIN numbers –
essentially punishing these children for having non-citizen
parents,” the Massachusetts Immigrant & Refugee Advocacy
Coalition said in a written statement December 27. “MIRA’s
focus will now shift to advocating for the additional aid
that our communities need and educating those who are now
eligible to receive the $1,200 they were deprived of in
April.”
In a statement emailed to New Boston Post on Friday, Eva
Millona, President and CEO of the MIRA Coalition, praised
the bill proposed by Eldridge.
“Senator Eldridge’s bill ensures that immigrant taxpayers
receive the same amount of relief that they were unfairly
denied in the federal stimulus packages,” she wrote. “These
individuals contribute to our economy and many are frontline
workers, and they have experienced disproportionate rates of
job loss and food and housing insecurity. They need and
deserve relief – and we’re grateful to Senator Eldridge for
acting where the federal government has failed.”
Immigration-reductionist groups and fiscally conservatives
organizations say Eldridge’s bill is a bad idea.
Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the
Center for Immigration Studies, says that it sends the wrong
message to both American taxpayers and illegal immigrants.
“This idea is nuts, and deeply unfair to Americans and legal
immigrants who have been crushed by the pandemic shutdowns,”
Vaughan told New Boston in an email message. “First of all,
the only reason illegal aliens get ITINs is so that they can
receive tax credits and refunds for income they earned using
someone else’s social security number (a felony). The
Department of Treasury audits have confirmed that they pay
out more in credits and refunds to illegal alien ITIN
holders than they collect in taxes. Other studies have shown
that the child tax credit is flagrantly abused, resulting in
significant payments for fraudulent claims.”
Offering coronavirus checks only encourages illegal
immigration, which ought to be discouraged, Vaughan said.
“Instead of rewarding this wrong, instead, the illegal
aliens who are working under identity theft should be
prosecuted and removed after paying restitution from their
ill-gotten gains to their victims,” Vaughan said. “Secondly,
creating a tax-payer funded benefit like this only
encourages illegal aliens to remain here; instead, we need
policies that encourage them to depart. Finally, it is
absurd for taxpayers to offer a benefit like this to people
who should not be here in the first place and are employed
illegally, thus denying job opportunities to unemployed
Americans and legal immigrants.”
Matthew Tragesser, spokesman for the Federation for American
Immigration Reform, said the state should devote the
resources it has to helping its people who are here legally.
“Providing stimulus payments to illegal aliens is an affront
to U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants who are needing
financial relief amidst the COVID-19 pandemic,” Tragesser
wrote in an email message. “There is only a finite pool of
money that’s available to help during this crisis and it
should not be granted to those who are not only unlawfully
present in the country, but are also working illegally.
“Many illegal aliens fully understood they were violating
the law when they took jobs that they were ineligible for in
the United States, so some personal responsibility must be
taken here,” he added.
Paul Craney, spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance, argued that the bill is a way to appease the
political Left.
“Senator Eldridge is a career politician who has virtually
no idea for how the state economy works,” Craney told New
Boston Post by email. “During the pandemic, Sen. Eldridge
has never missed a paycheck and even got a pay raise. The
pain that so many are feeling is not shared by the Senator.
His latest antic is a purely a political stunt to feed his
political ideology. He’s more interested in playing politics
during the pandemic, with money that should go to taxpayers
that need relief, but instead he is catering political
ideology.”
Chip Ford, executive director for Citizens for
Limited Taxation, told New Boston Post that it would not
be fair if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a
benefit for just one kind of taxpayer — illegal immigrants —
but not everyone else.
“The unbounded generosity of the Massachusetts Legislature
with state revenue would be admirable, if it wasn’t taken
from other taxpayers who pay the cost of the generosity,”
Ford said by email. “There is a reason the U.S. Congress and
federal government precluded benefits to non-citizens in its
CARES acts: lacking Social Security numbers they are not
recognized as citizens.
“The CARES acts (2020 and 2021) provide federal money to
U.S. citizens who pay taxes to the IRS, or had before the
pandemic response eliminated their jobs,” Ford added. “If
the commonwealth wants to create its own state CARES fund —
though I wouldn’t recommend it in light of lost revenues due
to the economic lockdown — it shouldn’t be discriminatory,
applying only to one class and not to all state taxpayers.”
The bill has not yet been assigned to a legislative
committee.
State House
News Service
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Poll Results Shows Mixed Views on Tax Increases
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts voters support a 4 percent income surtax on
household income above $1 million, an idea that could be on
the 2022 ballot, but oppose increases in the state income,
sales or gas taxes, according to new poll results.
The income surtax, a constitutional amendment that requires
a second favorable vote from the Legislature this session to
reach the ballot, was favored in the MassINC poll of
registered voters by 72 percent of respondents and opposed
by 20 percent, with 7 percent unsure.
Raising the 5 percent income tax was opposed by 71 percent
of respondents. Seventy-two percent of the poll's more than
1,500 respondents opposed the idea of increasing the 6.25
percent sales tax. Raising the gas tax was opposed by 66
percent, with 28 percent in favor.
The poll shows voters are more divided over the idea of
giving cities and regions of the state more power to raise
their own taxes, a measure that House and Senate Democrats
last week dropped from a transportation bill. Thirty percent
of respondents support the idea with 53 percent opposed and
17 percent unsure.
Cutting business tax credits and incentives also drew a more
mixed response: 46 percent favored the idea, with 40 percent
against.
While 55 percent of respondents said they believed state and
local taxes in Massachusetts are higher than in most other
states, a solid majority agreed with the importance of seven
major spending areas listed in the poll, and 58 percent
supported making public buses free to all riders by
eliminating fares.
The survey results arrive ahead of budget season on Beacon
Hill, a time when the appetite for spending always exceeds
the interest in coming up with the revenues requisite to
support myriad investment possibilities.
The poll was conducted between Dec. 8 and Dec. 20, and
sponsored by The Boston Foundation, The Hyams Foundation,
King Boston, Amplify Latinx, BECMA, the Mass Budget and
Policy Center, The Bridgewater State University Foundation,
the Massachusetts Municipal Association, and individual
contributors.
*
* *
Who Are This
Poll's Sponsors?
As Greater
Boston’s community foundation, the Boston Foundation
devotes its resources to building and sustaining a
vital, prosperous city and region, where justice and
opportunity are extended to everyone.
https://www.tbf.org/
The Hyams Foundation is a private, independent
foundation with a mission of increasing economic,
racial and social justice and power within
low-income communities in Boston and Chelsea,
Massachusetts.
https://hyamsfoundation.org/
King Boston is a privately funded non-profit working
closely with the City of Boston and the Boston
Foundation to create a living memorial and programs
honoring the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
and Coretta Scott King, and their time and work
together in Boston.
https://kingboston.org/
Amplify Latinx is a non-partisan, collaborative
movement whose mission is to build Latinx economic
and political power by significantly increasing
Latinx civic engagement, economic opportunity and
representation in leadership positions across
sectors.
https://amplifylatinx.co/
The mission of the Black Economic Council of
Massachusetts, Inc. (BECMA) is to advance the
economic well-being of Black businesses,
organizations that serve the Black community and
Black residents of Massachusetts.
https://www.becma.org/
A public policy think tank researching and
advocating for racial and economic justice
https://massbudget.org/
The Bridgewater State University Foundation (BSUF)
was started in 1984 as a tax-exempted 501(c)(3)
institutionally related foundation to advance the
mission of the University, safeguard donor intention
and manage private assets for the benefit of
Bridgewater State University.
https://alumni.bridgew.edu/aboutfoundation
The MMA is a membership association representing the
interests of the cities and towns of Massachusetts.
Our members are the cities and towns as well as
their elected and appointed officials.
https://www.mma.org/
CommonWealth
Magazine
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Poll finds racial tilt on government priorities
Black, Latino residents more supportive of interventions
By Shira Schoenberg
Black and Latino residents of Massachusetts are more likely
than white residents to support a stronger government
intervention in society, according to a poll released
Wednesday by the MassINC Polling Group.
The polling group, which is partly owned by the parent
company of CommonWealth, asked voters what priorities of
government they ranked as important in the long term,
ranging from education to housing to health care. On every
priority, more black and Latino voters characterized the
topic as “very or somewhat important” than white voters.
“When you think about what the agenda is that the voters are
telling us they want from government, black and Latino
voters have a bigger to-do list,” said Rich Parr, research
director for MassINC Polling Group.
Parr said this could be because black and Latino residents
are experiencing problems and want a government response, or
it could be an ideological difference – that minority
residents think government should play a bigger role than
white residents.
Some of the areas that voters overall ranked as less
important – investing in communities of color and increasing
state contracts with women and minority-owned businesses –
were likely more important to minority respondents because
they would be most affected. Overall, 41 percent of
respondents ranked investing in communities of color as
“very important,” compared to 67 percent of black
respondents and 60 percent of Latinos. Just 35 percent of
all respondents ranked increasing diversity in state
contracting as very important compared to 63 percent of
blacks and 56 percent of Latinos.
But even in areas that affect all residents, black and
Latino respondents were more likely to list them as
important government priorities. For example, 60 percent of
white voters think it is very important for government to
increase access to health care, compared to 70 percent of
black voters. Among white voters, 55 percent ranked
improving K-12 schools as very important, compared to 69
percent of Latinos. Less than half – 47 percent – of white
voters ranked expanding access to affordable childcare as
important, compared to 64 percent of black and Latino
voters.
The poll also asked about government’s response to COVID-19
and found broad support for several interventions, with more
than 80 percent of voters supporting emergency funding for
COVID-19 testing and vaccinations, emergency paid sick
leave, housing assistance, and funding to preserve transit
for essential workers. Again, support was stronger among
black and Latino voters.
The challenge of implementing these priorities, however,
often comes down to funding. The state is expecting a tight
budget year and the economy is in recession. Many businesses
and individuals are struggling financially.
The poll asked about ways of raising new revenue and found
the most support – around 70 percent – for raising the tax
rate on income over $1 million and raising taxes on
corporate profits. There was little support – less than 30
percent – for broader tax proposals, including raising the
income, sales, or gas taxes or increasing tuition at public
colleges.
Parr said there may be some dynamic of people wanting things
but opposing taxes they themselves have to pay. But the
survey also shows some notion of fairness at play.
Asked about attitudes toward taxes, between 55 and 60
percent of respondents think upper-income residents and
large businesses do not pay enough in state taxes. (Even a
majority of upper income earners said higher income
households pay too little.) At the same time, 51 percent of
respondents said middle and low-income residents pay too
much.
There is less of a split between white and minority voters
on the revenue side, but there are some differences. Latinos
are less likely to support a higher income surtax. Blacks
and Latinos are more supportive of increasing the income tax
rate and the sales tax.
The poll of 1,522 registered voters – including around 250
black voters and 250 Latino voters – was conducted December
8-20. The poll was sponsored by The Boston Foundation, The
Hyams Foundation, King Boston, Amplify LatinX, BECMA, the
Mass Budget and Policy Center, The Bridgewater State
University Foundation, the Massachusetts Municipal
Association, and individual contributors
State House
News Service
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Mass. Getting $9 Bil Jolt From Latest Stimulus Bill
Biggest Pots of $$$ For Jobless Aid, Direct Payments
By Michael P. Norton
Massachusetts has at least nine billion reasons to be happy
about the latest federal COVID-19 relief and economic
stimulus law.
In response to a News Service request for information, Gov.
Charlie Baker's administration estimated that Massachusetts
is positioned to receive at least $9 billion under the law
assembled by Congress in December and signed late last month
by President Donald Trump. The measure was passed after
months of partisan wrangling.
And the state's estimate does not include its share of the
largest single program in the new law: $284 billion in small
business assistance arriving in the form of forgivable
Paycheck Protection Program loans.
The bulk of the massive cash infusion will going to
unemployment assistance ($3.2 billion) and one-time economic
impact payments to individuals ($3 billion). The new law
calls for payments of up to $600 per individual plus another
$600 per child, with eligibility set $75,000 for single
filers and $150,000 for joint filers.
The latest round of federal funds, coming months after the
more than $2 trillion CARES Act approved in March, will also
put more money in the hands of state government. Since the
pandemic took hold in March and a state of emergency was
declared, the governor has largely directed the flow of
federal aid funds, including his recent announcement that
the state is making $668 million in grants available to
eligible small businesses.
According to Baker administration estimates, the following
federal totals are newly flowing to Massachusetts:
-- $814.9 million through the Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief Fund;
-- $471.8 million through the Higher Education Emergency
Relief Fund;
-- $459 million for rental assistance;
-- $452.1 million for testing, tracing and COVID-19
mitigation efforts;
-- $88.9 million for vaccine distribution;
-- $46.5 million for the Governor’s Emergency Education
Fund;
-- $37.2 million through a substance abuse prevention and
treatment block grant;
The new federal law did not include an item delivering
additional aid to state and local governments, a topic that
President-elect Joe Biden intends to address sometime early
this year when a new-look Congress featuring Democrats with
slight majority margins in both branches sets to work on
another federal aid bill.
The more than $2 trillion federal CARES Act approved in
March delivered $2.46 billion in state and local government
aid to Massachusetts. Among other things, the state has used
CARES Act funds to pay for emergency expenses associated
with COVID-19, support for hospitals, and aid to food banks
and vulnerable populations.
In 2009, former Gov. Deval Patrick hired Jeffrey Simon to
oversee the influx of federal aid under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to the Baker
administration, Heath Fahle, special director of federal
funds in the Executive Office of Administration and Finance,
is overseeing this latest flow of federal aid.
Fahle joined the administration last May after working as
director of policy and research at the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation. A University of Connecticut graduate,
he previously worked on the staff of former GOP Congressman
Rob Simmons of Connecticut, as an entrepreneur at
Revolutionary Strategies LLC, and as a fiscal policy analyst
in the administration and finance secretariat.
The
Salem News
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
Jobless workers 'overpaid' for benefits
State trying recoup $190 million from the unemployed
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
The state is trying to recoup nearly $190 million in
"overpayments" from jobless workers who received
unemployment benefits during the pandemic.
The overpayments were made to those receiving traditional
state benefits as well as self-employed, gig economy workers
and others getting weekly payments under the federal
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program.
As of Sept. 30, there were 78,337 cases of overpayments
totaling $188,283,829, according to the latest data from the
state Department of Unemployment Assistance. That's about
$2,400 per worker.
Jobless workers who received the extra benefits have been
finding out about the overpayments through notices sent out
by the state agency in recent weeks.
Workers' rights groups say the notices are coming as a shock
to people who, in many cases, received and spent benefits
they had no reason to question.
"It's terrifying," said Michele Evermore, a senior policy
analyst for the National Employment Law Project. "In some
cases, people who've been unemployed for almost a year and
receiving benefits are getting overpayment notices for
upwards of $20,000, and told they must repay it."
Benefit overpayments can occur for a variety of reasons,
Evermore said. People may apply for benefits they believe
they're qualified for but are later deemed ineligible, or
they make good-faith mistakes improperly filling out the
required forms. In other cases, clerical errors are made by
states in the rush to approve claims.
A rush to get pandemic unemployment funds flowing meant they
didn't get the usual vetting, she said.
"This was a massive government program that was rolled out
in a few weeks," Evermore said. "So mistakes were
inevitable."
Hasty efforts to process benefits claims also left states
vulnerable to attack by fraudsters and international
criminal gangs, who have filed hundreds of thousands of
bogus claims in Massachusetts.
While unemployment overpayments are common in normal
circumstances, Evermore said the pandemic has dramatically
increased the amount owed to states. It’s a nationwide
problem affecting every state, she said.
In New Hampshire, for example, the state is asking more than
10,000 jobless workers to pay back nearly $25 million in
overpayments from the past year.
To recoup the overpayments, Massachusetts offers individuals
the opportunity to return the money in a lump sum or deduct
it from weekly payments if they are still receiving
benefits. The state can also deduct overpayments from tax
refunds, or pursue repayment through the courts.
Those who receive overpayment notices can appeal. Even if
they acknowledge the overpayments, some recipients can
qualify for a "waiver" from repaying the money.
The state charges 15% interest on overpayments deemed to be
fraudulent or that are "due to a misrepresentation or
failure to disclose a material fact."
It's not clear how much of the $188.2 million the state has
recouped, or how many beneficiaries have sought or gotten
waivers. The state also didn't provide other details, such
as the amount of a typical overpayment.
A $900 billion federal pandemic relief bill allows states to
waive overpayment if it's determined the beneficiary wasn't
at fault or "if such repayment would be contrary to equity
and good conscience." Massachusetts has similar rules on the
books.
Like most states, Massachusetts has been hit by a wave of
unemployment claims amid the pandemic and
government-mandated business closures.
The state has paid out more than $5.3 billion in benefits so
far, and tens of thousands of workers are still idle amid
ongoing economic fallout of the COVID-19 outbreak.
The Baker administration has been forced to borrow more than
$2.2 billion from the federal government to continue paying
claims. And employers are facing increases in unemployment
insurance taxes of up to 60% this year to help replenish the
fund that covers benefits claims.
Greg Sullivan, a senior analyst with the Pioneer Institute,
a Boston-based think tank, said the state needs to recoup as
much of the money as possible.
"The unemployment trust fund could be $5 billion in the hole
by next year," he said. "So it's incumbent on the state to
do whatever it can to recover those funds."
— Christian M. Wade covers
the Massachusetts Statehouse for The Salem News and its
sister newspapers and websites.
State House
News Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
State Writing 3.5 Percent Tax Growth Into Spending Bills
Fiscal 2021 Estimate Raised Again, by $700 Million
By Colin A. Young
State budget writers have agreed to build fiscal 2022
spending plans on the assumption that state tax revenues
will grow by 3.5 percent over upgraded projections for the
current fiscal year, signaling that the damage done to the
state's finances by the COVID-19 pandemic may not be as
severe as once thought.
The estimate of $30.12 billion in state revenue for the
budget year that starts July 1 amounts to about $1.03
billion more in revenue than the updated projection for the
current fiscal year, roughly 3.5 percent growth. But the
forecast announced on Friday is still $1.03 billion less
than the $31.15 billion pre-pandemic estimate the same group
of officials made for fiscal year 2021 revenue a year ago.
The so-called "consensus revenue estimate" for fiscal 2022
was announced by Administration and Finance Secretary
Michael Heffernan, Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael
Rodrigues and House Ways and Means Chairman Aaron Michlewitz.
"After a tumultuous budget cycle over the last few months,
this consensus revenue agreement for Fiscal Year 2022 is a
modest and responsible forecast that will allow the
Commonwealth to continue to provide the services our
constituents deserve, while at the same time preserving our
fiscal health," Michlewitz said. "Despite the pandemic, our
revenue intake continues to be better than anticipated,
proving the continued resiliency of the Commonwealth's
economy."
In conjunction with the FY22 revenue accord announcement,
Heffernan on Friday revised the fiscal 2021 revenue estimate
upward by $700 million after revenues over the first half of
the fiscal year increased by $372 million or 2.7 percent
from what was collected during the first six months of
fiscal 2020 that were entirely unaffected by the COVID-19
pandemic.
When combined with a $459 million markup the administration
announced Dec. 11, the Baker administration in the last
month has boosted its estimate of available revenues this
fiscal year by $1.16 billion. The administration is now
projecting total fiscal 2021 revenue of $29.09 billion.
Gov. Charlie Baker on Jan. 27 is expected to file his annual
budget proposal for fiscal 2022 based on the new revenue
estimate of $30.12 billion. The House and Senate will
redraft Baker's spending blueprint and debate their own
versions, likely in April and May. Fiscal year 2022 begins
on July 1.
"As we develop a budget for Fiscal Year 2022, we will
continue to closely monitor tax collections, weigh the
fiscal implications of COVID-19, and strive to put forward a
budget that maintains fiscal responsibility and protects
core essential services for our most vulnerable populations,
while building an equitable economic recovery for all,"
Rodrigues said.
At a hearing in December, economic and budget experts told
legislative leaders and Baker administration officials to
expect tax collections to climb in fiscal year 2022, but
said that whether they grow modestly or significantly will
depend on the coronavirus and Congress. At the time, the
Department of Revenue's forecast predicted that tax
collections would fall within a range of $27.83 billion to
$30.61 billion in fiscal 2022, and the agreement announced
Friday shows that key budget officials lean towards the
higher end of that range.
"The consensus revenue forecast for Fiscal Year 2022 is
consistent with the expert testimony offered in December and
importantly accounts for updated revenue trends in the
current fiscal year," Heffernan said. "We appreciate the
consistent and thoughtful collaboration of our colleagues in
the House and Senate Ways and Means Offices, and look
forward to developing spending plans for Fiscal Year 2022
which continue to protect essential government services,
fund critical priorities, and maintain financial discipline
and responsibility."
Heffernan, Michlewitz and Rodrigues also agreed Friday on a
transfer of $1.174 billion to the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority, a $1.014 billion transfer to the
Massachusetts School Building Authority, and $25 million to
the Workforce Training Fund.
There will also be a $3.415 billion transfer to the state
pension fund -- an increase of $300 million over the fiscal
2021 contribution -- which is expected to keep Massachusetts
on track to fully fund its pension liability by 2036.
After a total of $5.628 billion in transfers, the maximum
amount of tax revenue available for the fiscal 2022 budget
will be $24.327 billion, the officials agreed. The state
budget, which totals $45.9 billion for fiscal 2021, is
supplemented by substantial federal revenues along with
non-tax revenues like fees.
Halfway into fiscal year 2021, state government has
collected $372 million more in taxes from people and
businesses than it did during the same six pre-pandemic
months of fiscal year 2020. Even with the mark-up announced
Friday, the Baker administration does not appear to expect
the cushion that's been accumulated to last, however.
Based on the new expectation of $29.09 billion, the
administration now expects that fiscal 2021 tax collections
will end up about $506 million or 1.7 percent below actual
fiscal year 2020 collections of $29.596 billion.
Massachusetts will also see billions in federal funds this
fiscal year -- at least $9 billion from the pandemic relief
and economic stimulus package Congress passed late last
month, according to an estimate from Baker's budget office.
President-elect Joe Biden has signaled an interest in
additional relief packages. On Thursday night, Biden
unveiled a $1.9 trillion package that would include $350
billion in aid to state and local governments, which could
further benefit Massachusetts.
Heffernan, Michlewitz and Rodrigues also agreed Friday to a
3.6 percent rate of potential gross state product growth for
calendar year 2021, the same figure that has been used the
last six years to set up a health care cost growth benchmark
under the 2012 cost containment law.
Baker has aimed to enable unrestricted local aid to cities
and towns to rise by the rate of tax revenue growth each
year, which means cities and towns may see a 3.5 percent
increase in that aid category next fiscal year.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Friday, January 15, 2021
Reform advocates will press for changes in House rules
By Shira Schoenberg
When the Massachusetts House sets its rules for the new
two-year session, a group of advocates and lawmakers will
renew their attempts to introduce more transparency into
frequently opaque House processes.
The rules debate will be among the first tests of how newly
elected House Speaker Ron Mariano will relate to the
progressive wing of the Democratic Party – some of whose
members have been hesitant about backing him.
So far, 16 state representatives have publicly backed a
“transparency is power” campaign run by the progressive
advocacy group Act on Mass. The representatives are
generally progressive Democrats who have previously largely
been locked out of House leadership positions. Several are
House newcomers.
The campaign is demanding three changes to House rules.
First, it wants all committee votes made public on the
Legislature’s website. Today, Senate committee votes are
posted on a bill’s webpage, but joint Senate and House
committee votes may or may not be made public, depending on
the committee chair, and they are released only upon
request.
Second, Act on Mass wants members and the public to have 72
hours between the time a bill is released from a committee
and the time it is voted on, with a mechanism to suspend the
rules with a roll call vote. Currently, House rules require
24 hours notice, and lawmakers often suspend the rule on a
voice vote. (Senate rules already require 72 hours notice
for any bills emerging from the Senate Ways and Means
Committee.)
The third change would reduce the number of members needed
to call for a roll call vote from 16 to eight. That would
make it easier for a small group of members to request a
recorded vote on a bill. (The Senate sets the threshold at
the number of members in the minority party, which is
currently three.)
Matt Miller, co-founder of Act on Mass, said the campaign
builds off the group’s work the last two years “trying to
shed light on how a lot of progressive policies are stymied
in the State House.”
Two years ago, under Speaker Robert DeLeo, a vote to make
all committee votes and written testimony public failed,
49-108. A vote to increase the amount of time lawmakers have
to read a bill failed, 55-101. Both amendments were
introduced by Rep. Jonathan Hecht, a Watertown Democrat who
did not run for reelection this term.
This year, 23 progressive groups are backing the changes and
lobbying lawmakers. The climate change group Sunrise
Movement Boston is planning a small State House event with
an online livestream this Sunday calling on lawmakers to
adopt the transparency provisions. Act on Mass is hosting a
virtual campaign update this Monday with Rep. Erika
Uyterhoeven, a newly elected Somerville Democrat, followed
by a week of action.
Sunrise Movement Boston organizer Jeanette Gronemeyer said
the lack of transparency is larger than just a problem under
DeLeo. “We think the current non-transparent processes won’t
just go away with a new State House leader/politician in
DeLeo’s place,” she said. “We’ll only accomplish a
transparent Legislature with passing these demands and
putting them into the State House rules.”
The House on Thursday appointed a temporary rules committee,
a logistical requirement for holding a formal rules debate.
Mariano has not announced when the rules debate will happen,
though some members expect it could be in late January or
early February.
Mariano, asked about potential transparency proposals a day
before he was elected speaker, said he is open to
considering proposals, and any changes will be determined by
the members. “Certainly, we’ll take a look at any
transparency proposal that makes some sense,” Mariano said.
State House
News Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Double Smog Dare
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
The risks were known, or should have been.
The longer the Legislature waited to finalize its
negotiations over major climate, jobs and infrastructure
bills, the more power they relinquished to Gov. Charlie
Baker. Discussions had been ongoing since the summer, and
now all legislators could do was wait.
What would he sign? What wouldn't he?
Knowing they had no recourse either way, legislators held
their breath this week as they waited for Baker to render
his verdicts on scores of bills that landed on his desk in
the final days and hours of the last legislative session.
And those verdicts came in bunches.
Beer distribution and campus sexual violence prevention
bills got signed, as did one creating a commission to study
whether to change the state's seal. A bill known as "Laura's
Law" to ensure no one ever gets lost looking for the
entrance to an emergency room also earned the governor's
signature.
And the bulk of a $626 million economic development bill was
basically guaranteed to become law, given the governor's
authority to keep what he liked and veto sections he didn't.
That bill included long sought zoning reforms, known as
"Housing Choice," to spur development and requirements for
multi-family zoning around MBTA stations. It also turned
Sen. Eric Lesser's student borrowers bill of rights into
law.
But the climate legislation was a take-it-or-leave-it
proposition for the governor, and by Tuesday the chatter
coming from people with feelers into the administration
suggested Baker was ready to leave it.
House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka
tried to call Baker's bluff. Go ahead, they said. Veto the
bill, and we'll send it right back to you in a matter of
days.
The two Democratic leaders issued a joint statement saying
as much, hoping the governor and the stakeholders whispering
in his ear would see that resistance was futile. It was a
rare public flexing of power for legislative Democrats who
typically prefer to maintain the veneer of cooperation with
the executive branch.
The only problem was there apparently wasn't enough
bipartisan cooperation in drafting the bill, and Baker
wasn't bluffing. In fact, the governor said he found the
Legislature's willingness to get right back to work on
climate legislation encouraging. And so on Thursday, the
formal veto arrived.
Baker supports the goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050
and, by his own words, was "largely in agreement" with many
of the bill's provisions. But Baker listened to the
construction industry when they told him allowing cities and
towns to adopt a "net-zero" building code could stop housing
production in its tracks.
He said the 5 percent difference between his
administration's goal for emission reductions by 2030 (45
percent) and Legislature's (50 percent) was a $6 billion
choice for residents that he didn't want to make. And he
said lawmakers missed an opportunity to make money available
for climate adaptation, as he and the House tried to do with
competing plans to spend $1 billion over ten years. Both
plans went nowhere in the Senate.
Baker is now being cast by activists and Democrats in the
role of anti-environment Republican who caved to immediate
business interests at the expense of future generations.
Some groups, however, privately commiserate with the
administration's frustration that it was actually the
Democrats who control the Legislature who waited until so
late in the session to get him a bill that he couldn't seek
to amend.
"If he doesn't sign this, the Legislature owns part of this
failure," one environmental advocate said earlier in the
week.
But if Democrats are as serious as Mariano and Spilka say
they are, this bill still could be law by the end of the
month with or without Baker. In fact, it could be on his
desk again by the time you are reading this column next
Friday.
Passing the climate bill, or any other bill, next week would
require at least some lawmakers and staff to return to the
State House amid warnings from the FBI and other federal law
enforcement that state capitals in all 50 states could be a
target for violence in the coming week.
The fallout from the attack on the U.S. Capitol continues as
President-elect Joe Biden prepares for his inauguration next
Wednesday, and the House this week impeached President
Donald Trump for the second time in his four years in
office, this time for inciting violence by spreading
unproven claims about election fraud.
All nine members of the Massachusetts delegation voted for
impeachment, including U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, who cast
her vote from quarantine after her husband contracted
COVID-19 during the siege of the Capitol.
Baker repeatedly stated this week that there were no known
threats in Massachusetts to the State House or any other
government target, but law enforcement agencies remain in
constant contact as Jan. 20 draws closer.
Baker signed orders Thursday activating 1,000 members of the
National Guard, deploying 500 to Washington, D.C. to assist
with security for the inauguration and putting another 500
on standby in Massachusetts should any city or town request
backup.
The Massachusetts presence in D.C. may help to make Mayor
Marty Walsh feel a bit more at home. He did, after all,
promise to bring Boston with him to Washington as he
prepares to join the Biden administration.
Walsh gave what was surely not the "State of the City"
address he might have been planning just a few weeks ago on
Tuesday night. Instead of laying out an ambitious agenda for
his reelection year, Walsh gave a valedictory that nearly
brought the Dorchester native to tears.
Walsh's timeline for leaving the city and City Hall remains
to be seen, but the City Council is already debating whether
to do away with a special election requirement should he
resign before March 5.
Regardless of when the next election is to replace Walsh as
mayor, Rep. Aaron Michlewitz and Suffolk County Sheriff
Steve Tompkins both said this week the race would take place
without them.
Michlewitz said he came to the conclusion that he can best
serve the city perched atop the House budget-writing Ways
and Means Committee, where he hopes to and likely will
remain under Speaker Mariano. Possible future speaker, it
turns out, had a nicer ring to it than mayoral hopeful.
The North End Democrat will soon have to get to work on
building a new state budget, and the Legislature agreed with
the administration on Friday to an estimate of revenues in
fiscal year 2022 of $30.12 billion, a 3.5 percent increase
from what officials expect to collect this year.
The budgeting exercise will also be made a little easier by
the more than $9 billion Massachusetts expects to receive
from the most recent federal stimulus package, though
two-thirds of that will be doled out in the form of
unemployment assistance and direct cash payments to
taxpayers.
The MBTA expects to see about $250 million to $300 million
in stimulus support, but only $17 million will be put toward
restoring services cut to deal with declines in ridership
because of the pandemic.
T officials say the priority for restoration will be
high-ridership bus routes and maintaining evening commuter
rail service, while the rest of the money will go into the
capital budget.
Maybe they'll be able to run trains to Foxborough where
Baker announced this week that the state would be setting up
its first mass vaccination site at Gillette Stadium.
The home of the New England Patriots will open next week for
first responders to get the vaccine, and eventually to the
general public as more cohorts become eligible for
vaccination.
STORY OF THE WEEK: It's the Legislature's move again after
they warned Baker not to veto climate legislation and he did
it anyway.
State House
News Service
Friday, January 15, 2021
Baker Carves Up $16.5 Bil Transportation Bill With Vetoes
TNC Fare Hikes, Low-Income Fare Program Rejected
Chris Lisinski
Fees on ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft will not
increase in Massachusetts after Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed a
new proposed fee structure while signing a $16.5 billion
transportation bond bill on Friday.
Baker gave his approval to almost all of the multi-year
spending authorizations, but rejected several major
transportation policy proposals that the Legislature packed
into the wide-ranging bill.
He shot down proposed hikes on transportation network
companies, or TNCs, that would have replaced the current
20-cent flat fee per ride with a higher set of fees as well
as a new legislative mandate requiring the MBTA to offer a
low-income fare program.
In a letter alongside his signature, Baker said the
Legislature's proposed fees for transportation network
companies were "complicated" and based on pre-pandemic
assumptions about travel patterns.
"Before instituting fees that are aimed at incentivizing
certain travel behaviors, we need to understand what
ridership and congestion patterns are going to look like
after the pandemic," Baker wrote, adding that he would
refile provisions aimed at collecting more data from the
services.
Lawmakers approved the bill (H 5248) in the dying hours of
the 2019-2020 lawmaking session -- after private
Democrat-led negotiations on it lasted for more than five
months -- and in doing so left themselves no room to attempt
to override Baker's now-final vetoes.
The legislation will drive investment in road and bridge
maintenance, help fund major projects such as a South Coast
Rail expansion and the Green Line Extension, and replenish
the state's transportation bonding authority ahead of the
upcoming construction season.
Major capital outlays in the bill include $3 billion for
"transit system modernization," an umbrella category
covering MBTA bus and Green Line upgrades, electrification
of sections of the Fairmount and Stoughton commuter rail
lines, and extending the Blue Line to the Charles/MGH
Station on the Red Line.
Another $825 million will go toward the South Coast Rail
expansion project adding commuter rail service in Taunton,
New Bedford and Fall River. The under-construction Green
Line Extension into Somerville and Medford would get $595
million.
On the roadway side, the bill authorizes $350 million in
bonds to improve the roadway approaches and related
infrastructure near the Bourne and Sagamore bridges
connecting to Cape Cod.
A $1.25 billion Next-Generation Bridge Program will
"dramatically accelerate the Commonwealth's bridge
investments," Baker wrote.
"This legislation is vital to allowing MassDOT and the MBTA
to commence planning on the next Capital Investment Plan,
and to continuing this administration's thoughtful and data
driven approach to rebuilding, modernizing, and expanding
the capacity of the Commonwealth's transportation system,"
Baker said.
Alongside his signatures and vetoes on the bond bill, Baker
rejected another bill (H 5185) that would require the MBTA
to use federal funding to restore spending on capital
projects and reverse a package of service cuts its board
approved in December.
The T, which Baker's administration oversees, plans to keep
most of the cuts in place for at least the next few months
despite getting an injection of at least $250 million from
the latest federal stimulus package. Agency officials opted
instead to revive some paused capital projects and set a
chunk of money aside to help restore service at a later,
still-uncertain date.
Baker has defended the service cuts, arguing that it is "bad
public policy" for the MBTA to keep running trains and buses
on pre-pandemic schedules with only a quarter to a third of
riders.
"I agree that the MBTA should evaluate and deploy additional
funding that becomes available, including federal funding,
to support sufficient base service levels and -- when
ridership and revenue so justify -- begin to restore service
that has been reduced and capital projects that have been
delayed," Baker wrote in a separate letter. "The amended
language sent back by the legislature, however, does not
give the Fiscal Management and Control Board the latitude it
needs to decide on how and when to deploy federal funds."
Baker also vetoed several other policy sections of the bond
bill, including a proposed commission to study congestion
pricing systems that use varying roadway tolls to influence
traffic and a line item outlining requirements for a major
multimodal capital project in Allston.
One section he rejected would have required all proceeds
from the Transportation and Climate Initiative, a
multi-state compact to reduce carbon emissions, to be
deposited into the Commonwealth Transportation Fund. Baker
said he wanted some of the funding instead to go toward
"flexible emissions reductions and equity investments."
Baker also shot down language in the bill instructing the
state's 15 regional transit authorities to study
means-tested fares and requiring the MBTA to launch a
low-income fare program, a topic that the agency has been
studying but has not yet fully implemented.
"More study is needed to understand how transit authorities
can implement fare systems that depend on gathering
information about riders' incomes and to understand what the
revenue loss would be and how that revenue would be
replaced," Baker wrote. "No means-tested fares can be
implemented until the MBTA and RTAs have a financially
sustainable plan in place to replace the lost revenue."
He did give his support to several other policies that
Democrats in the Legislature touted as significant
achievements, including language that decriminalizes public
transit fare evasion and a provision enforcing parking bans
in dedicated bus lanes.
Baker kicked off debate about the bond bill a year and a
half ago, in a pre-COVID world, with an $18 billion
proposal. But the pandemic changed travel patterns across
the state, decimating ridership on public transit and
pushing millions of workers into remote operations.
The public health crisis also reshaped the political
landscape for transportation debate. In March, the House
approved a wide-ranging package of tax and fee increases
aimed at generating more than half a billion dollars for the
transportation sector, but the Senate never took up the
proposal and allowed it to die, with leaders arguing that it
did not fit during the economic downturn.
House and Senate Democrats appeared poised to revive at
least one revenue-generating proposal with their last-minute
inclusion of the new TNC fee structure in the bond bill. The
compromise legislation that emerged from a conference
committee in the final hours of session called for raising
the 20 cent flat fee for every ride to 40 cents for a shared
ride, $1.20 for a non-shared ride and $2.20 for a luxury
ride.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission estimated that the
new model could haul in $56.2 million in annual revenue even
if ridership on platforms like Uber and Lyft remained at
only half of 2019 levels.
Last year, Baker proposed increasing TNC fees, but only to
$1 per ride rather than the scaled and higher structure the
Legislature offered.
|
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
|
