 |
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
Monday, March 1, 2021
Gas Tax Hike Coming
— On Top of TCI
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
A three-step,
12-cent gas tax increase, fare-free MBTA and regional
transit authority buses, new surcharges on parking space
rentals and purchases, higher ride-hailing fees and more all
featured in a new overhaul bill proposed by the
Massachusetts Senate's point person on transportation.
Transportation
Committee Co-chair Sen. Joseph Boncore filed his omnibus
proposal on Friday, igniting debate on how to relieve the
returning dread of traffic, upgrade unreliable public
transit infrastructure, and pay for a range of investments
after his branch scuttled a House-approved set of
transportation taxes and fees last year.
The 49-page bill (SD
2315) weaves together major changes to the
funding landscape and commuting experience for roads,
bridges and transit.
Some provisions,
such as a net 50 percent increase in the state's gas tax by
2025, will prove contentious among lawmakers wary of raising
taxes and taking a potentially unpopular vote....
Boncore declined
to discuss the bill's finances in any detail beyond saying
its revenues would cover its proposed spending. He did not
specify how much it would raise through a combination of gas
tax hikes, transportation network company fees, parking
surcharges and more, nor how much spending it proposes....
"The bottom line
number is what the bottom line number is," Boncore said.
"Whatever the number is, if we're serious about making
public transit a public good and shifting the paradigms in
Massachusetts, I think we're going to have to come up with
ways to fund this bill." ...
Boncore's
co-chair, Rep. William Straus, said he is still reviewing
the bill, but he expressed optimism about its scope and its
inclusion of gas tax increases after the Senate declined to
take up the House's revenue-focused plan in 2020....
Baker has mostly
taken a dim view of tax increases, so if Democrats intend to
make a push this session on new taxes they may need to amass
super-majorities in both chambers in case tax hikes run into
vetoes....
In a dramatic
shift, all MBTA and RTA bus trips would be fare-free under
Boncore's bill....
Under Boncore's
bill, the state gas tax would rise from its current 24 cents
per gallon to 28 cents in 2023, 32 cents in 2024 and then 36
cents in 2025.
The proposal is a
sharp pivot from the Senate's approach last session, and it
also goes significantly further than a one-time gas tax hike
the House passed with what then-Speaker Robert DeLeo called
a "tough vote."
In March 2020,
shortly before the COVID-19 state of emergency began, the
House approved a 5-cent gas tax increase and a 9-cent diesel
tax increase. The Senate never advanced the tax bill,
though, with leaders pointing to the ongoing economic
crisis.
State House News
Service
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Free Bus Rides, Gas Tax Hike Highlight “New Deal”
House lawmakers
spent over an hour locked in a tense debate Wednesday
afternoon on an unsuccessful transparency amendment to the
Legislature's 2021-2022 Joint Rules before ultimately
adopting a rules package to govern interactions between the
two branches that strips a few elements of the Senate's
proposed reforms.
The House approved
a rules package on a 128-31 vote that would keep a notice
requirement for committee hearings at 72 hours, rather than
the one week proposed by the Senate; make public only the
names of committee members who vote against favorably
reporting a bill, instead of providing a complete accounting
of how all members vote, as the Senate version would; and
remove Senate language which would have mandated that
committees share copies of public testimony when asked by
members of the public.
Most of the debate
Wednesday centered on an amendment (8) that would have made
details of all committee votes public, mandated a one-week
notice for committee hearings, and made public testimony on
bills available to the public upon request. The House
rejected the amendment on a 36-122 vote with nearly all
Republicans and eight Democrats voting in favor.
Rep. Erika
Uyterhoeven, the amendment's lead sponsor, argued that it
promoted transparency and accountability within the House.
The Somerville Democrat said she wanted to "caution" her
colleagues that transparency would not "thwart progressive
legislation."
"Underlying that
[argument] is saying that we have to do our work behind
closed doors and I don't believe that is the case. And I
believe that that is an unfortunate and sometimes elitist
argument to say that we cannot show our votes to our
constituents and to our voters," she said during a floor
speech. "We do not have a strong democracy by voting behind
closed doors, or being afraid of our voters for voting us
out of office."
Second Assistant
Majority Leader Sarah Peake shot back at Uyterhoeven, saying
she would "try not to be insulted" by her remarks and "not
take what should be a policy argument that somehow turned
into an attack on members of this body personally."
"They are not
elitist arguments. They are shared experiences from
experienced and yes, effective legislators," Peake said.
"These are the arguments of people who come here every day,
to do their best, to work their hardest, who have years of
experience, who have rolled up their sleeves, and actually
gotten something done."
Peake and Rep.
Marjorie Decker argued that committee votes to advance bills
in the legislative process are different from floor votes to
pass or enact a bill....
Debate ran around
three hours Wednesday, including the hour spent deliberating
on Uyterhoeven's amendment.
The Senate now
decides how to handle the House's changes -- whether to
accept them, offer further amendments, or initiate a
conference process to work out a compromise, mostly likely
in private negotiations.
State House News
Service
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
House Dem’s Push for Transparency Attracts Mostly GOP
Support
Lawmakers who back
a bill that would allow tens of thousands of undocumented
immigrants to acquire standard driver's licenses are
optimistic that the proposal's quiet failure last session
was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not a sign of
entrenched opposition.
Elected officials
and activists rolled out a refiled version of the bill
(HD
448 /
SD 273) on Tuesday, expressing hope that it can
succeed this time around after previously falling short.
The bill earned a
favorable recommendation from the Transportation Committee
last year with a 14-4 vote along party lines, but then it
lingered in the Senate Ways and Means Committee untouched
until the session ended, even though Senate President Karen
Spilka of Ashland had already voiced her support....
If enacted, all
Massachusetts residents could get licensed regardless of
immigration status. Undocumented immigrants could only
acquire standard driver's licenses and not REAL ID-compliant
versions.
Legislative
leaders might need to line up enough votes to override a
potential veto from Gov. Charlie Baker if they intend to
pursue the bill this session. Baker has steadily opposed the
measure, saying last year that "the bar's pretty high on
this one." ...
"Every time that I
needed to drive, I could not stop thinking about my kids and
how their lives would be without me," Katherine Lopez, a
mother of two who has lived in the United States for 19
years, said about the years before she had a license. "When
I left home every morning, I didn't know if I was going to
see them again because I knew if police stopped me, they
could call immigration, regardless of my status, and I could
be deported."
The Massachusetts
Budget and Policy Center estimated in 2020 that between
41,000 and 78,000 new drivers would likely apply for
licenses in the first three years after the bill's passage.
A spokesman for the organization said the number of drivers
who would be eligible is even larger....
The Immigrant
Rights Action Group (IRAG) of JP Progressives plans to host
a virtual event Tuesday at 7 p.m. to explore one question:
"How Blue is Massachusetts on Immigration?"
"Seeing the Biden
administration's efforts to actively reverse the damage of
Trump's immigration policy is hopeful, but what are our
elected state officials doing to protect undocumented
residents in MA? When it comes to safeguarding the health,
safety, and legal rights of front-line immigrant workers and
families, including those hit hardest by the pandemic,
Massachusetts falls far behind many other blue states," JP
Progressives wrote.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, February 23, 3031
Immigrant Licensing Bill Supporters Eye Floor Votes
Bill Cleared Committee, Then Stalled Last Session
It's the supply,
stupid.
Those weren't the
exact words Gov. Charlie Baker used Thursday, but as he got
barraged with criticism from Democratic lawmakers eager to
show they were ready to stand up to the Republican
administration, it was a defense he would return to again
and again.
The new Joint
Committee on COVID-19 and Emergency Preparedness's vaccine
oversight hearing was must-see streaming on Beacon Hill,
even with the governor trying to offer his own
counter-programming.
The state's
vaccine rollout, and more specifically its online
appointment booking system, continued to be a source of
consternation this week. While the system didn't crash, per
se, the experience of fighting online with hundreds of
thousands of people for one of the 50,000 new appointments
left an anxious public unpacified.
The math just
doesn't work, Baker told lawmakers who were seeking answers,
or someone to blame. When the feds give us more doses, we'll
vaccinate more people, he said.
However, the
limited-supply argument only took the governor so far as he
testified for about an hour before the committee, whose
members felt that just putting shots in people's arms wasn't
a sufficient measure of success.
They weren't there
to hear the governor recite statistics about Massachusetts
ranking tops in the country for first doses administered
among states with more than 5 million residents, or that
Bloomberg placed the state second for first doses
administered to Black residents. Though he did do that.
"You're missing
how broken the system is right now," said Rep. William
Driscoll, a Milton Democrat and co-chair of the committee.
Residents -- their
constituents - were tired and frustrated of logging onto the
state's vaccine website day-after-day, week-after-week, only
to find there are either no appointments available or, as
occurred Thursday, they were in line behind 90,000 other
people. There has to be a better way, lawmakers said.
"Will you say
sorry to the million of people...," said Sen. Eric Lesser,
in one of the most pointed lines of questioning the governor
faced all day.
"Of course,
absolutely. Definitely. Yes, of course," Baker said....
But this week,
Mariano was all about pushing through a package of
legislative rules that stopped short of the
transparency-driven reforms passed by the Senate that would
make sure all committee votes are published online and
written testimony to committees be made public upon request.
Rules reformers,
like freshman Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven, found more support
among her Republican colleagues than her fellow Democrats
for matching the Senate's proposal. But that's actually not
an unusual phenomenon when it comes to debating the rules.
State House News
Service
Friday, February 26, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Supply Side Vaxonomics
Vaccine supplies
are growing as is the number of Massachusetts residents
inoculated against COVID-19, but the competition for doses,
and all the anxiety and frustration that entails, will
continue across Massachusetts until supplies begin to even
come close to meeting demand.
One hopeful
milestone along the path to herd immunity and what Gov.
Charlie Baker described as the "next normal" comes next week
when the number of state residents vaccinated is on course
to exceed the number of people confirmed to have had the
virus.
While the virus is
still circulating widely and variants are also a new threat,
people are also finding hope in the fact that data shows
that Massachusetts is on the back side of its second surge,
more schools are welcoming students back to in-person
classes, and state health authorities believe it's safe
enough to open the economy further.
State House News
Service
Friday, February 26, 2021
Advances - Week of Feb. 28, 2021
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
The State House News Service reported last
Wednesday ("Free Bus Rides, Gas
Tax Hike Highlight “New Deal”):
A
three-step, 12-cent gas tax increase, fare-free MBTA and regional
transit authority buses, new surcharges on parking space rentals and
purchases, higher ride-hailing fees and more all featured in a new
overhaul bill proposed by the Massachusetts Senate's point person on
transportation.
Transportation Committee Co-chair Sen. Joseph Boncore filed his
omnibus proposal on Friday, igniting debate on how to relieve the
returning dread of traffic, upgrade unreliable public transit
infrastructure, and pay for a range of investments after his branch
scuttled a House-approved set of transportation taxes and fees last
year.
The
49-page bill (SD
2315) weaves together major changes to the funding landscape and
commuting experience for roads, bridges and transit.
Some
provisions, such as a net 50 percent increase in the state's gas tax
by 2025, will prove contentious among lawmakers wary of raising
taxes and taking a potentially unpopular vote....
Boncore declined to discuss the bill's finances in any detail beyond
saying its revenues would cover its proposed spending. He did not
specify how much it would raise through a combination of gas tax
hikes, transportation network company fees, parking surcharges and
more, nor how much spending it proposes....
"The
bottom line number is what the bottom line number is," Boncore said.
"Whatever the number is, if we're serious about making public
transit a public good and shifting the paradigms in Massachusetts, I
think we're going to have to come up with ways to fund this bill."
...
Boncore's co-chair, Rep. William Straus, said he is still reviewing
the bill, but he expressed optimism about its scope and its
inclusion of gas tax increases after the Senate declined to take up
the House's revenue-focused plan in 2020....
Baker
has mostly taken a dim view of tax increases, so if Democrats intend
to make a push this session on new taxes they may need to amass
super-majorities in both chambers in case tax hikes run into
vetoes....
In a
dramatic shift, all MBTA and RTA bus trips would be fare-free under
Boncore's bill....
Under
Boncore's bill, the state gas tax would rise from its current 24
cents per gallon to 28 cents in 2023, 32 cents in 2024 and then 36
cents in 2025.
The
proposal is a sharp pivot from the Senate's approach last session,
and it also goes significantly further than a one-time gas tax hike
the House passed with what then-Speaker Robert DeLeo called a "tough
vote."
In
March 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 state of emergency began,
the House approved a 5-cent gas tax increase and a 9-cent diesel tax
increase. The Senate never advanced the tax bill, though, with
leaders pointing to the ongoing economic crisis.
Apparently Charlie Baker's Transportation &
Climate Initiative's (TCI) 9-38 cents per gallon gas tax increase still
isn't enough, so the Legislature wants to directly jack up the tax on
gas by another 12 cents a gallon. Add that to Joe Biden's "Make
America Energy-Dependent Again" impact on the cost of gas (already
up 18 percent since election day) and we're talking about
serious money to move around in all that "clean air" that's promised.
The State House News Service reported on Wednesday ("House
Dem’s Push for Transparency Attracts Mostly GOP Support"):
House lawmakers spent over an hour
locked in a tense debate Wednesday afternoon on an
unsuccessful transparency amendment to the Legislature's
2021-2022 Joint Rules before ultimately adopting a rules
package to govern interactions between the two branches
that strips a few elements of the Senate's proposed
reforms.
The House approved a rules package
on a 128-31 vote that would keep a notice requirement
for committee hearings at 72 hours, rather than the one
week proposed by the Senate; make public only the names
of committee members who vote against favorably
reporting a bill, instead of providing a complete
accounting of how all members vote, as the Senate
version would; and remove Senate language which would
have mandated that committees share copies of public
testimony when asked by members of the public.
Most of the debate Wednesday
centered on an amendment (8) that would have made
details of all committee votes public, mandated a
one-week notice for committee hearings, and made public
testimony on bills available to the public upon request.
The House rejected the amendment on a 36-122 vote with
nearly all Republicans and eight Democrats voting in
favor.
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven, the
amendment's lead sponsor, argued that it promoted
transparency and accountability within the House. The
Somerville Democrat said she wanted to "caution" her
colleagues that transparency would not "thwart
progressive legislation."
"Underlying that [argument] is
saying that we have to do our work behind closed doors
and I don't believe that is the case. And I believe that
that is an unfortunate and sometimes elitist argument to
say that we cannot show our votes to our constituents
and to our voters," she said during a floor speech. "We
do not have a strong democracy by voting behind closed
doors, or being afraid of our voters for voting us out
of office."
Second Assistant Majority Leader
Sarah Peake shot back at Uyterhoeven, saying she would
"try not to be insulted" by her remarks and "not take
what should be a policy argument that somehow turned
into an attack on members of this body personally."
"They are not elitist arguments.
They are shared experiences from experienced and yes,
effective legislators," Peake said. "These are the
arguments of people who come here every day, to do their
best, to work their hardest, who have years of
experience, who have rolled up their sleeves, and
actually gotten something done."
Peake and Rep. Marjorie Decker
argued that committee votes to advance bills in the
legislative process are different from floor votes to
pass or enact a bill....
Debate ran around three hours
Wednesday, including the hour spent deliberating on
Uyterhoeven's amendment.
The Senate now decides how to
handle the House's changes -- whether to accept them,
offer further amendments, or initiate a conference
process to work out a compromise, mostly likely in
private negotiations.
Amendment 8's sponsor, Rep. Erika
Uyterhoeven (D-Somerville), said: "The opaque and cumbersome system begs
the question what do we have to hide and what do we have to lose." That
is the real elephant-in-the-room question. What do they have to hide, to
lose? Just elected to her first term in November, freshman Rep.
Uyterhoeven will learn in short time how things work on Beacon Hill, and
the consequences of stepping out of place — not
being a team player.
Second Assistant Majority Leader Rep. Sarah
Peake (D-Provincetown), in opposition to Uyterhoeven's transparency
reform amendment vehemently defended the status quo darkness:
"Committees are incubators of ideas. It is where we vet what is in a
bill, it is where we make changes.... A vote in committee is not a vote
in favor or against. That is when we stand here and those [vote tote
board] lights light up."
That is hardly truthful. Too commonly (if
not usually), conference (compromise) committees sit on controversial
bills until the final day of a session, release them for a pro forma
vote only hours if not minutes before the late-night deadline expecting
a speedy rubber-stamp vote for passage.
For example, the recent $16.5 billion
transportation bond bill went to a conference committee in late July,
where it languished in secret until released after midnight on January
6. The 63-page compromise bill was rushed through the House on a voice
vote at 1:20 a.m., then was dutifully rubber-stamped (39-1) by the
Senate at 1:56 a.m. before the two-year session prorogued sine die.
So many newly-elected state reps arrive
consumed by enthusiasm to reform the system. They have a brief
advantage: None has been assigned to a "leadership" position with
extra pay on one or more of the multitude of committees, so are not yet
beholden to the House Speaker or Senate President. They are merely
backbenchers not yet aware of how things work on Beacon Hill. It
won't take them long to learn; it doesn't take long to lose that spunky
enthusiasm and meld into the flock.
On Tuesday the
News Service reported ("Immigrant Licensing Bill Supporters
Eye Floor Votes; Bill Cleared Committee, Then Stalled Last
Session"):
Lawmakers who back a bill that would allow tens of thousands of
undocumented immigrants to acquire standard driver's licenses are
optimistic that the proposal's quiet failure last session was a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not a sign of entrenched
opposition.
Elected officials and activists rolled out a refiled version of the
bill (HD
448 /
SD 273) on Tuesday, expressing hope that it can succeed this
time around after previously falling short.
The
bill earned a favorable recommendation from the Transportation
Committee last year with a 14-4 vote along party lines, but then it
lingered in the Senate Ways and Means Committee untouched until the
session ended, even though Senate President Karen Spilka of Ashland
had already voiced her support....
If
enacted, all Massachusetts residents could get licensed regardless
of immigration status. Undocumented immigrants could only acquire
standard driver's licenses and not REAL ID-compliant versions.
Legislative leaders might need to line up enough votes to override a
potential veto from Gov. Charlie Baker if they intend to pursue the
bill this session. Baker has steadily opposed the measure, saying
last year that "the bar's pretty high on this one." ...
"Seeing the Biden administration's efforts to actively reverse the
damage of Trump's immigration policy is hopeful, but what are our
elected state officials doing to protect undocumented residents in
MA? When it comes to safeguarding the health, safety, and legal
rights of front-line immigrant workers and families, including those
hit hardest by the pandemic, Massachusetts falls far behind many
other blue states," JP Progressives wrote.
Joe Biden invited
a new wave of illegal immigration to flood into the nation
and they have responded to his generosity by new marches of
thousands. Naturally they need somewhere to go when
they get across the border. Massachusetts is and has
been steadily
losing productive, taxpaying residents who are bailing
out to more hospitable states. Those fleeing are being
more than restocked by what Secretary of State Bill Galvin
termed "international
immigration." I suppose it somehow stands to
reason that if the Bay State population is being intractably
replaced by international immigrants, then the newcomers
need to be mobile along with receiving all the other rights
and privileges that were once bestowed upon the expatriates.
Otherwise, Massachusetts will eventually become a ghost
state with nobody left behind to govern.
In its Weekly Roundup ("Supply
Side Vaxonomics") on Friday the State House News Service reported:
It's the supply, stupid.
Those weren't the exact words Gov.
Charlie Baker used Thursday, but as he got barraged with
criticism from Democratic lawmakers eager to show they
were ready to stand up to the Republican administration,
it was a defense he would return to again and again.
The new Joint Committee on COVID-19
and Emergency Preparedness's vaccine oversight hearing
was must-see streaming on Beacon Hill, even with the
governor trying to offer his own counter-programming.
The state's vaccine rollout, and
more specifically its online appointment booking system,
continued to be a source of consternation this week.
While the system didn't crash, per se, the experience of
fighting online with hundreds of thousands of people for
one of the 50,000 new appointments left an anxious
public unpacified.
The math just doesn't work, Baker
told lawmakers who were seeking answers, or someone to
blame. When the feds give us more doses, we'll vaccinate
more people, he said.
However, the limited-supply
argument only took the governor so far as he testified
for about an hour before the committee, whose members
felt that just putting shots in people's arms wasn't a
sufficient measure of success.
They weren't there to hear the
governor recite statistics about Massachusetts ranking
tops in the country for first doses administered among
states with more than 5 million residents, or that
Bloomberg placed the state second for first doses
administered to Black residents. Though he did do that.
"You're missing how broken the
system is right now," said Rep. William Driscoll, a
Milton Democrat and co-chair of the committee.
Residents -- their constituents -
were tired and frustrated of logging onto the state's
vaccine website day-after-day, week-after-week, only to
find there are either no appointments available or, as
occurred Thursday, they were in line behind 90,000 other
people. There has to be a better way, lawmakers said.
"Will you say sorry to the million
of people...," said Sen. Eric Lesser, in one of the most
pointed lines of questioning the governor faced all day.
"Of course, absolutely. Definitely.
Yes, of course," Baker said.
Last Tuesday I heard Joe Biden state,
“Today, we mark a truly grim, heartbreaking milestone: 500,071 dead.
That’s more Americans who have died in one year in this pandemic than in
World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined.”
Having just received my first shot of
Pfizer's Wuhan Chinese Virus vaccine the day before it was in the back
of my mind. Biden's comparison struck me as strange
— I wondered if there was any truth to it
or was it another exaggeration to instill more fear in the pursuit of
further submission, or was it just another common Biden blunder.
So I did what I always do when encountering suspicion: I checked
it out for myself.
The first thing I uncovered was from The
National Archives;
The Flu Pandemic of 1918; 1918 Spanish Flu:
Before COVID-19, the
most severe pandemic in recent history was the 1918 influenza virus,
often called “the Spanish Flu.” The virus infected roughly 500
million people—one-third of the world’s population—and caused 50
million deaths worldwide (double the number of deaths in World War
I). In the United States, a quarter of the population caught the
virus, 675,000 died, and life expectancy dropped by 12 years.
This made me even more curious.
675,000 U.S. deaths resulting from the 1918 Spanish Flu was "double the
number of deaths in World War I" — but
500,071 from what the Wuhan Chinese Virus has produced "more Americans
who have died in one year in this pandemic than in World War I, World
War II and the Vietnam War combined"?
It turned out that my suspicion was again
justified. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler
— of all sources —
reported that day ("Biden messed up the math comparing
war-deaths-to-covid-19-toll"):
“Today, we mark
a truly grim, heartbreaking milestone: 500,071 dead. That’s more
Americans who have died in one year in this pandemic than in World
War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined.”
— President Joe
Biden, remarks on 500,000 deaths linked to COVID-19, Feb. 22
. . . President
Joe Biden likes to compare the total to the deaths the nation has
suffered in war. In his inaugural address, for instance, the
president noted: “A once-in-a-century virus, it silently
stalks the country. It’s taken as many lives in one year as
America lost in all of World War II.”
Now, about a month
later, he had added two more wars to his comparison when he marked
500,000 dead in a solemn and moving address at the White House. . .
.
Biden’s latest
statement does not make much sense. If you start with a base
of 405,399 and add in World War I and the Vietnam War, using the
same metrics of battlefield deaths and in-service deaths, you end up
with many more than 500,000.
— World War I:
116,516 deaths
— World War II:
405,399
— Vietnam: 58,220
That adds up to
about 580,000. . . .
A president’s
words have impact. The president’s death comparison to World War I,
World War II and the Vietnam War ended up being cited in The
Washington Post, The New York Times and many other news media.
That’s because people assume when the president uses a figure like
this, it’s been properly fact-checked, especially when speaking in a
high-profile event like this.
Apparently the
president meant to refer to battlefield numbers in his
remarks, even though he did not do so when he first made his
war-to-COVID-19 comparison in his inaugural address. It’s
confusing that the White House would change the metric like this,
but that would be correct. At the very least, the White House
needs to note the president’s mistake on the official transcript so
his math error does not keep getting repeated in news reports.
Biden earns Two
Pinocchios.
I've heard Biden's remark repeated often in the days
since, but not by me or Kessler — and not
by you now I hope.
Regardless, during the last pandemic a
century ago, "In the United States, a quarter of the population caught
the virus, 675,000 died."
As U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
notably observed, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to
his own facts."
If you're interested, my vaccination went
very smoothly last Monday. I got to the MedCenter in the expansive
medical complex in town after a fifteen minute drive, checked in and
joined a line of about six people. In a large auditorium with a
dozen or more stations available I got my shot then had to sit around
for ten minutes to make sure I wasn't going to fall down, pass out or
something, then was done. I was back home at my desk about an hour
after leaving it. I'll get my second shot in two weeks, on the
March 15th. When the scheduler gave me my next appointment I mused
"Beware the Ides of March" and joked that I hoped I'll make out better
than Julius Caesar fared, him being stabbed to death on the Ides!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
State House
News Service
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Free Bus Rides, Gas Tax Hike Highlight “New Deal”
Without Cost Estimate, Boncore Points to Price of Inaction
By Chris Lisinski
A three-step, 12-cent gas tax increase, fare-free MBTA and
regional transit authority buses, new surcharges on parking
space rentals and purchases, higher ride-hailing fees and
more all featured in a new overhaul bill proposed by the
Massachusetts Senate's point person on transportation.
Transportation Committee Co-chair Sen. Joseph Boncore filed
his omnibus proposal on Friday, igniting debate on how to
relieve the returning dread of traffic, upgrade unreliable
public transit infrastructure, and pay for a range of
investments after his branch scuttled a House-approved set
of transportation taxes and fees last year.
The 49-page bill (SD
2315) weaves together major changes to the
funding landscape and commuting experience for roads,
bridges and transit.
Some provisions, such as a net 50 percent increase in the
state's gas tax by 2025, will prove contentious among
lawmakers wary of raising taxes and taking a potentially
unpopular vote.
New ideas include language requiring the MBTA to put between
5 and 10 percent of federal stimulus funding toward planning
and designing capital projects and a 6.25 percent statewide
surcharge on the lease or sale of many parking spaces.
The bill also calls for creation of a new seven-member MBTA
board of directors to succeed the five-member Fiscal and
Management Control Board that is scheduled to expire at the
end of June, a topic that may emerge as standalone
legislation given the deadline.
It revives several ideas both branches approved last session
before Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed them from a late-arriving
transportation bond bill, including a higher fee structure
for services such as Uber and Lyft and a study of congestion
pricing.
Boncore declined to discuss the bill's finances in any
detail beyond saying its revenues would cover its proposed
spending. He did not specify how much it would raise through
a combination of gas tax hikes, transportation network
company fees, parking surcharges and more, nor how much
spending it proposes.
"I'm not so naive as to think there's no cost associated
with this bill," he told the News Service. "But what I
really want to talk about is what's the cost of doing
nothing. When our transportation system is in such dire need
of modernization and we choose to do nothing, the price of
those actions falls on our economy and falls on those who
rely on public transit."
"The bottom line number is what the bottom line number is,"
Boncore said. "Whatever the number is, if we're serious
about making public transit a public good and shifting the
paradigms in Massachusetts, I think we're going to have to
come up with ways to fund this bill."
It is not clear if Boncore's proposal has the full backing
of Senate President Karen Spilka, but given his stature atop
the Transportation Committee last session and this session,
his support is a significant marker for where the policy
debate may head.
Boncore's co-chair, Rep. William Straus, said he is still
reviewing the bill, but he expressed optimism about its
scope and its inclusion of gas tax increases after the
Senate declined to take up the House's revenue-focused plan
in 2020.
"Given Senator Boncore's leadership position, I do take this
as an indication that the Senate is now prepared to follow
the House's lead from last session," Straus said in an
interview. "The details of timing and how much, of course,
are part of the legislative process, but I take it as a
significant step."
Baker has mostly taken a dim view of tax increases, so if
Democrats intend to make a push this session on new taxes
they may need to amass super-majorities in both chambers in
case tax hikes run into vetoes.
Sea Change to Public Transit
In a dramatic shift, all MBTA and RTA bus trips would be
fare-free under Boncore's bill.
That change would encompass a universe of millions of
riders, even with the changed travel patterns during the
pandemic. The state's 15 RTAs had a combined fixed bus and
on-demand ridership of more than 23 million in fiscal year
2020, while the T counted more than 93 million in the same
span, according to MassDOT.
"It's the most equitable mode of public transit," Boncore
said of buses. "When you look at worst-in-the-nation
congestion, our trains and ferries aren't sharing the roads,
so if we're taking people out of their cars and putting them
on buses, incentivizing that behavior, it's a multi-pronged
approach. It's going to alleviate congestion on our
roadways, reduce our carbon footprint, and will help people
most on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale."
Although he did not provide a broader financial picture for
the bill, Boncore estimated that offering free bus fares at
all transit agencies would cost the state between $30
million and $60 million per year.
Straus disagreed, saying he believes the actual cost would
be hundreds of millions per year partly because of costs
associated with the RIDE paratransit service.
The T would also be barred from raising fares for five years
in Boncore's proposal, blocking off increases the agency has
implemented every two or three years recently, and would
need to implement a low-income fare program for qualifying
riders.
Boncore, a Winthrop Democrat, also pitched a late-night
service pilot to keep trains and buses running until 2 a.m.
on weeknights and 3 a.m. on weekends as well as another
pilot to reduce fares at off-peak travel times.
His bill, which he dubbed the "New Deal for Transportation,"
would reshape how the state manages its public transit
infrastructure and comes as the Baker administration imposes
service cuts across much of the T amid an extended, COVID-era
period of low ridership.
Gov. Charlie Baker has argued that it would be "bad public
policy" to run a full pre-pandemic schedule with average
ridership at only about 30 percent, and the T faces a
multi-year budget crunch inflicted by the sharp drop in fare
revenue.
Asked if the state could afford to make buses fare-free to
riders, Boncore replied, "What's the cost of not doing it
and not incentivizing people to get back on our system?"
Officials should focus on "shifting the paradigm to looking
at public transit as a public good and not as a tax on the
people using it," Boncore said.
Gas Tax Debate Re-emerges
Under Boncore's bill, the state gas tax would rise from its
current 24 cents per gallon to 28 cents in 2023, 32 cents in
2024 and then 36 cents in 2025.
The proposal is a sharp pivot from the Senate's approach
last session, and it also goes significantly further than a
one-time gas tax hike the House passed with what
then-Speaker Robert DeLeo called a "tough vote."
In March 2020, shortly before the COVID-19 state of
emergency began, the House approved a 5-cent gas tax
increase and a 9-cent diesel tax increase. The Senate never
advanced the tax bill, though, with leaders pointing to the
ongoing economic crisis.
Boncore said in July that he would prefer to revisit the
topic of transportation revenue "when the long-term economic
outlook becomes clear and we can better assess what the
state needs as a whole, post-COVID."
He said Tuesday that the timing of last year's debate --
with a House vote one week before Baker declared a state of
emergency -- "tied the Senate's hands."
"Now, we can take a holistic approach to it, and this
conversation can be had again about how low our gas taxes
are compared to neighboring states," Boncore said. "The gas
tax is by no means a silver bullet, but it's part of a plan
to pay for the modernization of our system and make sure our
system is accessible and equitable and reliable."
Infighting between the two branches has at times torpedoed
momentum on legislation and bled over into successive
sessions. Straus said Tuesday, though, that he does not see
any lingering tension after the Senate stifled the House's
massive bill last time around.
"There are no bruises," Straus said. "This is a new session.
We're all skilled enough to be forward-looking, so I take it
as a positive when the Senate comes toward a position that
the House had adopted last session."
State House
News Service
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
House Dem’s Push for Transparency Attracts Mostly GOP
Support
House, Senate Must Now Settle Joint Rules
By Chris Van Buskirk and Sam Doran
House lawmakers spent over an hour locked in a tense debate
Wednesday afternoon on an unsuccessful transparency
amendment to the Legislature's 2021-2022 Joint Rules before
ultimately adopting a rules package to govern interactions
between the two branches that strips a few elements of the
Senate's proposed reforms.
The House approved a rules package on a 128-31 vote that
would keep a notice requirement for committee hearings at 72
hours, rather than the one week proposed by the Senate; make
public only the names of committee members who vote against
favorably reporting a bill, instead of providing a complete
accounting of how all members vote, as the Senate version
would; and remove Senate language which would have mandated
that committees share copies of public testimony when asked
by members of the public.
Most of the debate Wednesday centered on an amendment (8)
that would have made details of all committee votes public,
mandated a one-week notice for committee hearings, and made
public testimony on bills available to the public upon
request. The House rejected the amendment on a 36-122 vote
with nearly all Republicans and eight Democrats voting in
favor.
Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven, the amendment's lead sponsor, argued
that it promoted transparency and accountability within the
House. The Somerville Democrat said she wanted to "caution"
her colleagues that transparency would not "thwart
progressive legislation."
"Underlying that [argument] is saying that we have to do our
work behind closed doors and I don't believe that is the
case. And I believe that that is an unfortunate and
sometimes elitist argument to say that we cannot show our
votes to our constituents and to our voters," she said
during a floor speech. "We do not have a strong democracy by
voting behind closed doors, or being afraid of our voters
for voting us out of office."
Second Assistant Majority Leader Sarah Peake shot back at
Uyterhoeven, saying she would "try not to be insulted" by
her remarks and "not take what should be a policy argument
that somehow turned into an attack on members of this body
personally."
"They are not elitist arguments. They are shared experiences
from experienced and yes, effective legislators," Peake
said. "These are the arguments of people who come here every
day, to do their best, to work their hardest, who have years
of experience, who have rolled up their sleeves, and
actually gotten something done."
Peake and Rep. Marjorie Decker argued that committee votes
to advance bills in the legislative process are different
from floor votes to pass or enact a bill.
Part of Uyterhoeven's amendment would have required
committees to release any public testimony that "is readily
capable of being reproduced" upon request. The amendment
allowed committees to redact sensitive personal information.
Opponents to the amendment argued that flexibility is key to
managing a committee as well as negotiating potentially
controversial legislation. Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, a
co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, said committee staff
would face an increased burden if they had to post thousands
of pages of public testimony.
She said offices do not have "technical capacity to do
that," adding, "I've never known a chair to keep something
secret when the public asks for it."
Peake agreed.
"The burden to staff of posting every bit of testimony on
the website is expensive, burdensome, but most importantly,
unnecessary," she said. "We need to allow the chairmen to
continue to have flexibility for what public testimony they
release and what ... they will not release and redacting
names isn't going to be good enough."
Uyterhoeven's amendment closely mirrored language included
in the Senate's version of the joint rules -- requiring
committees to share public testimony upon request and
allowing them to redact sensitive information.
The amendment would have ensured that testimony is available
upon request, the Somerville Democrat said, while leaving
committees with "the discretion and ability to protect
constituents' testimonies in the event that it may harm
their health, wellness, or safety."
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, the chair of the House Ways and Means
Committee, voted against the amendment and said he received
backlash when his committee posted testimony online about
the policing reform bill last session after his panel opened
a public comment period on the topic rather than holding a
public hearing.
"Back in July, people were getting very angry with us that
we were posting their testimony. They didn't realize it was
going to be public," he told the News Service shortly after
the vote on the amendment. "It was kind of a lesson in terms
of some of the trappings that you can get into when you put
that much amount of public testimony out there."
Act on Mass, an advocacy organization which has been pushing
for changes including those in Uyterhoeven's amendment, said
the rejection vote "came as a disappointment." Uyterhoeven
is a co-founder of Act on Mass.
"It's shocking that many of the arguments against the
amendment blamed constituents for our lack of understanding
of how the State House functions when that's precisely what
we are asking for: to stop being shut out of the legislative
process," Act on Mass campaign manager Ryan Daulton wrote in
a statement. "This vote was a blatant signal that
representatives care more about power than their
constituents."
Mariano, in turn, appears to be seeking more transparency on
the way that groups like Act on Mass operate on Beacon Hill.
The House has pushed off debate of the House Rules --
normally done in tandem with the Joint Rules -- until as
late as July while a special study looks into how grassroots
and advocacy groups interact with lawmakers.
Wednesday's session was the first rules debate with Mariano
in the speaker's chair, and the first session of the new
legislative season where representatives substantively
debated and sorted through amendments to a bill.
A spokesman for the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a
conservative-leaning government watchdog group, said it was
the same old "tactics."
"[Mariano] may be new to the role of [s]peaker, but is
employing old tactics to keep the status quo in place and
prevent debate or scrutiny in the House," spokesman Paul
Diego Craney wrote. "...Rank and file lawmakers need to
decide what side of history they want to be on, the side of
transparency or at best, Mariano's pawn."
Debate ran around three hours Wednesday, including the hour
spent deliberating on Uyterhoeven's amendment.
The Senate now decides how to handle the House's changes --
whether to accept them, offer further amendments, or
initiate a conference process to work out a compromise,
mostly likely in private negotiations.
Both branches will meet in informal sessions Thursday at 11
a.m.
State House
News Service
Tuesday, February 23, 3031
Immigrant Licensing Bill Supporters Eye Floor Votes
Bill Cleared Committee, Then Stalled Last Session
By Chris Lisinski
Lawmakers who back a bill that would allow tens of thousands
of undocumented immigrants to acquire standard driver's
licenses are optimistic that the proposal's quiet failure
last session was a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and not a
sign of entrenched opposition.
Elected officials and activists rolled out a refiled version
of the bill
(HD
448 /
SD 273) on Tuesday, expressing hope that it can
succeed this time around after previously falling short.
The bill earned a favorable recommendation from the
Transportation Committee last year with a 14-4 vote along
party lines, but then it lingered in the Senate Ways and
Means Committee untouched until the session ended, even
though Senate President Karen Spilka of Ashland had already
voiced her support.
Lawmakers also withdrew efforts to attach similar language
to a budget bill before the matter came up for a vote.
Sen. Brendan Crighton, a Lynn Democrat and one of the bill's
lead sponsors, told reporters Tuesday that he believes the
pandemic and its disruptive effect on legislating scuttled
momentum last year.
"Our goal is to really continue to build support and get as
many cosponsors as possible," Crighton said. "I do attribute
lack of action last session to a capacity issue and not a
sign that either branch isn't open to debate on the bill
moving forward."
The refiled bill already has 61 cosponsors, organizers of
the launch event said Tuesday, including some of the
Legislature's newest members such as Sen. Adam Gomez of
Springfield.
If enacted, all Massachusetts residents could get licensed
regardless of immigration status. Undocumented immigrants
could only acquire standard driver's licenses and not REAL
ID-compliant versions.
Legislative leaders might need to line up enough votes to
override a potential veto from Gov. Charlie Baker if they
intend to pursue the bill this session. Baker has steadily
opposed the measure, saying last year that "the bar's pretty
high on this one."
"I've said for many years that I think it's really hard to
build the kind of safeguards into that kind of process that
would create the kind of security that would be hard to live
up to some of the federal and state standards with respect
to security and identification," Baker said in 2020. "And
for those reasons, I don't support that legislation."
Any consideration this session will play out under a new
House speaker following Ron Mariano's ascension in December.
Mariano has not taken a stance publicly on the bill.
Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, another one of the bill's
sponsors, said Tuesday that supporters have made "net gains
in our support" in the Legislature and that she is hopeful
the proposal is "poised to cross the finish line this
session."
"I find the new speaker to be a really practical guy, and he
wants to know where the votes are," Farley-Bouvier, a
Pittsfield Democrat, said. "We are going to be working
closely with Speaker Mariano to show him that there is
support across this commonwealth to pass this common-sense
legislation."
Sixteen other states, plus the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, make licenses available to all regardless of
immigration status, according to the coalition behind the
bill.
Supporters say the change would ensure that all drivers on
Massachusetts roads are properly educated and tested,
improving public safety, and would offer relief to
undocumented immigrants already in the state who fear
deportation or other enforcement while traveling to work,
school, medical appointments and more.
"Every time that I needed to drive, I could not stop
thinking about my kids and how their lives would be without
me," Katherine Lopez, a mother of two who has lived in the
United States for 19 years, said about the years before she
had a license. "When I left home every morning, I didn't
know if I was going to see them again because I knew if
police stopped me, they could call immigration, regardless
of my status, and I could be deported."
The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center estimated in 2020
that between 41,000 and 78,000 new drivers would likely
apply for licenses in the first three years after the bill's
passage. A spokesman for the organization said the number of
drivers who would be eligible is even larger.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic may have upended the
proposal's chances last year, backers believe the public
health crisis also underscores the need to make licenses
accessible to all because of the disproportionate risks that
people of color face.
"Without the ability to get a driver's license, the risk to
immigrants is substantially higher," said Phil Korman,
executive director of the Community Involved in Sustaining
Agriculture organization. "There's no easy access to getting
tested. Many of the testing sites require people to be in
cars. You can't maintain social distancing because you're
either on public transport or having a friend drive you who
has a license."
While Democrats hold super-majorities in both branches,
immigrant activists have been frustrated by a hesitancy
among Democrats to bring immigration-related bills up for
votes in the House and Senate.
Like the licenses bill, a proposal to limit the cooperation
between local police and federal immigration enforcement
authorities has failed to gain traction.
The Immigrant Rights Action Group (IRAG) of JP Progressives
plans to host a virtual event Tuesday at 7 p.m. to explore
one question: "How Blue is Massachusetts on Immigration?"
"Seeing the Biden administration's efforts to actively
reverse the damage of Trump's immigration policy is hopeful,
but what are our elected state officials doing to protect
undocumented residents in MA? When it comes to safeguarding
the health, safety, and legal rights of front-line immigrant
workers and families, including those hit hardest by the
pandemic, Massachusetts falls far behind many other blue
states," JP Progressives wrote.
State House
News Service
Friday, February 26, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Supply Side Vaxonomics
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
It's the supply, stupid.
Those weren't the exact words Gov. Charlie Baker used
Thursday, but as he got barraged with criticism from
Democratic lawmakers eager to show they were ready to stand
up to the Republican administration, it was a defense he
would return to again and again.
The new Joint Committee on COVID-19 and Emergency
Preparedness's vaccine oversight hearing was must-see
streaming on Beacon Hill, even with the governor trying to
offer his own counter-programming.
The state's vaccine rollout, and more specifically its
online appointment booking system, continued to be a source
of consternation this week. While the system didn't crash,
per se, the experience of fighting online with hundreds of
thousands of people for one of the 50,000 new appointments
left an anxious public unpacified.
The math just doesn't work, Baker told lawmakers who were
seeking answers, or someone to blame. When the feds give us
more doses, we'll vaccinate more people, he said.
However, the limited-supply argument only took the governor
so far as he testified for about an hour before the
committee, whose members felt that just putting shots in
people's arms wasn't a sufficient measure of success.
They weren't there to hear the governor recite statistics
about Massachusetts ranking tops in the country for first
doses administered among states with more than 5 million
residents, or that Bloomberg placed the state second for
first doses administered to Black residents. Though he did
do that.
"You're missing how broken the system is right now," said
Rep. William Driscoll, a Milton Democrat and co-chair of the
committee.
Residents -- their constituents - were tired and frustrated
of logging onto the state's vaccine website day-after-day,
week-after-week, only to find there are either no
appointments available or, as occurred Thursday, they were
in line behind 90,000 other people. There has to be a better
way, lawmakers said.
"Will you say sorry to the million of people...," said Sen.
Eric Lesser, in one of the most pointed lines of questioning
the governor faced all day.
"Of course, absolutely. Definitely. Yes, of course," Baker
said.
In the middle of this tense back and forth between Baker and
legislators, it leaked out that Baker was about to announce
that the state would allow fans to return to large venues
like Fenway Park in time for Opening Day.
He would use his 1 p.m. event in Salem as a reason to duck
out of the 11 a.m. oversight hearing, though he promised he
would come back in a few weeks when asked.
But at the Ledger Restaurant and Bar, Baker announced that
the reopening phase he first described back in May as the
"New Normal" was finally on the horizon.
Beginning March 22, Baker said the state would move into
Phase 4, meaning Fenway Park, Gillette Stadium and TD Garden
could reopen to spectators, although at a limited 12 percent
capacity. For baseball fans, that means about 4,500 people
will be able to watch the first pitch get thrown live on
April 1.
The push ahead into the next phase of economic activity also
means that gathering size limits on indoor and outdoor
events will increase to 100 and 150, respectively. So as
Massachusetts mourns the anniversary of the superspreader
Biogen conference this week, it can also look ahead to the
return, on a much smaller scale, of conferences ... and
weddings ... with dancing.
Even before that happens, the administration said beginning
Monday most businesses will see their capacity limits
increased to 50 percent. Concert halls and theaters will be
allowed to reopen at half capacity, capped at 500 people,
roller rinks and other indoor recreation facilities will be
back in business. And restaurants beginning will no longer
have a percent capacity limit and will be permitted to host
musical performances, with six-foot social distancing
enforced and limits of six people per table and 90-minute
seatings.
"We're almost there," Baker said. "We're going to continue
to move forward and if all goes according to plan and the
feds increase supply (of vaccine) we could be in a very
different position a couple, three months from now," Baker
said.
There was that supply issue again, and it could improve
soon. Pfizer and Moderna both told Congress that they
planned to significantly ramp up production in March, and
the FDA on Friday was considering Johnson & Johnson's
application for emergency use of its one-dose vaccine.
But in the meantime, Baker said vaccines are not required to
safely bring students back to school, and wants to see that
happen by April.
Education Commissioner Jeff Riley helped lay out the
administration's plan on Tuesday to bring elementary school
students back to the classroom full time by April.
About 80 percent of districts have brought students back at
least part-time, and the administration's position is that
the improved health conditions no longer justify waiting, at
least for younger students.
The administration's goal was a slam dunk. It was hard to
find anyone who didn't think children belong in a classroom
and would benefit socially and academically from a return to
in-person learning. The controversy remains about how to
make that happen.
"The state's plan to fully reopen most schools in the middle
of the COVID-19 pandemic shows callous disregard for the
health and safety of school employees, students and families
and rides roughshod over the rights and interests of local
communities," said Massachusetts Teachers Association
President Merrie Najimy.
And Najimy isn't alone in thinking teachers - who are in the
next group to be vaccinated -- deserve even greater
prioritization. House Speaker Ron Mariano amplified the
issue last weekend in a television interview when he said he
thought teachers should be moved "to the head of the line."
But this week, Mariano was all about pushing through a
package of legislative rules that stopped short of the
transparency-driven reforms passed by the Senate that would
make sure all committee votes are published online and
written testimony to committees be made public upon request.
Rules reformers, like freshman Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven, found
more support among her Republican colleagues than her fellow
Democrats for matching the Senate's proposal. But that's
actually not an unusual phenomenon when it comes to debating
the rules.
While the joint House-Senate rules sparked considerable
back-and-forth, there were no objections to calling off a
special election for mayor of Boston this year. The House
and Senate both enacted a necessary home rule petition to
make that happen should Walsh resign before next Friday, as
one of their own - Rep. Jon Santiago of the South End -
jumped into the race for mayor.
The new speaker also told House members that he would seek
to extend voting-by-mail through June while the House works
on making the option permanent in Massachusetts. An
extension of the voting-by-mail rules past March 31 would
ensure that all municipal elections planned for this spring
would be covered.
Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons, however,
said he is still waiting for Secretary of State William
Galvin to acknowledge GOP requests for a full review of the
2020 election and the strengths and vulnerabilities of the
mail-in voting system.
Regardless of how that debate unfolds, voters in the 19th
Suffolk District will choose before the end of next month
who should replace former Speaker Robert DeLeo and represent
them in the House.
That race got rocked this week by allegations of sexual
harassment against former DeLeo and Sen. Paul Feeney aide
Tino Capobianco, who quickly saw endorsements from Attorney
General Maura Healey, Joseph Kennedy III and even Feeney
disappear. Capobianco denied the thrust of the allegations,
reported by GBH, and apologized if he hurt anyone, but
voters will deliver the ultimate verdict in the primary on
Tuesday.
They may be at odds over voting, but Lyons and Galvin were
able to agree Friday, along with Democratic Party Chairman
Gus Bickford and BC Law School Dean Vincent Rougeau, to
offer Woburn City Clerk Bill Campbell the job of director of
the Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
Campbell will be the first new head of the campaign finance
agency in more than 25 years.
That's less than the maximum sentence for one count of bank
fraud, to which former Rep. David Nangle pleaded guilty to
four of this week as part of a plea agreement with departing
U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling.
All told, the Lowell Democrat pleaded guilty to 10 counts of
wire fraud, four counts of bank fraud, four counts of making
false statements to a bank and five counts of filing false
tax returns. Nangle's crimes involved using campaign funds
to pay for golf club memberships and his casino gambling
habits, as well as fraudulently securing loans by concealing
his debt and using that money to gamble.
Federal prosecutors did not make a recommendation of prison
time, but the 11-term legislator who lost reelection last
year while under indictment has a sentencing hearing set for
June 24.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Fifty thousand residents snatched up
vaccine appointments in a matter of hours on Thursday, and
lawmakers still told Gov. Baker it was a failure.
State House
News Service
Friday, February 26, 2021
Advances - Week of Feb. 28, 2021
Vaccine supplies are growing as is the number of
Massachusetts residents inoculated against COVID-19, but the
competition for doses, and all the anxiety and frustration
that entails, will continue across Massachusetts until
supplies begin to even come close to meeting demand.
One hopeful milestone along the path to herd immunity and
what Gov. Charlie Baker described as the "next normal" comes
next week when the number of state residents vaccinated is
on course to exceed the number of people confirmed to have
had the virus.
While the virus is still circulating widely and variants are
also a new threat, people are also finding hope in the fact
that data shows that Massachusetts is on the back side of
its second surge, more schools are welcoming students back
to in-person classes, and state health authorities believe
it's safe enough to open the economy further.
A new phase of reopening starting Monday means brighter
business prospects for restaurants and indoor performance
spaces and recreation venues, while capacity limits across
sectors will rise from 40 percent to 50 percent. On Friday,
a day after Baker announced his plans to ease rules, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle
Walensky pointed to virus data that appears to be stalling
at a high level nationally and warned that "we can't be in a
place where we're lifting restrictions right now."
Walensky also described the nation as "at the precipice of
having another vaccine in our toolboxes," saying the
single-shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine could be coming as
soon as next week.
-- STORYLINES IN PROGRESS ... A special election for mayor
of Boston is out of the question at this point because it's
not clear that Mayor Martin Walsh will even depart by
Thursday, March 5. Even if he does, Gov. Baker on Friday
signed a bill to nullify the required special in favor of
just holding the mayoral election on the regular fall
schedule ...
Voters in Winthrop and Revere head to the polls Tuesday,
with the winner of a special election Democratic primary set
to face a Republican and an independent in the race to
succeed former Speaker Robert DeLeo ...
Back on their own usual schedule, lawmakers on Tuesday open
up their public hearings on Baker's $45.6 billion fiscal
2022 budget, a rewrite of which will likely emerge from the
House Ways and Means Committee in April ...
The early session urgency on a major climate change and
emissions bill has dissipated. The bill (S 9) was rushed to
Baker's desk in late January and he sent it back with
amendments (S 13), which have remained for three weeks
before the Senate's Third Reading Committee chaired by Sen.
Sal DiDomenico ...
When is public testimony available to the public in this
virtual-only legislative world? That's among the questions,
as well as how transparent to be about committee votes, that
House and Senate leaders need to settle if they intend to
agree on a single set of joint rules for the 2021-2022
session ...
Leaders in both branches have signaled some readiness to
move early in the session on a bill to legalize sports
betting, but haven't indicated a timetable ...
The same is true for legislation extending vote-by-mail
options that are currently scheduled to expire in March but
are desired for the local elections this spring ...
There's some time sensitivity around other bills affecting
unemployment insurance rates, Chapter 90 local road and
bridge funding, paid emergency sick leave, and construction
of a new Holyoke Soldiers' Home, but legislative leaders
haven't indicated when they will tackle those ...
On the job front, Baker has the secretary of transportation
post to fill, a critical slot given the changing face of
transportation and the likelihood that lawmakers may want to
revisit some of the major and many issues they left
unsettled last session. Public Safety Secretary Tom Turco
pushed off his retirement to stay in his post but isn't
expected to remain there for the long term. At a time when
climate policy is front and center, the Baker
administration's undersecretary of climate post is open
following David Ismay's departure. And U.S. Attorney for
Massachusetts Andrew Lelling, a Trump appointee, is wrapping
up his tenure in that post Friday, and the Biden
administration has yet to tap its top regional prosecutor.
Monday, March 1, 2021
NEW REOPENING PHASE: While saying residents must continue to
wear masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and are
encouraged to avoid contact outside of their immediate
households, the Baker administration on Monday returns the
state to Step 2 of Phase III of the governor's reopening
plan. The following rules will be in play effective Monday:
-- Indoor performance venues such as concert halls,
theaters, and other indoor performance spaces will be
allowed to reopen at 50 percent capacity with no more than
500 people.
-- Indoor recreational activities with greater potential for
contact such as laser tag, roller skating, trampolines, and
obstacle courses will be allowed to reopen at 50 percent
capacity
-- Capacity limits across all sectors with capacity limits
will be raised to 50 percent, from 40 percent, excluding
employees.
-- Restaurants will no longer have a percent capacity limit
and will be permitted to host musical performances; six-foot
social distancing, limits of six people per table and
90-minute limits remain in place. |
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
|
