 |
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 8, 2021
One Year Later
Celebrating the one-year anniversary of
"Just two weeks to slow the spread and flatten the curve"
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Most Relevant News Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
Next Wednesday
marks one year of living under a state of emergency in
Massachusetts.
While dealing
with the disruption and heartbreak wrought by COVID-19
over that time, the state's taxpayers have
simultaneously been doing their part to keep the economy
moving and as a result have delivered hundreds of
millions of dollars in unbudgeted cash in the form of
over-benchmark tax collections.
And now, as
more people become vaccinated each day, Congress appears
poised to pass yet another COVID-19 relief/economic
stimulus bill, this one totaling $1.9 trillion, which
will add further economic fuel to states as they pursue
their new normals. The president's American Rescue Plan
Act contains $4.5 billion in aid for state government in
Massachusetts, a massive influx of money that will go a
long way toward funding relief and economic recovery
efforts and perhaps enable the state to limit the deep
raid on its savings account necessitated by the crisis.
There's a push on to get a bill signed into law by
mid-March....
March 10 marks
the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 state of
emergency declaration by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The governor
had been in Utah on vacation, but opted to return to
Massachusetts a couple days early as the situation here
worsened and the number of coronavirus cases climbed to
92, up from 41 a day prior. On the day he declared the
emergency, 70 of the cases were being linked by public
officials to a leadership meeting of Biogen employees in
Boston in late February. The additional cases, including
a handful in the Berkshires, had no known origin and
were treated as the first evidence of "community
spread."
Under the
first of many orders he would issue, executive branch
employees were restricted from traveling out of state
for work, and the administration encouraged employees to
postpone personal international travel. He also said
state workers should, if possible, work from home, and
asked private employers to follow suit whenever
possible. Then-House Speaker Robert DeLeo canceled
public events March 10 for the foreseeable future.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Advances - Week of March 7, 2021
A BLAST FROM THE PAST
— MARCH 10, 2020
With the
number of cases of coronavirus more than doubling from
the day before, Gov. Charlie Baker declared a state of
emergency Tuesday and imposed broad restrictions on
travel for many state employees as Massachusetts moved
into a new phase of its response to the global viral
outbreak.
Baker had been
in Utah on vacation since Friday night, but opted to
return to Massachusetts a couple days early as the
situation on the ground worsened and the number of
coronavirus cases climbed to 92, up from 41 just a day
before.
Seventy of
those cases, public officials said, were linked to a
leadership meeting of Biogen employees in Boston in late
February, but additional cases, including a handful in
the Berkshires, had no known origin and are being
treated as the first evidence of "community spread."
Baker's
declaration of a state of emergency puts Massachusetts
in the company of neighboring states like Connecticut,
New York and Rhode Island, where those state governors
have already taken a similar step.
The escalation
of the state's response came as a wide array of private
institutions began limiting large gatherings and
canceling conferences and non-essential travel, and the
city of Boston canceled its upcoming St. Patrick's Day
parade and the political breakfast on Sunday.
"There's no
question that the efforts to mitigate the spread of this
virus will be disruptive," Baker said, later adding, "I
want to be clear that state government will continue to
operate uninterrupted."...
At one point
during Tuesday's press conference, Baker referred to
"the Berkshire issue" as one of the reasons, along with
the increase to 92 total cases, that he "would have to
say the risk is increased." Previously, the governor and
other state officials had said the coronavirus risk in
Massachusetts was "low."
State House
News Service
March 10, 2020
With Emergency Declaration, Mass. Adopts
New Virus Strategy
Cases Stand at 91, Community Spread Has Begun
Tax
collections exceeded the Baker administration's
expectations by $372 million in February and surpassed
the total of collections in February 2020, a development
that positions the state to end this budget year having
collected more tax revenue than it did last year.
The Department
of Revenue said it collected $1.874 billion in taxes
last month, $359 million or 23.7 percent more than what
was collected in February 2020 and $372 million or 24.8
percent more than what the department had been
expecting.
Now eight
months through fiscal year 2021, Massachusetts state
government has collected $19.527 billion in taxes from
people and businesses, which is $1.123 billion or 6.1
percent more than it did during the same eight
pre-pandemic months of fiscal year 2020. The last month
Massachusetts saw a year-over-year decline in tax
collections was September....
All income tax
collections for February came in $231 million above
benchmark, sales and use taxes were $77 million over
benchmark, corporate and business taxes ended up $12
million above benchmark and the 'all other' category
finished the month $52 million ahead of expectations,
according to DOR.
Though
Massachusetts now has a cushion of more than $1.1
billion between this year's tax collections and those
from fiscal year 2020, DOR expects that figure to shrink
dramatically over the coming months -- but February's
collections put the state in position to end fiscal 2021
having collected more than it did in fiscal 2020.
In March, the
agency is projecting tax collections to be $2.413
billion, a decrease of $246 million from March 2020. In
April, DOR expects to collect $3.48 billion, about $1.5
billion more than in April 2020, when the tax filing
deadline was extended. May 2021 is expected to bring in
$1.893 billion or $155 million more than May 2020.
If collections
come in at exactly the DOR benchmarks from March through
May, the state would enter June having collected about
$2.531 billion more than it had collected to that point
of fiscal year 2020.
State House
News Service
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
February Tax Haul Shatters State’s
Expectations
Collections Rose $372 Million, or 24.8 Percent
Massachusetts
Department of Revenue (DOR) Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder
today announced that preliminary revenue collections for
February totaled $1.874 billion, which is $359 million
or 23.7% more than the actual collections in February
2020, and $372 million or 24.8% more than benchmark.
FY2021
year-to-date collections totaled approximately $19.527
billion, which is $1.123 billion or 6.1% more than
collections in the same period of FY2020.
Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
Department of Revenue
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
Press Release: February Revenue
Collections Total $1.874 Billion
Monthly collections up $359 million or 23.7% vs.
February 2020 actual; $372 million above benchmark
Kicking off
annual hearings on Gov. Charlie Baker's budget proposal
for next year, the top Senate Democrat on the
budget-writing committee told the administration that
lawmakers want to play a "highly constructive and
meaningful role" in determining how billions in
potential new federal stimulus funding gets spent.
"We need to
think carefully about how we responsibly and carefully
use these resources to best position the commonwealth
for long-term success," said Sen. Michael Rodrigues,
chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Rodrigues was
referring to the funding that could flow to
Massachusetts from President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion
COVID-19 relief bill that passed the House last week.
The state could receive $4.5 billion in aid under the
bill, which remains subject to change as it heads to the
Senate....
Administration
and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan said the
administration would work with legislators as new
federal relief funding became available, but would
prioritize reducing the proposed $1.6 billion withdrawal
from the state's "rainy day" fund.
State House
News Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Lawmakers Want Role in Allocating
Influx of Federal Funds
Senate
President Karen Spilka said Thursday she is not planning
on raising taxes this session but left open the
possibility of increases if the pandemic persists and
worsens.
The $45.6
billion budget Gov. Charlie Baker filed for fiscal year
2022 cuts overall state spending, does not include new
taxes on individuals, and House Speaker Ronald Mariano
said last month that taxes "are not on the table." Asked
on Bloomberg Baystate Business if she could make the
same statement Thursday, Spilka equivocated.
"I think that
that we'll have to see how the year progresses," she
said as she recounted the last year of Beacon Hill
budget management, which included a wait-and-see
approach on the state spending plan and use of the
state's rainy day fund, and talked about the potential
that another federal stimulus bill could be passed soon.
"At this
point, I am not planning on anything but I think we
could, we have to see what happens with COVID," she
said. "I am hoping with my fingers crossed that we're on
a downward slide, a downward trend, but you just don't
know what will happen....
In November,
when the Senate debated the fiscal year 2021 budget,
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sen. Michael Rodrigues
said his committee would not support tax amendments, but
said all signs indicated "a robust debate on revenue in
the new year, and I for one look forward to that."
Tax
collections over the first eight months of fiscal 2021
have beat expectations by nearly $2 billion and the
state could receive another $4.5 billion in aid under
the American Rescue Act moving through the Congress. In
addition, Spilka also did not mention a roughly $2
billion increase in income taxes on the wealthiest
Massachusetts households that could move to the November
2022 ballot if it receives a favorable vote at a
Constitutional Convention that she will oversee.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Like Mariano, Spilka Downplays
Outlook for New Taxes
Mariano and
Spilka do appear to be on the same page on taxes, with
neither eyeing tax hikes at the moment to cover state
spending. And why would they?
Though it
always comes with a heavy dose of caution, the
Department of Revenue reported this week that taxes
collected in February shattered expectations by $372
million. The state, which has twice upgraded its
estimate of collections this fiscal year, is now sitting
on a healthy cushion as it enters the home stretch of
the fiscal year with some of the biggest risk-reward
months for tax collections to come.
That bit of
good news arrived a couple of days after the House and
Senate Ways and Means Committee opened the budget
hearing season by inviting the administration and other
Constitutional officers to testify on Baker's restrained
$45.6 billion budget proposal for fiscal 2022.
The hearing
shed some light on several priorities that won't be able
to wait until a budget is finalized in June or July. One
is the question of how the state should approach taxing
Paycheck Protection Program loans that have been
forgiven by the federal government and other state
recovery grants going to small businesses.
The
administration estimates that up to $175 million in
state-level taxes are on the line, and there appears to
be support for exempting the grants to further help
small businesses. Insiders, however, said House and
Senate Democrats are leery of looking like they're
giving too much away to the business community, and are
searching for ways to package a tax fix and limits on
unemployment insurance hikes this month with new
benefits for workers.
State House
News Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Go to the Head of
the Class
Thousands of
small businesses have received hundreds of millions of
dollars in state recovery grants since December, helping
them to pay the rent and make payroll, but one top House
Democrat said Tuesday he's worried many of these
businesses owners might not know what's coming -- a tax
bill.
Rep. Aaron
Michlewitz, a Boston lawmaker and chair of the House
Ways and Means Committee, raised his concerns over the
tax status of the small business recovery grants at the
first annual budget hearing on Gov. Charlie Baker's
$45.6 billion spending plan for fiscal 2022.
"The
businesses in my district have been very thankful but I
don't think many people know there's going to be a tax
bill down the road," said Michlewitz, who represents
Boston's North End and parts of other neighborhoods,
home to many restaurants.
Administration
and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan told the Ways
and Means Committees that the governor's office is
involved in talks with state and federal lawmakers about
changing the laws to waive taxes on all state-issued
relief payments and some federal Paycheck Protection
Program grants.
The combined
taxes owed to Massachusetts on the state and federal
recovery grants total about $175 million, officials
said, and were not included in Baker's budget....
One thing that
could change the math on the state budget dramatically
is President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief
bill that passed the House last week. The state could
receive $4.5 billion in direct aid under the bill, which
remains subject to change as it heads to the Senate.
State House
News Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Tax Bills May Be Slapped on Small
Biz Recovery Grants
When a bill
filed by Gov. Charlie Baker to limit unemployment
insurance rate increases on employers in 2021 died on
the vine in the frenzied finish to the legislative
session in early January, it didn't seem like a big
deal.
Supportive
lawmakers and business groups said companies would
appreciate time to plan, but they noted that
unemployment insurance bills wouldn't come due for the
first quarter until April. There was plenty of time to
sort it out.
It's now
March, and time has just about run out.
"We've gotten
a lot of helpful feedback from the business community.
The bill is under active review right now. We're mindful
of the timeline here," Rep. Josh Cutler, the new House
chair of the Committee on Labor and Workforce
Development, told the News Service this week.
When his bill
from last session didn't make it across the finish line,
Baker filed a new version (H 55) that would limit the
per-employee increase in unemployment insurance in 2021.
That bill was referred straight to the House Ways and
Means Committee....
Without
action, employers are on track to see their rates
increase from an average of $539 per employee to $866,
an almost 60 percent increase. The governor's bill would
slow the growth in the rates to an average of $635 in
2021 and $665 per employee in 2022, according to AIM.
The latest
unemployment trust fund report from January forecast a
deficit of more than $4.7 billion by the end of the
year, with an estimated $4.82 billion in benefits to be
paid out against $2.45 billion employer contributions to
the system.
The fund ended
2020 almost $2.4 billion in the red, and the state
borrowed $2.2 billion from the federal unemployment
insurance account with a loan that will start accruing
interest on March 14....
Since the
start of the new session, the Legislature has
prioritized the quick repassage of a climate change bill
and a temporary extension of vote-by-mail authority, but
little has been said about whether unemployment
insurance rates should be allowed to go up.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Decision Time Nears on
Unemployment Insurance Rate Hikes
Lawmakers Weigh Rate Hike Size, Employer Assessment
Legislative
Democrats this session have been touting rules reforms
to boost transparency but they've also shown an early
aversion to holding public hearings on key bills before
passing them.
The omnibus
carbon emissions and energy bill (S 9) whisked to Gov.
Charlie Baker's desk on Jan. 28 passed without a hearing
that could have given people and interest groups an
opportunity to offer public feedback on Baker's
significant objections to the climate bill, or enabled
the 19 new members of the Legislature to have a say
publicly on a bill that died at the end of last session
after it was sprung at the eleventh hour out of a
private conference committee.
Boston's bill
(H 67) to erase the possibility of a special mayoral
election depending on the timing of Mayor Martin Walsh's
resignation? It was debated at City Hall so apparently
there was no need for a state-level virtual hearing on
it. The branches passed it on voice votes and Baker
signed it.
This week, the
House rubber-stamped an extension of vote-by-mail
options (H 73) until June 30. That bill also passed
without the benefit of a public hearing that might have
shed light on opinions about the historic voting reform.
And critical
legislation addressing imminent, skyrocketing
unemployment insurance rates has generated significant
debate in the legislative back-channels but lawmakers
still haven't teed up Baker's bill (H 55) for a hearing
and public feedback despite its time-sensitive nature.
Baker filed his bill Jan. 13.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Early On, Dems Opt to Move
Bills Without Public Hearings
Almost a month
after Gov. Charlie Baker returned sweeping climate
legislation to lawmakers with a series of recommended
amendments, House Speaker Ronald Mariano said he's
willing to work with the governor on some technical
changes but will "not back down on our ambitious
emissions reduction targets."
The bill --
which the House and Senate passed for the second time in
January after Baker rejected a version sent to him in
the final days of the last legislative session --
proposes to lock the state into its goal of achieving
net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, set interim emission
reduction targets, establish appliance energy efficiency
standards, authorize additional purchases of offshore
wind power and codify protections for environmental
justice communities, among other measures.
State House
News Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Mariano Expects Climate Bill
Won’t Change Much
The
Massachusetts Legislature has once again sent a
comprehensive climate bill to Gov. Charlie Baker, and
this time Baker has sent it back with a series of
amendments. While the two sides agree on the broad terms
of the bill, a major sticking point is an interim goal
on the road to net zero emissions by 2050. The bill
would mandate that emission levels reach 50 percent of
1990 levels by 2030. The Baker administration (and
current state policy) favors a 45 percent goal.
That
difference of 5 points almost seems like a rounding
error, but it has major implications for everyday
residents, especially for homeowners. Among other
measures, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Kathleen Theoharides says that extra 5 percentage points
would require the complete elimination of heating oil.
EEA estimates retrofitting oil-heated homes would cost
an additional $3 billion over 10 years. Meanwhile, under
either interim target scenario, tens of thousands of
homes need to convert from carbon-heavy fuels like oil
and gas to renewables like solar and wind.
Residents
broadly support a range of home heating policies that
could help ease that transition, even while many oil and
gas homeowners are satisfied with their current
set-up....
While
incentives, loans, and new requirements on utilities may
create an attractive environment to upgrade home heating
systems, at some point residents themselves must want to
make a change. But most residents are satisfied with the
heating set-up they already have. Among those who
currently heat their homes with gas, almost half (49
percent) say it is their preferred fuel source.
Similarly, a plurality of oil customers (41 percent)
would prefer to stick with oil. It’s worth noting that
many oil customers live in regions of the state where
oil is their only option....
There is no
doubt that converting tens of thousands of homes across
the state to renewable energy sources will be a
herculean task. But it is also one the state must
overcome if it is to meet the emissions standards it has
set for itself. The public is a willing partner, but
they need options and incentives to make their homes
more energy-efficient and the state’s net zero goals a
reality.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Saturday, March 6, 2021
Poll: Home energy upgrades could be
challenge
Many homeowners satisfied with existing heating systems
MORE ON CLIMATE BILL COSTS
The future of
transportation in Massachusetts is at a crossroads. As
the debate between Gov. Charlie Baker and state
lawmakers over the climate bill continues, one key issue
is whether the best way to lower emissions is to invest
in public transit or convert more cars on the road to
electric vehicles, or EVs.
The Baker
administration recently released a decarbonization
roadmap that seems to favor EVs. This was questioned by
some lawmakers and advocates who argue instead that a
substantial investment in public transit is crucial to
reducing emissions and relieving congestion.
But while both
sides battle it out on Beacon Hill, residents resist
such a stark choice and favor both the expansion of
public transit and conversion to EVs, according to a new
poll from the MassINC Polling Group....
In previous
polling conducted by the MassINC Polling Group about
potential uses of funds generated by the Transportation
and Climate Initiative favored by the Baker
administration, transit riders were particularly
enthusiastic about improving the existing system and
expanding transit to places that do not have it right
now. But all Massachusetts residents – indeed all
residents in every state in the region — ranked public
transit uses of TCI funds over EV uses like rebates and
charging stations....
Income-based
incentives address an important equity issue when it
comes to transit choices. While hybrid and electric
vehicles may save drivers money over the long-run, they
do tend to be more expensive up-front, creating a
barrier to entry. Part of Baker’s roadmap would mandate
that all new cars sold in Massachusetts be electric by
2035. Income-based incentives would be a “carrot” toward
that end.
In focus
groups, participants were also asked about a potential
“stick” – that is, a fee attached to the sale of new
gas-powered cars. The proposed fee found little support
in the group. Participants called it “regressive,”
positing that lower-income people who may only be able
to afford a gas car would be unfairly penalized.
Further,
driving may be the only option for some of these
residents, many of whom live outside public transit
service areas.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Friday, March 5, 2021
Poll shows support for both EVs, public
transit
It’s not an either/or choice for most voters
By Maeve Duggan
After the U.S.
Census Bureau pushed back by six months its delivery
date of population and redistricting data, Massachusetts
legislators will face a late-year scramble and a need to
change the due date for redrawing local voting
precincts, Secretary of State William Galvin said
Tuesday.
Flagging
"grave concerns" with the population count that ended
earlier than expected, Galvin told lawmakers that it
will be impossible to meet a late-summer statutory
deadline to craft the building blocks for redistricting
in the wake of the federal delay.
The Census
Bureau's announcement last month that states will
receive redistricting population data by Sept. 30,
rather than by the traditional March 31 deadline amid
COVID-19 impacts, upended the process to carve out
electoral lines. New precincts officially take effect at
the end of the year, so lawmakers tasked with developing
them will now have only a few months to do so.
Massachusetts
cities and towns are required by state law to map out
their precincts using the decennial population data,
with first drafts due in June and the final lines needed
by Aug. 25. The Legislature then uses those precincts as
the puzzle pieces to configure the boundaries of all 200
state legislative districts as well as congressional
districts, taking into account population shifts....
The Census
delay also creates another timeline crunch: the state
constitution -- which cannot be changed as easily as
state law -- requires that state representatives reside
in the district they seek to represent for one year
preceding the election. State senators only need to be a
Massachusetts resident for at least five years before
the election and a resident of the district on Election
Day.
If the
Legislature does not finish its work before Nov. 8, that
one-year threshold could render challengers or
incumbents who find themselves residing in a different
district after the lines are redrawn ineligible to run.
Former Gov.
Deval Patrick signed a bill outlining the most recent
round of new House and Senate districts on Nov. 3, 2011,
then approved congressional districts that shed a seat
about two weeks later....
Galvin said he
is worried that decision will lead to inaccuracies in
communities where populations are more difficult to
reach, and he said officials have not yet been given a
chance to "spot-check" the data.
"We have not
been afforded that opportunity yet, which is even less
understandable now that the Bureau has announced they're
not going to finish the numbers until September," Galvin
said....
"I have to
caution that I am in no way satisfied or comfortable
right now with the responses we've been getting, and I
remain concerned about the accuracy of the numbers as it
affects all of our cities and towns and particularly
those who are hard to count," Galvin said. "So I want to
make sure that we'll have the resources, should it be
necessary, to further litigate or do other activities to
make sure these numbers are both accurate and usable."
...
On Monday, the
House approved legislation (H 73) sponsored by House
Minority Leader Brad Jones keeping mail-in voting
authorization in place through June 30 so it can apply
to springtime municipal elections. Lawmakers are also
working on a permanent reform package.
Four
Republican lawmakers -- Sutton Sen. Ryan Fattman,
Norfolk Rep. Shawn Dooley, Billerica Rep. Marc Lombardo
and Southwick Rep. Nicholas Boldyga -- wrote to House
Speaker Ron Mariano on Tuesday calling for an in-depth
review of how voting by mail fared in 2020 before any
debate on an extension.
They said they
want information from Galvin and municipal clerks about
mail-in ballot applications returned as undeliverable
mail, securing ballot drop boxes, and timely sharing of
data.
"With several
COVID19 vaccines being distributed among vulnerable
populations and (herd) immunity coming further along, it
is possible the Massachusetts no-fault vote by mail
program will not be needed," they wrote. "Despite this,
if you insist that it is in your capacity as Speaker of
the House, this legislative committee owes it to the
voters of Massachusetts to find answers to these
important questions before taking another step forward."
...
Galvin told
the Legislature's budget-writers that his office is
faring well financially, posting "rather remarkable"
year-to-date revenues about $20 million higher than at
the same point last year despite COVID-19's impact. The
revenues include registry of deeds collections tied to
the robust real estate market.
"The registry
of deeds, we've had record recordings and high
revenues," he said.
State House
News Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Galvin Wants Resources For Possible
Census Challenge
Late-Year Redistricting Scramble in the Forecast
If you’re
keeping score at home, Gov. Charlie Baker lost another
battle on Wednesday in his long-running war with the
state’s teachers unions.
Baker for
months had resisted the call by the unions to speed up
the COVID-19 vaccination of their members. The governor
insisted schools were already safe and teachers could
wait their turn along with other essential workers, even
after he moved those 65 and older ahead of them in the
vaccination line.
But the
teacher unions kept at it. They didn’t want to be
perceived as jumping the line, so they initially argued
that Baker needed to give them more clarity about when
they would be vaccinated. But as Baker pressed schools
to resume in-person learning, the unions said the
vaccination of educators was needed to make that happen.
Baker
initially balked at that claim, saying existing safety
measures and a new pooled testing program were enough.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seemed
to be on his side.
But then the
political dominoes began to fall.
First, House
Speaker Ron Mariano jumped on the teachers union
bandwagon, followed by Senate President Karen Spilka,
and President Biden himself. They all argued vaccination
of educators was crucial to safely returning teachers
and kids to classrooms, and Biden backed that claim on
Tuesday by allowing teachers to sign up for vaccinations
at pharmacies participating in a federal distribution
program.
“The governor
has no excuses anymore,” Massachusetts Teachers
Association president Merrie Najimy told the Boston
Herald. “It’s time for Charlie Baker to get with the
program. Everybody else is on board. He can make it
happen and he can make it happen starting tomorrow.”
The governor
threw in the towel on Wednesday, saying he was allowing
teachers to start booking vaccination appointments on
March 11 to avoid confusion between state and federal
eligibility standards. “This is a huge victory for our
students, our school employees, and our entire school
community,” said Najimy.
It wasn’t the
first victory the unions have won over Baker....
CommonWealth
Magazine
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Teachers unions seem to have
Baker’s number |
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
In its "Advances
- Week of March 7, 2021" the State House News Service reminded us:
Next Wednesday marks one year of
living under a state of emergency in Massachusetts.
While dealing with the disruption
and heartbreak wrought by COVID-19 over that time, the
state's taxpayers have simultaneously been doing their
part to keep the economy moving and as a result have
delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in unbudgeted
cash in the form of over-benchmark tax collections.
And now, as more people become
vaccinated each day, Congress appears poised to pass yet
another COVID-19 relief/economic stimulus bill, this one
totaling $1.9 trillion, which will add further economic
fuel to states as they pursue their new normals. The
president's American Rescue Plan Act contains $4.5
billion in aid for state government in Massachusetts, a
massive influx of money that will go a long way toward
funding relief and economic recovery efforts and perhaps
enable the state to limit the deep raid on its savings
account necessitated by the crisis. There's a push on to
get a bill signed into law by mid-March....
March 10 marks the one-year
anniversary of the COVID-19 state of emergency
declaration by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The governor had been in Utah on
vacation, but opted to return to Massachusetts a couple
days early as the situation here worsened and the number
of coronavirus cases climbed to 92, up from 41 a day
prior. On the day he declared the emergency, 70 of the
cases were being linked by public officials to a
leadership meeting of Biogen employees in Boston in late
February. The additional cases, including a handful in
the Berkshires, had no known origin and were treated as
the first evidence of "community spread."
Under the first of many orders he
would issue, executive branch employees were restricted
from traveling out of state for work, and the
administration encouraged employees to postpone personal
international travel. He also said state workers should,
if possible, work from home, and asked private employers
to follow suit whenever possible. Then-House Speaker
Robert DeLeo canceled public events March 10 for the
foreseeable future.
If you want to take a trip down a
not so distant memory lane to just a year ago, when we were told
we needed to endure just two weeks of mask mandates and
lockdowns "to slow the spread and flatten the curve" to prevent
overwhelming hospitals, in the full news reports below see the
News Service report from last year, March 10, 2020 ("With
Emergency Declaration, Mass. Adopts New Virus Strategy; Cases
Stand at 91, Community Spread Has Begun"). This past year
seems more like a decade, or a bad dream we can't wake up from.
It's hard to believe even our concept of basic liberty itself
could be so upended in just one single year. With
this kind of passive acceptance and the momentum it's taken on,
I'm concerned with what will happen in the next few months,
never mind the next year. Will we even recognize then
where we are, how we got there, and why we so supinely allowed
it to happen to us?
What I find most amazing is how
little the economic lockdown, shuttered businesses, and high
unemployment over the past year have affected state revenues.
It defies logic.
The State
House News Service reported last Wednesday ("February Tax Haul
Shatters State’s Expectations; Collections Rose $372 Million, or
24.8 Percent")
Tax collections exceeded the Baker
administration's expectations by $372 million in February
and surpassed the total of collections in February 2020, a
development that positions the state to end this budget year
having collected more tax revenue than it did last year.
The Department of Revenue said it
collected $1.874 billion in taxes last month, $359 million
or 23.7 percent more than what was collected in February
2020 and $372 million or 24.8 percent more than what the
department had been expecting.
Now eight months through fiscal year
2021, Massachusetts state government has collected $19.527
billion in taxes from people and businesses, which is $1.123
billion or 6.1 percent more than it did during the same
eight pre-pandemic months of fiscal year 2020. The last
month Massachusetts saw a year-over-year decline in tax
collections was September....
All income tax collections for February
came in $231 million above benchmark, sales and use taxes
were $77 million over benchmark, corporate and business
taxes ended up $12 million above benchmark and the 'all
other' category finished the month $52 million ahead of
expectations, according to DOR.
Though Massachusetts now has a cushion
of more than $1.1 billion between this year's tax
collections and those from fiscal year 2020, DOR expects
that figure to shrink dramatically over the coming months --
but February's collections put the state in position to end
fiscal 2021 having collected more than it did in fiscal
2020.
In March, the agency is projecting tax
collections to be $2.413 billion, a decrease of $246 million
from March 2020. In April, DOR expects to collect $3.48
billion, about $1.5 billion more than in April 2020, when
the tax filing deadline was extended. May 2021 is expected
to bring in $1.893 billion or $155 million more than May
2020.
If collections come in at exactly the
DOR benchmarks from March through May, the state would enter
June having collected about $2.531 billion more than it had
collected to that point of fiscal year 2020.
The complete News Service
report, and the Department of Revenue press release, can
also be found in the full news reports below.
You may recall that new House
Speaker Ron Mariano
announced in
mid-February "Right now
taxes are not on the table. We have no intention of
raising taxes." With such a revenue windfall on the
state's books it's incomprehensible to think taxes should or
would be "on the table" — but this
is, after all, Massachusetts.
His "Right now" and "no intentions"
qualifiers bothered me then and still do.
On Friday the State House News
Service reported ("Like
Mariano, Spilka Downplays Outlook for New Taxes"):
Senate President Karen Spilka said
Thursday she is not planning on raising taxes this
session but left open the possibility of increases if
the pandemic persists and worsens.
The $45.6 billion budget Gov.
Charlie Baker filed for fiscal year 2022 cuts overall
state spending, does not include new taxes on
individuals, and House Speaker Ronald Mariano said last
month that taxes "are not on the table." Asked on
Bloomberg Baystate Business if she could make the same
statement Thursday, Spilka equivocated.
"I think that that we'll have to
see how the year progresses," she said as she recounted
the last year of Beacon Hill budget management, which
included a wait-and-see approach on the state spending
plan and use of the state's rainy day fund, and talked
about the potential that another federal stimulus bill
could be passed soon.
"At this point, I am not planning
on anything but I think we could, we have to see what
happens with COVID," she said. "I am hoping with my
fingers crossed that we're on a downward slide, a
downward trend, but you just don't know what will
happen....
In November, when the Senate
debated the fiscal year 2021 budget, Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Sen. Michael Rodrigues said his
committee would not support tax amendments, but said all
signs indicated "a robust debate on revenue in the new
year, and I for one look forward to that."
Tax collections over the first
eight months of fiscal 2021 have beat expectations by
nearly $2 billion and the state could receive another
$4.5 billion in aid under the American Rescue Act moving
through the Congress. In addition, Spilka also did not
mention a roughly $2 billion increase in income taxes on
the wealthiest Massachusetts households that could move
to the November 2022 ballot if it receives a favorable
vote at a Constitutional Convention that she will
oversee.
Senate President
Karen Spilka said she is not planning on raising taxes this
session but left open the possibility of increases if the
pandemic persists and worsens. . . . The $45.6 billion
budget Gov. Charlie Baker filed for fiscal year 2022 cuts
overall state spending, does not include new taxes on
individuals, and House Speaker Ronald Mariano said last
month that taxes "are not on the table." . . . Asked
... if she could make the same statement ... Spilka
equivocated. "I think that that we'll have to see how
the year progresses," she said.
Like House Speaker
Mariano, Senate President Spilka has guaranteed nothing and told
us even less about potential tax hikes. Can you tell
they're politicians?
In its report on Tuesday ("Lawmakers Want Role in Allocating
Influx of Federal Funds") the
State House News Service informed us:
Kicking off annual hearings on Gov.
Charlie Baker's budget proposal for next year, the top
Senate Democrat on the budget-writing committee told the
administration that lawmakers want to play a "highly
constructive and meaningful role" in determining how
billions in potential new federal stimulus funding gets
spent.
"We need to think carefully about how
we responsibly and carefully use these resources to best
position the commonwealth for long-term success," said Sen.
Michael Rodrigues, chair of the Senate Ways and Means
Committee.
Rodrigues was referring to the funding
that could flow to Massachusetts from President Joe Biden's
$1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill that passed the House
last week. The state could receive $4.5 billion in aid under
the bill, which remains subject to change as it heads to the
Senate....
Administration and Finance Secretary
Michael Heffernan said the administration would work with
legislators as new federal relief funding became available,
but would prioritize reducing the proposed $1.6 billion
withdrawal from the state's "rainy day" fund.
Apparently
unrestricted emergency executive powers end when it comes to
doling out billions of federal dollars. After a year
of abdicating all decisions to the Governor, the Legislature
has found a role for itself in the pandemic response by
asserting itself into the spending plans.
Proving there's no
such thing as free money (certainly not without government
taking a bite out of it), small businesses across the state
barely clinging on to life are about to be hammered again.
Little if at all noticed in the fine print of the
federal Paycheck Protection Program grants and some state
relief payments to them is the fact that this money is taxable,
and the tax is coming due.
The State House News Service reported on Tuesday ("Tax Bills
May Be Slapped on Small Biz Recovery Grants"):
Thousands of small businesses have
received hundreds of millions of dollars in state recovery
grants since December, helping them to pay the rent and make
payroll, but one top House Democrat said Tuesday he's
worried many of these businesses owners might not know
what's coming -- a tax bill.
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, a Boston
lawmaker and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee,
raised his concerns over the tax status of the small
business recovery grants at the first annual budget hearing
on Gov. Charlie Baker's $45.6 billion spending plan for
fiscal 2022.
"The businesses in my district have
been very thankful but I don't think many people know
there's going to be a tax bill down the road," said
Michlewitz, who represents Boston's North End and parts of
other neighborhoods, home to many restaurants.
Administration and Finance Secretary
Michael Heffernan told the Ways and Means Committees that
the governor's office is involved in talks with state and
federal lawmakers about changing the laws to waive taxes on
all state-issued relief payments and some federal Paycheck
Protection Program grants.
The combined taxes owed to
Massachusetts on the state and federal recovery grants total
about $175 million, officials said, and were not included in
Baker's budget....
One thing that could change the math on
the state budget dramatically is President Joe Biden's $1.9
trillion COVID-19 relief bill that passed the House last
week. The state could receive $4.5 billion in direct aid
under the bill, which remains subject to change as it heads
to the Senate.
And it only gets
worse for those small businesses forced to shut down by the
government that forced those shutdowns and lay-offs of many
if not all of their employees. The State House News
Service reported on Thursday ("Decision Time Nears on
Unemployment Insurance Rate Hikes; Lawmakers Weigh Rate Hike
Size, Employer Assessment")
When a bill filed by Gov. Charlie Baker
to limit unemployment insurance rate increases on employers
in 2021 died on the vine in the frenzied finish to the
legislative session in early January, it didn't seem like a
big deal.
Supportive lawmakers and business
groups said companies would appreciate time to plan, but
they noted that unemployment insurance bills wouldn't come
due for the first quarter until April. There was plenty of
time to sort it out.
It's now March, and time has just about
run out....
Without action, employers are on track
to see their rates increase from an average of $539 per
employee to $866, an almost 60 percent increase. The
governor's bill would slow the growth in the rates to an
average of $635 in 2021 and $665 per employee in 2022,
according to AIM.
The latest unemployment trust fund
report from January forecast a deficit of more than $4.7
billion by the end of the year, with an estimated $4.82
billion in benefits to be paid out against $2.45 billion
employer contributions to the system.
The fund ended 2020 almost $2.4 billion
in the red, and the state borrowed $2.2 billion from the
federal unemployment insurance account with a loan that will
start accruing interest on March 14....
Since the start of the new session, the
Legislature has prioritized the quick repassage of a climate
change bill and a temporary extension of vote-by-mail
authority, but little has been said about whether
unemployment insurance rates should be allowed to go up.
It would appear that
if the mandatory Baker shutdown of the economy for most of the
past year didn't kill them, taxes on government bailouts of its
own draconian edicts will. I don't know how all those
small business people can wake up in the morning and go on, and
sure can understand why so many have thrown in the towel to
never reopen.
Maybe the Legislature
will get around to forgiving the additional burden of taxes,
considering the state revenue windfall despite the state-imposed
economic lockdown. Hopefully legislators will sate
themselves on distractions like climate change posturing and
vote-by-mail schemes in time to save a few struggling businesses
in the Commonwealth before they all go down for the count.
Majority Democrats in
the State House are following Majority Democrats in Washington
with eliminating public hearings on proposed bills altogether.
Taking U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lead doing away with
committee hearings, public input and that of members of the
rival party. The News Service reported on Thursday ("Early
On, Dems Opt to Move Bills Without Public Hearings"):
Legislative Democrats this session
have been touting rules reforms to boost transparency
but they've also shown an early aversion to holding
public hearings on key bills before passing them.
The omnibus carbon emissions and
energy bill (S 9) whisked to Gov. Charlie Baker's desk
on Jan. 28 passed without a hearing that could have
given people and interest groups an opportunity to offer
public feedback on Baker's significant objections to the
climate bill, or enabled the 19 new members of the
Legislature to have a say publicly on a bill that died
at the end of last session after it was sprung at the
eleventh hour out of a private conference committee.
Boston's bill (H 67) to erase the
possibility of a special mayoral election depending on
the timing of Mayor Martin Walsh's resignation? It was
debated at City Hall so apparently there was no need for
a state-level virtual hearing on it. The branches passed
it on voice votes and Baker signed it.
This week, the House rubber-stamped
an extension of vote-by-mail options (H 73) until June
30. That bill also passed without the benefit of a
public hearing that might have shed light on opinions
about the historic voting reform.
And critical legislation addressing
imminent, skyrocketing unemployment insurance rates has
generated significant debate in the legislative
back-channels but lawmakers still haven't teed up
Baker's bill (H 55) for a hearing and public feedback
despite its time-sensitive nature. Baker filed his bill
Jan. 13.
Following the longtime
Democrat axiom "Never let a good crisis go to waste," alleged
representative government and the constitutional right to
petition for redress of grievances (First Amendment in the U.S.
Constitution) are being subsumed by a drive to get desired
things done without interference or impediment, under the guise
of emergency, or hubris, or something.
It was hard enough
opposing with the hope of stopping bad legislation even when the
Legislature went through the motions as expected. Trying
to have input on legislation within this climate of legislative
isolationism will be near impossible.
"Of the people, by the
people, for the people" apparently has been cancelled both in
Washington and on Beacon Hill.
A report by the News
Service on Thursday ("Mariano
Expects Climate Bill Won’t Change Much") asserts that the
Legislature intends to move ahead with its climate change bill
regardless of obstacles:
Almost a month after Gov. Charlie
Baker returned sweeping climate legislation to lawmakers
with a series of recommended amendments, House Speaker
Ronald Mariano said he's willing to work with the
governor on some technical changes but will "not back
down on our ambitious emissions reduction targets."
The bill -- which the House and
Senate passed for the second time in January after Baker
rejected a version sent to him in the final days of the
last legislative session -- proposes to lock the state
into its goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, set interim emission reduction targets, establish
appliance energy efficiency standards, authorize
additional purchases of offshore wind power and codify
protections for environmental justice communities, among
other measures.
Note the phrase
"establish appliance energy efficiency standards."
That's but the tip of the iceberg.
CommonWealth Magazine
reported on Saturday ("Poll:
Home energy upgrades could be challenge; Many homeowners
satisfied with existing heating systems"):
The Massachusetts Legislature has
once again sent a comprehensive climate bill to Gov.
Charlie Baker, and this time Baker has sent it back with
a series of amendments. While the two sides agree on the
broad terms of the bill, a major sticking point is an
interim goal on the road to net zero emissions by 2050.
The bill would mandate that emission levels reach 50
percent of 1990 levels by 2030. The Baker administration
(and current state policy) favors a 45 percent goal.
That difference of 5 points almost
seems like a rounding error, but it has major
implications for everyday residents, especially for
homeowners. Among other measures, Secretary of Energy
and Environmental Affairs Kathleen Theoharides says that
extra 5 percentage points would require the complete
elimination of heating oil. EEA estimates retrofitting
oil-heated homes would cost an additional $3 billion
over 10 years. Meanwhile, under either interim target
scenario, tens of thousands of homes need to convert
from carbon-heavy fuels like oil and gas to renewables
like solar and wind.
Residents broadly support a range
of home heating policies that could help ease that
transition, even while many oil and gas homeowners are
satisfied with their current set-up....
While incentives, loans, and new
requirements on utilities may create an attractive
environment to upgrade home heating systems, at some
point residents themselves must want to make a change.
But most residents are satisfied with the heating set-up
they already have. Among those who currently heat their
homes with gas, almost half (49 percent) say it is their
preferred fuel source. Similarly, a plurality of oil
customers (41 percent) would prefer to stick with oil.
It’s worth noting that many oil customers live in
regions of the state where oil is their only option....
There is no doubt that converting
tens of thousands of homes across the state to renewable
energy sources will be a herculean task. But it is also
one the state must overcome if it is to meet the
emissions standards it has set for itself. The public is
a willing partner, but they need options and incentives
to make their homes more energy-efficient and the
state’s net zero goals a reality.
Then there are the
mandatory battery-powered cars of the not-to-distant future.
On Friday CommonWealth Magazine reported ("Poll shows
support for both EVs, public transit; It’s not an either/or
choice for most voters")
The future of transportation in
Massachusetts is at a crossroads. As the debate between
Gov. Charlie Baker and state lawmakers over the climate
bill continues, one key issue is whether the best way to
lower emissions is to invest in public transit or
convert more cars on the road to electric vehicles, or
EVs.
The Baker administration recently
released a decarbonization roadmap that seems to favor
EVs. This was questioned by some lawmakers and advocates
who argue instead that a substantial investment in
public transit is crucial to reducing emissions and
relieving congestion.
But while both sides battle it out
on Beacon Hill, residents resist such a stark choice and
favor both the expansion of public transit and
conversion to EVs, according to a new poll from the
MassINC Polling Group....
In previous polling conducted by
the MassINC Polling Group about potential uses of funds
generated by the Transportation and Climate Initiative
favored by the Baker administration, transit riders were
particularly enthusiastic about improving the existing
system and expanding transit to places that do not have
it right now. But all Massachusetts residents – indeed
all residents in every state in the region — ranked
public transit uses of TCI funds over EV uses like
rebates and charging stations....
Income-based incentives address an
important equity issue when it comes to transit choices.
While hybrid and electric vehicles may save drivers
money over the long-run, they do tend to be more
expensive up-front, creating a barrier to entry. Part of
Baker’s roadmap would mandate that all new cars sold in
Massachusetts be electric by 2035. Income-based
incentives would be a “carrot” toward that end.
In focus groups, participants were
also asked about a potential “stick” – that is, a fee
attached to the sale of new gas-powered cars. The
proposed fee found little support in the group.
Participants called it “regressive,” positing that
lower-income people who may only be able to afford a gas
car would be unfairly penalized.
Further, driving may be the only
option for some of these residents, many of whom live
outside public transit service areas.
To read more or this report click here
I want to know more
about those polls — especially
who was chosen to participate in them. It's as if
everyone has now been groomed and cultured to accept huge higher
costs for everything in life. If this is true I ask,
what's wrong with them?
The poll did find opposition to a fee charged to buy a
gas-powered car so maybe there's still some hope, when higher
costs affect their own buying decisions.
I've included a couple
other reports I found interesting that you might as well, and
will let them speak for themselves:
State House News Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Galvin Wants Resources For Possible Census
Challenge
Late-Year Redistricting Scramble in the Forecast
CommonWealth Magazine
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Teachers unions seem to have
Baker’s number
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
Full News Reports Follow
(excerpted above) |
|
State House
News Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Advances - Week of March 7, 2021
Next Wednesday marks one year of living under a state of
emergency in Massachusetts.
While dealing with the disruption and heartbreak wrought by
COVID-19 over that time, the state's taxpayers have
simultaneously been doing their part to keep the economy
moving and as a result have delivered hundreds of millions
of dollars in unbudgeted cash in the form of over-benchmark
tax collections.
And now, as more people become vaccinated each day, Congress
appears poised to pass yet another COVID-19 relief/economic
stimulus bill, this one totaling $1.9 trillion, which will
add further economic fuel to states as they pursue their new
normals. The president's American Rescue Plan Act contains
$4.5 billion in aid for state government in Massachusetts, a
massive influx of money that will go a long way toward
funding relief and economic recovery efforts and perhaps
enable the state to limit the deep raid on its savings
account necessitated by the crisis. There's a push on to get
a bill signed into law by mid-March.
And there could be even more aid coming from Washington as
President Joe Biden tries to steer Congress toward passing a
massive infrastructure bill that could have major
ramifications here given the level of need. White House
press secretary Jen Psaki this week called an infrastructure
bill "imperative and long overdue."
On Beacon Hill, the House and Senate next week are focused
on extending voting reforms to cover the spring's municipal
elections, accepting testimony on an annual local road and
bridge repair funding bill, and advancing, in the House at
least, legislation to safeguard children from abuse and
neglect....
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
STATE OF EMERGENCY ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY: March 10 marks the
one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 state of emergency
declaration by Gov. Charlie Baker.
The governor had been in Utah on vacation, but opted to
return to Massachusetts a couple days early as the situation
here worsened and the number of coronavirus cases climbed to
92, up from 41 a day prior.
On the day he declared the emergency, 70 of the cases were
being linked by public officials to a leadership meeting of
Biogen employees in Boston in late February. The additional
cases, including a handful in the Berkshires, had no known
origin and were treated as the first evidence of "community
spread."
Under the first of many orders he would issue, executive
branch employees were restricted from traveling out of state
for work, and the administration encouraged employees to
postpone personal international travel. He also said state
workers should, if possible, work from home, and asked
private employers to follow suit whenever possible.
Then-House Speaker Robert DeLeo canceled public events March
10 for the foreseeable future.
State House News
Service
March 10, 2020
With Emergency Declaration, Mass. Adopts New Virus Strategy
Cases Stand at 91, Community Spread Has Begun
By Matt Murphy and Colin A. Young
With the number of cases of coronavirus more than doubling from
the day before, Gov. Charlie Baker declared a state of emergency
Tuesday and imposed broad restrictions on travel for many state
employees as Massachusetts moved into a new phase of its
response to the global viral outbreak.
Baker had been in Utah on vacation since Friday night, but opted
to return to Massachusetts a couple days early as the situation
on the ground worsened and the number of coronavirus cases
climbed to 92, up from 41 just a day before.
Seventy of those cases, public officials said, were linked to a
leadership meeting of Biogen employees in Boston in late
February, but additional cases, including a handful in the
Berkshires, had no known origin and are being treated as the
first evidence of "community spread."
Baker's declaration of a state of emergency puts Massachusetts
in the company of neighboring states like Connecticut, New York
and Rhode Island, where those state governors have already taken
a similar step.
The escalation of the state's response came as a wide array of
private institutions began limiting large gatherings and
canceling conferences and non-essential travel, and the city of
Boston canceled its upcoming St. Patrick's Day parade and the
political breakfast on Sunday.
"There's no question that the efforts to mitigate the spread of
this virus will be disruptive," Baker said, later adding, "I
want to be clear that state government will continue to operate
uninterrupted."
Baker said the declaration would give his administration more
"flexibility" to respond to the outbreak, including ordering the
cancellation of large events or accessing buildings to store
protective equipment for first responders.
Under his order, executive branch employees will be restricted
from traveling out of state for work, and the administration is
encouraging employees to postpone personal international travel.
He also said state workers should, if possible, work from home,
and asked private employers to follow suit whenever possible.
The restrictions will be revisited in 30 days, or sooner if the
situation allows, Baker said.
"We are at a critical point in this outbreak. We're making
specific recommendations that will have a big impact on limiting
the spread of disease in our communities. These measures are
based on the evidence and facts that we know about this disease
and in consultation with the CDC," said Department of Public
Health Commissioner Monica Bharel. "We will need everybody's
cooperation and assistance. We understand that these actions may
have a significant impact on the lives of our residents."
Baker said he was advising older residents and those with
underlying health issues to avoid large crowds, including
concert venues, conferences and sporting events, though he said
he was not prepared to ask schools or professional leagues to
cancel their events. He said there was still time for the Boston
Athletic Association to make a call on the marathon in April.
"We think large gatherings are probably not a great idea," Baker
said.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Marylou Sudders said
there were 51 new presumptive positives cases to report Tuesday.
About three-quarters of the total cases -- 70 of the 92 -- have
connections to the Biogen conference in Boston last month which
has been linked to dozens of infections, Sudders said, and four
were directly related to international travel. The remaining 18
cases are "under investigation because they're newly reported,"
she said.
Fifty-two of the patients are men and 40 are women. Six of the
patients are hospitalized.
Middlesex County has the greatest number of presumptive cases,
41, followed by 22 in Norfolk County, 20 in Suffolk County,
seven in Berkshire County, and one each in Essex and Worcester
counties.
The seven cases in Berkshire County seem to be most concerning
to state public health officials because they cannot link all of
those cases to recent international travel or to isolated and
known chains of transmission.
"Here in Massachusetts, person to person transmission of the
virus in the community is beginning to occur among individuals
without identifiable risk factors," Bharel said. "As community
transmission of COVID-19 becomes more common, the public health
approach shifts to one of mitigation and that is reducing the
impact."
At one point during Tuesday's press conference, Baker referred
to "the Berkshire issue" as one of the reasons, along with the
increase to 92 total cases, that he "would have to say the risk
is increased." Previously, the governor and other state
officials had said the coronavirus risk in Massachusetts was
"low."
Bharel said DPH is assisting local officials in the Berkshires
by facilitating the surveillance and testing of health care
workers and patients and is in contact multiple times a day with
the local authorities. DPH has also dispatched a public health
expert to be on the ground in the Berkshires to assist.
The public health commissioner also announced Tuesday that the
state's request last week for personal protective gear from the
stash maintained by the Strategic National Stockpile had been
granted.
She said DPH specifically asked for stores of face masks, gowns,
gloves and eye protection from the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, and the gear is expected to arrive "shortly."
Some of it will be immediately sent to Berkshire County.
Health care providers currently have enough equipment, but the
stockpile delivery will be needed to meet expected demand,
Bharel said. She said the lab was running 24 hours a day and had
"adequate supplies and adequate staffing" to meet demand at this
time. The current turnaround time for tests is 24 to 48 hours,
and the state just received another 2,000 testing kits.
The commissioner also said Massachusetts received a key approval
to automate part of the coronavirus testing protocol that will
increase the State Laboratory's capacity to test patients from
50 per day to 200. Bharel said the state has tested roughly 400
people since it began testing a little more than two weeks ago.
Sudders said DPH on Wednesday also will update the guidance it
issued to nursing homes on Feb. 27 and will then hold a call
with nursing and rest home operators to discuss the details
before it is implemented statewide.
"Specifically, nursing homes will be directed to actively screen
and restrict access to visitors to ensure the safety and health
of residents and staff. No visitor access for anyone who
displays signs or symptoms of a respiratory infection, such as
fever, cough, shortness of breath or sore throat, or in the last
14 days has had contact with someone with a confirmed diagnosis
of COVID-19 or is an individual who is under active
investigation for COVID-19," the secretary said.
She added, "We will also be asking rest home operators and
nursing homes to confirm that their employees are not sick,
they've not had travel, they've not had close proximity to sick
persons, to a sick person with under investigation for COVID-19
for 14 days."
People who have traveled outside the United States in the last
14 days or who live "in a community where community-based spread
of COVID-19 is occurring" will also be barred from visiting
nursing homes, Sudders said. Exceptions will be made for people
in end-of-life or hospice care, she said.
To give local school districts the flexibility to make decisions
about temporary coronavirus-related closures, Baker said the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is going to
give school systems "relief from attendance and school year
requirements."
He said no school will be required to stay in session for the
school year beyond its scheduled 185th day of classes and that
DESE will calculate chronic absenteeism at schools -- part of
the state's usual accountability measures -- as of Monday, March
2 so as to not count absences for the remainder of the year
against a school.
Baker thanked the Legislature for its commitment to pass a $15
million coronavirus aid bill next week, and said he anticipated
that a large portion of the money would be directed into
communities for first responders. A Senate official said the
funding bill will be flexible for the adminsitration and DPH to
use as it sees fit.
Harvard University and Amherst College were among a number of
higher education institutions that said Tuesday they were
canceling class for the rest of the semester and transitioning
to online learning for students to finish their course work.
But when asked if the University of Massachusetts or other state
universities and community colleges should take similar
precautions, Baker said that was the subject of ongoing
discussions on the campuses.
"That's obviously very disruptive," Baker said.
Some of what the administration was recommending was already
being adopted in the private sector.
The Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce announced within about 15
minutes of the governor's press conference Tuesday that
"effective immediately through Friday, May 1, 2020, in-person
Chamber programs and events will be rescheduled, include a
virtual option, or be only virtual."
Massachusetts High Technology Council President Chris Anderson
said he has spent the past several days seeking guidance from
member companies about what they're doing to protect the health
and safety of employees.
Anderson said, in an email, that consistent with the input he
received the council will postpone all events expected to
attract 25 or more attendees through April, including its March
26 Women in Leadership Initiative Roundtable and the council's
inaugural MATTERS Growth and Competitiveness Conference on April
7.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party said that based on the
afternoon updates from public health officials it was
temporarily postponing party caucuses, which have been taking
place on weekends to elect delegates to the Democratic Party
Convention in Lowell in May and have been an early battleground
for the Ed Markey and Joseph Kennedy III Senate campaigns.
State House News
Service
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
February Tax Haul Shatters State’s Expectations
Collections Rose $372 Million, or 24.8 Percent
By Colin A. Young
Tax collections exceeded the Baker administration's expectations
by $372 million in February and surpassed the total of
collections in February 2020, a development that positions the
state to end this budget year having collected more tax revenue
than it did last year.
The Department of Revenue said it collected $1.874 billion in
taxes last month, $359 million or 23.7 percent more than what
was collected in February 2020 and $372 million or 24.8 percent
more than what the department had been expecting.
Now eight months through fiscal year 2021, Massachusetts state
government has collected $19.527 billion in taxes from people
and businesses, which is $1.123 billion or 6.1 percent more than
it did during the same eight pre-pandemic months of fiscal year
2020. The last month Massachusetts saw a year-over-year decline
in tax collections was September.
February is the least significant month for state tax revenue,
typically generating less than 6 percent of annual receipts, DOR
said. But it is also "the month in which refunds begin to
accumulate as the tax filing season begins," the agency said.
Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder cautioned Wednesday that
refunds will soon become a greater factor.
"February's revenue figures were significantly impacted by a
timing-related decline in income tax refunds as the electronic
system for taxpayers filing 2020 income tax returns opened on
February 12, 2021, which is about two weeks later than last
year's start date of January 27th, 2020," Snyder said. "These
figures should be viewed with caution and as the filing season
progresses, we expect income tax refunds to catch up with last
year."
All income tax collections for February came in $231 million
above benchmark, sales and use taxes were $77 million over
benchmark, corporate and business taxes ended up $12 million
above benchmark and the 'all other' category finished the month
$52 million ahead of expectations, according to DOR.
Though Massachusetts now has a cushion of more than $1.1 billion
between this year's tax collections and those from fiscal year
2020, DOR expects that figure to shrink dramatically over the
coming months -- but February's collections put the state in
position to end fiscal 2021 having collected more than it did in
fiscal 2020.
In March, the agency is projecting tax collections to be $2.413
billion, a decrease of $246 million from March 2020. In April,
DOR expects to collect $3.48 billion, about $1.5 billion more
than in April 2020, when the tax filing deadline was extended.
May 2021 is expected to bring in $1.893 billion or $155 million
more than May 2020.
If collections come in at exactly the DOR benchmarks from March
through May, the state would enter June having collected about
$2.531 billion more than it had collected to that point of
fiscal year 2020.
DOR expects to collect about $2.249 billion less this June than
it did last June, meaning the month (and therefore the fiscal
year) would end with DOR having taken in about $282 million more
than it did through all of fiscal year 2020.
Commonwealth of
Massachusetts
Department of Revenue
Wednesday, March 3, 2021
Press Release
February Revenue Collections Total $1.874 Billion
Monthly collections up $359 million or 23.7% vs. February 2020
actual; $372 million above benchmark
Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) Commissioner Geoffrey
Snyder today announced that preliminary revenue collections for
February totaled $1.874 billion, which is $359 million or 23.7%
more than the actual collections in February 2020, and $372
million or 24.8% more than benchmark. (*1)
FY2021 year-to-date collections totaled approximately $19.527
billion, which is $1.123 billion or 6.1% more than collections
in the same period of FY2020.
“February’s revenue figures were significantly impacted by a
timing-related decline in income tax refunds as the electronic
system for taxpayers filing 2020 income tax returns opened on
February 12, 2021, which is about two weeks later than last
year’s start date of January 27th, 2020. These figures should be
viewed with caution and as the filing season progresses, we
expect income tax refunds to catch up with last year,” said
Commissioner Snyder.
February has historically been the smallest net tax collection
month of the fiscal year, contributing less than 6% of annual
collections. There are no estimated payments due and sales tax
collections are relatively low in the post-holiday period. In
general, February is also the month in which refunds begin to
accumulate as the tax filing season begins.
Preliminary February Revenue Collections
• Income tax collections for February were $1.062 billion, $231
million or 27.7% above benchmark, and $345 million or 48.0% more
than February 2020. Due to the late start of this year’s filing
season, refund payments are significantly below the benchmark
and the prior year.
• Withholding tax collections for February totaled $1.316
billion, $73 million or 5.3% below benchmark, but $100 million
or 8.2% more than February 2020.
• Income tax estimated payments totaled $19 million for
February, $5 million or 38.9% more than benchmark, and $5
million or 34.7% more than February 2020.
• Income returns and bills totaled $57 million for February, $30
million or 106.7% more than benchmark, and $10 million or 22.0%
more than February 2020.
• Income cash refunds in February totaled $331 million in
outflows, $269 million or 44.9% less than benchmark, and $229
million or 40.9% less than February 2020. The decline in refunds
relative to the benchmark and the prior year is due to the late
start of this year’s filing season.
• Sales and use tax collections for February totaled $564
million, $77 million or 15.9% above benchmark, and $21 million
or 4.0% more than February 2020.
• Meals tax collections, a sub-set of sales and use tax, totaled
$65 million, $13 million or 25.0% above benchmark, but $25
million or 27.7% less than February 2020.
• Corporate and business tax collections for the month totaled
$38 million, $12 million or 47.3% above benchmark, and $17
million or 78.7% more than February 2020.
• Other tax collections for February totaled $211 million, $52
million or 32.8% above benchmark, but $24 million or 10.1% less
than February 2020.
February 2021 Tax Collections Summary (in $ millions)
Preliminary as of March 3, 2021
(*1) - The original benchmark for fiscal year 2021 is $28.390
billion. On January 15, 2021, as part of the fiscal year 2022
Consensus Revenue process, the fiscal year 2021 figure was
adjusted to $29.090 billion. The adjustment is reflected
beginning with the January report.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Lawmakers Want Role in Allocating Influx of Federal Funds
By Matt Murphy
Kicking off annual hearings on Gov. Charlie Baker's budget
proposal for next year, the top Senate Democrat on the
budget-writing committee told the administration that lawmakers
want to play a "highly constructive and meaningful role" in
determining how billions in potential new federal stimulus
funding gets spent.
"We need to think carefully about how we responsibly and
carefully use these resources to best position the commonwealth
for long-term success," said Sen. Michael Rodrigues, chair of
the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Rodrigues was referring to the funding that could flow to
Massachusetts from President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19
relief bill that passed the House last week. The state could
receive $4.5 billion in aid under the bill, which remains
subject to change as it heads to the Senate.
The Westport Democrat said the biggest challenge in spending
those funds and budgeting for fiscal 2022 will be ensuring that
the recovery from the pandemic is equitable across the state and
economic sectors.
The House and Senate Ways and Committees held the first of what
will be a series of virtual hearings on Baker's $45.6 billion
spending plan for fiscal 2022, which would actually trim state
spending by about $300 million from current spending.
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, the House Ways and Means Committee
chairman, said declining rates of new COVID-19 infections and
the increased availability of vaccines gives a reason to be
"hopeful."
"We have a long road to travel before this crisis is behind us,
but we can begin to think about and prepare for what the new
normal will look like," Michlewitz said.
The North End Democrat said the fiscal 2022 budget must balance
the need for a continued response to the public health crisis,
while also fostering an economic recovery.
Administration and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan said the
administration would work with legislators as new federal relief
funding became available, but would prioritize reducing the
proposed $1.6 billion withdrawal from the state's "rainy day"
fund.
Heffernan also suggested that if Biden does extend the public
health emergency through the end of 2021 the state will have to
delay the redetermination of MassHealth enrollee eligibility
that had been planned for the spring. That will result in higher
caseloads and more MassHealth spending than currently projected
in the budget, the secretary said.
"Hopefully, it will not be too bad a hit. We will see," said
Heffernan, who testified for just over an hour.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Like Mariano, Spilka Downplays Outlook for New Taxes
By Colin A. Young
Senate President Karen Spilka said Thursday she is not planning
on raising taxes this session but left open the possibility of
increases if the pandemic persists and worsens.
The $45.6 billion budget Gov. Charlie Baker filed for fiscal
year 2022 cuts overall state spending, does not include new
taxes on individuals, and House Speaker Ronald Mariano said last
month that taxes "are not on the table." Asked on Bloomberg
Baystate Business if she could make the same statement Thursday,
Spilka equivocated.
"I think that that we'll have to see how the year progresses,"
she said as she recounted the last year of Beacon Hill budget
management, which included a wait-and-see approach on the state
spending plan and use of the state's rainy day fund, and talked
about the potential that another federal stimulus bill could be
passed soon.
"At this point, I am not planning on anything but I think we
could, we have to see what happens with COVID," she said. "I am
hoping with my fingers crossed that we're on a downward slide, a
downward trend, but you just don't know what will happen. And
with the new strains and with some states in particular
loosening the reopening guidelines, or no masks and people
traveling, I mean, it's so important that people continue to be
vigilant and wear their mask and use the hand sanitizer."
The Senate president pointed out in her response that the House
raised taxes last session -- in a $18 billion transportation
bond bill and a revenue package passed in early March 2020 --
and said the Senate resisted tax hikes last year. Notably,
Spilka did not cite the work of the Senate's revenue working
group that Sen. Adam Hinds has led with the idea of bringing
forth possible changes to the state tax code. Hinds plans to
offer recommendations this budget season.
In November, when the Senate debated the fiscal year 2021
budget, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sen. Michael Rodrigues
said his committee would not support tax amendments, but said
all signs indicated "a robust debate on revenue in the new year,
and I for one look forward to that."
Tax collections over the first eight months of fiscal 2021 have
beat expectations by nearly $2 billion and the state could
receive another $4.5 billion in aid under the American Rescue
Act moving through the Congress. In addition, Spilka also did
not mention a roughly $2 billion increase in income taxes on the
wealthiest Massachusetts households that could move to the
November 2022 ballot if it receives a favorable vote at a
Constitutional Convention that she will oversee.
State House News
Service
Friday, March 5, 2021
Weekly Roundup - Go to the Head of the Class
Recap and analysis of the week in state government
By Matt Murphy
Form a line, single file. No talking. And stay to the right.
Teachers are used to enforcing these rules for their pupils, but
when it came to their own COVID-19 vaccinations it was only by
breaking them that this week they wound up getting exactly what
they said was necessary to safely return all children to the
classroom.
The pressure campaign to vaccinate teachers has been building
for weeks, but reached fever pitch after Gov. Charlie Baker
announced last week that he would seek to return all students
back to in-person learning this school year, beginning with
elementary students by April.
House Speaker Ron Mariano had already said he supported pushing
teachers up the priority ladder, and Senate President Karen
Spilka joined the cause Tuesday when she called on Baker to not
only make teachers eligible to get vaccinated this month, but
she wanted to see doses set aside for teachers and school staff
as the state's supply increases.
The real tipping point, however, came later Tuesday when
President Joe Biden called on all states to begin vaccinating
teachers in March, if they hadn't started already. He said he
would begin pushing vaccine doses through the federal pharmacy
program to chains like CVS and Walgreens to help make it happen.
The next day, teachers were already booking appointments at CVS
when Baker said they could start making appointments at state
run sites on March 11 -- next Thursday. But due to the limited
supply, he said would not be earmarking any doses. Because
everyone knows how he feels about earmarks.
The relenting of the administration on teacher vaccinations was
hailed as a victory by the MTA and other supporters of the idea,
but if Baker thought he might be buying a modicum of support
from the union for his plan to return to in-person learning he
was wrong. He now has other groups of workers lobbying louder
for their turn to come sooner, and the teachers are still at his
throat.
As Education Commissioner Jeff Riley went before the Board of
Elementary and Secondary Education on Friday seeking the
emergency authority he would need to force hold-out districts to
scrap their remote and hybrid learning models, MTA President
Merrie Najimy warned that letting the state decide when it's
safe would create an "extremely chaotic" situation and violate
the spirit of local decision-making.
Najimy and the MTA may have won the vaccine battle, but they
lost the in-person learning fight. And the rubber match over
MCAS testing has already begun, with the state announcing Friday
the test would be delayed into May and June, but not cancelled.
A new poll released this week by Advantage and paid for by the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance found that nearly 47 percent of
Democrats favor a hybrid learning model in their districts,
compared to 22 percent of Republicans, while over 58 percent of
GOP voters want to see a return to in-person voting and only 12
percent of Democrats feel the same way.
That same poll found that Democrats and Republicans saw Baker's
handling of the pandemic similarly, with 43 percent of
Republicans and nearly 41 percent of Democrats approving of his
performance, though Republicans were more likely to feel
"strongly" one way to the other.
What that means for 2022 remains to be seen, but this poll
showed that Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito may have some strategizing to
do if Baker doesn't seek a third term because she could find
herself running neck-and-neck with former state Rep. Geoff
Diehl, who trailed her by less than two points with 58 percent
undecided in a head-to-head matchup. Meanwhile, Democrats were
all in for Attorney General Maura Healey if she runs, according
to the poll.
Speaking of cancelling, anyone who had planned to get their
second dose of Moderna or Pfizer vaccine after March 27, after
getting first dose at Fenway Park, will now be heading to the
less-alluring Hynes Convention Center instead.
With the Red Sox set to resume practicing and playing baseball
at Fenway on April 1, Baker and CIC Health are moving the
operation to the Back Bay convention center to avoid confusion.
Plus, Baker said, if the feds ever do get around to delivering
more vaccines CIC Health will be able to administer up to 5,000
shots a day at Hynes, as opposed to 1,500 at Fenway.
Vaccinations will begin at Hynes on March 18, and Fenway will
cease to be a health clinic on March 27.
The closure of the Fenway mass vaccination site is too bad for
all those people who were hoping to pair an "I Voted at Fenway"
sticker with an "I Got Vaccinated at Fenway Park" button in
their pandemic journals.
In fact, the very notion of going to a polling station at all
may sound quaint by the time the history books on this era are
written.
House Speaker Ron Mariano this week continued to drive his
agenda, pushing through an extension of voting by mail through
June as the Legislature considers whether and how to make the
practice permanent. He also announced that the House would soon
take up a child protection and foster care bill that came close
to passing last session, but ultimately fell short as the House
and Senate differed on the details and ran out of time.
Mariano said the drop in reports of child abuse and neglect to
DCF during the pandemic shows that children are falling through
the cracks in the system. "The House is steadfast in its
position that the Commonwealth’s children cannot wait," the
speaker and three of his chairs said in a joint statement.
Wait, that is, for the bill filed by Rep. Paul Donato to make
its way through the normal legislative process, which would
typically include a hearing before the Joint Committee on
Children, Families and Disabilities.
At times, Senate President Karen Spilka has been onboard with
Mariano's why-wait approach. Like when the two Democratic
leaders partnered to repass a climate bill vetoed by Baker last
session.
But the Senate threw the brakes on the vote-by-mail extension
this week to accept testimony through Monday, and has not
commented on the foster care bill.
Mariano and Spilka do appear to be on the same page on taxes,
with neither eyeing tax hikes at the moment to cover state
spending. And why would they?
Though it always comes with a heavy dose of caution, the
Department of Revenue reported this week that taxes collected in
February shattered expectations by $372 million. The state,
which has twice upgraded its estimate of collections this fiscal
year, is now sitting on a healthy cushion as it enters the home
stretch of the fiscal year with some of the biggest risk-reward
months for tax collections to come.
That bit of good news arrived a couple of days after the House
and Senate Ways and Means Committee opened the budget hearing
season by inviting the administration and other Constitutional
officers to testify on Baker's restrained $45.6 billion budget
proposal for fiscal 2022.
The hearing shed some light on several priorities that won't be
able to wait until a budget is finalized in June or July. One is
the question of how the state should approach taxing Paycheck
Protection Program loans that have been forgiven by the federal
government and other state recovery grants going to small
businesses.
The administration estimates that up to $175 million in
state-level taxes are on the line, and there appears to be
support for exempting the grants to further help small
businesses. Insiders, however, said House and Senate Democrats
are leery of looking like they're giving too much away to the
business community, and are searching for ways to package a tax
fix and limits on unemployment insurance hikes this month with
new benefits for workers.
Secretary of State William Galvin also told lawmakers that they
need to start thinking about changing some of the statutory
deadlines for redistricting now that the U.S. Census Bureau has
said it won't be able to deliver community-level data until the
fall, and Galvin wants more money in the budget for himself in
case he needs to sue over the Census's alleged undercounting of
Bay State residents.
Winthrop's Jeff Turco could find himself thrust right into the
middle of all of these debates over spending, taxes, testing and
vaccination if he is able to win the special general election
for the 19th Suffolk District seat on March 30.
The self-proclaimed "Reagan Democrat" prevailed in a Democratic
primary Tuesday that featured three more progressive candidates,
topping second place finisher Juan Jaramillo of Revere by about
six percentage points. But he must still get through Republican
Paul Caruccio and independent Richard Fucillo to claim the seat
held most recently - and for 30 years - by former Speaker Robert
DeLeo.
Turco's victory is being held up by the liberal wing of the
party as more evidence of why ranked-choice-voting, which was
rejected by voters on the ballot in November, is necessary.
STORY OF THE WEEK: Teachers are told they can roll up their
sleeves, just not at Fenway Park for much longer.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Tax Bills May Be Slapped on Small Biz Recovery Grants
Talks Underway About Waiving Taxes on Relief Aid
By Matt Murphy
Thousands of small businesses have received hundreds of millions
of dollars in state recovery grants since December, helping them
to pay the rent and make payroll, but one top House Democrat
said Tuesday he's worried many of these businesses owners might
not know what's coming -- a tax bill.
Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, a Boston lawmaker and chair of the House
Ways and Means Committee, raised his concerns over the tax
status of the small business recovery grants at the first annual
budget hearing on Gov. Charlie Baker's $45.6 billion spending
plan for fiscal 2022.
"The businesses in my district have been very thankful but I
don't think many people know there's going to be a tax bill down
the road," said Michlewitz, who represents Boston's North End
and parts of other neighborhoods, home to many restaurants.
Administration and Finance Secretary Michael Heffernan told the
Ways and Means Committees that the governor's office is involved
in talks with state and federal lawmakers about changing the
laws to waive taxes on all state-issued relief payments and some
federal Paycheck Protection Program grants.
The combined taxes owed to Massachusetts on the state and
federal recovery grants total about $175 million, officials
said, and were not included in Baker's budget.
The hearing was the first of what will be a series in the coming
weeks focused on Baker's budget, which currently relies on $1.6
billion in reserves and would trim state spending by about $300
million, or 0.7 percent, from the current budget levels.
One thing that could change the math on the state budget
dramatically is President Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID-19
relief bill that passed the House last week. The state could
receive $4.5 billion in direct aid under the bill, which remains
subject to change as it heads to the Senate.
The top Senate Democrat on the budget-writing committee told the
administration that lawmakers want to play a "highly
constructive and meaningful role" in determining how those
billions in potential new federal stimulus funding gets spent.
"We need to think carefully about how we responsibly and
carefully use these resources to best position the commonwealth
for long-term success," said Sen. Michael Rodrigues, chair of
the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
The Westport Democrat said the biggest challenge in spending
those funds and budgeting for fiscal 2022 will be ensuring that
the recovery from the pandemic is equitable across the state and
economic sectors.
Heffernan said the administration would work with legislators as
new federal relief funding became available, but would
prioritize reducing the proposed $1.6 billion withdrawal from
the state's "rainy day" fund, which would leave the fund with
just $1.1 billion for fiscal 2023 and beyond.
Heffernan also suggested that if Biden does extend the public
health emergency through the end of 2021, as his administration
has suggested it will, the state will have to delay the
redetermination of MassHealth enrollee eligibility that had been
planned for the spring.
That will result in higher caseloads and more MassHealth
spending than currently projected in the budget, the secretary
said, but will also allow the state to continue collecting
higher Medicaid reimbursements. Baker's budget forecast
MassHealth spending to decline from $18.2 billion this year to
$17.6 billion in fiscal 2022, a 3.4 percent reduction.
"Hopefully, it will not be too bad a hit. We will see," said
Heffernan, who testified for just over an hour.
Baker in late December launched a $668 million small business
recovery program, utilizing funds the state received through the
federal CARES Act and the Coronavirus Relief Fund. So far, the
administration has awarded $563 million to 12,320 businesses to
help COVID-19 impacted employers cover payroll, rent and other
expenses.
While Congress in December agreed to exempt forgiven PPP loans
from federal taxation, a subset of those grants to small
businesses that do not pay corporate taxes, but pass revenue
through to owners as income could still be taxed at the state
level. Some states have chosen to waive taxes on those grants,
but in 19 states the funding remains taxable in some form,
according to the Tax Foundation.
Massachusetts automatically conforms to federal corporate tax
law, but not as it relates to income. Budget officials said that
means that without a change in state law small business owners
will be liable for about $150 million in taxes on forgiven PPP
loans, and between $25 million and $35 million on state grants
awarded through the Massachusetts Growth Capital Corporation.
Heffernan said the administration is also talking with U.S. Rep.
Richard Neal, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
in Congress, about exempting state small business recovery
grants from federal income taxes.
"What we're actively discussing with our counterparts in the
Legislature is making the PPP at the income level, which is
primarily small businesses, tax free at the state level,"
Heffernan said.
In the meantime, Michlewitz said he wants to make sure the
business owners who received the grants are aware that the
government assistance could be taxed.
"A lot of these people who are getting grants have never gotten
a grant before because they've never really had to," Michlewitz
said. "I worry that the communication lines, we have to make
them strong about what could potentially be coming down the
pike."
Hefferan said the Department of Revenue has information about
the tax status of relief grants on its website, and has
communicated about it with certified public accountants.
Lawmakers also questioned Baker's stated commitment to fully
fund the first year of the Student Opportunity Act, the
implementation of which was paused in fiscal 2021 due to the
ongoing pandemic. Before COVID-19 arrived last March, Baker
proposed a budget that included a $303 million increase in
Chapter 70 school aid to fund the 2019 initiative, but his
latest budget included only $198 million.
Heffernan said the formula used by the administration remained
the same, but the smaller amount reflected a decline in public
school enrollment of about 37,000 students.
He told the committees that enrollment is recalculated every
October and if enrollment climbs as districts transition away
from remote learning and students return to the classroom, that
would be reflected in subsequent-year spending recommendations.
Both Michlewitz and Rodrigues said declining rates of new
COVID-19 infections, the increased availability of vaccines and
the current trend of tax revenues exceeding expectations gives
legislators reason to be "hopeful."
"We have a long road to travel before this crisis is behind us,
but we can begin to think about and prepare for what the new
normal will look like," Michlewitz said.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Decision Time Nears on Unemployment Insurance Rate Hikes
Lawmakers Weigh Rate Hike Size, Employer Assessment
By Matt Murphy
When a bill filed by Gov. Charlie Baker to limit unemployment
insurance rate increases on employers in 2021 died on the vine
in the frenzied finish to the legislative session in early
January, it didn't seem like a big deal.
Supportive lawmakers and business groups said companies would
appreciate time to plan, but they noted that unemployment
insurance bills wouldn't come due for the first quarter until
April. There was plenty of time to sort it out.
It's now March, and time has just about run out.
"We've gotten a lot of helpful feedback from the business
community. The bill is under active review right now. We're
mindful of the timeline here," Rep. Josh Cutler, the new House
chair of the Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, told
the News Service this week.
When his bill from last session didn't make it across the finish
line, Baker filed a new version (H 55) that would limit the
per-employee increase in unemployment insurance in 2021. That
bill was referred straight to the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Because of the high rates of unemployment that climbed from a
pre-pandemic low of 2.8 percent to a high of 17.7 percent in
June, the trust fund used to pay unemployment claims has been
drained. To replenish it, businesses are looking at a 60 percent
increase in their rates unless the Legislature acts.
"Bringing people back to work is an immediate priority for AIM
members and policymakers in the State House. Doing so will be
virtually impossible, however, if money that can and should be
used towards paychecks and employee benefits is diverted to the
depleted Trust Fund instead," Brooke Thomson, executive vice
president of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said in a
blog post this week.
As the calendar turned to March, the business community began to
ratchet up the pressure again on Beacon Hill, calling for the
House and Senate to act immediately on the governor's bill.
Without action, employers are on track to see their rates
increase from an average of $539 per employee to $866, an almost
60 percent increase. The governor's bill would slow the growth
in the rates to an average of $635 in 2021 and $665 per employee
in 2022, according to AIM.
The latest unemployment trust fund report from January forecast
a deficit of more than $4.7 billion by the end of the year, with
an estimated $4.82 billion in benefits to be paid out against
$2.45 billion employer contributions to the system.
The fund ended 2020 almost $2.4 billion in the red, and the
state borrowed $2.2 billion from the federal unemployment
insurance account with a loan that will start accruing interest
on March 14.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation in a white paper
published Monday flagged two issues associated with unemployment
insurance, starting with the rates. Allowing the rates to spike
at the end of March would hinder job retention and creation, the
business-backed think tank concluded.
The state must also repay the federal loans without jeopardizing
the solvency of the fund or its ability to pay out benefits.
Additional borrowing of $3 billion is expected in 2021 to meet
benefit obligations, and even increased employer contributions
cannot be used to pay off the interest on the federal loans.
"In spite of the complexity of the issue, it is apparent that
the UI tax schedule must be frozen prior to April 1st and now is
the time to put in place a plan to repay federal loans," the MTF
report stated.
Since the start of the new session, the Legislature has
prioritized the quick repassage of a climate change bill and a
temporary extension of vote-by-mail authority, but little has
been said about whether unemployment insurance rates should be
allowed to go up.
Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues only briefly
mentioned to Administration and Finance Secretary Michael
Heffernan at a budget hearing Tuesday that unemployment
insurance was one of the "very, very timely" issues he looked
forward to working with the administration on, along with the
tax issues associated with Paycheck Protection Program grants to
Massachusetts businesses.
One State House official said House and Senate leaders were
concerned about the appearance of doing too much at the same
time to benefit employers, and were negotiating to include some
types of benefits for workers in any final bill. "Politically it
presents a bit of a challenge," the official said.
House Speaker Ron Mariano did not respond to a request for
comment this week on the bill or a potential timeline for taking
up the governor's proposal, and Ways and Means Chairman Aaron
Michlewitz said it was part of ongoing discussions among
legislative leaders.
"We're aware of the urgency of getting this done, but we're
trying to figure out some unresolved issues," Michlewitz said.
Baker's legislation would freeze rates where they are, limiting
the increase employers will pay based on their experience rating
and saving employers an estimated $500 million. The bill would
also authorize up to $7 billion in state borrowing to replenish
the UI trust fund and repay all federal loans by their November
2022 due date to avoid tax penalties for Massachusetts
employers.
Under Baker's plan, the borrowing would be backed by a new
assessment on employers. The Taxpayers Foundation noted that the
amount or terms of the assessment are not specified in Baker's
bill, but estimated that the obligation would likely be spread
over eight to 10 years.
"There is little indication that the federal government will
step in to forgive or defer state repayment of UI loans and even
if that were to occur, the state would likely still need
supplemental resources to cover expected levels of benefits in
the coming years," the foundation report concluded.
A secondary employer assessment would be created for the next
two years to pay off an estimated $40 million in interest on the
federal loans that starts accruing this month.
MTF said that even with the additional assessments under Baker's
proposal employers would be paying less than if the Legislature
took no action and allowed rates to increase as scheduled.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Early On, Dems Opt to Move Bills Without Public Hearings
By Michael P. Norton
Legislative Democrats this session have been touting rules
reforms to boost transparency but they've also shown an early
aversion to holding public hearings on key bills before passing
them.
The omnibus carbon emissions and energy bill (S 9) whisked to
Gov. Charlie Baker's desk on Jan. 28 passed without a hearing
that could have given people and interest groups an opportunity
to offer public feedback on Baker's significant objections to
the climate bill, or enabled the 19 new members of the
Legislature to have a say publicly on a bill that died at the
end of last session after it was sprung at the eleventh hour out
of a private conference committee.
Boston's bill (H 67) to erase the possibility of a special
mayoral election depending on the timing of Mayor Martin Walsh's
resignation? It was debated at City Hall so apparently there was
no need for a state-level virtual hearing on it. The branches
passed it on voice votes and Baker signed it.
This week, the House rubber-stamped an extension of vote-by-mail
options (H 73) until June 30. That bill also passed without the
benefit of a public hearing that might have shed light on
opinions about the historic voting reform.
And critical legislation addressing imminent, skyrocketing
unemployment insurance rates has generated significant debate in
the legislative back-channels but lawmakers still haven't teed
up Baker's bill (H 55) for a hearing and public feedback despite
its time-sensitive nature. Baker filed his bill Jan. 13.
As the two-month anniversary of the new session approaches,
lawmakers do appear to be getting into hearing mode. The
Transportation Committee has scheduled a March 9 public hearing
on Baker's annual $200 million local road and bridge funding
bill (H 57). And the Joint Ways and Means Committee plans a
March 16 virtual public hearing on the education and local aid
aspects of Baker's $45.6 billion budget bill, after an initial
hearing this week that featured testimony from Baker's budget
chief Mike Heffernan and constitutional officers.
Access to public testimony and a model for reporting committee
votes on bills are among the issues needing resolution as House
Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka look to
agree on permanent joint rules to govern branch activities for
the 2021-2022 session.
State House News
Service
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Mariano Expects Climate Bill Won’t Change Much
Senate Panel Has Had Baker Amendments For a Month
By Katie Lannan
Almost a month after Gov. Charlie Baker returned sweeping
climate legislation to lawmakers with a series of recommended
amendments, House Speaker Ronald Mariano said he's willing to
work with the governor on some technical changes but will "not
back down on our ambitious emissions reduction targets."
The bill -- which the House and Senate passed for the second
time in January after Baker rejected a version sent to him in
the final days of the last legislative session -- proposes to
lock the state into its goal of achieving net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050, set interim emission reduction targets,
establish appliance energy efficiency standards, authorize
additional purchases of offshore wind power and codify
protections for environmental justice communities, among other
measures.
Baker's amendments (S 13), which have been before the Senate
Committee on Bills in the Third Reading since Feb. 8, address
topics including the creation of an opt-in municipal stretch
energy code, the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target,
and the sector-specific emission reduction sublimits proposed by
the Legislature.
"Nothing substantive will change in this bill," Mariano said
Thursday on WBUR's Radio Boston.
Mariano, a Quincy Democrat who became speaker in December, said
that issues around the COVID-19 vaccine and its distribution are
of primary importance to the state right now.
He said the state's COVID-19 response can be divided into two
periods. The closures and other decisions Baker made at the
beginning of the pandemic last year "were right on" but now, in
the vaccine rollout, there have been "a number of missteps and a
number of things that probably could have been done
differently," he said.
There could be "more open communication on the amount of
vaccines and how to best access those vaccines," he said.
Responding to host Tiziana Dearing's characterization of the
Legislature as relatively "hands-off" early on in the pandemic,
Mariano said, "We were hands-off because the governor used
executive powers at the beginning, and that pretty much takes us
out of the equation at the beginning."
With large swaths of the economy now reopened and vaccine
distribution underway, Mariano said there is more of a role for
state lawmakers and pointed to the vaccine oversight hearing
recently held by the new COVID-19 and Emergency Preparedness and
Management Committee.
"We only win when this is behind us and we move into the new
normal, so we want to be productive," he said. "We want to deal
with the administration, but we also have a role to make sure
things are done effectively."
At a budget hearing on Tuesday, House Ways and Means Committee
Chairman Aaron Michlewitz raised concerns that the small
business owners who received grants to help them through
COVID-19's economic turmoil might not know they will face taxes
on that money, and Administration and Finance Secretary Michael
Heffernan said Baker administration officials are talking with
state and federal lawmakers about changing the laws to waive
taxes on all state-issued relief payments and some federal
Paycheck Protection Program grants.
Mariano said the PPP poses "an interesting dilemma" and that
House lawmakers are "working with our friends in the Senate to
come up with a solution that hopefully will be coming very
soon."
Former Speaker Robert DeLeo appointed Michlewitz as Ways and
Means chairman, and Mariano kept the North End Democrat at the
helm of the influential panel when he issued his own leadership
and committee assignments last month.
At the start of this term in January, Mariano pledged to
assemble a leadership team that would "reflect the growing
diversity" in the House, which remains predominantly white and
male despite increasing numbers of lawmakers of color and women.
His team includes four women -- Majority Leader Claire Cronin,
Speaker Pro Tempore Kate Hogan, Second Assistant Majority Leader
Sarah Peake and Division Leader Ruth Balser -- and one person of
color, Rep. Frank Moran, who holds another of four division
leader posts.
"You have to deal with what's available in the body, and I think
I've done that," Mariano said when asked if he'd seek to grow
the diversity of his inner circle in the future. "We spread it
out and tried to get a representative sampling of who's in the
body, and that's all I can do."
CommonWealth
Magazine
Saturday, March 6, 2021
Poll: Home energy upgrades could be challenge
Many homeowners satisfied with existing heating systems
By Maeve Duggan
The Massachusetts Legislature has once again sent a
comprehensive climate bill to Gov. Charlie Baker, and this time
Baker has sent it back with a series of amendments. While the
two sides agree on the broad terms of the bill, a major sticking
point is an interim goal on the road to net zero emissions by
2050. The bill would mandate that emission levels reach 50
percent of 1990 levels by 2030. The Baker administration (and
current state policy) favors a 45 percent goal.
That difference of 5 points almost seems like a rounding error,
but it has major implications for everyday residents, especially
for homeowners. Among other measures, Secretary of Energy and
Environmental Affairs Kathleen Theoharides says that extra 5
percentage points would require the complete elimination of
heating oil. EEA estimates retrofitting oil-heated homes would
cost an additional $3 billion over 10 years. Meanwhile, under
either interim target scenario, tens of thousands of homes need
to convert from carbon-heavy fuels like oil and gas to
renewables like solar and wind.
Residents broadly support a range of home heating policies that
could help ease that transition, even while many oil and gas
homeowners are satisfied with their current set-up. That’s
according to a new poll by the MassINC Polling Group sponsored
by the Barr Foundation and conducted with input from the
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (topline,
crosstabs). Elsewhere in the survey, residents say solar is an
attractive energy source but are unsure of the installation
options or community-based programs available to them.
Incentives, loans, and stricter regulations are broadly popular
Residents are highly supportive of programs and policies that
would help them upgrade their homes, especially incentives and
loans. Most popular are incentives for utility companies to help
make customers’ homes more efficient (80 percent support)
followed by direct incentives to homeowners to upgrade their
home heating systems (77 percent).
The state already does a version of this with its Mass Save
program, which provides discounted energy-efficient upgrades for
homeowners subsidized by a charge on customers’ utility bills.
In focus groups conducted as part of this research, participants
were familiar with Mass Save, and some had even consulted the
program’s offerings in the past. But once homeowners had their
own heating system and budget sorted out, none had kept a close
eye on other home heating options for a better deal. Any
comparative information came either from previous homes they had
owned or vague impressions from family and friends. This creates
a challenge for policymakers who must make incentives so
attractive so as not to be missed while ensuring demand does not
outstrip available funding for upgrades.
Another approach would be a loan program. Nearly three-quarters
of residents (74 percent) support the establishment of a
state-backed “Green Bank” that could provide long-term loans to
pay for home energy upgrades. Less popular is a proposed
requirement that home energy upgrades be made when a home is
sold.
The focus groups indicated there are only a few times when
homeowners are primed to upgrade their heating systems.
Requiring upgrades during a sale would be a natural fit, but it
would add an extra burden to an already stressful and expensive
transaction. While less popular than other proposed policies, it
still receives majority support (63 percent).
Two other policy proposals would place the burden squarely on
the shoulders of utilities and oil and gas providers. One idea
would be to require oil companies to sell a blend of cleaner
oils by 2030. Biofuels are derived from organic matter like corn
and soy and can be combined with traditional oil to produce
lower emissions. Current state policy encourages biofuel blends
from providers but does not mandate them.
The second proposal would set emissions caps on gas utilities
and oil and propane companies in the state. The caps would
steadily decrease over time, meaning less pollution can be
emitted. This would be akin to the current Regional Greenhouse
Gas Initiative that regulates how much emissions power plants in
the region can emit, or the new Transportation and Climate
Initiative Pthat Baker’s EEA spearheaded. Both the biofuels
mandate and an emissions cap receive roughly three-quarters
support (75 percent and 73 percent, respectively).
Satisfaction with current heating source presents a barrier
While incentives, loans, and new requirements on utilities may
create an attractive environment to upgrade home heating
systems, at some point residents themselves must want to make a
change. But most residents are satisfied with the heating set-up
they already have. Among those who currently heat their homes
with gas, almost half (49 percent) say it is their preferred
fuel source. Similarly, a plurality of oil customers (41
percent) would prefer to stick with oil. It’s worth noting that
many oil customers live in regions of the state where oil is
their only option. Without gas as an alternative, any switch
away from oil could plausibly be to a cleaner option like
renewable electricity
But there’s also evidence that those who have made the switch to
renewables are glad they did. Roughly half of those who
currently heat their homes with electricity generated from solar
(51 percent) would prefer to stay with solar. A third of those
who currently heat their homes with electricity from the grid
(34 percent) say their top choice would in fact be electricity
that comes from solar. If electric providers start (or are
mandated) to source more of their energy from solar and other
renewables, this switch would require little to no effort from
customers themselves. It would, however, require the expansion
of solar infrastructure on rooftops and open spaces, some of
which is already under development.
Preference for solar is clear, but road to installation is
uneven
Overall, 31 percent of all residents and 30 percent of
homeowners would prefer to heat their homes with electricity
generated from solar power if cost were no issue. That puts
solar second only to gas as a heat source. But while interest in
solar is relatively high, so are the perceived barriers. Chief
among them is installation costs. In focus groups, participants
were curious about solar but had misgivings about both
installation costs and how much they could really expect in
savings over the long-term. But given the right incentives,
there is clear evidence that homeowners are open to solar
installation.
Overall, 61 percent of homeowners who do not already have solar
say they are at least “somewhat” interested in having solar
panels installed on their rooftop, including 28 percent who are
“very” interested. If offered an incentive, 53 percent of these
homeowners would be “more interested” in having solar panels
installed. Critically, 20 percent of those who said they were
initially not interested in or unsure of solar panels said
incentives would make them “more” interested.
Another solar proposal, allowing utility companies to rent space
on homeowners’ rooftops through either a direct payment or a
reduction on their electric bill, was less popular. Only 37
percent of homeowners who do not currently have solar became
more interested when presented with the panel rental model.
Meanwhile, community solar – programs that provide electricity
to groups of homes through shared panels – remain unknown to
many residents. A plurality (40 percent) have heard nothing
about community solar programs, while another 24 percent have
heard only “a little.”
Community solar programs can be beneficial because they pool
resources and can distribute power across more densely-packed
neighborhoods. In particular, community solar has been suggested
as a way that renters could have more say in their heating and
electric options. Renters in this survey, however, say how a
home is heated is either not a consideration (21 percent) or a
minor one (34 percent) when deciding on a place to live.
These results suggest that a more direct route to solar adoption
may be through landlords, homeowners, developers, and housing
authorities. The climate bill would provide municipalities with
more control over the environmental standards new buildings must
meet. But one sticking point between the governor and the
Legislature is whether that municipal control could extend to
banning fossil heat or requiring solar on new buildings.
There is no doubt that converting tens of thousands of homes
across the state to renewable energy sources will be a herculean
task. But it is also one the state must overcome if it is to
meet the emissions standards it has set for itself. The public
is a willing partner, but they need options and incentives to
make their homes more energy-efficient and the state’s net zero
goals a reality.
— Maeve Duggan is a research
director at the MassINC Polling Group.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Friday, March 5, 2021
Poll shows support for both EVs, public transit
It’s not an either/or choice for most voters
By Maeve Duggan
The future of transportation in Massachusetts is at a
crossroads. As the debate between Gov. Charlie Baker and state
lawmakers over the climate bill continues, one key issue is
whether the best way to lower emissions is to invest in public
transit or convert more cars on the road to electric vehicles,
or EVs.
The Baker administration recently released a decarbonization
roadmap that seems to favor EVs. This was questioned by some
lawmakers and advocates who argue instead that a substantial
investment in public transit is crucial to reducing emissions
and relieving congestion.
But while both sides battle it out on Beacon Hill, residents
resist such a stark choice and favor both the expansion of
public transit and conversion to EVs, according to a new poll
from the MassINC Polling Group....
In previous polling conducted by the MassINC Polling Group about
potential uses of funds generated by the Transportation and
Climate Initiative favored by the Baker administration, transit
riders were particularly enthusiastic about improving the
existing system and expanding transit to places that do not have
it right now. But all Massachusetts residents – indeed all
residents in every state in the region — ranked public transit
uses of TCI funds over EV uses like rebates and charging
stations....
Income-based incentives address an important equity issue when
it comes to transit choices. While hybrid and electric vehicles
may save drivers money over the long-run, they do tend to be
more expensive up-front, creating a barrier to entry. Part of
Baker’s roadmap would mandate that all new cars sold in
Massachusetts be electric by 2035. Income-based incentives would
be a “carrot” toward that end.
In focus groups, participants were also asked about a potential
“stick” – that is, a fee attached to the sale of new gas-powered
cars. The proposed fee found little support in the group.
Participants called it “regressive,” positing that lower-income
people who may only be able to afford a gas car would be
unfairly penalized.
Further, driving may be the only option for some of these
residents, many of whom live outside public transit service
areas.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, March 2, 2021
Galvin Wants Resources For Possible Census Challenge
Late-Year Redistricting Scramble in the Forecast
By Chris Lisinski
After the U.S. Census Bureau pushed back by six months its
delivery date of population and redistricting data,
Massachusetts legislators will face a late-year scramble and a
need to change the due date for redrawing local voting
precincts, Secretary of State William Galvin said Tuesday.
Flagging "grave concerns" with the population count that ended
earlier than expected, Galvin told lawmakers that it will be
impossible to meet a late-summer statutory deadline to craft the
building blocks for redistricting in the wake of the federal
delay.
The Census Bureau's announcement last month that states will
receive redistricting population data by Sept. 30, rather than
by the traditional March 31 deadline amid COVID-19 impacts,
upended the process to carve out electoral lines. New precincts
officially take effect at the end of the year, so lawmakers
tasked with developing them will now have only a few months to
do so.
Massachusetts cities and towns are required by state law to map
out their precincts using the decennial population data, with
first drafts due in June and the final lines needed by Aug. 25.
The Legislature then uses those precincts as the puzzle pieces
to configure the boundaries of all 200 state legislative
districts as well as congressional districts, taking into
account population shifts.
"This is an essential step in the process of preparing
legislative districts and congressional districts by the
Legislature," Galvin said at a fiscal year 2022 budget hearing.
"It's important for our communities as well because these
precincts are the building blocks of your local political
establishments as well."
Lawmakers will need to update state law in the coming months to
push back those deadlines for cities and towns since they can no
longer expect the necessary data in time.
Sen. William Brownsberger, co-chair of the Legislature's Special
Redistricting Committee, told the News Service that the deadline
conflict for municipal voting precincts is "definitely on my
radar," though he said lawmakers have not yet decided how they
will approach making the necessary changes.
The Census delay also creates another timeline crunch: the state
constitution -- which cannot be changed as easily as state law
-- requires that state representatives reside in the district
they seek to represent for one year preceding the election.
State senators only need to be a Massachusetts resident for at
least five years before the election and a resident of the
district on Election Day.
If the Legislature does not finish its work before Nov. 8, that
one-year threshold could render challengers or incumbents who
find themselves residing in a different district after the lines
are redrawn ineligible to run.
Former Gov. Deval Patrick signed a bill outlining the most
recent round of new House and Senate districts on Nov. 3, 2011,
then approved congressional districts that shed a seat about two
weeks later.
Galvin told the Joint Ways and Means Committee that he is
confident lawmakers will not encounter problems shifting the
deadlines affected by the Census change. His more pressing
concern, he said, is the accuracy of the data itself.
The Census Bureau halted its count on Sept. 30, one month
earlier than originally planned.
Galvin said he is worried that decision will lead to
inaccuracies in communities where populations are more difficult
to reach, and he said officials have not yet been given a chance
to "spot-check" the data.
"We have not been afforded that opportunity yet, which is even
less understandable now that the Bureau has announced they're
not going to finish the numbers until September," Galvin said.
President Joe Biden's selection of Rhode Island Gov. Gina
Raimondo to lead the Commerce Department could offer a foothold,
Galvin said, adding that he will reach out to the department
later this week to voice concerns about "inadequacies" with the
population count.
While Galvin described the appropriation his office is set to
receive from Gov. Charlie Baker's $45.6 billion fiscal year 2022
budget as "adequate" on most fronts, he also floated the
possibility of needing more money to bring a legal challenge
against the population count.
"I have to caution that I am in no way satisfied or comfortable
right now with the responses we've been getting, and I remain
concerned about the accuracy of the numbers as it affects all of
our cities and towns and particularly those who are hard to
count," Galvin said. "So I want to make sure that we'll have the
resources, should it be necessary, to further litigate or do
other activities to make sure these numbers are both accurate
and usable."
Galvin and Democratic lawmakers are pushing this session to
extend mail-in voting practices implemented last year to protect
from health risks and make voting more convenient, and to
supplement them with additional election reforms.
The secretary described the nearly $5.8 million in funding that
Baker's budget directs to the elections division as "not
adequate," calling for lawmakers to bump it up to at least $8
million to meet the costs of expanded voting by mail and
maintaining a central voter registry.
On Monday, the House approved legislation (H 73) sponsored by
House Minority Leader Brad Jones keeping mail-in voting
authorization in place through June 30 so it can apply to
springtime municipal elections. Lawmakers are also working on a
permanent reform package.
Four Republican lawmakers -- Sutton Sen. Ryan Fattman, Norfolk
Rep. Shawn Dooley, Billerica Rep. Marc Lombardo and Southwick
Rep. Nicholas Boldyga -- wrote to House Speaker Ron Mariano on
Tuesday calling for an in-depth review of how voting by mail
fared in 2020 before any debate on an extension.
They said they want information from Galvin and municipal clerks
about mail-in ballot applications returned as undeliverable
mail, securing ballot drop boxes, and timely sharing of data.
"With several COVID19 vaccines being distributed among
vulnerable populations and (herd) immunity coming further along,
it is possible the Massachusetts no-fault vote by mail program
will not be needed," they wrote. "Despite this, if you insist
that it is in your capacity as Speaker of the House, this
legislative committee owes it to the voters of Massachusetts to
find answers to these important questions before taking another
step forward."
Galvin told the Legislature's budget-writers that his office is
faring well financially, posting "rather remarkable"
year-to-date revenues about $20 million higher than at the same
point last year despite COVID-19's impact. The revenues include
registry of deeds collections tied to the robust real estate
market.
"The registry of deeds, we've had record recordings and high
revenues," he said.
The secretary's office has not been able to run tours during the
pandemic, and Galvin said he hopes renovations can soon be
completed to the State House's West Lawn to allow resuming
"abbreviated tours."
He also suggested legislative leaders begin thinking about
hosting urban summer camps for children this year, potentially
using Department of Conservation and Recreation Properties.
"If this is to happen this summer, the planning has to begin
right now," Galvin said.
CommonWealth
Magazine
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Teachers unions seem to have Baker’s number
Bruce Mohl – CommonWealth editor
If you’re keeping score at home, Gov. Charlie Baker lost another
battle on Wednesday in his long-running war with the state’s
teachers unions.
Baker for months had resisted the call by the unions to speed up
the COVID-19 vaccination of their members. The governor insisted
schools were already safe and teachers could wait their turn
along with other essential workers, even after he moved those 65
and older ahead of them in the vaccination line.
But the teacher unions kept at it. They didn’t want to be
perceived as jumping the line, so they initially argued that
Baker needed to give them more clarity about when they would be
vaccinated. But as Baker pressed schools to resume in-person
learning, the unions said the vaccination of educators was
needed to make that happen.
Baker initially balked at that claim, saying existing safety
measures and a new pooled testing program were enough. The US
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seemed to be on his
side.
But then the political dominoes began to fall.
First, House Speaker Ron Mariano jumped on the teachers union
bandwagon, followed by Senate President Karen Spilka, and
President Biden himself. They all argued vaccination of
educators was crucial to safely returning teachers and kids to
classrooms, and Biden backed that claim on Tuesday by allowing
teachers to sign up for vaccinations at pharmacies participating
in a federal distribution program.
“The governor has no excuses anymore,” Massachusetts Teachers
Association president Merrie Najimy told the Boston Herald.
“It’s time for Charlie Baker to get with the program. Everybody
else is on board. He can make it happen and he can make it
happen starting tomorrow.”
The governor threw in the towel on Wednesday, saying he was
allowing teachers to start booking vaccination appointments on
March 11 to avoid confusion between state and federal
eligibility standards. “This is a huge victory for our students,
our school employees, and our entire school community,” said
Najimy.
It wasn’t the first victory the unions have won over Baker. In
2016, the governor got behind a referendum question to lift the
cap on the number of charter schools in Massachusetts. Baker, a
major proponent of charters, tried to frame the debate along
social justice lines.
“The fact that we have 37,000 kids on a waiting list to get into
a school of their dreams here in the Commonwealth is a
disgrace,” Baker said. “We have a great opportunity to do
something about that.”
But opponents, led by teacher unions, pushed back against the
governor’s narrative, arguing that expansion of charter schools
would only undermine traditional district public schools that
were struggling under an outdated funding formula. The teachers
unions turned the ballot question into a referendum on support
for public schools and the question was crushed by a 2-1 margin.
Looking ahead, the next major battleground between the teacher
unions and the governor is likely to come on the state’s
standardized tests. The Baker administration and much of the
education establishment have championed the tests as a way of
measuring student progress, but teachers unions say the tests
are a waste of money and time.
Baker canceled the tests in 2020 when COVID first hit, but he
has indicated a lower-stakes version of the test will go on this
spring. Andrew King, a board member of Citizens for Public
Schools, which is funded primarily by teachers unions, previewed
the upcoming debate in a recent CommonWealth op-ed.
“Students are not the ones who need to be held accountable right
now,” he said. “We must hold the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education accountable for providing the help and
resources that our schools need: safer school buildings, contact
tracing, vaccinations for teachers, improved remote learning
opportunities for students, and full funding for the Student
Opportunity Act. That is, we need a just recovery in education
that halts the damaging high-stakes standardized tests, and puts
the health, happiness, and well-being of every child at the
center of learning now and in the post-pandemic era.”
|
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
|
